Sunday, May 13, 2007

INNOCENT: Chafe responded; I’m holding

"... these three individuals [David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann,] are innocent of these charges."

North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper, Apr. 11, 2007

This post is to let those of you who’ve been following Duke Professor William Chafe and my letter exchanges know that Chafe’s responded to my most recent letter/post.

The post containing my letter to which Chafe responded is here.

In that post you’ll also find background information and links to our previous exchanges.

I’ll not post Chafe’s most recent letter for another day or two because, when I post it, I want to also post my letter replying to it.

This has been commencement weekend at both Duke and UNC-Chapel Hill. We’ve had guests since Thursday, and many wonderful celebratory events to attend.

Tomorrow, Monday morning, we’ll breakfast with and say goodbye to a group of friends, after which “regular life” and “regular blogging” will resume following five busy and wonderful days.

Sometime late Monday or Tuesday morning, I’ll post Chafe’s letter along with mine in reply.

In the meantime, I’ve explained my delay to Chafe who understands it.

When I let Chafe know I’d delay in responding to his latest letter, I also said that while his letter was civil and to the point, I found it disappointing because, IMO, it did not advance our discussion.

Perhaps Chafe and I are going nowhere. We’ll see.

In the meantime, I hope any of you who just can’t wait to “say it” will find another blog at which to vent.

I’m confident most of you will bring to mind examples of many who these past thirteen months have worked slowly and to serious and useful results.

That’s what I’m trying to do.

Any results so far?

Well, the next time someone says all the email Group of 88 members receive is threatening, etc., people can link to the comment threads on the posts linked above. They’ll find on those threads close to forty thoughtful and concerned comments waiting for a response from Chafe or some other member of Duke faculty's Group of 88.

Sure, there were a few trollish comments on the threads along with the thoughtful and concerned ones, but that’s no excuse for not answering when so many thoughtful and concerned people are asking questions that deserve answers.

Stay tuned.

And remember: a blog is a place where anyone can look in.

Would those of you who were present in May 2005 when JinC began have believed that, by the late summer of 2006, CBS researchers would be going through JinC Duke Hoax posts and comments in preparation for what became the late Ed Bradley’s October 2006 60 Minutes episode; the one in which Duke Law School Professor James Coleman described the DPD’s “no wrong choices” frame-up and Duke’s President, Richard H. Brodhead, told Bradley “the facts kept changing?”

Who knows? Maybe some Duke trustees are reading what Brodhead and “Dick’s senior team” in the Allen Building still refer to as “the lacrosse blogs.” (Time to catch up, Dick and “team.” They’re now called “Duke Hoax” blogs. - JinC)

I don’t know whether any trustees are “reading the Hoax blogs,” but I heard a few times this weekend some are.

I sure hope so. That can only be good for Duke and justice.


straightarrow said...

"That can only be good for Duke and justice." JiC

Justice being the beneficiary of paramount importance. Had that been the criterion in use at Duke, what would be good for Duke would be a non-issue, wouldn't it.

straightarrow said...

Change . to ? last mark.

Eric said...

This post puzzles me. With his earlier reply, you deliberately allowed his response to be here, seen in its own context, before your reply was posted. Now, you want to hold his reply until yours can be posted as well. I'm curious why this is being handled differently.

On the more general subject, I'd sincerly like to hear Chafe's comments on the specific lines in the ad which clearly referenced the lacrosse case, by date and by repeated clear references to the accuser. Does he, like one of his colleagues, choose to argue that "a party" happened to the woman, or will he acknowledge that a reasonable reader, given the context of the date of publication, might infer that the statement meant that "a rape" happened to the woman (irrespective of any possible conscious intent by the signatories)? If he agrees that the references to the specific date, and to 'something happening to the woman', could reasonably be so interpreted, does he at least genuinely regret that the ad did not explicitly deny such an implication?