If prosecutor Mike Nifong could accuse students of ghastly crimes on the flimsiest of evidence (Jun. 24 and earlier posts), one reason might be that the atmosphere at Duke University was such that, early in the case, 88 faculty members could sign a manifesto fanning the flames of public opinion against the accused students. Robert K.C. Johnson on Cliopatria has many details on the so-called Group of 88. Of the 69 signatories who are permanent faculty, “58—an astonishing 84.1 percent—describe their research interests as related to race, class, or gender (or all three), in some cases to an extent bordering on caricature.” One professor opines that the “members of the team are almost perfect offenders in the sense that [critical race theorist Kimberle] Crenshaw writes about,” since 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.” (Jul. 19) (via Coyote). For more on the case, see postings at Jeralyn Merritt’s Talk Left and the group Friends of Duke University.
Duke lacrosse affair: when faculty fan flames
If prosecutor Mike Nifong could accuse students of ghastly crimes on the flimsiest of evidence (Jun. 24 and earlier posts), one reason might be that the atmosphere at Duke University was such that, early in the case, 88 faculty members could sign a manifesto fanning the flames of public opinion against the accused students. Robert […]
5 Comments
Why is it that those who commandeer the title of intellectual so often seem inclined to bully others with their capacity for argument rather than produce solid evidence for their opinions?
Welll…
Because any self-describe intellectual usually isn’t.
In the technology world, we call it the “Learn one-thing deeply” career method. Focus on one obscure topic, learn everything about it, and then steer every conversation towards the thing you know the most about. It makes you seem very intelligent and knowledgable and deserving of high pay. But really, you’ve just know this one thing that hardly ever applies to the things you deal with every day.
In response to Welll’s question, the answer is that when there IS no evidence in support of one’s argument, racial stereotyping and slander is the last resort.
The concept of arguing that any particular event simply must fit your theory because you are the master of some arcane ribbon of information is completely unconvincing. It reads like an erudite version of the schoolyard taunt, “Yes-huh!”
I’m not surprised that such a high percentage of the faculty claim to be “experts” on racial and ethnic issues but don’t harken from any hard science. Our society’s approach to these issues is anything but factual, objective or evidence-driven. In fact, it takes the alchemy of the robed classes to steer us away from that.