I left out a few things when I hastily posted this earlier today, so this is version 2…
I’ve been hoping to finish a full-blown post with the evidence Johnson was wondered so much about. As usual, things drag on. So, as a stopgap, some responses to Johnson and other commenters. [A “full-blown post” is now available.]
I have now posted our full email exchange so that Johnson speaks in his own words rather than my paraphrases.
One thing that I tried to explain in that exchange, apparently unsuccessfully, is that my analysis of Lubiano’s “Spectacularity” article was not the basis for my harsh characterization of DIW. The connection I made between the article and the “listening” ad is speculative. It has to do with the gap between intention and effect, and as far as I’m concerned it’s more of a critique of blanket defenses of the ad than a criticism of DIW. If it’s a house of cards, fine—I hope something illuminating comes out of the process of knocking it down. I was amused by Johnson’s complete misunderstanding of my blotting-the-stigma metaphor, though. Was Wonderland built in a day?
To my observation that the two most objectionable lines of the “listening” statement aren’t essential as written, Johnson answers that “rewriting a statement 18 months after the fact isn’t a particularly effective line of defense.” I couldn’t agree more. My main point after that observation is that I think it was a mistake when the ad was written to mention the protestors at all and even more of a mistake to dodge the issues raised by that mention after the ad was printed. It’s not defense of the “Group’s handiwork” but the opposite. It is also an implicit criticism of Johnson for not being able to tell the difference between central and peripheral statements in the ad. Johnson would love to convince everyone that criticism of him is defense of something he’s attacked, but it ain’t so.
This is the person I really owe a response to, and I’m still not quite ready with it. An alum named Nick left a comment yesterday—Nick, if you drop by again, maybe you have thoughts for this gentleman who’s wondering whether to send his kid to Duke. What I’ll quickly say is that I don’t think the picture of Duke that comes out of the controversy followed from a distance tells you very much about what a student’s experience of the school will be.
Another aspect of my correspondence that Johnson grossly misunderstood (and it could be my fault, though I don’t think so) was that, to quote him, I “suggested that [Johnson’s] chief fault was suggesting that the Group’s ad could be interpreted as suggesting that the sole message of the potbangers’ March 26 rally was the ‘castrate’ banner.” What I suggested is that Johnson insinuates that those who endorsed the “listening” ad condoned that particularly vile banner. It’s possible that one or two knew about it and condoned it, but absurd to think they all did.
In the same vein, both Johnson and Nick the commenter say that “two Duke faculty members, Timothy Tyson and Faulkner Fox, attended the March 25-26 potbangers’ protests.” The Chronicle mentions Faulkner Fox
and Tim Tyson are known to have been at the Saturday evening vigil. I don’t deny that there was a great deal of overlap in intention and message, and I’m sure there were people who attended both—Tyson and/or Fox may have been among them. It seems to me that the Sunday morning event was far more strident and I found more useful background on it to write about (Rajendran’s interview, especially). The fact that I chose to concentrate on this particular event doesn’t mean I deny other events were problematic. I welcome comments that connect and/or differentiate other protests and the Sunday morning potbanging rally, and especially comments from people like Nick with first-hand experience.
It seems that Johnson feels unfairly singled out by my harsh characterization—that I really ought to hit the potbangers and Claire Potter just as hard. Since I frame my whole project as an examination of the contributors to polarization of the case as a whole, it should be clear that I consider the potbanging protest to be polarizing—not insidiously but overtly and dramatically. I don’t see how I can be accused of being easier on them in that regard. And “irrational” and “anti-academic” aren’t really to the point for the potbangers—I directed them at DIW because DIW is presented as a rational defense of academic ideals. As to Potter, it’s true that I’m more bothered by the hectoring pile-ons directed at statements and blog posts such as hers than I am by her factual errors. The one thing I regret saying in my email exchange with Johnson is that he owes Lubiano an apology, since I find the lacrosse-case obsession with who owes whom an apology extemely annoying. I’ll try not to do that anymore.
The run-up to Bush and WMD at the end is classic—I’m sure W is kicking himself for missing out on such a useful flack as me. The little jab at Bush ended up distracting the DIW commenters, so there isn’t much of substance in the comment thread. Michael raised an objection that’s worth a little attention.
One really weak side of Zimmerman’s series is that he talks about the problems of rape and how he can see what motivated the potbangers. But he doesn’t address the problems of false accusations, false convictions or that the real issues of rape aren’t necessarily about white men raping black women.
For sure my attention to the issue of rape and justice was limited. What I wanted to highlight was the discrepancies between belief and action with regard to the potbanging protest. I’m not prepared to wade into the “real issues of rape” as a whole. All I can do (and perhaps should have done) is refer to a group like Rape Abuse Incest National Network, which I believe is a responsible advocacy group and certainly doesn’t single out white men raping black women as the burning issue.
I think “One Spook” should get some kind of award for thin-skinned narcissism for reducing Peter Lange’s long “free speech” letter to this simple parody: “When I exercise my free speech, folks who do not agree with what I say pick on me; I’m a victim!”
The guy who signs himself “MOO! Gregory” gets a C- in argument distilling (and that’s a Duke C-). And my apologies to Ralph Phelan’s cat if s/he got washed just so Ralph could avoid reading my distasteful posts.
{ 3 } Comments
As it is finals week where I now go to school (law of all matters!), I won’t be posting much. But I found Duke to be a wonderfully engaging place, academically and socially. Now and then I was frustrated by certain aspects (the social frat ‘scene,’ and maybe the lack of conservative viewpoints in my major) but that would be true anywhere. Besides the lacrosse fiasco, I will always look back at Duke with pride. But seem posters seem really overly obessed with certain aspects of this case…I remember back in March thinking I was going to carry the torch of due process. And then the “liestoppers” caught on (with great effect I might add). However, I think the due process argument has really dropped out, and frankly the conversations are too polarizing to be beneficial now. (As much I was abhorred by some faculty’s members’ actions, actions of some responding have been much worse).
(And not only am an alum of the university, but im also an alum of one of your classes
Cheers
Nick-From your email address I tracked you down on my class list for Music 70. I’m still getting plenty of use out of that iPod :). And yes, as you said in another comment, the music building is practically around the corner from the site of all that collective noise. I was worlds away at the time (mentally, that is). Thanks for the perspective and good luck on those finals and the rest of law school.
[I’m not prepared to wade into the “real issues of rape” as a whole.]
Some of the real issues of rape, including false accusations and false prosecutions have been argued at DIW in the past with wide disagreement about the statistics. You did bring up Reade’s involvement with the Innocence Project and that project did benefit from revelations in the Duke Lacrosse case. What some of the Potbangers have admitted (in the Durham Yahoo Groups) is that their attracting attention to a hoax has actually hurt their own cause.
[All I can do (and perhaps should have done) is refer to a group like Rape Abuse Incest National Network, which I believe is a responsible advocacy group and certainly doesn’t single out white men raping black women as the burning issue.]
I had a look at this groups statements on the Lacrosse case and they did fall short. Their President said, “This case is not about race, or athletes or strippers” which is correct. But he missed the mark with these comments:
“The absence of DNA doesn’t necessarily mean there wasn’t a crime,” said Scott Berkowitz, the founder and president of the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network, the nation’s largest anti-sexual assault organization. “There are times when they used a condom or they clean up the scene.”
http://www.rainn.org/news/charlotte-observer.index/html
and
Despite the fact that DNA tests do not link any members of Duke University’s lacrosse team to the woman who reported that three of its players sexually assaulted her last month, the district attorney’s office strongly believes that enough evidence exists to continue this investigation in a court of law.
“Given this news,” said Scott Berkowitz, president and founder of RAINN, “it’s apparent that the prosecution is convinced there was a crime and a grand jury agrees. This case is not about race, or athletes or strippers — it is about a rape. As a nation, we need to trust law enforcement to do its job and avoid assumptions until we know all the facts.”
http://www.rainn.org/news/duke-statement.index/html
Seligmann’s alibi information came out by April 19 (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/LegalCenter/story?id=1858806&page=1) and Berkowitz could have commented on this but apparently chose not to.
At search at the rainn.org site shows no mentions of “innocence project” or “actual innocence”. The NY Times has been running a series the last few weekends on those that have spent a lot of time in jail and proven innocent by DNA testing and how their incarceration has ruined their lives and how hard it is to recover.
This is an area that DIW has brought up as it certainly is related to due process in universities and criminal prosecutions. I think that the rape issue is important due to the balance of scales tilted towards believing the accuser resulting in imbalanced justice. Something that spilled over into the university environment.
In your first paragraph I’m with you. It’s easy to throw around statistics about sexual assault, and I’d rather not get into that—I have not special expertise. I admire the way Reade Seligmann has used the attention the case has drawn and directed it towards the Innocence Project and the like. And I’m glad to hear that some who were involved in the potbanging protest are able to admit that it did harm to their cause. I’m amazed that they thought it was a good idea in the first place, so I hope they learned something.
As to your take on RAINN and its president, I have to say that strikes me as an excellent example of the litmus-test mentality that I see on Liestoppers, DIW and similar sites. Berkowitz’s job is to think about the roughly 200000 sexual assaults his organization believes happen in a year, what can be done to reduce the number and help victims cope. His brief comments about the lacrosse case are tilted towards the interests of victims, but are not judgmental or inflamatory. I hope that he takes the issue of false accusations and convictions very seriously and doesn’t trivialize it, but it wasn’t his job or responsibility to monitor or moderate the lacrosse prosecution.
DNA testing has given us all some new insight on how often the justice system gets it wrong, for sure, in rape cases and others. If a result of the miserable handling of the lacrosse case is some improvement in that situation, that would be great.
This comment has been edited. The full text is on a separate page, which also explains my comment policy.
Part of DIW’s attraction is the criminal justice aspect and how it relates to college students (both in criminal and university processes), how the media can inflame a story that fits a metanarrative and the problems that arise from a tipped balance of scales. You don’t necessarily see all of these issues in KC’s posts but they are discussed on his blog. Part of the simple attraction of the story is from parents with teenagers. Those with sons have learned of the unbalanced scales of justice and that teens at college do face risks that parents haven’t considered. Those with daughters want them safe on college campuses and perpetuating a hoax actively is counterproductive.
One thing that I’ve been impressed with about KC is that he isn’t afraid to dig into a matter, even if he isn’t an expert. He seems to have no problems with hitting the research databases, contacting experts in a field for expert opinions and analysis and he corrects himself when an expert reports an error in his analysis.
There’s an intellectual curiousity and attention to detail in him that we expect from all Professors.
I understand that you feel that the issue of false rape accusations is very important, and I agree with you that it is, but this is not the place to discuss it at length. What would be more helpful would be links to sites, articles, or threads that discuss the issue and make a serious effort to balance the interests of victims and potential victims with the interests of those who might be accused. I do not see any value in judging or analyzing an organization like RAINN and/or its director on the basis of the lacrosse case alone.