Dankprofessor’s Weblog

Duke again.

Michael Nelson in the October 5 issue of The Chronicle Review has an excellent essay on the Duke U lacrosse fiasco entitled STEREOTYPE, THEN AND NOW.  And one of the constituencies that on the whole embraced stereotypes and groups labels in determining guilt or innocence was the Duke faculty.

As Nelson notes-

“As for Duke’s faculty members, they either rushed to condemn the students (speaking as the so-called Group of 8 or stood by silently for months while their colleagues did. On April 6, 2006, shortly after some protesters banged pots and hoisted banners (the largest read “CASTRATE!!”) outside the lacrosse captains’ house and others hung “Wanted!” posters around the campus with photos of team members, the Group of 88 ran a full-page ad in the student newspaper. The ad thanked “the protesters making collective noise … for not waiting and making yourselves heard.” So much for critical thinking based on weighing evidence.

A week after the Group of 88’s ad appeared, one of its authors, the literature professor Wahneema Lubiano, wrote an essay describing the students on the lacrosse team as “almost perfect offenders” because they are “the exemplars of the upper end of the class hierarchy, the politically dominant race and ethnicity, the dominant gender, the dominant sexuality, and the dominant social group on campus.” Her colleague Houston Baker had already weighed in on March 29 with an open letter to Duke’s provost, Peter Lange. Baker demanded that Duke order the “immediate dismissal” of the students and coaches of the lacrosse team because they embodied “abhorrent sexual assault, verbal racial violence, and drunken, white male privilege loosed amongst us.”

Of course, Duke professors routinely evaluate students in terms of course grading.  So theoretically they are experienced professionals when it comes to evaluating students, evaluating students in an objective and dispassionate manner.  If such be the case, when it comes to evaluating students and others concerning more weighty matters, matters than can lead to freedom or imprisonment, one could expect/hope that said professors would be even more objective and dispassionate in their evaluation of the accused students.  But we know such was not the case at least in general terms.  We also know that the President of Duke remained in office after functioning as a cheerleader for faculty and others in his condemnation of the accused students and the lacrosse team.  President Brodhead did not resign just as none of the faculty who engaged in muckraking behavior resigned, and to my knowledge none of these faculty have recanted or have recused themselves from grading members of groups they have openly condemned.

Of course, professorial voluntary recusal is unheard of in the academic world.  If faculty, such as the Duke faculty, were ordered to recuse themselves, they would be up in arms and undoubtedly would have great support throughout the academic world.  Forced recusal in the academic world is not politically correct except for the exceptions, eg, professor dating a student in ones class.  Then recusal is OK because prejudicial grading cannot be tolerated.  What utter hypocrisy!  Prejudicial grading is widely tolerated in the academic world and faculty hardly ever recuse themselves because given the hierarchy of professorial values, grading is not in the upper echelon. 

I wish to make it clear that I believe recusal should be a viable option for the ethical professor but recusal from above, forced recusal does not represent engaging in an option.  I wish that more professors would seriously confront the possibility that they are at risk of prejudicial grading.  On the other hand, it has been argued that “The only way to ensure impartial grading is never to learn yours students names.”  I doubt that any of us academics would want to embrace the impersonality of nameless students which in such a highly impersonal environment would also probably mean that the faculty remain nameless as well. Nameless faculty evaluated by other nameless faculty who were hired to educate and grade nameless students.  No romance here.  No love.  Anonymity would be the norm although some of the nameless might embrace such an environment in their search for anonymous  sex.

—————————————————————
If you wish, you can write to me directly at dankprofessor@msn.com
Guest commentaries should also be submitted for consideration to the same email address.

Barry M. Dank aka the dankprofessor.
© Copyright 2007

OK, I am not leaving until tomorrow so I can’t resist sending out this post.

Mike Nifong was found guilty in the Duke U. so called rape case and is now serving 1 day in jail.  In their op ed piece, Guilty in the Duke Case, Stuart Taylor and K.C. Johnson scour former district attorney Nifong, but also in general terms scour the press which bought into Nyfong’s rape mythology. Also scoured are Duke President Richard Brodhead and Duke faculty which in almost universal terms supported  said mythology.  As the columnists state: “This shameful conduct was rooted in a broader trend toward subordination of facts and evidence to faith-based ideological posturing.  Worse, the ascendant ideology, especially in academia, is an obsession with the fantasy that oppression of minorities and women by ‘privileged’ white men remains rampant in America.  Its crude stereotyping of white men, , especially athletes, resembles old fashion racism and sexism.”

In other words, at Duke and most other American Universities the presumption is one of guilt when the person charged is a white male and the alleged victim is a female.  Do note that the Duke president Richard Brodhead took many punitive actions against members of the Lacrosse team.  Given that Brodhead did not violate any academic norms regarding his unbecoming conduct, he remains in good standing.  Such is consistent  with my prior assertions that professors charged with sexual harassment are de facto presumed guilty and treated as  such.  Such is also very consistent with what has become axiomatic among too many academics that consensual student-prof relationships are never consensual and always involve a predatory professor and a female victim even when the so-called victim protests that she is not a victim.  If she be a victim, said victimhood has been perpetrated by the campus powers that be  who have taken away her right to consent.

Also, let us not forget that the prime mover other than Nifong was the alleged victim.  She has not been charged with making a false accusation or charged with any other charge.  It would appear to me that the civil authorities are following the academic model here which is when  a charge made by a female student is dropped  because it is found to have no merit, it is generally simply forgotten by campus authorities, held to be too trivial to initiate  any formal proceedings.  However, if the charged male prof had spoken out criticizing the one who had charged him, said prof would face the probability of being charged with sexual harassment for speaking out. So much for academic freedom, for academic justice.

And for a review of the new book on the Duke case by Taylor and Johnson, see Abigail Thernstrom’s review on the wsj opinion blog.

I know at least one reader of this blog who might regard me as being a hypocrite since I have de facto assumed Larry Craig’s guilt.  I am not going to review the whole Craig scenario except to state that it was Craig who facilitated a presumption of guilt when he pled guilty to a lesser charge.  His attempt to  have that guilty plea vetoed will not change the fact that he cannot undo the power of his original plea. The 13th juror will continue to hold him guilty as charged.