Absolutely want to second this. If you and the members of the Gang of 88 are what professors do, it’s time to lock the gates to the Universities.

And don’t doubt that your nonsense and the nonsense of the Gang of 88 haven’t spread far and wide. Across the United States so called intellectually honest professors were seen, and can still be seen, as justifying the treatment of the Duke Students.

They deserved something. It’s been a learning experience. This shows the system worked. And on and on and on.

Total bizarro world conduct — remind me to NEVER support a tax increase for public universities again, and I say that as a lifelong democrat, educated primarily at public schools, and a holder of two graduate degrees.

Seriously, it’s time to shutter the university system. Thanks for helping to make that clear.

Goes to show that you can be a Democrat with two graduate degrees and still not be able to tell your head from an overripe pineapple. Shutter the university system because the eggheads sound dangerous? Take a look through the last half century or so of history and see what kind of company you’re keeping.

It sure sounds like you are doing exactly that. It’s almost like you should complete the sentence with “I don’t and can’t and won’t speak for any of the 88, but I DID stay at a Holiday Inn last night!”

You make it clear that because some of the 88 have SPOKEN TO YOU, that you therefore “know” that they did not have any of the bad intent that is sometimes ascribed to them. Alas, we don’t have the same privilege of hearing their “side of the case” that you have had, and we can’t read their minds. But isn’t that all the more reason that they should SPEAK PUBLICLY?

You criticize Johnson for “lumping the 88 together”. But by not speaking out individually, haven’t they lumped THEMSELVES together? (I have heard that one or two have tried to make private apologies.) Now it may be that the good among the 88ers have convinced themselves that the “forces of evil (like KC and Horowitz)” will twist any thing they say at this point — or will say that whatever they say is “too little”. But may I point out something? Since you say that you “don’t know the states of minds of any other professors”, and in light of the handful of cases of conduct that I raised in my earlier comment I’m sure you will not eliminate the POSSIBILITY that at least a FEW of the 88 may be at least a bit mentally disturbed. It seems to me as though the “good guys” among the 88 are more afraid that the hardliners will say they’ve said “too much”. In fact, my understanding is that some of them have said exactly this in private communications with the players.

Let me try an analogy: Let’s say that I’m an outspoken opponent of drunk driving, and someone comes to accuse one of my children (or, if we have left in loco parentis behind, one of my friends) of causing a drunk driving accident which caused serious injury. Let’s say further that I react prematurely, before learning all the facts, and I make a public statement. While my statement’s primary theme is about the damnable consequences of drunk driving, it clearly implies that I believe the accusation that my child or friend had gotten drunk, had driven, and caused someone serious injury. Then I learn that my child or friend had only a single drink and wasn’t involved in any accident, serious or otherwise, and that the story had been made up by some crazy or extortionate person.

Now what should I do? Should I say, “Well, my statement was about drunk driving in GENERAL, not about any particular incident at all … AND they DID have a drink and drove!” This seems to be the path of most of the 88ers. Should I instead go privately to my child or friend and apologize? This seems to be the path of a few. Should I ask my child’s mother — or a friend of my friend — to go make excuses for me? This seems to be the path of your friends. Or should I tell my child or friend, in as public a way as I had denounced them, that I made a mistake — yes, that what I did was wrong?

What are your friends afraid of? I submit that they are more likely afraid of the hardliners who will condemn them for “breaking ranks” (de-lumping themselves) than they are of providing any “victory” to KC and his Sunshine Band. But you have the advantage over me: I can only speculate why they can’t speak; you can ask them yourself.

I have not spoken to any of the 88 about the lacrosse case or their statement. I agree that it would be a good thing for some of them to talk publically and candidly about it.

I’m one of the many attorneys with too much time on their hands who have become regular members of KC’s Sunshine Band. Like you, I would like to believe that no university professor would publicly (or privately!) “thank” people who waved a “CASTRATE” banner outside the house of their students.

However, in the course of this case, I have learned that one of the subject professors told a mother of one of the lacrosse players that she is “the mother of a farm animal”. I learned that another of the subject professors published an article accusing students of “racism” for wanting to register to vote (presumably against the railroading DA). And I learned that another of the subject professors tried to initiate, sua sponte, a disruption of an invited speaker (David Horowitz) by having protestors “strip-off” their tops — so as to mock the speaker’s claim to “expose campus radicals”.

Thus, taken together, I think we have a basis for believing that the subject professors, as a group, are capable of harboring extremely negative views of students and capable of approving extreme forms of protest. THEREFORE, I don’t think I can take the word of you, Prof. Zimmerman, for the states of mind of the 88er professors. If, as you hope, none of the professors intended to endorse the “CASTRATE” banner, then let them say so. I would prefer that they say so under oath, but even an unsworn, public statement would be at least a small step towards the healing that Duke needs.

I don’t know the states of mind of any other professors. I am familiar enough with a few of the 88 that I’m confident that the three cases you cite are not representative of all, and I think Johnson’s insistence on lumping the 88 together as if signing the same statement makes them interchangable is sheer demagoguery. I don’t and can’t and won’t speak for any of the 88, but I do need to explain the point I made in the email about the “castrate” banner more clearly and hope to have that posted in a day or so.

Just as a little bit of perspective, I’ll point out that #2 of the much vilified Clair Potter’s turkey list was for “students who thought an appropriate response to David Horowitz speaking on their campus was to attempt to restrict his speech by booing, throwing things, and childishly turning their backs on him.” I’m with her 100% on that.

I do appreciate you taking the time to comment.

Ok, that’s all i have to say. I see you are leaving teaching…that’s a shame

I can’t agree with much of this, I’m afraid. I’ll hope to make the reasons clear as I go. But as to your last point, my complaint is not about meanness, it’s about misrepresentation and favoring incitement over dialog.

Thank you—I very much appreciate the on-the-scene perspective. I’ll try to respond at more length. One thing I’ll note is that my impression is that, while both Faulkner Fox and Tim Tyson are known to have been at the Saturday evening vigil, nothing I’ve come across places them or any other Duke faculty at the Sunday morning potbanging. My impression is that the character of the 2 events was quite different. It’s not my intention to airbrush any of this—I’m just trying to stick to what I find documented.

Your posts on the Duke Hoax are a refreshing departure for both extreme positions, and I appreciate your effort to present a more measured view.

I am grateful to KC Johnson for his efforts to expose the Hoax, but less so for his skewed view of of the faculty’s intent.

Yes, the G88 was way off base. Yes, their agenda is, in my estimation, a sad commentary on the state of higher ed. Yes, they are a unrepentant. But the brush KC Johnson uses creates on a surreal and biased view when, among other things, he equates support for protests with faculty support of castrating students (or support of those who would view this form intimidation).

The facts are, themselves, strong enough to reveal the depths to which they sunk in advancing their agenda without resorting to presenting the most extreme and unmeasured interpretation of every possible transgression they made.

I think KC holds the moral high ground on the subject of revealing the hoax, but lost my unquestioning support with his extreme intretations of the events.

Thanks—I appreciate the perspective.

All these years I’ve been wondering what a professor was supposed to do. Thanks for filling me in.