Higher Education

I don’t really care what happens to Duke University, as I’ve never been a member of the faculty or staff nor an alumnus. I am sure the alumni care a great deal. This rant has less to do with Duke itself then with the bigger broader picture of what I see in their teaching staff. This is not limited to Dukes teaching staff as Peggy Reeves Sanday from Penn State and her, of late, biggest cheerleader, Dr. A.G. Rud from Perdue are guilty of the same thinking patterns as the 88 of Duke University.

There seems to be a great deal of friction between those academics who support Dr. KC Johnson and those who support the 88. Dr. Johnson, in his Durham in Wonderland blog looks at facts as pretty much black and white. Sanday, Rud, and most if not all of the 88 see facts as, to quote Dr. Rud, “open for discussion.” Where this comes into play is that the 88, Rud, Sanday, and others still see the disaster in Durham as a good example of the race, culture, privilege war.

Let’s look at the 88 and a quote from Dr. Baker. When asked if he or the rest of the 88 regretted the original ad now referred to as the listening ad, Dr Baker Responded

“We had a long discussion about what the word ‘regret’ means, and philosophy professors weighed in and we had detailed discussions in terms of the epistemology of specific words,” says Baker. “If you talk to 80 different college professors, you’ll have 80 different opinions.”

The very idea that the dictionary wouldn’t due for this, tells me not only that the above “open for discussion” concept, applies to everything in their lives, but that they are living in a 60’s hippie commune fantasy world where everything must be discussed. They are not willing to speak for themselves and hide behind the commune (group) walls they have created. The problem here is that most of the rest of the world sees facts as Dr. Johnson does. They see the word regret as the rest of us do. Had they had a consensus meeting and agreed that the definition of regret meant this or that, I doubt an apology statement would have been issued because nobody would have known what THEIR definition of regret meant. Perhaps worse, they might have issued one and been laughed at because of their obscure and philosophical definition.

On the subject of Dr. Rud, I read his blog and all I can think is that this man is easily impressed with his own hot air. Here are two quotes on evidence and its status as open for discussion:

“(using quotes I am)….. merely emphasizing that I see facts as conditional and open for discussion”

“I also use quotes to indicate my concern that these so-called "facts" be arrogated by one particular viewpoint, with what appears to me to be its attendant literalism and epistemological imperialism.”

And as best as I can translate with my Greek to English dictionary, he means this:

I also use quotes to indicate my concern that these so-called “facts” are claimed only by one particular viewpoint, with what appears to me to be its associated rigid adherence to that viewpoint and explicit imposition of power based only on those facts and viewpoint.

The first fallacy in his argument is that facts are open to discussion. They are not. They are however open to interpretation. There is a difference. For example, we find a dead body with a disfigured head and a bloody rock 3 feet from the body. Fact, the body is dead. Fact, the rock is bloody. Fact, the rock is in close proximity to the body. Discuss that! On the concept of interpretation, does the rock fit the disfigurement of the head? Is the blood type the same as that found on the dead body? Is the proximity of the rock to the body relevant to the fact that the body is dead? In short, was this a murder?

Lets apply this to the scandal, shall we. First, what facts do we have? We have a party attended by some of the lacrosse team. We have a party where drinking was involved. We have a party with entertainment (strippers). We have an accusation of rape and finally we have the ever-popular racial epithets.

If you listen to the 88 and company, they would have you believe that racially biased elitist men threw a party to get drunk and rape a stripper. Male bonding, as they like to call it. How do they come to this conclusion? They drag up a history of slave owners “having their way” with black slave women per Dr. Chafe. (Dr. Chafe, is this the explanation you would give to give to Heidi Klum’s kids?) They rely almost entirely on questionably anonymous quotes that in some cases are so carefully constructed that they sound more like a 50-year-old professor then a 20-year-old coed. They take individual facts and use them out of any context to support these ideas. The interpretation of the facts by the 88 and company would have you believe that this “girl who cried wolf” story is a fact that fits their cause. There in lies the crux of the feud. They see the story of an increasingly discredited storyteller as the backdrop for their cause. Then they claim the story as fact.

The story as fact is another fallacy. In proper research, you find an incident that actually happened and use its facts. You don’t find a story and use it. Sure, the men hired strippers, sure the men drank, BUT WHERE IS THE RAPE? They may be able to claim a group think mentality or a mob mentality, based on facts, but if they look at their own actions they are just as guilty. They would have you believe that the party and the drinking is an example of white male privilege. Tell that to the students at the strike parties after a show on campus. Tell that to the African American frat where the last alleged rape occurred. They would have you believe that a racial epithet is racism. Not to sound childish, but Kim started it, the SOLE offender to this was just following suit. If I took a story to my psychology professor and said, “Here, this is an example of my claim.” he would have said that it exists only in my mind and maybe in the mind of the author.

On the subject of racial epithets, the group claims racism. I don’t see it. First and foremost, the group keeps using the word epithets, the plural. The only proof of epithets is a single exchange between Kim Roberts and one of the players. Kim Roberts according to witnesses started the exchange. Far too many of the individuals who use them at a time like that are guilty of venting stupidity with their anger. As a youth, I was guilty of using the N word in anger. Not because I am racist, but because my vocabulary was insufficient to defend myself otherwise. I never actually heard the word till I was 10 years old or so. Instead of requiring a diversity course for all students, they might try an English class with a focus on vocabulary.
As this paper is into its 3rd page, it dawns on me that it could become a book. A book I would say, I have no time to write and others are more qualified to write. To sum up the above, the 88 have taken facts out of context and claimed them as support for a cause. They appear to manufacture facts as they need (I wonder any of them taught Nifong), and they refuse to see the other side as they want others to see theirs. This scares me out of my shoes. The idea that more then 10 percent of a college faculty think along these lines is bad enough, but to find it at one of the most prestigious schools in the U.S. should be criminal.