In light of the ongoing saga of professors condemning students and assuming a tenuous moral authority, coupled with parents and students calling for resignations and bullying administrators with threats that they won't back up, isn't it clear that Duke as a whole is doing a really bad job at dealing with this lacrosse fallout situation?
It's like the doomsday scenario of Mutually Assured Self-Righteousness playing out before our eyes.
That said, I too would like to become an object of the abovementioned critique.
At some point there has to be a move toward a resolution; however, such cannot take place as long as both sides remain so deeply entrenched. As their rhetoric becomes more evasive, it is clear that those who endorsed the "Moving Forward" piece (Feb. 23) are reluctant to move beyond their stance with sincere reflection. Some of them had self-appointed, leading roles in the unfolding plot last spring-it's a perilous road from that to then telling the narrative with any semblance of detachment, much less framing it without bias.
Say what you will about the nature of some professors' ideology-both that espoused in the most recent guest column and collectively over the past 11 months-but nobody ever likes to predicate their beliefs upon premises that are later discredited. The relevant professors need to realize that if they acknowledge the evolution of academia into more robust and inclusive fields, then they need to reflect upon not only what it took to accomplish those goals but also the congruent social changes that came with them.
Much of the turmoil that surrounded the Civil Rights Movement, being benchmark of this progression in academia, was a result of those who saw themselves as the self-endowed custodians of values adopting a false premise of racial superiority. They were reluctant to relinquish this position for fear that rest of their segregationist ideology would crumble. This ill-fated strategy galvanized the Civil Rights Movement, while demonizing those unwilling to let go of a faulty argument.
What we have here is a much smaller problem. Certainly the parallels are thin or non-existent in some areas. But, Group of 88 or whoever, please take note of the fact that your resistance emboldens those who disagree with you on the most fundamental levels, while bringing those who are willing to listen to their side. You are making their position more appealing by virtue of your obstinance in the face of unjust hypocrisy.
Those professors to which this applies, if you cut your losses and step away from the lacrosse-as-a-premise position, then people will become more receptive to the issues for which you stand. If you maintain that the incident wasn't the impetus or premise, then you should stop mentioning it within the context of cultural development or any initiative.
Sadly, the most current engagements from both sides have been antagonistic, if only passively at times. Based on their credentials and inclusion in a top-notch institution, our professors ought to be held to a very high standard-a hybrid expectations and admiration. As such, I am disappointed to see these men and women-who have shown their brilliance to so many of us in the classroom-go to such great lengths to isolate themselves, offering this patchwork recontextualization. For some, you are not in the position to teach which lessons are learned from this scenario because of, what you would have to admit, was a reckless self-injection. But, there is more to lose as there are more lessons down the road: Don't forfeit your ethos as it is your greatest tool as an educator and scholar-one which I think is a lot easier to reconstruct than your treatise on race, gender, tolerance and class as evidenced by the lacrosse incident.
It's not that so many in the Duke community reject the call for acknowledging social inequalities, but that there is a strained non sequitur in highlighting the incident from last year. Both issues are important; however, beyond exhausting disassociations and self-centered posturing, there exists no substantial crossroads.
Do we gain anything from trying to lump them together?
So, put down the guns, get off the high horses and try to understand why both sides feel as though there aren't adequately being heard. Moving forward requires more than smear campaigns and patronizing rhetoric.
Chris Quirk graduated from Trinity in 2005.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.