A critical look at Duke faculty response to the lacrosse case

At www.insidehighered.com Brooklyn College professor of history KC Johnson looks at how Duke faculty members are reacting to the lacrosse case.

Here’s some of Johnson's comments:

[If] as Duke officials have claimed, [President] Brodhead seriously desires to use this event as a “learning opportunity,” he needs to explore why voices among the faculty urging local authorities to respect the due process rights of Duke’s students seemed so overpowered by professors exhibiting a rush to judgment.

In early April, [88] Duke professors [signed] a public statement about the scandal. Three academic departments and 13 of the university’s academic programs also endorsed the statement, which was placed as an advertisement in the student newspaper, The Duke Chronicle, and is currently hosted on the Web site of Duke’s African and African-American Studies program. …

The 88 signatories affirmed that they were “listening” to a select group of students troubled by sexism and racism at Duke. Yet 8 of the 11 quotes supplied from students to whom these professors had been talking, 8 contained no attribution — of any sort, even to the extent of claiming to come from anonymous Duke students.

Nonetheless, according to the faculty members, “The disaster didn’t begin on March 13th and won’t end with what the police say or the court decides.”

It’s hard to imagine that college professors could openly dismiss how the ultimate legal judgment would shape this case’s legacy. Such sentiments perhaps explain why no member of the Duke Law School faculty signed the letter.

More disturbingly, the group of 88 committed themselves to “turning up the volume.” They told campus protesters, “Thank you for not waiting and for making yourselves heard.”

These demonstrators needed no encouragement: They were already vocal, and had already judged the lacrosse players were guilty. One student group produced a “wanted” poster containing photographs of 43 of the 46 white lacrosse players. At an event outside a house rented by several lacrosse team members, organized by a visiting instructor in English Department, protesters held signs reading, “It’s Sunday morning, time to confess.” They demanded that the university force the players to testify or dismiss them from school.

The public silence of most Duke professors allowed the group of 88 to become, in essence, the voice of the faculty. In a local climate that has featured an appointed district attorney whose behavior, at the very least, has been erratic, the Duke faculty might have forcefully advocated respecting the due process rights of all concerned. After all, fair play and procedural integrity are supposed to be cardinal principles of the academy.

In no way would such a position have endorsed the players’ claim to innocence: Due process exists because the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition has determined it elemental to achieving the truth.

Yes, due process is about achieving truth, which is one reason ideologues despise it.

But why the silence by so many faculty members who find the beliefs and actions of the 88 repugnant?

That's a question I want to discuss but not in this post. Soon though.

You can read Johnson's entire comment here. The thread is very interesting too.