"Counselor" Crowley Hangs His Shingle

Demonstrating a Nifongesque ability to adapt new facts to fit old, discredited theories, the resident legal expert of Duke’s earth systems science department, Thomas Crowley, has launched an aggressive e-mail campaign to defend his widely ridiculed Herald-Sun op-ed.

Crowley wondered if one correspondent was suggesting that he “should not be writing letters to question throwing out the case.” Actually, this criterion came from Crowley himself, who commented in his op-ed about “the number of letter writers . . . who, although they have no legal qualifications, seem to assume they have sufficient knowledge about the Duke lacrosse case to conclude that the case should be thrown out before even it goes to trial.”

In the event, the earth systems science professor has abandoned the view he expressed in the Herald-Sun. He now maintains: “I do not believe someone has to be a total expert in a particular matter before they can express their view in a newspaper letter.”

The Crowley Criterion seems to be that only “total experts” (Jim Coleman? Susan Estrich? Stuart Taylor?) can express views that oppose Nifong’s wishes; while, to achieve some sort of balance, non-experts can defend Nifong, even if they publish error-filled, illogical op-eds to do so.

Crowley also has retreated from his suggestion that the accuser was “possibly drugged by someone when they encouraged her to have a drink.” He admits that “it turns out that yes indeed I was wrong on the toxicology report”; he also notes that the accuser had a record of previously passing out; and he further recognizes that the accuser was taking a drug (Flexeril) that, when used in combination with alcohol, can produce blackouts.

In true Nifongesque fashion, however, Crowley asserts that these new revelations have no bearing on his overall interpretation of the case. For Nifong, the DNA would “immediately rule out” the innocent—until it offered no matches, at which time it became irrelevant. Or the attack lasted 30 minutes—until Reade Seligmann produced alibi material showing he had left the premises at 12.14, at which time the attack suddenly lasted no longer than 10 minutes.

For “Counselor” Crowley, in his Herald-Sun piece, the accuser passing out implied that she had been slipped a date-rape drug. But now that he has learned of a toxicology report that contradicted his claim, the passing-out suggests a new theory of guilt: the episode “may have been related to something that just happened to the woman.” Why didn’t he float this novel theory in his op-ed? Perhaps he’ll explain in a future Herald-Sun column.

To one correspondent, Crowley admitted that he went out of his way to identify himself as a Duke professor in his op-ed, despite having “never” done so before on any commentary he wrote “not directly related to [his] area of specialty.”

Why did he take this unusual practice? “My motivation was based on the fairly one-sided stream of opinions coming from the Duke community about the innocence of the lacrosse team.”

The last I looked, the “lacrosse team” wasn’t on trial, despite Mike Nifong’s best attempts to make the case about symbolic justice.

In any event, I wonder what world Crowley has occupied for the past seven months. Indeed there has been a “fairly one-sided stream of opinions coming from the Duke community”—beginning with Houston Baker’s open letter, moving on to the Group of 88’s statement; continuing through the diatribes of Peter Wood, Karla Holloway, and Orin Starn; including Richard Brodhead’s remarkable statement after the arrest of Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty (“If they didn’t do it, whatever they did is bad enough”); and more recently featuring Grant Farred’s assertion that Duke students were attempting to project their racism onto Durham by voting while Education professor Joseph Dibona’s suggested (in the Herald-Sun, of course) giving the accuser $1.5 million to withdraw from the case.

Balanced against this record? James Coleman’s call for a special prosecutor. Kerstin Kimel’s defense of the lacrosse players’ character, and the later remarks of interim men’s coach Kevin Cassese. Steven Baldwin’s letter in the Duke Chronicle. Commentary from Michael Gustafson.

On the one side, then, stands 92 people. On the other side are five. And Crowley considers the opinions of the five to constitute “fairly one-sided stream of opinions coming from the Duke community about the innocence of the lacrosse team”?

Joining the likes of Karla Holloway as a victim of this case, Crowley complains that he has received selective condemnation: “I certainly have not heard,” said he, “of anyone being bludgeoned by emails and letters from [a] lawyer for mis-stating some fact on the case when the writer was in favor of throwing out the case.”

Some people, of course, might consider what Crowley did—suggesting that a date-rape drug was used despite a negative toxicology report; or asserting that defense lawyers were attempting to “manipulate” the public and the law despite admitting that he possessed no evidence to substantiate the claim or, indeed, couldn’t even identify the defense lawyers by anything beyond the status of their facial hair—to go well beyond “mis-stating some fact on the case.”

But Crowley’s claim of selective treatment might be aided if he provided any evidence for it. In neither his op-ed nor in his subsequent defenses of his action has Crowley pointed to errors in Herald-Sun letters from writers critical of Nifong. It’s almost as if Crowley believes that contending that the case should be dismissed in and of itself means that the writer is operating from faulty premises.

The earth systems science professor is also ruminating on the outrage his op-ed has generated. His explanation? The powerful criticism indicates the strength of his argument. “I even wonder,” he mused, “whether the vehemence of the reactions reflects not so much righteous indication but the possibility that my statements hit just a little too close to home.”

I have an alternative explanation for Crowley. Perhaps—just perhaps—people are outraged that a Duke professor would publish an op-ed that defended a procedurally tarnished case brought against three of his own institution’s students; and that he would produce a piece in which he admitted that he was so reckless that he didn’t even take the time to determine if some of his attacks on the players and their attorneys were true.

Crowley says that he considered it critical to identify himself as a Duke professor in the op-ed. Does such intellectual sloppiness reflect the vision of the Duke professoriate held by President Brodhead? Thus far, we’ve seen nothing to suggest to the contrary.