INNOCENT: Prof Chafe Responds

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

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

Readers Note: On May 4 I posted "An Invitation to Duke's Prof. Chafe."

The post contained an email I sent to William H. Chafe, Alice Mary Baldwin Professor of American History at Duke University and a signatory of the faculty’s Group of 88’s “social disaster” statement that ran as a full-page ad in the Apr. 6 Chronicle. From 1995-2004 Chafe served as Dean of the Faculty of Duke University and Vice-Provost for Undergraduate Education.

Those of you familiar with the post know I took exception to Professor Chafe’s statements concerning bloggers as quoted in the Apr. 30 Chronicle and at KC Johnson’s blog. I also remain concerned about some of the content of the Group of 88’s “social disaster” statement and the group’s decision to publish it at such a tense time.

I expressed my concerns in an email to Chafe, a copy of which I included in the post.

I invited Chafe to respond and said I’d post his response in full; and that I’d make no comment on it for at least a day so readers could view it free of my commentary.

Chafe has responded. He included with his response the texts of the email The Chronicle sent him (Chafe’s overseas now) and his response to The Chronicle.

The Chronicle asked Chafe five questions; he responded to each question, numerating his responses. His numeration allowed me for your ease to paste the two emails into one document in Q&A form so that The Chronicle’s Q 1 is followed by Chafe’s A 1, etc.

Four words about comments on the thread: the usual rules apply.

So almost all of you will be able to do what you typically do at JinC: make civil, informed, reasonably questioning and pointed comments free of ad hominems and self-puffery.

For those few who just have to say “whatever,” there are millions of other blogs. I hope by hitting the delete button, I help you find at least one of them.

Now Professor Chafe’s response, followed by The Chronicle/ Chafe Q&A:

Dear John in Carolina:

I made a mistake in generalizing about “bloggers” in my comment to the
Chronicle, and I apologize.

For many Duke faculty who have been concerned about the values expressed in our campus culture, the last months have seen an unremitting flood of e-mails from people who believe that we presumed the guilt of the lacrosse players accused of sexual assault a year ago. That is not the case, I believe, at least in the instance of those faculty members I know.

A significant number of the critical e-mails, often using the same “canned” paragraphs, simply denounced us, without addressing the primary content of the ad; many appear unfamiliar with the fact that most faculty who have expressed themselves are concerned primarily about how we treat each other on campus, the fact that date rape is common, and that many sexual assaults go unreported and unpunished. Some e-mails and phone calls have been vicious, racist and threatening. It was my error to generalize from these.

Perhaps it is time to reassess generalizations on all sides. There is no “group of 88,” per se. We have never met. We do not belong to a political or professional organization, or to a particular discipline or set of disciplines. Most of us signed an ad as a way of expressing solidarity with students who were distressed. I know none of the students quoted in the ad. But I do know my own, who openly stated their concern about the same issues.

Somehow, in the aftermath of this, “the group of 88” has been demonized as left-wing, Marxist, elitist haters of Duke and of Duke athletics, committed to destroying the university. Why would we devote twenty, thirty, even more years of our lives to an institution we hate?

I made a mistake in my generalization. Maybe we can all start paying more attention to our respective statements, consider each other’s individuality and reject simple statements of condemnation for those who disagree with us. Then perhaps we can move forward.

For those who may be interested, appended to this e-mail is the full set of responses I had given to the Duke Chronicle reporter, only one line of which was used. The reporter’s questions are at the very bottom. (That’s now changed because as I explained I put the questions into the Q&A document. --- JinC)

Thank you.

Bill Chafe
________________________________________________

CHRONICLE’S Q’s and CHAFE’S A’s

Q1. What was your initial response to North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper’s announcement that all charges against the three indicted players have been dropped?

Chafe: I expected Cooper's announcement, and given the clear indication that Nifong had made serious mistakes throughout this process, I was pleased to see the record made clear.

Q 2. With the lacrosse case concluded, in retrospect what do you think it revealed about the campus culture at Duke?

Chafe: From my point of view, and that, I think of others, the lacrosse "incident" simply focused a spotlight on what many of us at Duke saw to be ongoing and critical issues in our campus culture.

These issues were not new, particularly the frequency of date rape, unpunished sexual assault, and covert or overt racism among some of our student body. Those of us who had been in
administration and dealing with student affairs for nearly a decade were well aware of these issues. The lacrosse "incident" simply highlighted, and made a more open topic of conversation, underlying issues within our community.

Q 3. Does the proclamation of innocence change the way you feel about the state of campus culture, or is it unrelated?

Chafe: The finding of innocence is unrelated to these ongoing issues. As I hope you and others will acknowledge, most of us never presumed guilt. In the Chronicle of Higher Education op-ed piece I wrote on this in May 2006, I specifically stated that we would not know whether an assault took place until the criminal process was complete. But as I said then, that was not the issue at hand.

The issue is and was how we feel about each other as members of the Duke community, and how we seek to sustain dignity, compassion and caring as values we affirm and pledge ourselves to uphold.

Q 4. As an original signer of the ad that ran in The Chronicle April 6, do you think the issues brought up in the ad are still relevant now that the prosecution has decided that the players are innocent of all charges?

Chafe: From my perspective, the ad simply affirmed faculty concern about students who had experienced denigration or sexual and racial maltreatment. I did not believe it was about whether or not a crime had been committed.

My own students -- not those who were quoted in the ad -- subsequently told me about their experience witnessing strippers hired to perform ON campus, and their regret that more of their peers had not protested sexual assault. These were the issues that concerned us. And these are the issues that still concern us, and should concern us.

Q 5. Now that their innocence has been proclaimed, and now that the case has come to its conclusion, do you still support the statements included in the ad?

Chafe: I support the ongoing engagement of faculty in seeking a community that cares about the dignity and personhood of every individual at Duke. I am appalled at the way that bloggers who have targeted the "Group of 88" have put words in our mouths, denied our individuality, and used racist and violent language to attack us (including sending us e-mails and making phone calls wishing our deaths, and calling us "Jew bitch" and "n-bitch"). It would be good to know whether those who do this in fact want their children to go to a university that sanctions student groups hiring strippers or mistreating fellow students.