Response to Claire Potter's Blog where she muses about the "Group of 88" Ad

My email address is mlofton@kent.edu, if you would like to respond not in your blog. Just to let you know.

I am not attacking you or the people who blog on here. I would like to know what I did to deserve my comments being deleted.

It is honest questions. I do not care who did the scholarship. I also recognize there are great points of view in "queer and minority studies." However, there are also professors who put out utter filth that is unreadable. If (and when) they are interpreted a certain way, sometimes professors defend their work with "you are a racist." Is it too much to ask that professors (such as students who complete a dissertation) to defend their work?

As for Lubiano, I have some issues. As a taxpayer of the federal government who in turn gives money to academic institutions, excuse me for asking if those funds may have been misappropriated. They might not have been.

However, people are trying to "spin" the article as speaking out against racism and not this specific incident. But KC Johnson has reported that Lubiano put this explanation of the ad in her email http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/09/lubianos-cover-e-mail.html

It clearly states "African & African-American Studies is placing an ad in The Chronicle about the lacrosse team incident." With this revelation, I have two questions

1). How can someone claim this is about the bigger picture of racism and not this one incident?

2). How can one not assume from that statement that the department did not pay for the ad? And if the ad was paid for by the department, explain to me how this was not misappropriation of funds.

3). As someone who claims herself as radical (civil rights and due process, which us "conservatives" are routinely slammed for supposedly not respecting), why do you continue to defend an ad which prejudges individuals without a jury trial?

I have not attacked anyone in my following comment. I would appreciate a response. Susan at 11:07 stated "Thanks for this, TR. There is, I think, a difference between "baiting" and "challenging". When someone writes something that you think is misguided, wrong, or even dangerous, it seems to me that we have a responsibility to address those things."

I am not saying you are wrong, I am challenging your assertions.

I totally agree with your right to censor racist or vile posts. However, it is hard to take some Duke professors seriously when they host a seminar entitled "Shut Up and Teach," where they argue they are trying to be censored. Yet, they did not allow audio recording or questions from those who oppose their views.

And you censor non-attacking posts. How is that not irony from a person in the academic field?

One last comment, you said you counted Lubiano as a friend. However, I feel these three completely falsely accused individuals have to be protected by those who continue to say anything less than "they are innocent." I also feel it is the right to correct people (such as Nifong on the witness stand at his ethics and criminal trial) who call Crystal Gail Magnum is a victim. She is not, she lied, the men were innocent (I would also like to point out that these men were also the only one's during this fiasco to apologize for their actions).

I am currently a student (client) if you will, and plan on working in intercollegiate athletics all my life as a sports information director (I know, do nothing for the school and am not intellectual whatsoever). I feel the right to defend what so many have slandered and made false statements about, intercollegiate athletics.

If she emails me and I get a response (I doubt my comment will be posted), I will post it here with her permission.