Readers Note: Here's a 1,2, 3 post.
1) A post including an email I sent Duke faculty member and Group of 88 signatory Professor Charlie Piot.
2) Professor Piot's prompt and informative response to my email.
3) My response to Professor Piot.
That's followed by a copy of the cover email I sent him with a link to this post.
As most JinC Regulars know, I observe civility and expect commenters to do the same. I'm quick to hit the delete button.
Something else I think most JinC Regulars would say: "John means it when he offers Piot personal good wishes."
Folks, The Regulars are right about that. In fact sometimes they fuss with me because they think I'm a softie.
So be it.
I have very strong disagreements concerning much the Group of 88 did and I have very strong differences concerning what some individual Group of 88 members have done. I also think many of them appear to be more ideologues than scholars. Also, that many have so far shown themselves unwilling or unable to engage in serious discussion in which their beliefs or actions are questioned.
Because I believe those things I have an obligation to give anyone of the 88 or their supporters a fair go as regards their criticisms of me. They deserve that until they show, if they do, that all they want is a one-way shout street.
To some people that looks like softie. Well, I am what I am and no hard feelings if folks move on.
If Piot responds, I'll try to get him dialoguing here or somewhere else.
Some of us will have some very critical things to tell him and some probing questions to ask.
Done civilly, that's fine. Rough or rude: No way.
Let’s wait and see what happens.
John
_________________________________________________
1)
On Monday, Feb. 12, six Duke faculty members, five of whom last April signed the inflammatory and discredited Group of 88's “listening statement,” presented something called “Shut Up and Teach?: Faculty and Public Issues.” It was billed as a lecture. Presenting professors were Pedro Lasch, Wahneema Lubiano, Mark Anthony Neal, Diane Nelson, Charlie Piot, and Maurice Wallace.
African and African-American & Cultural Anthropology professor Charlie Piot's lecture began with a brief criticism of blogs in general as "anything but democratic."
Piot's lecture then degenerated into a vicious personal attack on the distinguished historian and blogger Robert KC Johnson whom Piot accused of, among other things, "inciting racist attacks on African American faculty" and using "the common strategies [of] totalitarian regimes."
Piot ended with: "KC - Shut up and go back to teaching."
Piot's remarks are summarized here.
I want to respond to Piot's ad hominem..
Last evening I sent Piot the following email. I'll keep you posted on what, if anything, I hear back.
John
___________________________________________
Dear Professor Piot:
I'm a Duke alum and blog as John in Carolina.
I attended last evening's event at the Mary Lou Williams Center.
I plan to post on your remarks.
Where are they posted?
I want to link to them so readers at my blog can check anything I say about your remarks with what you actually said.
You said in your remarks that bloggers don't encourage free speech.
I wish you had said "some bloggers."
Some bloggers, like some professors, don't encourage free speech.
But other bloggers, like other professors, do.
Everything I've posted on my blog is available to you and anyone else in my archives which can be accessed from the main JinC page.
I don't know a blogger who's posted often on the Hoax witch hunt and its terrible injustices whose archives aren't available to everyone who visits their main pages.
Thank you for your attention to this email.
I look forward to your reply and the chance to link to your remarks.
Sincerely,
John in Carolina
************************************************
2)
Dear John in Carolina,
Thanks for your note. I've promised my piece for publication in an academic journal, with the proviso that it not be published elsewhere beforehand. I'll certainly let you know when it comes out.
I didn't use the term "free speech" in discussing the blogs, but said they haven't fulfilled their democratic/populist promise - something Peter Lange also said in his letter to faculty in early January.
I've never met a professor who discourages free speech. Professors may have their own strong opinions about things, like everyone, but they're certainly open to opinions that differ from their own. And socalled left faculty, especially, like a good tussle in the classroom. All I look for in an essay, eg, is a strong well-written, well-supported argument - whatever the student's position or politics may be. I know this to be the standard of colleagues as well.
I don't know where KC Johnson gets his information about faculty. His portraits are caricatures of the folks I know. Lubiano and others are deeply committed faculty, brilliant teachers, folks who love Duke and love their students (whether left or conservative). They are also complex nuanced thinkers, who don't just toe an ideological party line. And the debates over politics, Duke's campus culture, etc, within this group - although it's not really a "group" - are deeply contested. Johnson's caricatures of these dedicated scholars and teachers do a disservice to us all and to Duke.
I'd be glad to get together with you over lunch to talk about these issues more, if you'd like.
Best,
Charlie Piot
****************************************************
3)
Dear Professor Piot:
Again thank you for your informative and detailed response to my email.
As regards the “free speech” matter, we could settle that quickly and assuredly if your remarks were on the net.
For now I’ll not contest what you say if we can have a gentlepersons’ agreement that my failure to contest is not a concession, but a civility pending a chance for me, JinC readers and others to view the tape of the Feb. 12 presentations at the Williams Center on Duke’s West Campus by you, four other Group of 88 colleagues and another “88” supportive faculty member.
If when the tape is on the net, it shows I was wrong, I’ll quickly correct as I did in this post after a reader called my attention to an error I made regarding your colleague, Professor Wahneema Lubiano.
Like so many others in the Duke community and elsewhere I was very disappointed to learn your Feb. 12 lecture is not available to those who’d want to listen carefully to it and, very likely, contest much of what you said, particularly your attacks on historian, professor and blogger Robert KC Johnson which you ended with: “KC – Shut up and go back to teaching.”
Per your Feb 12 lecture:
1) Am I right that you accused Johnson, of “inciting racist attacks on [Duke] African-American professors?” (I have that as a quote in my notes.)
2) Did you say, as my notes indict, that at his blog, Durham-in-Wonderland, Johnson practiced “common strategies [used] among totalitarian regimes” which you’ve studied?
I hope, Professor Piot, I’m wrong about both questions.
If I am, I want to work with you to correct what I attributed to you.
I’d also want to work with you to determine the most effective way I can apologize to you, Johnson, Duke and JinC readers for bringing those questions up in the first place.
However, if I’m right about those questions, consider the position you’ve put Johnson in tonight.
Look also at the position you’ve put fair-minded people who care about Duke in.
You, a Duke University Arts & Sciences professor, have accused another academic of heinous actions. But he can’t defend himself. He has no transcript of your attack. He has no videotape.
How can Johnson prove he didn’t do what I’m saying you accused him of in your “lecture?”
How can others, such as Provost Lange whom you cite in your email or any other Duke faculty member, judge the verity or even the minimal fairness of what you said about Johnson without a tape or transcript?
By withholding the tape and delaying release of a print copy of what I believe is indisputably an ad hominem targeting Johnson, you’ve put Johnson in the same position the 46 Duke students were in last Spring when the False Accuser, the Raleigh News & Observer, so many at Duke, and DA Nifong were attacking them.
Isn’t there any way you can make the tape available on the net? On campus yesterday and today even some who still are “Brodhead backers” thought ill of your attack on Johnson. One said: “He made us all look bad.”
Mind you, I’m not trying to restrict your speech. I want to make what you said more widely and immediately available.
Here is a link to my latest post concerning your remarks.
Regarding your luncheon invitation: I’d like to meet with you for a luncheon provided we first work out what I see as major differences between us as regards faculty duties and the purposes of the University.
In brief, I found Professor Weintraub’s Chronicle letter today a model of how a professor should address important issues as well as a much needed and stirring affirmation of what Duke must always strive to be.
I look forward to hearing from you.
With best personal regards I am sincerely,
John in Carolina
__________________________________________________
Dear Professor Piot,
Sorry to be late getting back to you.
Again, I appreciate your response.
Here are two links:
The first is to a brief post letting JinC readers know I'd contacted you.
The second is to a post in which I again posted my first email and your response. I then posted a second email to you. Please take a look here.
I hope we continue to talk.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Best,
John
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Professor Piot responded
Posted by JWM at 12:27 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
As you are aware, I was there too and wrote the account to which you link. As far as I know, it's the only public record of the meeting.
I'm also the one who provided the correction you cite and I congratulate you for fixing that so quickly. I'm glad we could provide an object example that credible blogs really do have editors and fact checkers.
For the record, I am a Duke graduate with a BS, MS and PhD. This is my "known connection to Duke". After a three-year stint in the private sector, I was a tenure track and then tenured professor at a large public land grant university for a total of 14 years and have been the Editor in Chief of the premiere journal in my field. I returned to the private sector seven years ago.
I have a few remarks about Prof. Piot's letter.
I've promised my piece for publication in an academic journal
I'd be disappointed in any reputable journal that would publish his unmodified remarks as he made them on 2/12. I don't think that kind of personal attack has any place in an academic publication. If he must make them, I think they'd go far better as a blog entry, which blog Prof. Piot is free to start at any time, since blogging is open to all, i.e., populist and democratic. He is also free to post them at K.C.'s blog and invite a response, which would be the right thing to do.
"I've never met a professor who discourages free speech.
I've never taken a class from Prof. Piot but I'll bet in his classes those who agree with him find an open and welcoming environment. I'll bet those that disagree with him get the same treatment he gave K.C. Johnson. I'll bet the powerless undergraduate who gets that treatment is sufficiently discouraged that s/he never speaks again. I used to hear from my undergraduates of these kind of experiences from certain professors so I know they do occur.
Lubiano and others are deeply committed faculty, brilliant teachers, folks who love Duke and love their students (whether left or conservative).
If her lecture that night was any indication, Prof. Lubiano is a terrible classroom instructor. She read as fast a she could from a prepared text, barely pausing to take a breath, and never even made eye contact with the audience. Twelve minutes was torture and I cannot imagine a full hour of that. More importantly, she left me with nothing identifiable to take away from her remarks.
From Prof. Piot, and many of the other panelists, we got disdain, bordering on contempt, for students that fit a particular demographic. I was particularly troubled by the remarks of the questioner, near the end, who quoted from the "Listening" statement "This is not a different experience for us here at Duke University. We go to class with racist classmates, we go to gym with people who are racists...It's part of the experience." This questioner said (I'm paraphrasing here since the organizers of the panel have the only accurate record of the exchange and refuse to release it), "I did not know that before I got here, but I know that now. I want to thank Prof. Lubiano for teaching me that." Got that? Prof. Lubiano taught this student to identify her fellow students as racists. Not much love there.
The panel went on to characterize as "ignorant" all students who disagree with this point of view. Prof. Piot identified, in particular, "white Greeks and their hookup culture" as the dominant social caste (again paraphrasing although I think I'm pretty close). He claimed that they are "unhappy people" even if they don't know it and they need the faculty to set them straight, presumably by teaching them that they are racist and sexist and should feel guilty about themselves. Teaching self hatred is an odd form of love for students.
I encourage the organizers of the meeting to release the video so that others can hear exactly what was said and how it was said. Then thinking people can form their own opinions and the dialog can begin.
I'm not as nice as John. To be blunt, I think the panel know that their remarks would meet a poor reception outside the circle of acolytes that attended the meeting and are protecting themselves from further criticism by restricting circulation of the remarks.
And after reviewing my notes, I'd like to add that Prof. Lubiano admits that she could not be in the same room with K.C. Johnson because she couldn't control her anger. What happens to the students in her class who are critical of her?
Prof. Piot said
I don't know where KC Johnson gets his information about faculty. His portraits are caricatures of the folks I know. Lubiano and others are deeply committed faculty, brilliant teachers, folks who love Duke and love their students (whether left or conservative). They are also complex nuanced thinkers, who don't just toe an ideological party line.
Could the professor point to one instance where the G88 has a position that differs from the hard left. Lubiano's "Perfect Offenders" piece and Holloway's Bodies of Evidence" show contempt for "white priviledged athletes" quite clearly. I am unable to find any support for these statements.
Thanks John
I feel Reade, Dave and Collin are lucky the outcome of this case does not rest in the hands of the 88.
You did a great job of challenging Piot to supply a record of his comments, but trusting what was reported by you & others that attended, I see no advantage for him to do so.
LB & Wayne, I enjoyed your posts here (as I do at LS).
Kent
John -
Well done. I do suggest you meet with Prof. Piot regardless of his response (or lack thereof) to your questions. Any sort of dialogue with a member of the 88 is a significant step forward.
I suggest you inquire about the alleged promise to an academic journal. I have a background similar to LB, with the difference that I still work in academia.
I have never heard of remarks to an event like that in question to be "promised" to an academic journal.
Serious academic journals are peer reviewed, meaning that one submits one's work and hopes for a positive response by anonymous referees. Submission, moreover, does not prevent one from making the work public. In fact, in academia we all circulate our work widely prior to or even during submission, either in working paper series or by posting it on our webpages.
If no peer review is involved, then there is no reason to withold the remarks now as this clearly is a case of no serious academic evaluation process resulting in publication.
In short, I am convinced that Prof. Piot is lying and that LB's take is the right one: they have no intention of making the video or the transcript available to the public.
From a guy who has the intellectual capacity of a sand mite ...
John, LB, Wayne Fontes, KC ... y'all are damned good. KC, John and LB remind of three professors who profoundly impacted my life (one journo, one English, one theology philo).
One recurring theme, particularly from KC and John, has been the idea of debate ... here are the facts,let's debate them.
One of the reasons the lax case caught my eye was my work in sports, the other was because of my ever-increasing interest in the work that FIRE (Foundation for idividual rights in education) is doing.
J-in-C,
You have the makings of an excellent conversation with Prof. Piot. I hope that you both pursue it, as it would (to my knowledge) be the first instance of a signer of the Listening Statement agreeing to engage in an exchange of ideas about the faculty response to the Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax.
Good-faith dialog is (should be) the way forward.
In the meantime, I would encourage Prof. Piot to assemble and publish a list of specific instances of errors and mischaracterizations in the writings of the blogger he discussed at "Shut up and Teach," KC Johnson.
Since Johnson's blog is a universally-accessible written record, there is truly a level playing field when it comes to discussing the errors Prof. Piot has in mind.
As J-in-C points out, the caliber of debate can only rise once the organizers of "Shut Up and Teach" release videotape or provide a transcript of the event. It's easy to misremember what was said in the course of a long meeting.
Locomotive Breath's two earlier comments were well written and very informative. I hope you and he would think about making them a free-standing post at this blog. They deserve wide exposure.
Both Locomotive Breath and Anonymous are absolutely correct to say that it makes little sense to state that a professor cannot release his comments because he expects to publish them in an academic journal. In the first place, there is no way that these comments would be the final version of his work. In the second, he could easily provide a summary or a part of his remarks for the blog. As any academician knows, under no circumstances would this prevent him from publishing his paper later on in a scholarly journal. Finally, can somebody tell me why Duke gives endowed chairs to permanent associate professors such as Piot? He received his Ph.D. in 1986 and should have made full professor ten years ago.
RC, you are wrong!!! I have published book reviews in journals and then wanted to put them on Amazon, and have been told by the publisher thats not allowed. SO, P's not fibbing about that.
BUT JOHN - Well, why dont you have a coffee with Prof. Piot?!! What are you waiting for, you are right there! All the letter/email writing is a little silly, dontcha think, if you could just meet with the man personally and then report back? You could post back to us here. Also that would put a human face on this whole alienating email/blog thing, maybe get somewhere with this stuff, dontcha think? Also, isnt it a little coy to act like you cant understand why the guy wouldnt otherwise want to not write into you anymore? You know anything is gonna get ripped apart on the blogs, even if it said 'i love mother teresa'. He knows that too, and so do we. so do the right thing and MEET THE MAN ALREADY!
RC, you are wrong!!! I have published book reviews in journals and then wanted to put them on Amazon, and have been told by the publisher thats not allowed. SO, P's not fibbing about that.
In the journal I edited we required the authors to assign copyright to the journal. You almost certainly did the same. This is nearly universal. The journal is within its rights to tell you to not republish the same thing elsewhere. This does not apply to Piot's remarks.
Anon, I have to strongly disagree again. Perhaps the problem is that it is a disciplinary difference? (I publish in socsci journals). We academics submit to peer reviewed journals, but our drafts of papers that we circulate are ALWAYS accompanied by a copyright notice of our own which states:
"this is a draft. please do not cite or quote without permission of the author"
No one who wants to ensure that their article gets published would put their papers or research online for public consumption, or even circulation among colleagues, wthout that legal warning! the internet has no safeguards to get your permission before citing or using your remarks, so if you are doing anything that is going to be widely read, you avoid putting it online where others might grab it and misuse it. you certainly do NOT put it on a blog where readers are hostile to you (almost GUARANTEED citing, in fact, that is what the posters here want it for, right?) that would guarantee no publication.
so, if you are planning on submitting a pre-published paper that you have promised to an editor of a peer-reviewed journal (YES, you can promise an editor something, but it STILL must go thru the peer review process, that is how we ensure academic integrity) you only give it to colleagues you can trust not to restate, steal, or quote your work without your permission.
Therefore, again, P aint fibbin. This is quite a normal practice for anyone publishing original research in an academic journal (i would imagine in any kind of rag that bases its profit on original articles too) at least in the social sciences.
I still think all this is moot when John has been personally invited to meet with prof p.
Dear Duke Student 97,
I don't have a lot of time to respond to everything you say.
I wish I did.
But I do want to comment on two matters,
First, regarding: "I still think all this is moot when John has been personally invited to meet with prof p."
If you'll review my post you'll see I said to Professor Piot: “Regarding your luncheon invitation: I’d like to meet with you for a luncheon provided we first work out what I see as major differences between us as regards faculty duties and the purposes of the University.
In brief, I found Professor Weintraub’s Chronicle letter today a model of how a professor should address important issues as well as a much needed and stirring affirmation of what Duke must always strive to be.”
You don’t seem OK with my first wanting to work out with Professor Piot what I see as major differences between us as regards faculty duties and the purposes of the University.
Am I right about that?
Please know I think Professor Weintraub’s letter is a model of how you address important issues, especially contentious ones, because it is written so we can all take a look at what he said.
Now the second matter -----
Are you OK with a professor at an open forum that’s been announced on the net delivering a lecture in which the professor accuses another professor who’s hundreds of miles away of the most heinous kinds of actions, including inciting racists attacks against other professors; and then not making available to the professor who’s been attacked and others either the tape of what the attacking professor’s said or a print copy?
I’m not.
John
jwm, Yes I think its counterintuitive to work via the unreliable forum of email and posting to ask Piot to clarify his ideas, when you can do so much easier, and with much less chance of misunderstanding, by meeting with him directly and reporting back. In my experience, personal meetings have much more potential to convince people, and thereby create resolutions to problems, than do emails. It seems also that he'd think it a waste of his time and I would think it would waste yours to write out what you can say. I do think - if it were me - I would assume that your asking for clarification was a way to not meet with me. That might well not be the case, but im just giving you my humble opinion that its not a good strategy, and it just seems odd, if you aim to get to the bottom of things. There are so few people willing to take such risks.
The hypothetical wording of the second question is confusing, and when i tried to figure it out I realized that the first 'accusing professor' you refer to could be either KC.... or Piot! This made me think that, at some point the ideology of this whole debate is weakening and in danger of fading into a meaningless battle between "us" and "them."
heres what i mean:
"Are you OK with a professor (insert either KC or PIOT) at an open forum that’s been announced on the net delivering a lecture in which the professor (KC & PIOT?) accuses another professor (KC/PIOT) who’s hundreds of miles away of the most heinous kinds of actions, including inciting racists attacks against other professors; and then not making available to the professor (KC? Piot?) who’s been attacked and others either the tape of what the attacking professor’s said or a print copy?"
aaak. I dont feel like I know who anyones side is anymore in this, and am really disillusioned. Again, i wish you or someone else could just meet in person with the 'opposition' so there might be some resolution/faster progress.
Duke Student 97 --
1. What has Prof Johnson said in public about Prof Piot? How would I go about finding out what, exactly, he has said?
2. What has Prof Piot said in public about Prof Johnson? And how would I discover those exact words?
Duke 97 Student,
What you wrote and what I wrote are before readers.
They can judge for themselves our reading comprehension and reasoning capacities.
I'm glad for that.
Good luck.
John
To Duke student 97: RE: "RC, you are wrong!"
After publishing three books in university presses and 40 articles in academic journals I think I know how it works. I am not talking about book reviews, so I think you are referring to something else. Under any circumstances, all Professor Piot has to do is provide 1) a reasonable summary of his remarks for the blog or 2) part of his remarks to be quoted. Unless of course he has something to hide.
wow, you have really just lost my sympathy. this is not a forum for discussion, its a blood bath.
john, your one-liners are absolutely snarky. i thought you were a kind person. wrong. you do not crave dialogue, you want to draw blood. I can only conclude that you do not want to meet with piot because you are afraid to.
RC your knowledge of the publication process is flawed, your rep of Piot is super biased (john asked for the *text* of his *paper* not a summary or quotations - besides quotations are not ok when trying to protect your intellectual property), and after this CIA -esq statement: "unless he has SOMETHING TO HIDE!" Booooo! well, gosh i wonder why piot wouldnt respond to such a warm invite to "dialogue" you kind, sweet gentelmen?
what mal intent i have seen here.
BTW im not an alum, im a CURRENT DUKE STUDENT. i wrote 97 by accident instead of 07. so please dont dismiss my words, or my attempts to kindly resolve these issues, I am ONE OF THE STUDENTS YOU CLAIM TO REPRESENT on your blogs.
Thats it,if this is turning intosome oppositional war, then im with Piot.
Post a Comment