One of the biggest academic stories of recent years was the Duke lacrosse scandal, and one of its central exhibits was the rush to judgment by Duke faculty members who signed the notorious “Group of 88″ statement two weeks after the allegations surfaced. As everyone knows, the case fell apart despite DA Mike Nifong’s efforts to railroad the accused. Long before Nifong was disbarred, K.C. Johnson raised serous criticism about the Group of 88′s response, citing particularly the signers’ disrespect toward due process and their overheated, bullying, and illiberal reading of identity politics into the affair from the start.
If anybody was wondering about how the neglect of basic rights might have damaged the reputations of the signers, however, Johnson has a recent update on the careers of several of them. It appears at Minding the Campus under the title “Whatever Happened to the Group of 88?”
One of the leaders was Grant Farred, Johnson writes, who “denounced as ‘racist’ those Duke students who registered to vote in Durham.” Farred “charged that unnamed lacrosse players had committed perjury,” but that didn’t stop Cornell from luring Farred away from Duke and promoting him to full professor.
Another signer, Charles Payne, “violated Duke rules by authorizing departmental funds to pay for the Group of 88′s ad.” He is now Frank Hixon Professor at the University of Chicago.
Rom Coles is now McAllister Chair in Community, Culture & Environment at Northern Arizona U.
Karla Holloway spent a semester at Harvard’s DuBois Institute.
Wahneema Lubiano spent the Spring 09 semester in Prague. Johnson isn’t sure what her project was, but he notes that, “having been granted tenure by Duke without a scholarly monograph,” for the last 13 years she has listed two manuscripts as “forthcoming.”
Houston Baker is now Distinguished University Professor at Vanderbilt.
Three members of the Group have been promoted to deanships at Duke. Three Group members contributed to a recent issue of Duke Magazine, which went out to all graduates.
Johnson doesn’t mention any signer of the document who has suffered one bit from its publication. If readers of Brainstorm know of anybody who did sign it and has been called to account for it, please add a comment.
21 Responses to The Group of 88 Is Doing Just Fine
charliemarlow - May 26, 2010 at 5:52 pm
An indictment of all the institutions mentioned.
luther_blissett - May 26, 2010 at 9:28 pm
Mark, what specifically are you suggesting the Group of 88′s ad did that is actionable by Duke or other universities? The ad was premature and made all sorts of bad assumptions, but the same could be said of nearly every op-ed article ever published. Did newspapers and magazines fire all their political commentators who went along with the Iraq WMD claims? (And no, this isn’t a tu quoque argument — it’s an analogy. And I don’t think those commentators should have been fired for being wrong.)I do think the lacrosse players have a good slander/libel case, but has any court found any member of the Group of 88 guilty of such crimes? If so, then yes, the universities should act against the professors. But it’s not in the universities’ authority to act on such legal issues until the actual law has determined a crime has been committed. I’d like nothing more than to see some of these profs feel the effects of their bad judgment. But that’s a moral argument, not a professional or legal argument. I don’t believe American citizens have a legal obligation to respect the presumption of innocence. That obligation falls on the State, not the citizens. Again, the media is full of commentators who pronounce on the guilt or innocence of defendants before the trial is decided.Then again, I admit to not following the case very closely, so I might have missed many things.
markbauerlein - May 26, 2010 at 9:44 pm
To call the ad “premature” and full of “bad assumptions” is quite a whitewash of the text, Luther. And, according to KC, Duke’s settlement with the three young men shielded the faculty from liability, so no civil suit could be filed against them.The big point, however, is that you set the bar way too low for professors, and that the relationship between op-ed commentators to readers is hardly comparable to that between professors and students on the same campus. There are faculty handbooks with standards of professionalism outlined in them, just as students have standards of conduct they must meet. So read KC’s book (with Stuart Taylor) or his running blog Durham-in-Wonderland for accounts of how many Duke professors acted. It’s quite a picture of a particular kind of faculty mindset unleashed by the episode.
carolslin - May 27, 2010 at 6:42 am
Without information regarding to exactly what the Group of 88 did, it is futile to discuss whether where they are now is just. Good journalism should include at least a summary and a few links.
lexalexander - May 27, 2010 at 9:04 am
What carolslin said. I live near Durham and followed the criminal case closely at the time. But my memory could use refreshing, and most readers probably don’t recall, or never knew, what the group wrote.It also would be helpful to cite exactly what Duke academic or administrative policies the group’s behavior violated, if any. I realize this is just a blog post, probably written in haste as most blog posts (including my own) are, but even for this format, “They did something bad but I’m going to make you guess what it is” isn’t quite playing fair.
jairrels - May 27, 2010 at 9:05 am
Dr. Bauerlein, regarding your #3 comment, what specific Duke Faculty Handbook standard are you alleging that the faculty members (excluding Payne) violated? What specific standard of their new employers’ faculty handbooks are you alleging that they violated? Do those handbooks designate specific penalties for such violations?I did not see the ad and therefore can’t comment on it. I assume that you did and so what specific punishment (suffering/”called to account”) would you like to see administered to these professors? On an entirely different matter, I know that you are an advocate of reading. Whenever you have time, please view The 2000 Book Movement page on Facebook, which is a project designed to promote reading.
11159995 - May 27, 2010 at 9:28 am
Mark conveniently ignores the fact that the Duke lacrosse team had a reputation for bad behavior before the incident occurred that gave rise to the “rush to judgment.” It is not as though all these Duke lacrosse players were paragons of virtue. I recall one particularly scurrilous e-mail that was uncovered during the investigation. The players who were named as defendants by the district attorney may have been innocent of the crimes alleged, but there is a history here that helps explain why so many people did assume the worst when this incident happened. The players were no moral saints.—Sandy Thatcher
softshellcrab - May 27, 2010 at 9:42 am
The Duke faculty who published the ad were frankly nothing more than typical, knee-jerk liberal academics who perennially see themselves as holier-than-thou crusaders, bravely fighting the good fight for the oppressed, blah, blah, blah. Liberals almsot always see themselves in heroic terms. They were going to come down with their self-righteous thunderbolts, blah, blah, blah upon these racist,spoiled white boys who “must” have done what the minority stripper accused them of. (After all, heaven forbid a stripper would ever lie. It’s not like they’re someone shown to have a proclivity to do just about anything for a buck….) They instantly assumed the white boys players did some racist wrong, and in typical liberal fashion saw themselves in self-awarding terms as the brave white knights standing up for the downtrodden minority, again blah, blah, blah. What idiots.Nothing bad happened to them? What??!! You mean to say that, in the academia world, their stupidity and arrogant obnoxiousness was in fact rewarded? Why, I’m shocked to the very marrow of my dittohead little bones! Blows all my theories about who is running our universities. Do you think it is possible that a bunch of far left liberals are running our universities, and that there is a far left political and cultural bias in our higher education administrators and faculty? Honestly, I can almost guaranty that their hideous and wrongful attack against the lacrosse players was viewed as a badge of honor by most of their colleagues. The view would be that if they weren’t right on this one, it’s okay because they would usually have been right… To err in pursuit of heroically battling against our horrible American racisim is no vice, blah, blah, blah. Good article, but it did not even make me mad, because it was what I already assumed.
mercy_otis_warren - May 27, 2010 at 10:02 am
The Group of 88′s statement:http://photos1.blogger.com/photoInclude/x/blogger/2862/372/1600/99636/Listening_Statement_b.jpgYes, one might generally term the members of the Duke Lacrosse team as douchebags. (However, I’m not familiar with the character of each, and many weren’t even at the party.) But “douchebags” do not necessarily equal “rapists.” (If every American male who goes to an offensive stripper party or club can safely be assumed to be a rapist, then we’re in trouble.) The problem with the statement was what many read as its apparent assumption of the players’ legal guilt of the crime of rape. (I disagree with this re: the 88 statement, but it’s quite true of English professor Houston Baker’s open letter, available at http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/mmedia/features/lacrosse_incident/lange_baker.html — eg “But where is the black woman who their violence and raucous witness injured for life?”) In other words, Sandy Thatcher, if you’re my student, and I witness you screaming at your kid a few times in a grocery store, can I take out a full-page ad in the college paper agreeing with charges that you beat him when you get home? As Bauerlein asks, do we as professors have not only the standard American obligation to our students to presume them innocent until proven guilty, but moreover additional responsibilities due to our peculiar community? I don’t know about the latter, but it’s an interesting question.
willynilly - May 27, 2010 at 10:09 am
– And where oh where is Mark Bauerlein today? Still stuck in the same old job at Emory, still neglecting his students while he does his daily “Dumpster Diving”, digging and digging ever so deeper to find any and all trash and garbage he can get his hands on – either to discredit someone or something or to vent his own frustration at being seen as not professionally worthy of being elevated in his own career.
markbauerlein - May 27, 2010 at 10:11 am
Who ever said that the lacrosse players were “moral saints” or “pragons of virtue,” Sandy? And do you really think that “a reputation for bad behavior” is an excuse for the rush to judgment at Duke?Your statement that the defendants “may have been innocent of the crimes alleged” is likewise a remarkable one. Let’s be clear. The charges were not simply “dropped.” The attorney general in NC came forward and declared the defendents “innocent.” No “may-have-been” about it.Fair enough questions about citation, though, by carolslin and lexalexander. I assumed that everybody at Brainstorm was familiar with the Duke case. There is abundant material easily available with a search, however, and you might start with KC’s blog, Durham-in-Wonderland, which appears here: http://www.durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/ Look at this entry in particular: http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2006/04/group-of-88.htmlAnother piece on the Group of 88 appears here in the Duke Chronicle: http://dukechronicle.com/article/group-88-faculty-hears-criticism-wake-lax-scandalAs for violations of Duke’s faculty handbook, I don’t have the information on that, and in mentioning it in response to Luther I was only stating the difference between media statements and faculty statements about students.But consider Houston Baker’s letter to the administration of March 29th, 2006. Here is a sample of what he said:”How many mandates concerning safe, responsible campus citizenship must be transgressed by white athletes’ violent racism before our university’s offices of administration, athletics, security, and publicity courageously declare: enough!”And this:”How soon will confidence be restored to our university as a place where minds, souls, and bodies can feel safe from agents, perpetrators, and abettors of white privilege, irresponsibility, debauchery and violence?”We may take those statements as more or less rhetorical or general. But the conclusion Baker ends with is a specific demand for immediate action:”Surely the answer to the question must come in the form of immediate dismissals of those principally responsible for the horrors of this spring moment at Duke. Coaches of the lacrosse team, the team itself and its players, and any other agents who silenced or lied about the real nature of events at 610 Buchanan on the evening of March 13, 2006.”(The full text of Baker’s letter plus a response from the Provost appears here: http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/mmedia/features/lacrosse_incident/lange_baker.html.) Does anybody here believe that a faculty member’s insistence that people be “immediately dismissed” in this case doesn’t violate campus procedures and due process?
lucapacioli - May 27, 2010 at 10:25 am
Luther_blissett (#2) asked “….has any court found any member of the Group of 88 guilty of such crimes?” When Duke settled out-of-court with the innocent lacrosse players for an undisclosed sum, the group of 88 were included in the settlement so there can be no future claims against them. There was a successful lawsuit against another professor who capriciously failed a member of the lacrosse team.
jairrels - May 27, 2010 at 10:50 am
Dr. Bauerlein, the way I’m reading #11 is that you are talking about the letter written by one person, not 88 professors. Baker is stating his opinion. (By reading only what you have in #11, not the entire letter, I disagree with Baker’s opinion.) What would you like his punishment to be for stating his opinion? Did Baker have the authority to dismiss immediately the people he named? Did he dismiss them or did someone else dismiss them? Insisting that someone be dismissed is probably not a violation of campus procedures. (I haven’t read the Duke Faculty Handbook and I could be wrong.) It is probably the actual immediate dismissal that violates campus due process. If others actually dismissed them (and you think it was done improperly), then your complaint should be directed to them. Now if Baker actually dismissed them, then it is horrible that other administrators superior to him did not insist that policies and procedures be followed. You don’t know what Faculty Handbook standard(s) the Duke faculty violated (if any) and you seem to want all of them punished, in some undetermined fashion for violating standards that you can’t identify. You are stating your opinion.I have no problem with your stating that you want them to “suffer,” because that is your opinion (assuming you don’t mean criminal assault against them). I also don’t think you should be “called to account for” wanting them to be penalized for violations that you can’t specify. Again, you are merely stating your opinion.
jairrels - May 27, 2010 at 11:00 am
Dr. Bauerlein, a correction, I should have said I have no problem with your implying that the professors suffer/be called to account for, etc.)
markbauerlein - May 27, 2010 at 11:08 am
Good points, jairrels. I don’t ask that the Group be “punished,” however; I only note that in spite of having done wild things such as ask that students be “immediately dismissed,” that is, before the lengthy and difficult process of investigation is complete, signers of the document have prospered well in the profession (if not in public opinion, which generally came down hard on the faculty). But what do you say about a letter that makes numerous allegations about “violent tendencies” of “white athletes”–that is, aligning violence with racial identity?The Provost responded to Baker citing precisely this form of racial vilification:”I cannot tell you how disappointed, saddened and appalled I was to receive this letter from you. A form of prejudice – one felt so often by minorities whether they be African American, Jewish or other – is the act of prejudgment: to presume that one knows something ‘must’ have been done by or done to someone because of his or her race, religion or other characteristic.”
jairrels - May 27, 2010 at 1:57 pm
Dr. Bauerlein, in response to #15, without having read Baker’s entire letter or the Provost’s entire response, I agree with the Provost’s response. I don’t know if Baker alleged they did it because they were White (as the Provost’s letter says) or if Baker aligned violence with racial identity (as you interpreted the letter, but then you read all of Baker’s letter). I interpret the parts that you have above as Baker referring to those White people (not all) who are racist. Based on what little I do know, however, I still agree with the Provost’s response. P.S. Don’t forget to look at The 2000 Book Movement on Facebook. I think you’ll like the goals of The Movement.
v8573254 - May 27, 2010 at 3:28 pm
and from a journalist’s view – thank you for following up on the story.
dank48 - May 28, 2010 at 11:23 am
Mark, this was indeed a good followup. Incidentally, I think it’s a nice illustration, for those who need it, of the fact that conservatism and idealism are by no means incompatible. After all, the various criminals of both political “parties” of the last few decades are still alive and well and going about their business, as are virtually all the Wall Street thieves, liars, and swindlers. Why, then, would we not expect an academic lynch mob to continue to prosper?
supertatie - May 28, 2010 at 5:56 pm
I can tell you this much – if I were in upper administration at any college or university in this country, none of the faculty who wrote or signed those statements about the Duke students would stand a chance at ANY position there.
dunnyveg - June 4, 2010 at 1:29 pm
“Mark, what specifically are you suggesting the Group of 88′s ad did that is actionable by Duke or other universities?”What is actionable on the part of the Group of 88? Imagine for a moment that the Group of 88 had instead contended that there are indeed racial differences in intelligence or that mathematical skills of men are more developed than women. Taking the politically incorrect position certainly is actionable despite mountains of supporting evidence. Why shouldn’t telling untruths be actionable as well?Do we really want a university system where telling the truth is actionable while lying results in promotions and accolades for the liars? Does Political Correctness really trump everything else?
baseballmom - December 28, 2010 at 9:09 pm
I stumbled upon this post months after it was written. My son is a standout high school baseball player, also an outstanding student, and he is considering Duke. My husband and I, however, are urging him not to choose Duke, very specifically because we feel the Gang of 88 — and Brodhead, who despite turning his back on the lacrosse team and coach is still president of the University — have clearly demonstrated that white athletes will be discriminated against in the classroom. I can just imagine my son in a Duke physics class — he’s currently an A student in AP physics — being baffled by low scores for which there is no explanation…and then discovering that his teacher was one of the Gang of 88, and resents white athletes. I found this story by googling tonight, so I could show my son that he’d be fighting an uphill battle if he chooses Duke. Thank you for the follow up. It will be very useful as my son makes his decision.