Repercussions at Duke
The lawsuit filed by a former Duke student against a professor and the university seems trivial on the surface, but it may have real significance.
Kyle Dowd claims visiting professor Kim Curtis gave him an F in a politics and literature course last spring because he was a member of the lacrosse team. The university later changed the grade to a D, but Dowd says the incident put his graduation in jeopardy and created emotional distress, etc. He's seeking $60,000 in damages.
What makes the allegation plausible is that Curtis was one of 88 faculty members who published a statement last spring buying into the then-prevailing theme of rich, white, drunken athlete rapists running amok on the Duke campus.
More than anything, that kind of attitude among faculty members may be responsible for the decline in student applications this year. Who wants to attend a university where the professors regard you with a presumption of guilt?
Not all professors, though. Blogger K.C. Johnson reports that 17 faculty members in the economics department issued a statement yesterday supporting the accused students.
The university administration recently has come around, too, ending the suspensions of Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty. I'd guess, though, there are a lot of professors whose classes they will avoid.
Free speech should be encouraged on campus, but prejudicial attitudes against classes of students can't be tolerated. The university may be held accountable, if only morally, for the actions of those professors who jumped to the wrong conclusions.
Comments (6)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
"17 faculty members in the economics department issued a statement yesterday supporting the accused students."
YESTERDAY? Where was the "presumption of innocence" when it happened? Heck, I believe that's part of the US justice system and last time I checked, Duke was still part of the US. Is this one more note in the death knell for the presumption of innocence, habeas corpus, and not opening private mail of US citizens?
Posted on January 5, 2007 9:53 AM
Good point about the timing. Of course, no one was obligated to jump to the defense of the accused. Failing to do so is much less a sin than jumping to condemn them.
Posted on January 5, 2007 10:23 AM
The Duke administration did what was politically prudent when the case broke. Now they're doing what's politically prudent since it's revealed there (likely) is no case.
Apparently they need to see which way the wind is blowing each time they make a decision.
Posted on January 5, 2007 11:41 AM
Sins of omission and sins of commission are still sins, no? And in my philosophy racket, I have trouble 'judging' one as more important than another.
Why was no one obligated to defend the presumption of innocence, when the Duke profs seemed to to jump to defend the presumption of guilt? Isn't the pursuit of knowledge (that which we like and that which we do not like) fundamental to universities' missions?
You seem to justify (with your comment) that it was OK to jump all over them with international implications but, aw heck, defending (not them, but the presumption of innocence) was an aside. Is that what you believe?
Posted on January 5, 2007 11:46 AM
I don't think I said anything that could be construed as justifying a rush to judgment.
Posted on January 5, 2007 12:19 PM
Sue, the "presumption of innocence" is exclusively a legal term (although a frequently misunderstood one), meaning that the burden of proving a crime is on the state, not the accused.
It doesn't mean we, as private citizens, can't form conclusions and express opinions about the guilt or innocence of a person suspected of a crime. I mean, O.J. was acquitted, but does anyone really think he's not a killer?
The problem the Duke professors made was expressing an opinion when they had a clear conflict of interest.
As this lawsuit shows, they have the power to affect the lives of students in their classes. By issuing an statement condemning lacrosse players, they created real doubt about whether or not they can be impartial and fair when handing out grades.
Posted on January 5, 2007 4:02 PM