This is an archived page. Images and links on this page may not work. Please visit the main page for the latest updates.

 
 
 
Read my book, TEACHING BEAUTY IN DeLILLO, WOOLF, AND MERRILL (Palgrave Macmillan; forthcoming), co-authored with Jennifer Green-Lewis. VISIT MY BRANCH CAMPUS AT INSIDE HIGHER ED





UD is...
"Salty." (Scott McLemee)
"Unvarnished." (Phi Beta Cons)
"Splendidly splenetic." (Culture Industry)
"Except for University Diaries, most academic blogs are tedious."
(Rate Your Students)
"I think of Soltan as the Maureen Dowd of the blogosphere,
except that Maureen Dowd is kind of a wrecking ball of a writer,
and Soltan isn't. For the life of me, I can't figure out her
politics, but she's pretty fabulous, so who gives a damn?"
(Tenured Radical)

Sunday, August 05, 2007

Scathing Online Schoolmarm

The bellicose Joseph E. Bellacosa shows you how not to argue a case.

His way-angry opinion piece in Newsday insists that Duke University students boycott all classes taught by the 88 faculty members there who, when the lacrosse story raged, put their names to a letter which rushed to judgment against the players.

It was a stupid letter -- badly written, too, though who but SOS cares about such things... -- and I don't have anything in particular against boycotts... But Bellacosa's writing makes me want to boycott him.




Accountability finally came to Durham County District Attorney Michael Nifong last month, when he was disbarred as an attorney and forced to resign as a disgraced public officer. Last week he issued an apology and a full retraction of the rape accusations against three Duke University lacrosse players. [So far so good.]

Now, with students heading to Duke in just a few short weeks [Instead of the sort of dumb cliche just a few short, write the actual number of weeks.] for the beginning of the fall term, the time is at hand to demand some accountability for Nifong's academic enablers. [Already we're in trouble with demand. Angry insistency is not the way to go, especially at the beginning of your essay. Work up to a bit of rage if you must, but don't start in on demands in your second paragraph. The reader responds by assuming that you've got a personal agenda that's making you nuts.]

Eighty-eight members of the Duke faculty publicly promulgated a dreadful letter, enflaming a premature and prejudicial atmosphere against their own students. [You absolutely have to quote a sentence or two from the letter at this point. Or you could link to it. The reader can't be expected to remember it, and you need to demonstrate how dreadful it is. ] Yet, their conduct is largely shielded from accountability. Equally troublesome, their ironically and suddenly protective university masters executed a confidential settlement to further immunize the Duke cabal from civil liability exposure. [Notice how bizarre the combination of constipating adverbs (largely, ironically, suddenly) plus Harry-Potter-speak (cabal, masters) is here. The writer does not have control of his tone.]



The 88 are thus granted a kind of institutional immunity, a corruption of process all by itself because it sidesteps a day of public reckoning.

But although the group can't technically be charged with crimes - though abandoning your young and endangering youth sure do come close to real definable crimes - there are ways these professors can be held accountable. [The writer overstates the magnitude of the offense.] The identities of the 88 professors should be posted in significant ways and places, including in the media and on the Internet, so that they may be known for what they have done.

The likely howls of protest [howls of protest is a cliche] from the tenure police, university guild apologists and free-speech absolutists [Beginning to sputter here. You don't want to sputter.] notwithstanding, the professoriat should not be shielded from appropriate public condemnation for their misconduct. Their dormant consciences and sensibilities should be reawakened to the abhorrent nature of the actions they inflicted on their own students. [Read this sentence aloud. While there's nothing grammatically objectionable about it, it's just weird. Awkward. Stilted. You want your writing - especially opinion piece writing for newspapers - to be as close to conversational speech as possible. No one talks like this.]

But even belatedly squirming consciences are not enough to compensate for the betrayal of fundamental principles involved here. [Ecoute. You don't have to be a poet, okay? You don't. But... belatedly squirming conscience?]

Because the identities of this "Group of 88," as they have been dubbed, are blurred by their group anonymity, they should not be allowed to get away with their prejudgment - a brazen violation of the presumption of innocence, despite later protestations to the contrary. [What we need here is precision about the content of the letter, not sputtering redundancy.]

Their roles as teachers should have included special protection of their pupils from mob hysteria and media hype, not collaboration in the spectacle. These 88 and the rest of the Duke "family" [You guessed it.] stood in loco parentis - in the place of the parents who entrusted their youngsters to Duke's professionals, with substantial tuition payments. The parents' trust was painfully misplaced, and their children suffered irreparable reputation injury and a fundamental breach of duty.

The courses and classrooms of these 88 professors should be emptied. The university's academic leaders should consider assigning them to teach only elective courses. [Someone needs to tell Mr. Bellacosa that university professors pray to teach only elective courses. Only elective courses is not a punishment. It is a reward.] No students should be forced to sit through mandatory courses with professors who evidently believe more in their ideologies than in their human charges.

Next, when students select among their electives, they should shun these professors and their courses - a good, old-fashioned revived remedy of accountability. Shunning is, under these circumstances, a proportionate penalty for the sin of heedlessly injuring young people placed in one's care and charge.

These 88 would thus be professionally disenfranchised, and as they look out at empty rooms and seats, that lesson would be felt and take hold. [ {Cough.} When they're done praying for a straight roster of electives, professors turn to the Give me the Smallest Possible Number of Students in My Class prayer.]

The university's powers that be are unlikely to have the backbone to employ this measure, based on their lack of spine throughout this debacle. But, it's an idea - and aren't universities supposed to be all about openly and courageously exploring ideas?

Duke and especially its 88 should-have-known-better professors were responsible for aiding and abetting Nifong's "crimes" [Second violation.] against his Duke student targets. The DA has had his day of reckoning for what he perpetrated; the 88 should, too. They flunked with a capital "F" the course in Principles of Justice 101, whose first lesson is the presumption of innocence and protection of innocents.

Everyone should be held ultimately accountable for their actions, even the hostile unintended consequences thereof, lest, in the future, hubristic ideologues, invested with power and fiduciary responsibilities, think that they, too, can act irresponsibly, with impunity and immunity. [So there! I mean, thereof! Lest!]

Labels: