Speaking of Hot Air...

In a recent blog post, retired Duke University professor Stuart Rojstaczer criticizes the blogs that have focused on the Duke hoax for advantaging themselves by promoting their own political agendas. While Rojstaczer fails to identify the particular blogs he targets, and declines to cite a single example to support his accusations, he describes those unnamed blogs as severely slanted and loopily right wing.

“Lately, I’ve read blogs about the Duke lacrosse scandal that have a severe right-wing slant.”

“If you’re a loopy right-winger, you try to use any wedge you can to move universities to the right.”

To our knowledge there are only three blogs that accurately fit the description of being “about the Duke lacrosse scandal,” none of which can fairly be described as right wing by even the widest definition of that term. While there are several blogs that have posted extensively on the Duke hoax, only Professor KC Johnson’s Durham in Wonderland, attorney Michael McCusker’s Crystal Mess, and this blog have been exclusively “about the Duke lacrosse scandal.” Although John in Carolina, The Johnsville News, William Anderson, LaShawn Barber, and others have blogged at length on the Hoax, describing their blogs as “about the Duke lacrosse scandal” cannot be considered either accurate or fair. With the exception of Durham in Wonderland, Crystal Mess, and LieStoppers, there does not appear to be another blog that has been created in response to the Hoax, which has posted at length on the Hoax.

In response to Rojstaczer’s false characterization of these blogs having a “severe right wing slant,” Professor Johnson notes:

“For the record, I am a centrist, quite partisan, Democrat, a strong supporter of the wall between church and state, abortion rights, and gay marriage. So if my perspective is "right wing," then I wonder what we'd characterize the 50% of the electorate who voted for George W. Bush.”

With content that would make Larry Flynt and Bob Guccione proud, McCusker’s blog used as an example of a right wing slant would make Jerry Falwell cuss. For our part, the only political ideology that we have expressed is an aversion to electioneering by District Attorney Mike Nifong. With the exception of promoting Anybody But Nifong, endorsing Democrat Lewis Cheek as the ABN candidate in opposition to Nifong, applauding the heroic efforts of Beth Brewer and her RN-VC campaign, and chastising Durham GOP chairman Steve Monks for his siphoning of votes to help Nifong’s election, we have been decidedly apolitical. It’s difficult to imagine how the body of work that we have constructed to date could be construed as having a severe right wing bent. In fact, the participants in this blog share no group-wide commonalities in political viewpoint. Rather, our political ideologies stretch from liberal through moderate to conservative, with a fair amount of indifference in between. With the exception of one member who appears determined to launch a Borat For President campaign, it would be fair to assess our political agenda as non-existent upon the conclusion of the local District Attorney’s race.

Specifically, Rojstaczer takes exception to these imagined loopy right wing Hoax blogs’ criticism of the Group of 88’s listening ad. Rojstaczer mistakenly implies that unnamed right wing blogs have been the only critics of the Group of 88’s statements, which it must be noted have not been limited to the one collective advertisement. Rojstaczer may be surprised to learn that criticism of the infamous listening ad has not come exclusively from those with a real, or imagined, severe right wing slant.

Professor KC Johnson presents the same point using himself as an example:

“My blog has probably been the most critical of the Group of 88, though it's unclear if it is among the "right wing blogs" criticized in this post.”

“I have been critical of the Group of 88 almost from the day they made their statement. At the time, I considered the statement a betrayal of the signatories’ duties as professors; I feel even more strongly on the issue now. These professors--as Wahneema Lubiano, the coordinator of the statement, admitted in an interview with ESPN--promoted their own personal and pedagogical agenda in such a way that they knew would harm their own institution's students.”

“I have continued to criticize the Group of 88 not because I wish to see them dismissed, but because Pres. Brodhead has consistently deferred to their demands. That two of the four Campus Culture Initiative subgroups are chaired by Group of 88 members and a third by a vitriolic critic of the team suggests to me a campus that has lost its way.”

For our part, criticism of the Group of 88, their listening ad, and their continued individual public statements has been limited primarily to exposing the group’s collective and singular efforts to advantage themselves, and promote their agendas at the expense of three demonstrably innocent young men. Ironically, this is the same accusation that Rojstaczer levels at his fictional loopy right wing targets, while absolving the 88 of the same offense he takes exception to. For Rojstaczer, the 88 are merely freely expressing their opinions. Yet critics, who factually refute Group of 88 statements and their opportunistic use of the plight of three wrongfully prosecuted Duke Three, are advancing agendas, according to Rojstaczer.

Compounding our frustration with Rojstaczer’s approval of the listening ad, he acknowledges his disagreement with the arguments made within the ad, but condones it despite the fact that arguments made within the ad, and again expressed by many of the signatories repeatedly from the date the ad appeared until today, are similar to those being used by Nifong apologists and the District Attorney himself to justify the continuation the Hoax. Rojstaczer argues that because the ad, in his opinion, does not express a presumption of guilt, it is acceptable.

“The right-wing bloggers may claim that the advertisement signed by the 88 faculty members and several departments assumes the lacrosse players are guilty of rape, but it doesn’t wash. The ad doesn’t presume guilt. Read the ad. The ad decries racism on campus. I don’t agree with the ad; Duke is a place where racism is not pervasive. I think the ad is loopy. But that ad does not presume guilt of any crime.

"Why obsess over the signatories to a loopy ad that is a sideshow in a scandal? If you’re a loopy right-winger, you try to use any wedge you can to move universities to the right. It’s not enough to argue for the innocence of three people; you have to use those three people to further your political objective. I note that most people who are supportive of the lacrosse players have been sensible enough to stay focused on the issue of their guilt or innocence. It’s only those on the fringe that are trying to demonize faculty for expressing their opinion. I don’t agree with that opinion. But I think those faculty members have every right to state it.

Flash forward many months, and you read some blogs from right-wingers decrying an ad signed by 88 faculty members. You finally get around to reading the ad. You think this ad paints a picture of a racist campus that just doesn’t bear any relation to reality. There are serious problems with Duke student culture, but this isn’t one of them. The ad does not presume guilt of any crime. It’s just a silly thing. You wonder what the fuss is about. And you realize that just as there is no substance to the ads claims of pervasive racism, there is no substance to the right wing blogs attack on the 88 faculty members. It’s hot air versus hot air.”

What Rojstaczer fails to note, and perhaps to understand, is how clearly the “sideshows,” such as the “loopy” listening ad, have contributed to, and enabled, the Hoax. Previously, Rojstaczer has noted:

“If these students are innocent, it's a tragedy that this happened to them and Duke owes them an apology.” an apology

It’s difficult to understand how Rojstaczer can recognize the tragedy that has befallen the Duke Three, suggest that Duke owes them an apology, and yet approve of the listening ad that contributed greatly to the false impression that the defendants were guilty of contributing to the racial divide that has been used as an excuse to promote, enable and justify their false prosecution.

Read More From the "Loopy Right Wingers" on the Group of 88:

Who's Listening Now?

LS: Highly Unacceptable Behavior

TJN: The Listening Statement
KC Johnson: Group of 88 Statement
KC Johnson: The Group of 88's Three-D Response

KC Johnson: Checking in with the Group of 88

KC Johnson: Professional Protesters
Anderson: Lying Professors
KC Johnson: Karla Holloway

KC Johnson: Peter Wood's Distorted Campus Culture
Taylor: Rogues Gallery
TJN: Pressing on and Petering Out
TJN: Holloway

Letter to Holloway