My point was that it’s sloppy and self-serving to imagine the “Duke administration” as some kind of hive-mind that was the same and so reacted the same in 2001 and 2006. What most obviously changed between one and the other is the president. I didn’t say or imply that either administration was more or less tolerant.

If Liestoppers or anyone else wants to get more out of it than some cheap and easy satire, they’ll have to do some research. What Duke official decided to shut down Hull’s web site? Where in the hierarchy did they sit? Who made the decision to put it back up with a disclaimer? How was it justified? What were the relevant policies or regulations, and were they the same in 2001 and 2006? Has other controversial material from a faculty member been banned from Duke’s web site, or had a disclaimer slapped on it? If so, did it all reflect a conservative viewpoint?

excerpt:
“In October, 2001 Duke shut down Duke Professor Gary Hull’s webpage after he posted an article calling for a strong military response to the terrorist attacks.

“FIRE … took the case to the media. Shamed by widespread pubilicity, Duke reinstated Hull’s webpage but required that he add a disclaimer stating that the article did not represent the views of Duke.

“Contrast this to Duke’s reaction to the 88’s Listening Statement.”

Beyond reading the post on Liestoppers I haven’t looked into it, but the earlier incident seems like a case of FIRE doing what, according to its mission statement, it’s supposed to do. Quite likely the different reactions are indicative of Duke’s liberal leanings, but as it stands its a lazy and sloppy comparison between Hull and the lacrosse case. “Duke” and “Duke’s administration” don’t react—the people in Duke’s large administrative bureaucracy react. Between 2001 and 2006 a new president came and I expect that many other jobs changed hands, too.

As opposed to vicariously effected affected. I remembered a better Chronicle article about the experience of the lacrosse team, though: “Living a Nightmare.”

Several of the team members talk about the effect of the ad in an article in the Duke Chronicle I’ve linked to several times. The three indicted players were interviewed on 60 Minutes. There are videos, interviews, statements, and articles all over the web that represent them sympathetically. I’m glad that they can be seen for who they are and not as stereotypes or criminals. I would be delighted to discuss the effects of the “listening” ad with any of the “boys,” their families, or anyone else who was on the scene and personally effected affected.

If you honestly think that my criticism of KC Johnson’s take on the “listening” statement and the Duke faculty is so dehumanizing, then try to think of something more useful to do about it than reiterating complaints and rants that have been made hundreds of times on dozens of web sites. Go humanize them! Write something original and that takes more than 30 seconds of thought!

I edited out one sentence of this comment because it made a blatantly false assertion about me. You’re welcome to criticize as strongly as you want but please don’t make things up.

The above is just my opinion and again thank you for giving us yours.

Thanks. I’m not quite done but moving slowly.

I never called Johnson an “obscure history professor,” and I’m not a band teacher.