As a forerunner to tonight’s second leg of the Group of 88 Rehab Tour (for those on the Duke campus, 6.30pm,
The FODU ad responded to the first leg of the Rehab Tour, the statement of the so-called “clarifying” faculty. The clarifiers said they wanted dialogue, so the FODU ad posed a series of questions.
The response? According to reporter Lysa Chen, “More than 80 members of the Concerned Faculty were contacted by The Chronicle via e-mail to comment on the recent FODU advertisement. Four responded and all declined to answer questions.”
So much for wanting dialogue.
The clarifiers did, however, add the student newspaper to their enemies’ list. The clarifiers wanted to publish their document as an ad in the Chronicle, which requested—as per its regular policy—several changes. Friends of Duke spokesperson Jason Trumpbour said that FODU went through the same process—submitting an ad, then having the Chronicle request changes for purposes of accuracy or fairness. FODU accepted the changes, and the ad was published. The clarifiers refused to accept any changes, and instead posted their item on the web.
The clarifiers’ response to these developments?
“The Chronicle has lost my respect,” Robyn Wiegman, director of women’s studies, wrote in an e-mail, labeling the newspaper's decision as censorship. “It has no interest in fairness or in journalistic professionalism.”
In other words, the Group of 88 and its allies do not have to follow the same rules as everyone else. That seems to be a recurrent pattern in the Group’s behavior.