Context changes understanding of quotes

I was not misquoted in the story "Faculty lean left with political contributions" (Oct. 23, 2005).

One style of journalism is fishing for quotes and writing down useful phrases from the person you are interviewing. This can cause problems when the context is missing and the quote is divorced from the question. Consider the following exchange, which is my (possibly flawed) recollection of the entire exchange:

Duke Chronicle: "Does it mean anything that the Democratic contributions are so much more? They are a 3-1 ratio, sometimes more."

Michael Munger: "I don't think so. There are just lots more Democrats. The contributions ratio is just the result of the faculty ratios."

DC: "But there are lots more Democratic contributions. Do you think that is significant? Is there a change in the level of political activity in the faculty?"

MM (somewhat testily): "Look. There is not a surge in Democratic giving. It is just that there are no conservatives at Duke. Even the conservatives are liberal-there are no conservatives in academia in the sense of straight-up Republicans. The reason that the Democratic contributions levels are higher is just that there are more Democratic faculty. There is no big change in the direction of ideological composition toward the left. I don't think that is a big story."

So, again, I was not misquoted. But I want the readers of The Chronicle to see the question that elicited my response. And for all of you bent on correcting my claim of "no conservatives" with a single counterexample, thanks in advance for your opinions. I hope you know just how much they mean to me.

Michael Munger

Could it be that Duke conservatives are now actually endorsing affirmative action? While conservative elements on campus remain firm in their opposition to racial affirmative action-they have become vociferous advocates of affirmative action of an ideological nature. The persistent complaints against a politically imbalanced faculty equates to a call for nothing less.

As these parties continue to ignore the centuries-old establishment of socioeconomic disparity assigned by birth, they act with unparalleled urgency in their own claimed subjugation. In reality, this distortion of policy priorities is but one more artifact in the history of contrived victimization expressed by the Right. While factions of our country are still denied a basic guarantees of humanity such as health care, education and equality of opportunity, some of the most privileged are repeatedly claiming injury-be it from a liberal media, the denial of Christian prayer in schools or innapropriately liberal graders. Furthermore, the denial of structural arguments for racial affirmative action contrasting with their own use of the same in their plight is hypocrisy.

While a diverse and nurturing academic environment is as dear to me as any, as we continue to waste valuable front-page newsprint on phantom injustices, such as this, we will continue to push those ills most injurious and fundamental to our community to the back of our newspapers and consciences.

Jamie Campbell

Trinity '06

Treasurer for Duke Democrats