88 defenders

Last week, on FOX News' "The O'Reilly Factor," host Bill O'Reilly's opening segment criticized 88 now-infamous Duke professors for last spring's widely fustigated "We Are Listening" ad and reigned in criticisms from Duke senior Stephen Miller. After O'Reilly dismissed President Richard Brodhead as a "coward," Miller characterized this rarified moment in Duke's history as a time when he, a self-proclaimed "conservative," and "liberal" students are united by one aberrant commonality-their disapproval of the "Group of 88."

This group of professors has been, put mildly, browbeaten and savagely misrepresented. Now embedded in the ethos of our University's continuing lacrosse narrative, their story warrants more student attention.

The night of April 5, 2006, Brodhead wrote in a mass e-mail that the incident "troubling our community... has brought to glaring visibility underlying issues that have been of concern on this campus and in this town for some time-issues that are not unique to Duke or Durham but that have been brought to the fore in our midst." The next day, The Chronicle printed an advertisement titled, "What does a Social Disaster Sound Like?" Signed by 88 professors and endorsed by seven departments and seven academic programs, the ad was inspired by an African and African American Studies forum held March 29. The event, facilitated by Mark Anthony Neal, associate professor of African and African American Studies, began by addressing the theme of "black masculinity in the academy," but it continued with candid commentaries on the nascent lacrosse drama and social divisions at the University.

The more than 50 students at the event never submitted that "Duke breeds cultures of hate, racism, sexism and other forms of backward thinking," which an April 3 Chronicle editorial suggested was a narrowly held opinion on campus. The student testimonials from the AAAS event, however, did underline Duke students' troubling experiences with such nationally felt problems as racism, sexual violence and class privilege-and as such, their words were used in the ad.

The matters on which the students spoke at the forum are of profound concern to Duke and have historical antecedents that inform today's discussion. Two weeks ago, in an "Open Letter to the Duke Community," 87 professors declared that while the "criminal proceedings and the media frenzy which followed are perhaps beginning to wind down... the issues raised by the [lacrosse] incident... are not." Simultaneously, others are publicly concerned with punishing those who flubbed the U.S. justice system. As Lee Baker, associate professor of cultural anthropology and chair of the Arts and Sciences Council, wrote in an e-mail: "The so-called 88 were focused on social justice, while many of the most adamant supporters of the lacrosse players were outraged that there was a miscarriage of criminal justice. Now, the question is in this climate, can one embrace both?"

Thus, the dialogue about the "underlying issues" to which Brodhead referred has not ended. When we learn from the editors of Saturday Night that approximately 40 reports of sexual violence are filed annually at Duke, when we learn from the Campus Life and Learning Project that black students have reported incidences of on-campus discrimination at four times the rate of white students, when organizations host events on a regular basis to deconstruct the origins of Duke's social divides, we receive a chilling reminder that a cultural critique must continue.

Despite their expressed concern for these documented issues of social concern, the 88 (and now the 87) have been vehemently criticized, called liberal zealots who did great harm to the University by not defending the accused. In short, these critics are wrong. The 88 professors who published the ad last April did give their support, to the students who spoke up at the March 29 forum. In response, their most extreme opponents have used minor instances of verbal ambiguity within the ad to wage a convenient war against academicians they do not like, wrongly suggesting that these professors do not care about their students. As junior Paul Slattery, Duke Student Government chief of staff, has argued in online forums, the blanket claim "the 88 don't support students" translates to "the 88 don't support the right students." In its careless simplicity, the broad assertion implies that standing behind marginalized female and minority students is neither meaningful nor productive.

I therefore call on all students to engage in a renewed conversation about the "underlying issues" of the "What does a Social Disaster Sound Like?" advertisement. And if you believe that there are no socially divisive issues that this community needs to interrogate, display a scrap of courage and attach your names to your opinions-like 88 professors who preceded you.