I posted this as a comment on another blog. I would like to share it here. However, I did make mistakes and will make a mark when I am making a comment or changing them. Also:

TR=Tenured Radical
------------------------

Just to let people know: For those who think I am for athletics in front of academics, this is not true. I just feel athletics (just like the arts) are all important to the college experience. I was and continue to be shocked by professors who slam athletics.

And for those who think I am only about athletics, I point out ALL of my closest friends at my undergraduate institution did not care for athletics one bit. I also acted in the theatre two separate times*, once in a Shakespearian play (A Winter's Tale) in fact.

I disagree with many of TR's points; however, I would like to offer a defense. No matter if you disagree with her, I am of the impression that she does care deeply for her students. This is more than I can say for some of my teachers and professors through the years.

I would also like to thank TR for her kind words which I would like to add. While I am young (graduated from my undergraduate institution in December 2006 a semester early), I do have the insights of having just been a student at a college (which I feel not many posters have that insight on here).

When it became clear that the accused where completely innocent, (again, two of the accused had alibis and the police could not even place Reade Seligmann** at the party when they indicted him), I reflected on situations I had experienced and would experience in my future. If it is that easy to indict individuals and ruin their lives, how easy would it have been for me to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and have my life turned upside down? I quite often am confused as someone else in my hometown. If this individual did something, could I be confused as him (or if he did something, someone identify me as the individual who committed the crime)?

Employers, by and large, are held liable for their employees’ actions while in an official capacity of their work. Lubiano sent the email out from her Duke account, professors signed the ad and it appeared in the Duke chronicle. Could Duke be held liable for their actions? Should the professors be held accountable?

As for the ad, I would like to use an imagining tactic TR used. Imagine you are one of the accused in April 2006. Virtually every main-stream media outlet has a story slanted in the accuser's favor. You have to endure countless ridicule from students who you do not even know and do not even know you personally. You have certain professors discussing this incident^ in a context that neither have anything to do with the class they are teaching and they are slanted as if the lacrosse players committed the crime. You have just witnessed the pathetic excuse of a rally where banners state things such as "castrate." Then the ad% appears thanking people for speaking up and not even once referring to the events as alleged. How would you feel? Some of these professors you do not even know personally and some of the professors may be ones you hold in high regard and you can talk to them about life in general. Some of those professors you even have for class! How would you feel?

Why have the group of 88 not even issued a "non-apology" apology. Something along the lines of "We were speaking of racial issues in general and not this specific incident. However, we should have taken more care in the language and the time of the placement of the advertisement." Acknowledge that some of their tactics were not-well thought out (as it seems some where).

Also, I do not consider this incident closed$. Some of the players and the accused may have some closure if Duke is actually reviewing their responses and learned something from their actions. Some of their actions and rhetoric since makes me less than encouraged.

How can Duke sweep under the rug the fact a dean told the lacrosse players "do not get lawyers involved?" How can Brodhead and Duke defend that he refused to even meet with the players and their parents to hear their side of events? Why does Duke feel it is ok for Brodhead to say these kids will be punished if they did what they are accused of but "what they did is bad enough?"

Newsflash: Students underage drink in college. Students go to strip clubs. Whatever you believe morally, hiring a stripper is not illegal.

TR has spoken to the mistake these players have made that night in having the party. However, I would like to point out:

1. Many of us did something absolutely horrendous and ill-advised in college. Hypothesizing what happened to them is somewhat deserved because they hosted a party are like saying it is ok what happened to Natalie Holloway because she made the bad decision to drink and then split off from the group.

2. By and large (as KC has pointed out), the only one to apologize in this whole fiasco is the 2006 Duke men's lacrosse team.
-----------------------------------

* In particular, at Heidelberg College alone. I have been in other plays in other capacities and have even worked sound for a production.

** Seligman changed to Seligmann. I should have done closer checks before commenting.

^added word

% changed add to ad

$ added the word incident and changed close to closed

The more you know...

One of the great mysteries of the whole Duke debacle is why people chose to be racist and not use this as a teaching moment?

Many people do not believe an eye for an eye works.

However, just look at these responses by Durham residents.

"The defendants should be prosecuted] whether it happened or not. It would be justice for things that happened in the past." Chan Hall, Chairman of Legislative Affairs Committee, Student Government of NCCU quoted in Newsweek May 1, 2006.

"Hopefully, justice is blind when it is time to carry out the proper punishment for what has been committed, and perhaps what has not been committed." PASTOR John Bennett quoted in the Herald-Sun October 16, 2006.

Any mention that these feelings are wrong? Apparently no one in the media thought or Duke academia thought so.

The New Black Panthers threatened Colin Finnerty as he walked in the courthouse for an early trial hearing. Not only was nothing done, the NBP were allowed in the courtroom. Does anyone else find this crazy? Apparently, nobody in the media or Duke acadamia thought so.

Martin Luther King Jr. said "An injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere." Instead of the NAACP and academia use this as a "See, this is what we mean about racism. Now you know how we feel and how critical it is to fight against this corrupt system." No, the acadamia released a listening ad which can be interpreted as not endorsing due process. No, we see the North Carolina NAACP go against tradition of supporting change of venue motions for cases full of race hatred. No, the North Carolina NAACP had a wild manifesto making wild charges against the accused which was still up EVEN AFTER the lacrosse players were declared innocent.

And the mainstream media immediately put the accused and the people who wanted due process to play out on the defensive. Of course the fall out would be racist letters and threats made against African-Americans.

Let me make this perfectly clear: this is a horrible tactic and I never would do such a thing nor encourage individuals to do this. However, how can anyone think individuals would not resort to this emotional-filled tactic when the defenders of this false-accuser resorted to threats and emotion-filled protests?

It is just like the news commentators who blasted the defense attorneys for some of their public relations tactics of releasing (factual) information to try to win public opinion when the DA went public with very charged (and false) rhetoric.

There are many of us who wonder why few in the federal government have pushed for a federal investigation; yet, there were federal, state, and local lawmakers screaming at the top of their lungs for "justice to be done."

And for those who believe these guys were saved by a high-priced team of lawyers, I would like to point out public perception largely favored the (false) accuser until Christmas-time last year when we found out Meehan and Nifong conspired to cover-up evidence. Only when we learned a lawyer locked himself into a room and taught himself about DNA and went through the discovery with a fine-tooth comb did the case start to unravel.

This hypocrisy is not going to lead to a better society were people are going to get along with one another. If the African-American and the academic community want to sit (for the most part) idly by why all this takes place, why do you think we should care about other injustices?

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.