Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Checking in with the Group of 88

In contrast to their compelling need to speak out last spring, in recent weeks most members of the Group of 88 have turned silent on issues relating to the lacrosse case. When asked recently if she would publicly affirm the need for the students accused by Mike Nifong to receive due process, political science professor Paula McClain responded succinctly, “NO.” So much easier, I suppose, to sign denunciatory public statements based solely on what turned out to be the prosecutor’s misleading version of events.

As a sensational Liestoppers post pointed out, Mark Anthony Neal is one of the few Group members to have recently commented, albeit obliquely, on the case. “The strip club,” said Neal,

is the new church. That raises all kinds of interesting possibilities around spirituality and black bodies, dealing with issues of spirituality outside traditional notions of what spirituality in a church is supposed to be….When we think about women who work in strip clubs, the key component there is that word “work.” In some ways this is legitimate labor, and we need to be clear about that. And women make these decisions based on what kind of legitimate labor is in their best interest. While it’s important that black women’s sexuality not be exploited, at the same time, I don’t want to get into the business of policing black women’s sexuality, which is just as dangerous.

Last week at Williams College, Neal gave a lecture laying out his thoughts on other issues relating to gender and sexuality. The lecture’s title? “Looking for Leroy: HomoThugs, ThugNiggaIntellectuals and ‘Queer’ Black Masculinities.”

It’s worth remembering that Neal is the professor—of the nearly 500 members of Duke’s arts and sciences faculty—with whom Richard Brodhead chose to share the stage at an event to combat the university’s alleged “culture of crassness” following Nifong’s first two arrests.

The fall-term catalog, meanwhile, features a first-year seminar (all Duke students must take one) that, according to the syllabus, “emerged out of our discussions of the allegations of sexual assault and racial taunting at the now infamous lacrosse party of March 2006. The criminal charges have not yet been tried in a court of law, but the allegations alone constituted a ‘perfect storm,” rapidly escalating into a social disaster of extraordinary proportions.”

The course is co-taught by two members of the Group of 88, including Thavolia Glymph. Glymph made what might be the most outrageous remark of any Duke professor throughout this entire affair: the day after reports that DNA tests revealed no matches between the lacrosse players and the accuser—an outcome, according to Mike Nifong’s March 23 court filing, that should have “immediately rule[d] out” as suspects all the players—Glymph lamented the outcome could result in the Group of 88’s crusade to transform the campus “moving backwards.”

The seminar’s first-week reading assignment? The statement of the Group of 88.

Glymph’s academic profile is rather slim: holder of a 1994 Ph.D. from a second-tier graduate school (Purdue), she hasn’t published a book. Like Glymph, fellow Group of 88 member Kim Curtis, a political science professor, possesses seemingly meager credentials for a Duke faculty member (San Francisco State B.A.; University of Massachusetts Ph.D.). Curtis, at least, has a book (on Hannah Arendt) to her credit; her most recent publication is on the politically correct topic of multicultural education.

Curtis’ signing the Group of 88’s statement contributed to her pattern of adopting ideologically extreme positions that fail to stand the test of time. For instance: like many feminists, she struggled to reconcile her sympathy for Bill Clinton with her backing of the sexual harassment law that laid the groundwork for Paula Jones’ lawsuit. Rather than consider that Jones’ ability to subpoena Monica Lewinsky showed that sexual harassment law was too broad, Curtis rationalized Clinton’s behavior while remaining faithful to the work of “feminist theorists” who “have shown interrelationships between sexuality and the exercise of unjust power.”

In general, said Curtis,

The liberal feminist legal framework . . . does not speak to the important relationship between consent, relations of power and gender socialization. This is its most serious limitation. Interrogation of these relationships have become salient in legal debates over issues ranging from pornography to prostitution to surrogacy to date rape. Troubling the liberal framework of consent is a vital, on-going intellectual project with potentially deep political significance. In the case before us, however, judgment is not ill-served in being guided by it.

In plain English: the “relationship between consent, relations of power and gender socialization” suggests that the sexual harassment law that Paula Jones used to subpoena Lewinsky is perfectly written—except when the target is someone Curtis likes.

Before joining the Group of 88, Curtis’ recent protest efforts had focused on real and imagined national security issues in the post-9/11 world. In 2002, she joined Group of 88 members miriam cooke, Bruce Lawrence, and Rom Coles in “Iraq and Us,” a faculty initiative urging Duke professors to “devote a period of time during your class to addressing” the administration’s approach to a possible invasion of Iraq. This suggestion contradicted one of the profession’s guiding principles, laid out in the American Association of University Professors in its 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure. That document cautions professors against introducing “into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject.”

Shortly after 9/11, Curtis also condemned an alleged attempt “to silence professors who encourage students to probe the history of U.S. foreign policy in the effort to understand the September 11th attacks.” She protested efforts to remove from the ranks of the nation’s faculty those “who feel shame, fear and anger over the violent suppression that the United States has undertaken in so many states across the globe in the near and the distant past”; and those who “feel distress over the long-time support by the U.S. of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan, whose oppression of women has been brutal.”

This tale is, indeed, a frightening one. It is also wholly divorced from reality. Take a glance through the archives of FIRE, a nonpartisan, non-ideological group devoted to defending free speech on campus. The overwhelming majority of threats to campus free speech (both before 9/11 and after) have come from the far left, not the far right; and have come from within the university, not outside of it.

Meanwhile, a survey published last week shows that—among other items—one-third of the nation’s college faculty consider the United States among the two greatest threats to world stability. Fewer professors so designate Iran, which has defied the UN to continue with a nuclear weapons program while its president has repeatedly, and publicly, called for the State of Israel to be wiped off the map. A faculty where the nation’s professoriate rank the United States as a greater threat to international stability than Iran hardly confirms Curtis’ thesis that radical critics of U.S. foreign policy are under-represented and silenced on today’s college campuses.

Curtis further analyzed the post-9/11 university: “There is an emotional tyranny at play here” . . . “Tyranny thrives where there are no dissenting voices” . . . Universities “should be strongholds of people who defend independent thinking.”

Since March 14, nearly 100 of Duke’s arts and sciences faculty engaged in rush-to-judgment denunciations of the lacrosse players based on the “emotional tyranny” of appealing to what Brodhead described in his 60 Minutes interview as “people’s deepest fears, deepest anxieties, and dreads.” Events on Duke’s campus over the past seven months have, indeed, proved that “tyranny, thrives where there are no dissenting voices”—a situation among the arts and sciences faculty, fortunately, I understand will be remedied in this morning’s Chronicle.

Note: I e-mailed Professor Curtis last week, to ask if in light of the many facts that have emerged since April 6 she entertained any second thoughts about signing the Group of 88's statement. I also asked if she had considered making a public statement supporting due process for the accused students.

She did not reply.


Anonymous said...

Haha. Thugniggaintellectuals. Reminds me of "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" by Professor Sokal.

The Dude said...

I know i am OT here but wanted to obtain info. In the 4-16-06 post, the Police entered the dorms but a covert, if not illegal manner. They questioned Duke LAX players despite having lawyers.
Even if not charged, each person questioned or interrogated has a civil rights case against Duke and the Police. The Duke campus police had every reason to charge the Police with trespass and should have done so. Duke is complict by its own admissions. Any rules of Duke that were discarded to assist police can be used to show the bias of Duke Admin. I'm sure Duke used these same rules to coerce the players to talk.
These players lives have been ruined. The justice/court system in N. Carolina seems to be the typical backwater hillybilly mentality portrayed in the chevy chase movie.
The bottom line is the victim has no credibility. The witnesses (second dancer) was completely ignored by Police. The defendants provided much of the evidence which was all exculpable yet ignorned by Nifong. There is no case and Nifong is trying to win an election. The basic element of "Is there a crime here and WHAT crime' has been completely ignorned. This is basic investigation. I feel bad for the parents and wish they would fight back with lawyers. All they need is one person(not charged)to file a civil rights case and Nifong is gone. He can't even provide a time sequence. What ever happened to the camera photos of the party? These can be helpful in so many ways to the defense.

Anonymous said...

Big surprise that Professor Curtis didn't reply to your e-mail. Professor Neal's lecture topic left me speechless. This is the person that Brodhead has aligned himself with? Also, I didn't realize that the lax incident was a Freshman seminar class. Why am I not surprised by the first week's assignment. Not hard to envision what view the professor will take on the case.
On a positive note, Steve Baldwin, a Duke chemistry professor, has an outstanding guest column today in the Chronicle that blasts the adminstration and some of the Group of 88. It is a must read in my opinion.

Anonymous said...

Just to clarify, lest there be any misunderstanding...freshmen are required to take a seminar class--there are a large number of seminars to choose from. Seminars have approx 12 students in them, I believe. This class is but one of the choices, and if only one section is offered, it could only include a very small number of students. The vast majority of freshmen are NOT taking this seminar!!!

Having said that, it would be very interesting to get a sense of whether they discuss both sides of the issue, or whether it is really a feminist class.

No surprise about the liberal agenda of many of the group of 88--but this agenda can be seen on every campus. Like it or not, many of those drawn to a liberal arts professorship are of a similar bent.

AMac said...

Thanks, anonymous 9:06am.

The Opinion column in the Duke Chronicle by Chem prof Steve Baldwin is The Administration's Mismanagement of Lacrosse.

Anonymous said...

Dude, one of the things I find amusing about this board is how people have this way of pontificating about legal issues but in a very vague manner. For example, in your post, you say that every LAX player questioned by DPD in his dormitory room has a civil rights case against Duke. Instead of just taking your word for it, I have a couple of minor questions for you. Are you an attorney? Do you have expertise handling matters that arise under the federal civil rights laws? Have you reviewed all of the statutes, regulations, and federal judicial opinions that an attorney would have to review in order to form an opinion on this issue? If the answer to all of the foregoing questions is yes, then I am sure that we would all be very interested in hearing your analysis of the legal issues so that we can all get up to speed on these issues.

Anonymous said...

The Duke 88 must go. They are think they are intellectual by writing articles and making statements that make absolutely no sense. It is gibberish, garbage what they are spouting. Their teaching will forever taint the young minds they are teaching. If you child has any of the Duke 88 professors, I would request they have their class changed, and if it can't be done, transfer them from Duke until the Duke 88 and their twisted views are removed from campus. To the parents, you have worked hard to teach your child values, honesty, integrity and character. The Duke 88 stand for just the opposite and they are flauting that in your faces.

Anonymous said...

KC, count me flabbergasted. Duke is beginning to expose itself as an overpriced mating ground!

The ideological uniformity on many campuses is bewildering. Ostensibly, supporting the United States—in the eyes of many professors—is blasphemous. It amusing how each lefty tries to out do one another when it comes to bashing the US.


Anonymous said...

Dude, you say that Duke used some sort of rules to coerce the players to talk. What in the world are you talking about?

Anonymous said...

I love the way some posters are so cavalier about Duke's liberal faculty and what we as parents should do about it. First let me say that I have told my son to avoid the group of 88 who signed the ad. He already had one on the list for a class last year and was not surprised to hear that he was involved.
Second, Duke is a very difficult school to which to be accepted. You don't just yank your child out of college on a whim. For one thing, the college process is quite involved for most parents and kids. You visit schools, stay overnight in the dorms sometimes, interview, travel, prepare your application and much more. You don't just throw out all that research because you find professors you don't like. Transferring is not easy plus you are totally discounting friends, relationships and other reasons a kid just might want to stay at Duke.
Third, unless you have not been paying attention, colleges (with FEW exceptions) are rife with liberal faculty. Some are worse than others but it is rampant. The occupation attracts liberals (just as journalism does). So leaving Duke provides no guarantee that the classroom will be any more balanced. I happen to live in Colorado- ever heard of Ward Churchill?

Anonymous said...

K.C. I really enjoy reading the "works" of the "Gang of 88" that you publish in your blog. It reminds me of the noise coming from an angry donkey. Usually, though, the donkey has a point to make, an understandable worldview, and an identifiable motivation. The actual communication emitted, in both cases, is still quite unintelligible. Bravo to you for even trying to read a coherent message in the Gang's writings. Pity the student who has to read that stuff in class.

Anonymous said...

To "Another Duke Mom",

You bring up valid points in your resistence of wanting to move your child from Duke. The things you need to think of are:

1) If there is no backlash from alumni and their contributions, threat or actual transfers out of the school, and decrease in applications, then what on earth makes you think that things will change?

2) Your game of "it's somebody else's kid" and that is exactly what it boils down to, is shameful. Your child could just as easily be, and it is impossible to understate this, WRONGFULLY and MALICIOUSLY prosecuted if people do not stand up and mobilize a concerted effort to affect change. You're simply playing a numbers game hoping that it won't be him/her next time.

3) As to the plethora of liberal/Marxist faculty in universities across the nation, they didn't get there by the constant and vociferous complaints from alumni and parents. They got there by complacency.

I am not a Dukie nor a Duke parent. Just an FYI.

Anonymous said...

Since when did I say "It's somebody else's kid"? I have NEVER had that attitude. It concerns me a great deal to hear about thugs like Gottlieb targeting Duke students.
As a parent, you take a risk whenever you let your child out of your sight. Kids have died from alcohol poisoning, car accidents, and crime while away at college. I raised bright children with good sense. I have to, at some point, trust them to live their lives responsibly. Two of my older children went to school in Boston and LA respectively: not exactly "safe" cities either.
Frankly, leaving Duke is a type of "Cut and Run" attitude in my opinion. I would rather stay and fight- support the Duke 3. Plus, you should understand that the "pot banger" students are in the minority on Duke's campus. The Chronicle's survey on the topic showed that an overwhelming majority (I think 90% but I can't remember the exact number) support the 3 boys.

Anonymous said...

One more point: People have been screaming about liberals on college campuses for years. Yale had to return a $20 million gift from the Bass family (given in 1991) b/c they did not institute a Western Civ program as had been designated in the donation. Political correctness got its start and thrives on college campuses. David Horowitz wrote a book "The Professors" about the 101 worst professors at colleges nationwide. I could go on and on.
Are we trying to affect change? Of course! Let's get serious, though! PC is not going to disappear anytime soon, that's for sure. Do you think the government is suddenly going to become efficient? My point is that this is deeply engrained in the academic culture. It is going to take a long time to change- possibly waiting for this generation of aged hippies to pass on through.

Anonymous said...

To "Another Duke Mom",

You again bring up good points and I apologize for possibly mistating your position, though it did have that initial air to it. That being you were chastising others for suggesting to pull out (or at the very least threaten to) their children from Duke. I agree it would be a difficult thing to do, however if your child, which is the most precious thing we have, is being harmed by an institution that is meant to protect and nuture them, then why continue to go there? I went to a Big Ten school and have become successful. It is great to send a child to a prestigious university though it is not a necessity for success. So as much as we want them to go to these places for the leg up in life, it does not do them any good if they are not given the appropriate nurturing.

Yes, I too cannot wait for the Marxist hippies to pass on through. Talk about an utter bane on society.

Anonymous said...

The decision of what school my son would attend was made by him and 2 years ago. I have nothing against Big Ten schools. My husband and I both graduated from the University of Colorado- a state school. My children chose (will choose) their own colleges.
Pulling my son out of a school he loves makes no sense to me. He knows bias when he sees it and just deals with it. I sent him the article that Prof Baldwin wrote in the Chronicle today in support of the Duke 3. His response was " that guy is my hero!"
I believe that if you discuss issues with your kids openly, disclose your own bias and opinions and then justify those positions, that kids will make sound decisions of their own. That is the best antidote to liberal professors, in my opinion.

Anonymous said...

To Another Duke Mom: I have a daughter who is a student at Duke, and I agree with everything you said. The idea that we would pull her out of Duke just because Duke has 88 liberal professors on its faculty is ludicrous. That will not change anything. It will just deprive my daughter of the opportunity to receive a great education at Duke. Perhaps e.c. could provide us with a list of universities which are equal in stature to Duke but which have no liberal professors on their faculties. Certainly, no Ivy League university would make the list, nor would any major university in California. Also, Duke is doing nothing to harm my child. One of the benefits of going to a great university like Duke is that you are exposed to a diverse group of professors and students who hold a wide range of political and social viewpoints. My daughter is not in kindergarten anymore. She is a very bright young woman who is more than capable of assimilating differing points of view and reaching her own conclusions about an issue, and I will be very proud to have her continue her education at Duke.

Anonymous said...

I am a Duke parent too. Continuing with the theme above, I would have taken my kid out of Duke long ago, if only he would agree. For me, having a son attend a university who is headed by Brodhead and whose faculty includes the Group of 88 is humiliating and totally unacceptable. I am embarrassed by it. I would have taken my son out months ago. He refuses to move, he loves his friends and his life at Duke. He will avoid the Group of 88 like the plague.

In terms of comparing Duke to other universities, sometimes people get carried away with their notion of Duke. Although it is a good school, and I admired it until this lax case broke out, there are many others universities which are just as good if not better. Let us be realistic, there is no shortage of good schools. I would rather have my son in a school I can respect than somewhere that causes me embarrassment to even acknowledge any association with. But, that’s my opinion.

At least, I have a commitment from my son to go elsewhere for graduate study. Frankly, I cannot wait for that day and I see it as Duke’s loss. My son is a terrific student to have on any campus. If Brodhead was removed from presidency, I would reconsider my feelings and my association with Duke, but not before. Needless to say, my annual giving dropped to zero this year and that’s where it will stay as long as Brodhead is the president.

Duke parent

Anonymous said...

KC, I've lost a lot of respect for you thanks to this post, which devolved into little more than an ill-informed right-wing rant towards the end. A real shame that you chose to sacrifice your own credibility by attempting to make extremely far-fetched connections to 9/11 and the subsequent right-wing atempts to muzzle free speech on campus.

In the future, you'd do well to keep in mind that there are plenty of people who recognize that Rush Limbaugh is indeed a big fat idiot, a distinctiong in which is his joined by Mike Nifong and most of the "Gang of 88".

Anonymous said...

3:34 AM, because you do not like Brodhead, you apparently have developed a desire to put down Duke, so you say in a kind of condescending way that it is merely a good school (not great) and that there are many other schools that are just as good or better. As most people who have a student at Duke are undoubtedly aware, Duke has been rated among the top 5 universities in the country by US News for the last 5 years in a row, until this year, when it was rated 8th. Two of the schools ranked ahead of Duke (MIT and CalTech) are engineering schools which do not provide a liberal arts education, so if your child is looking for a liberal arts education, Duke is among the top 6 universities in the country. The peer group rating for Duke in US News (how Duke is rated by the top administrators at other universities) puts it among the top 10 universities in the country. Last year, the Financial Times of London rated Duke as the 11th best university in the world, and a couple of weeks ago rated it as the 13th best university in the world. Again, two or three of the schools ranked ahead of Duke were engineering schools, which means that the Financial Times puts Duke among the top 10 universities in the world for a liberal arts education. In light of this, I am wondering how you got to the conclusion that Duke is merely a good school (not great) and that there are many other schools that are just as good or better. I know, these rankings do not mean anything. Ok, then maybe you can give us the benefit of your expert analysis.

Anonymous said...

Oh, by the way, as part of your expert analysis, would you also please tell us which of the handful of universities in the world which have the same stature as Duke also have no liberal professors on their faculties.

Anonymous said...

anon 3:34 AM, it sounds like your son has a lot more brains than you do.

Anonymous said...

I am a loyal Duke alum, and the mother of a recent Duke grad and a freshman at Duke.

This lacrosse incident has undoubtedly affected the admissions system at Duke. For example, in the current class of freshman, the Admissions office took 125 kids from the waiting list. This is UNHEARD OF among universities of Duke's caliber.

Visits and tours by prospective students to Duke have decreased by 20% so far this year.

Of course you can attribute this to the negative publicity surrounding the school.

But my personal belief is that no parent wants to send their child to a school which has an administration, a faculty and a community that appears to be unsupportive if not hostile to its students.

I have posted elsewhere on this blog about my son's experience with Professor Kim Curtis, who failed him for her course after accusing him of turning in one paper one day late. After finals and the student's dismissal, she brought charges against him with the Duke Undergraduate Judicial Board of Lying about turning a paper in late.

He was notified by Dean Bryan during the summer of 2004 of the charges. His hearing was scheduled for late August, before classes had even started.

He was suspended for two semesters as a result, and given 48 hours to move out of his dorm room.

The good news is, he did reapply, finish his additional two semesters, and got his Duke degree a year late.

Anonymous said...

here's the latest of the 88 on the road...do these people know what they're getting?
Duke professor to discuss race, culture of sports
Karla FC Holloway, professor of English, Law, and Women’s Studies as Duke University, will be the keynote speaker at McDaniel College’s Holloway Lecture, “BookMarks: Reading Race, Reading Sports, and Other Public Preoccupations,” at 8 p.m. Nov. 1 in McDaniel Lounge. The annual lecture is sponsored by the department of English.



Anonymous said...

With no apologies to you overly-proud Duke parents, I'm a proud baby-bomber college dropout who managed to avoid flipping hamburgers by starting three different businesses while (NEVER a moment) bemoaning what a failure I became by not getting a good undergrad degree and, then, going on to a great grad school.

Now, as a parent of two great kids (1-boy / 1-girl), I managed to fail, again, by mentoring them into their own businesses (without a dime from their mother or me) in which, each, employs over fifty (that’s 50) people (at an average salary of $22.50 per hour).

So, while all of you busting-at-the-seams folks grapple with a $30,000/year "education" and tribulations from the likes of Kim Curtis, lesser folks are raising kids who will, more than likely, hire and/or fire yours, someday.

hamburgermeat said...

The case has now blown apart.
So, I will post the last word on this mess. What we have learned. We have once again been reminded that rape is a horrible, degrading crime which all men and others of goodwill should stand against. Even false allegations of made by a sick, addicted prostitute must be investigated fairly by a honest legal system. We have learned that those who work hard must redouble their efforts to protect the products of their hard work. There are many vultures that want to make a meal of your labor rather than call up self determination and produce their own. We have once again seen feminist are very short sighted and boiling with self hate. We have learned to stand up to injustice from weak men with to much power, like Mr. Nifong. And sadly we have learned that Black People would rather live out a lie than stand as individuals and search for the truth. They may not have the innate ability to discern truth.

Anonymous said...

what a overall bad blog man. once this thing blows over what are you going to do with your life? You love the black-white dichotomoy don't you? It feeds you, fuels you. If it wasn't for racism, you wouldn't have a job, a voice, a purpose. Read a book you naive, ignorant soul.

Anonymous said...

USofA is truely amazing. By far the most aggressive nation on earth, trying depserately to spread their culture except their nukes; no else is to have them, only the US. Thank God for the french . . . . And thank God for the US food habits that will surely make it into a third-line nation within 15-20 years.
Duke should throw out young men who hire strippers for their partys, as should any civilized university do. If you attend a university you're supposed to have a brain . .

Anonymous said...

Now with all charges dropped - let thee lawsuits begin! Let's see? .. 3 times 88 equals ..?

Anonymous said...

As a guidance counselor I will have my eyes and ears open about future admissions. It works both ways

Anonymous said...

Now, lets see CBS curtail the cd's and the music crap they put out. How about some apologies from our reverend's who push racial conflict and lie. Sharpton still has not apologized for the Tawana Brawley case and all the other cases

Nunya Biznatch said...

Please don't paint all liberals with the same brush. Some of us are just as outraged by the ridiculous race and gender war being promulgated by liberal arts professors, as well as their dubious "scholarship." This liberal still cares about the rule of law, and the presumption of innocence, even if 88 egg for brains social studies profs would rather "listen" to the lynch mob.

Anonymous said...

This is my first viewing of this blog, coming only a few days after the full exoneration of the lacrosse players. Though I'm not entirely sure who makes up the entire Duke 88, I was not surprised to see one name in particular on that list: Kim Curtis.

I graduated from Duke more than a decade ago and had the misfortune of taking of one of Kim Curtis's classes (Political Ideologies). I think this occurred in one of her earlier years as a professor so it was too early for her to have cemented her reputation. But it was clear to many of us students that she was lacking in many capacities.

Though the course was described as an analysis of a wide range of political thought and thinkings, it was really a forum for Ms. Curtis's criticism of ideology that was pro-democracy or pro-capitalism, which she routinely bludgeoned in her one-sided lectures. When coursework turned to Marxism and feminism, as one of my TA's at the time stated to me, she would critique those philosophies with "padded gloves, at best."

One day of class, her husband, also a Duke professor, filled in for her and the differences between a quality professor (her husband) and an inferior professor (Ms. Curtis) were on full display. Her husband gave the most organized, complete, and even-handed lecture of the semester.

As far as grades went, it was clear to us students that if your coursework went along with Ms. Curtis's philosophies, you would get a better grade than if you did not. Even my TA acknowledged this to be the case. Her class wasn't about teaching, or developing tools of political analysis; it was a forum for Ms. Curtis to espouse and promote her own left-leaning ideas. I am pleased to report, however, she was the only professor during my time at Duke that conducted herself in such a manner. That doesn't seem to be the case today.

It's too bad someone with Ms. Curtis's weak intellectual and ethical capacities was granted tenure. She and others like her, be they part of the Duke 88 or not, are a disgrace to the university system.

I hope that all members of the Duke 88 have the courage to admit their mistake, the backbone to apologize for the damage they have helped cause, and the intellectual fortitude to teach others about what they have done. I also wish I could say I am optimistic about that taking place, but I am not.

Anonymous said...

This isn't everybody on the list, but it's damn close. Let the education begin:

Abe, Stan (Art, Art History, and Visual Studies)
stanley.abe@duke.edu 919.684.2487 F 919.684.4398

Albers, Benjamin (University Writing Program)
albers@duke.edu 919.660.4371

Allison, Anne (Cultural Anthropology)
anne.allison@duke.edu 919.681.6257 F 919.681.8483

Aravamudan, Srinivas (English)
srinivas@duke.edu 919.684.2640

Baker, Houston (English and AAAS)

Baker, Lee (Cultural Anthropology)
ldbaker@duke.edu 919.681.3263 F 919.681.8483

Beaule, Christine
cbeaule@duke.edu 919.660.7065

Beckwith, Sarah (English)
ott@duke.edu 919.684.8705, 2741 F 919.684.4871

Berliner, Paul (Music)
paul.berliner@duke.edu 919.660.3322

Blackmore, Connie (AAAS)
connie.blackmore@duke.edu 919.684.2830, 5140
F 919 684 2832

Boa, Jessica (Religion & University Writing Program) ?

Boatwright, Mary T. (Classical Studies)
tboat@duke.edu 919.684.3189 or 5076 F 919.681.4262

Boero, Silvia (Romance Studies)
silvia.boero@duke.edu 919.660.3100

Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo (Sociology)

Brim, Matthew (University Writing Program)
matthew.brim@duke.edu 919.660.4381

Chafe, William (History)
william.chafe@duke.edu 919.684.5436 F 919.681.7670

Ching, Leo (Asian & African Languages)
lching@duke.edu 919.684.5240, 4309 F 919.681.7871

Coles, Rom (Political Science)
coles@duke.edu 919.660.4310 F 919.660.4330

Cooke, Miriam (Asian & African Languages)
mcw@duke.edu 919.684.2312, 4309 F 919.681.7871

Crichlow, Michaeline (AAAS)
michaeline.crichlow@duke.edu 919.684.2830

Curtis, Kim (Political Science)
kcurtis@duke.edu 919.660.4320 F 919.660.4300

Damasceno, Leslie (Romance Studies)
ljhd@duke.edu 919.660.3100, 3120 F 919.684.4029

Davidson, Cathy (English)
cathy.davidson@duke.edu 919.684.8472 F 919.668.1919

Deutsch, Sarah (History)
sarah.deutsch@duke.edu 919.668.2746

Dorfman, Ariel (Literature & Latin American Stds.)
adorfman@duke.edu 919.684.6432, 6054 F 919.684.8749

Edwards, Laura (History) l
edwards@duke.edu 919.668.1435 F 919.681.7670

Farred, Grant (Literature)
grant.farred@duke.edu 919.668.1754 F 919.684.3598

Fellin, Luciana (Romance Studies)
fellin@duke.edu 919.660.3117

Fulkerson, Mary McClintock (Divinity School)
mfulk@duke.edu 919.660.3400, 3458

Gabara, Esther (Romance Studies)
egabara@duke.edu 919.660.3100, 3112

Gavins, Raymond (History)
raymond.gavins@duke.edu 919.684.2508 F 919.681.7670

Greer, Meg (Romance Studies)

Glymph, Thavolia (History)
thavolia@duke.edu 919.668.1625

Hardt, Michael (Literature)
hardt@duke.edu 919.684.3408

Harris, Joseph (University Writing Program)

Holloway, Karla (English)
karla.holloway@duke.edu 919.684.8993

Holsey, Bayo (AAAS)
bayo.holsey@duke.edu 919.684.4067

Hovsepian, Mary (Sociology) ?

James, Sherman (Public Policy)
sjames@duke.edu 919.613.9257

Kaplan, Alice (Literature)
alice.kaplan@duke.edu 919.684.4228

Khalsa, Keval Kaur (Dance Program)
keval.khalsa@duke.edu 919.660.3373

Khanna, Ranjana (English)
rkhanna@duke.edu 919.668.2548

King, Ashley (Romance Studies)
aek2@duke.edu 919.660.3123

Koonz, Claudia (History)
ckoonz@duke.edu 919.684.3941

Lasch, Peter (Art, Art History)
pedro.lasch@duke.edu 919.684.3308 F 919.684.4398

Lee, Dan A. (Math) ?

Leighten, Pat (Art, Art History, and Visual Studies)

919.660.6979 Fax 919.660.2821

Lentricchia, Frank (Literature)
frll@duke.edu 919.684.6172

Light, Caroline (Inst. for Crit. U.S. Stds.)
clight@duke.edu 919.668.1945

Litle, Marcy (Comparative Area Studies)
marcy.litle@duke.edu 919.660.4353 F 919.684.8749

Litzinger, Ralph (Cultural Anthropology)
rlitz@duke.edu 919.681.6250

Longino, Michele (Romance Studies)
michele.longino@duke.edu (France)

Lubiano, Wahneema (AAAS and Literature)
wah@duke.edu 919.681.2843

Maffitt, Kenneth(History)
kmaffitt@duke.edu 919.681.3982 F 919.681.7966

Mahn, Jason (University Writing Program)
jmahn@duke.edu 919.660.4355, 4368

Makhulu, Anne-Maria (AAAS)

Mason, Lisa (Surgical Unit-2100)

McClain, Paula (Political Science)
pmcclain@duke.edu 919.660.4303

Meintjes, Louise (Music)
meintjes@duke.edu 919.660.3339

Mignolo, Walter (Literature and Romance Studies)
wmignolo@acpub.duke.edu 919.668.1949, 2151

Moreiras, Alberto (Romance Studies)
alberto.moreiras@duke.edu 919.668.1950

Neal, Mark Anthony (AAAS)
man9@duke.edu 919.684.3987

Nelson, Diane (Cultural Anthropology)
dmnelson@duke.edu 919.684.2069

Olcott, Jolie (History)

Parades, Liliana (Romance Studies)
lparedes@duke.edu 919.660.3124

Payne, Charles (AAAS and History)
cmpayne@duke.edu 919.684.5764

Pierce-Baker, Charlotte (Women’s Studies)
cpierceb@duke.edu 919.684.5683

Pebles-Wilkins, Wilma ?

Petters, Arlie (Math)
petters@math.duke.edu 919.660.2812 F 919.660.2821

Plesser, Ronen (Physics)
plesser@cgtp.duke.edu 919.660.9668 F 919.660.2525

Radway, Jan (Literature) ?

Rankin, Tom (Ctr for Documentary Studies)

Rego, Marcia (University Writing Program)

Reisinger, Deborah S. (Romance Studies)
debsreis@duke.edu 919.660.8435

Rosenberg, Alex (Philosophy)
alexrose@duke.edu 919.660.3047, 3050

Rudy, Kathy (Women’s Studies)
krudy@acpub.duke.edu 919.684.4063

Schachter, Marc (English)
marc.schachter@duke.edu 919.660.2421

Shannon, Laurie (English)
lshannon@duke.edu 919.684.2741

Sigal, Pete (History)
peter.sigal@duke.edu 919.684.3551

Silverblatt, Irene (Cultural Anthropology)
isilver@duke.edu 919.684.3516

Somerset, Fiona (English)
somerset@duke.edu 919.684.5275

Stein, Rebecca (Cultural Anthropology)
rlstein@duke.edu 919.684.5611

Thorne, Susan (History)
sthorne@duke.edu 919.684.8945

Viego, Antonio (Literature)
antonioviego@yahoo.com 919.668.2687

Vilaros, Teresa (Romance Studies)
teresa.vilaros@duke.edu 919.660.3108

Wald, Priscilla (English)
pwald@duke.edu 919.684.6869

Wallace, Maurice (English and AAAS)
mwallace@duke.edu 919.684.3939

Wong, David (Philosophy)
dbwong@duke.edu 919.660.3046

Here's the list from the "Concerned Profs" Open Letter linked above:

* Stan Abe
* Benjamin Albers
* Anne Allison
* Srinivas Aravamudan
* Lee Baker
* Sarah Beckwith
* Paul Berliner
* Tolly Boatwright
* Eduardo Bonilla-Silva
* Jack Bookman
* Matt Brim
* Bill Chafe
* Leo Ching
* Elizabeth Clark
* Rom Coles
* Michaeline A. Crichlow
* Kim Curtis
* Roberto Dainotto
* Leslie Damasceno
* Ariel Dorfman
* Laura Edwards
* Grant Farred
* Jeffrey Forbes
* Mary M. Fulkerson
* Erin Gayton
* Jehanne Gheith
* Margaret Greer
* Michael Hardt
* Erik Harms
* Joe Harris
* Kerry Haynie
* Karla Holloway
* Bayo Holsey
* Mary Hovsepian
* Sherman James
* Alice Kaplan
* Keval Khalsa
* Ranjana Khanna
* Fred Klaits
* Claudia Koonz
* Robert Korstad
* Pedro Lasch
* Caroline Light
* Marcy Litle
* Ralph Litzinger
* Michele Longino
* Wahneema Lubiano
* Anne-Maria Makhulu
* Tamera Marko
* Paula McClain
* Louise Meintjes
* Sean Metzger
* Walter Mignolo
* Alberto Moreiras
* Cary Moskovitz
* Mark Anthony Neal
* David Need
* Diane Nelson
* Jocelyn Olcott
* Charles Payne
* Charlie Piot
* Ronen Plesser
* Maureen Quilligan
* Jan Radway
* Tom Rankin
* Marcia Rego
* William Reichert
* Deb Reisinger
* Alex Rosenberg
* Marc Schachter
* Stephanie Sieburth
* Laurie Shannon
* Pete Sigal
* Irene Silverblatt
* Joshua Socolar
* Kristin Solli
* Helen Solterer
* Fiona Somerset
* Roxanne Springer
* Rebecca Stein
* Kenneth Surin
* Susan Thorne
* John Transue
* Maurice Wallace
* Priscilla Wald
* Kathryn Whetten
* Robyn Wiegman
* David Wong
* Tomiko Yoda

Anonymous said...

Would everyone PLEASE stop using the term "Liberal" to describe those who can only be called what they are... COMMUNISTS!
The word "Liberal" was hijacked a good 30 years ago by Leftist freaks who'd just rather not have to wear their wishy-washy Marxist world view on their sleeves.
*That's how totalitarianism works - f**k with the language until it's too late to realize what os going on.

Anonymous said...


I wonder...

Should this member of the G88 be Imused?

Should the G88 be fired (tenured or not) for preaching gross irrationality?

For spreading vicious racist, sexist dogma?

How about for being just plain incompetents?

Is it any wonder why most Americans are anti-intellectual? Unfortunately, without genuine intellectual leaders--and an America that is pro-intellectual--our nation is doomed to the stupidity of such impractical philosohical systems as pragmatism (act first, think later, if at all; and "we don't need no stinkin' principles"); social constructivism (whim engineering; and rage against any attempt at systemized thinking); and theism (belieive in believing what can't be believed).

These will be the dogmas of the coming new Dark Age; and (anti-)intellectuals like the G88 will lead the way.

Anonymous said...

I hate to see the DARK AGES coming back where is the truth! The truth lies with our Savior, and may our Savior bring on the truth to these Group 88

Anonymous said...

How are not all of the G88 members fired? Who would ever send there child to Duke given that they are still on the faculty?

Anonymous said...

You should not have disparaged the universities where these G88 professors received their academic degrees, or the professors themselves for having attended supposedly "second-tier" universities. Plenty of G88 professors earned degrees from marquee institutions, such as Anne Allison (PhD, UChicago), Alex Rosenberg (PhD, Johns Hopkins), or Wahneema Lubiano (PhD, Stanford).

As you can see, where the G88 professors attended school is irrelevant to their reputations or actions in the Durham case. Their actions in the Durham case is relevant to their actions in the Durham case. Stanford can just as easily produce a misguided "intellectual" as Purdue.

I think your blog has done a great favor to the justice system, but even so, this small detail caught my eye because countless productive scholars have come out of supposedly "second-tier" schools, and, as Wahneema Lubiano has proven, a PhD from Stanford is not automatically a path to enlightenment.