On K.C. Johnson's Durham in Wonderland and Until Proven Innocent

(The second installment can be read here.)

With all due apologies to Ralph, Scott, Timothy, Miriam, and the rest of the good folk at Cliopatria, I've got to say: keeping K.C. Johnson on the roster does the rest of the contributors a disservice.  He divined the truth of what happened in Durham on the night of March 13th long before the police announced the results of their investigation.  He was correct.  Those who believed three Duke lacrosse players had raped an African-American women were incorrect.

Granted.

But I spent an hour this afternoon catching up with Johnson's Durham-in-Wonderland.  If the research presented on the blog is indicative of the content of his soon-to-be-published book—Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case—then I can only conclude that the book'll be positively Horowitzian in tenor and substance.

Like Horowitz—and clocks twice a day—Johnson occasionally nails his target.  Consider his series of profiles of the "Group of 88."  That Wahneema Lubiano is a tenured associate professor in the Program in Literature with one edited volume on her CV and two monograph that've been perpetually forthcoming since 1997 infuriates me.  It also infuriates every academic struggling for tenure, so the notion that her position is indicative of a general rot in the academic humanities is willfully misleading.

One down, eighty-seven to go.  Only he's not going to get to all eighty-seven.  He's shutting down the blog when Until Proven Innocent's published in September, and as of August 30th had only written fourteen—and even that's being charitable, since the final three were group profiles.  I can imagine the response: "So what?  He's found fourteen intellectual frauds in a group of only eighty-eight professors!  That's a damning percentage."

It certainly is.  Were he a baseball player, he'd be hitting a Ruthian .159.  But he isn't even hitting that well.  Consider his profile of Joseph Harris, the director of Duke's University Writing Program.  He's published three books and numerous articles.  His articles are published in the most important journals in the field of composition studies.  He has what can only be described as a stellar publication record for someone working in composition and rhetoric.

Johnson's dismissive description of the books—"each of which discuss how to teach writing"—is a blatant attempt to minimize the work of the entire field.  (A field, I should add, whose lack of respect is often lamented by conservative critics when they bemoan the reading and writing skills of the contemporary college student.)  What really galls me about Johnson's profile of Harris is his attempt to mislead his readers into believing statements like the following point to the liberal bias of Duke composition classes:

In a 1991 essay, he asserted that composition classes should "teach students to write as critics of their culture," with "teaching itself as a form of cultural criticism, about classrooms that do not simply reproduce the values of our universities and cultures but that also work to resist and question them."

That's about as benign a description of a course devoted to critical thinking as you'll ever find.  But if you conflate "criticism" with "condemnation," as Johnson invites you to, then it seems as if the University Writing Program's a haven for anti-American indoctrination.  To wit:

In another 1991 essay, he opposed using English classes as an opportunity to "pass down and preserve the legacy of high [W]estern culture." Why? Because students "need to use language to question the demands their society makes upon them." 

The first thing to note is that Harris published two articles in 1991.  The second is that Johnson capitalized the "w" in the phrase "high western culture."  The third is that what Harris says here is supremely uncontroversial.  He wants students to develop the ability to think for themselves in a language not borrowed unthinkingly from their parents.  This is not indoctrination: it's teaching.  He doesn't advocate teaching students to draw a particular conclusion, merely their own.

This isn't to say Harris isn't insidious.  I mean, look at him here, opposing the "corporate" nature of the university:

Too many academics, he complained, favor a meritocratic approach, concentrating on their own individual achievements rather than recognizing that they are "mid-level bureaucrats in large corporations." Harris, for one, described himself as "from a union family and . . . troubled by my position as a manager in a system that treats so many of its teachers unfairly."

Anti-corporate is anti-American, ipso facto it's anti-American to oppose the hiring of adjuncts.  That such hirings are deleterious to the departments that do them, the composition programs that rely on them, and the level of instruction university-wide is beside the point.  Johnson wants to improve the quality of education, whereas Harris wants to improve the quality of education.  Wait, what?  When someone pointed this out to him—in a comment which dispassionately, but damningly, condemns the practice of hiring adjuncts—Johnson disingenuously replied:

Given that, it's rather hard to argue that the academy is organized in a "corporate" fashion—that's a pretty big difference between the academy and the average corporation.

Translation: "I've worked in academia for years, yet somehow (wink wink) I'm not aware that the move to hire adjuncts is related to the desire of many university systems to adopt a more corporate model."

Or: "I have no response to your to comment, so I'll just call Harris 'shallow' again and hope you don't notice that I'm willfully donning blinders to make my point."

Both translations point to Johnson's fundamental commitment to making an argument which entails either willful misreading or gratuitous uncharitableness.

Take your pick.

To return to the baseball metaphor, Johnson's not merely hitting .159, he's hitting an empty .159.  He may have hit a double with Lubiano, but if he trawled the Group of 88 for equal bursts of power and stopped shortly after Harris, he has problems.  He had to force Harris into the mold of which he's but one of many exemplars.  What does that say about the other seventy-four professors whose profiles he hasn't posted?

The impetus behind this post was simple: I noticed that Priscilla Wald belonged to the Group of 88, and wondered why he hadn't profiled her—or, for that matter, any of the scholars with whose work I'm familiar.  (Also, why not Michael Hardt?  I mean, really, why not Hardt?  Wouldn't he be Johnson's perfect foil?)  Then I thought about it: if he tried to characterize their work, he'd give his readers the "wrong" impression; namely, that most of the members of the Group of 88 are responsible, well-respected scholars.

That would've been inconvenient.

Comments

[Ralph Luker]

I don't make any apologies for racist or sexist comments at D-i-W or anywhere else. When they appeared in a post there, when my name was involved, I asked KC to delete them and he did. But it's hard to keep up with the non-sense being posted here. Karl Steel, at 5:46, for example, gives us a list from the blogroll at Front Page Rag, *as if* David Horowitz's blogroll has anything to do with Durham-in-Wonderland. Some of you may want to conjure with the fact that Jarelyn Merritt of TalkLeft is endorsing KC's book. Some people on the left simply don't think that you have to tar the messenger whose narrative discomforts our own. It embarrasses us that a substantial part of Duke's faculty rushed to judgment. We need to learn from that fact.

[Rich Puchalsky]

"*as if* David Horowitz's blogroll has anything to do with Durham-in-Wonderland"

Quite right -- DiW's blogroll is worse, it contains a prominent link to Free Republic.

Look, I was wiliing to give KC Johnson the benefit of the doubt and all that. That was before I found out that he had denied, in high dudgeon, being Horowitzian even as he was writing for Horowitz' site. As far as I'm concerned, he no longer gets any benefit of the doubt whatsoever. And that means that I see no reason not to assume that he's a racist.

[ProfD]

"Some people on the left simply don't think that you have to tar the messenger whose narrative discomforts our own."

I'm sorry Ralph. When the messenger wrote the narrative, and it's a steaming pile of BS, then you should absolutely tar him.

[Ralph Luker]

Rich, Whether you knew it or not, Horowitz has been known to reproduce work on his site without the permission of the writer. KC fought against D'Ho's major project, the so-called "Academic Bill of Rights". And, btw, why shouldn't I assume that you are a racist?

ProfD, Have you called KC's book a "steaming pile of BS" without having looked at it? Do you treat all books that might challenge what you want to believe that way? I won't bother with your opinions about anything again. Why are you not curious about why the Group of 88 have not said publicly that *there was no rape*? It's odd, isn't it?

[Rich Puchalsky]

"Rich, Whether you knew it or not, Horowitz has been known to reproduce work on his site without the permission of the writer."

Let's see whether any action from KC Johnson to demand that Horowitz not use his work in this way happens. If it does not, will you be willing to acknowledge that you unwittingly acted as a shill for someone who used your recommendation to help delude the public?

But if you keep on with the "you haven't read the book" nonsense, I will have to remove the "unwittingly" from the sentence above. We've been through this before. These threads are about KC Johnson's Web site. Stop demanding that people not comment on it until they read a book which is not yet even published.

And lastly, you shouldn't assume that I'm a racist, because I've given no evidence of being one. For KC Johnson, there is plenty of evidence. It's really not that complicated -- someone who contantly harps on matters of interest only to racists, and who attracts an approving crowd of racists, is a racist. The boilerplate article on Ward Churchill seals the description, frankly. There is no reason except racism for anyone to find Ward Churchill still worth commenting on, to obsess about the Group of 88, and to be completely disinterested in any of the more important professorial scandals.

[ProfD]

"ProfD, Have you called KC's book a "steaming pile of BS" without having looked at it? Do you treat all books that might challenge what you want to believe that way?"

I've always been referring to KC's blog posts Ralph. The only time I mentioned the book concerned one of the chapter titles.

[Karl Steel]

Karl Steel, at 5:46, for example, gives us a list from the blogroll at Front Page Rag, *as if* David Horowitz's blogroll has anything to do with Durham-in-Wonderland.

It does, insofar as KC Johnson the author of the book is KC Johnson is the author of that column. Given that obvious connection, I think 'non-sense' is rather an over-heated adjective. Certainly the column does appeal to Horowitz and his crowd, and perhaps that inspired him to snag the column for his own purposes, without the approval of KCJ. Now that I've looked into things a bit more carefully, I see that the column wasn't written originally for Frontpage, that Horowitz gives proper credit for the article (below Johnson's byline, Frontpage lists Mindingthecampus.com), and that this article is the only article by KC Johnson listed on Frontpage. In other words, I made a mistake when I thought that KC Johnson was writing for Frontpage. Not the case, so far as I can determine.

That would be case, were it not for this article, also written by Robert "KC" Johnson (a handful more here (arrived at via the list of Op-Eds here, i.e., Johnson's CV).

Glancing at the other op-eds listed on his CV suggest to me that the several descriptions of Johnson's politics in this thread are accurate: he has written for Frontpage, describes Lieberman as possessing "commendable moderate" instincts (although here it's hard to tell if he's saying this in his own voice), he's written Op-Eds for the NY Sun, and he's opposed to Academic Unions (and praised NYU's Sexton for busting the grad union! This of course upsets me: I did some--but certainly not enough--organizing at Columbia, mostly around 2001-2003). So, I'm glad my Brooklyn College colleague (a surprise to me! I'm just entered this discussion, and just began my job at BC...in the English dept) is supporting Obama, but clearly he and I are on opposite sides on many issues that I feel are of fundamental importance.

[Karl Steel]

And I should say that I'm indeed coming very late to this party. Everyone probably already knows everything I said in my post above, but in 2002-2003, my mind was anywhere but on tenure problems in the CUNY system....

[Ralph Luker]

Rich: You should have paid more attention to ProfD's "Incidentally I don't believe that criticizing diversity hires automatically makes one a racist. That's nonsense. I also believe that KC's approach can be attacked on the merits, without resorting to labeling him a racist."

ProfD: I appreciate having your assurance that you're referring to D-i-W, rather than a book you've not read. That goes for Tim Burke, as well.

Both Tim and KC are my colleagues at Cliopatria and the dialogue between them has given it much of its vitality. I've got my own differences with KC about
his approach. My inclination, however, is to keep them between KC and me, rather than to hash them out here, where they'd be confused with mindless smears by Mr Y, Rich and others. For their opinions, I care less.

[T.S.]

Ralph, remember that Scott's criticism was of the blog and not the book. Or, it was CONDITIONALLY of the book, as he wrote, "if the research presented on the blog is indicative of the content of his soon-to-be-published book." I think you've focused on the idea that people are criticizing a book they haven't read too much here. The thread on the Progressive Historians blog is good in this regard.

[Tortmaster]

I'm throwing my "Billy Mumy Postulate" into the public domain. Please, someone, find a young, ambitious truth-seeking cultural anthropologist who will do proper research on the subject. I do this because I have been following this blog and other "progressive" blogs dealing with K.C. Johnson, and, in my opinion, there have already been many ill-conceived, evidence-less, even bodgered attempts to chill his speech, lately with flippant usage of the "R" word.

When people are charging around the blogosphere rallying troops to decry Professor Johnson's book BEFORE IT IS PUBLISHED, or before they have READ IT, then I think that some kind of research is necessary. What can one make of this:

"If we progressives should have learned one thing from Rove, it's the old adage about a lie being halfway around the world while truth puts on its boots: the only way to effectively raise questions about a work like KC's, which is going to get massive positive attention in mainstream and rightwing outlets, is to do so early, often, and loudly."

by: Ahistoricality @ Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 19:50:52 PM CDT (@ progressivehistorians.com)

(Note: This is two days before the book comes out).

[AMac]

T.S.,

'Nonpartisan' on the thread you link at "Progressive Historians" starts his or her post with a succinct description of the Duke case:

Three white members of the Duke lacrosse team were charged with raping a black stripper. Evidence eventually turned up that the stripper was lying and the sex had been consensual... [emphasis added]

'Nonpartisan' is either privy to explosive new information, or, more likely, got a key detail very wrong (there was no sex). This is a reminder that mistakes are easy to make. Hopefully, it will serve as an example of how errors should be acknowledged and corrected (I'd comment there, but have no account).

[Nonpartisan]

Amac, it's an error on my part -- as I've made clear, I don't know very much about the case. I'll just strike out the part you've italicized. Thanks for the correction!

[Ahistoricality]

Tortmaster: why shouldn't we comment on the subject and themes of the book before it's officially released? KC's been doing that for months now; why does he get a pass? Reviewers have been writing friendly things about it, KC's co-author's been giving interviews: are we supposed to just let their statements stand even when we know they're wrong, even when they poison the well for any discussion which might come later?

I love the "chilling speech" argument, too: If KC's got the right to write what he wants, then I've got the right to do the same. KC's trying to affect public and academic discourses, to encourage some kinds of speech and "chill" others; why don't I have the right to do the same?

Anyone who's actually curious can see the comment which Tortmaster's quoting from, in which these issues are actually addressed (and in which Nonpartisan disagrees with me about the blog/book divide, indicating that there might be some diversity in the "left" at that).

[Ralph Luker]

If Ahistoricality bothered to read this thread, he'd know *it* exemplifies diversity of attitude on the left. Some, like himself, are quite outspoken about what they know not; others, exercise some restraint and are willing only to speak of things for which they have evidence.

[Ralph Luker]

If Ahistoricality bothered to read this thread, he'd know *it* exemplifies diversity of attitude on the left. Some, like himself, are quite outspoken about what they know not; others, exercise some restraint and are willing only to speak of things for which they have evidence.

[ProfD]

Ralph,

All I know about the book at this point is that one of the chapters is titled "Academic McCarthyism". I'm going to assume that it is done so not because KC believes the actions of the G88 comparable to those of McCarthy and Co., but because a little hyperbole to grab one's attention is I suppose, artistic license.

However, if he tries to argue otherwise, he's lost all point of reference in my opinion.

[Karl Steel]

Ralph, you wrote:

Whether you knew it or not, Horowitz has been known to reproduce work on his site without the permission of the writer. KC fought against D'Ho's major project, the so-called "Academic Bill of Rights".

This stopped me in my tracks, but then I looked at Johnson's CV, which links to a piece at Frontpage. I think I can assume Johnson's not making that link to call attention to some unjust kidnapping of his work by Horowitz.

To recap: I pointed out a working association between Johnson and Horowitz; you argued that it was likely not the case; but in fact it is the case, and you either didn't know that or you withheld information in order not to have your argument muddled. Perhaps there's a third option, or others.

If you didn't know about this working association, then I'm curious to know why you're not responding to this new information. If you did know about it, I'm wondering why you withheld that information when Horowitz's name came up earlier. If I'm misreading the facts, I'd love to know how. I'm appalled if anyone has any working association with Horowitz, but I'm especially appalled when it's a fellow academic. If I've erred or even engaged in a "mindless smear" (which, by the way, I love on a bagel with lox), then please let me know how and where I've gone astray.

To understand the book, we need to understand its sitz im leben. That's all I'm doing: determining the context and culture of this particular discourse.

[AMac]

'Ahistoricality,' 3 September at 12:16am --

Thanks for amending the post at 'Progressive Historians' so rapidly. I'd like to offer a follow-up, as I think it's on-topic to the discussion here.

The succinct description of the stripper party that set off the Hoax/Frame now reads:

Three white members of the Duke lacrosse team were charged with raping a black stripper. Evidence eventually turned up that the stripper was lying and the sex had been consensual. Further searching turned up the fact that the district attorney in the case, Mike Nifong, had known of the exculpatory evidence and ignored it in his zeal to convict the three lacrosse players. Nifong was subsequently removed from office and disbarred.

["and the sex had been consensual" should show as struck text.]
To readers well-versed in the case, this makes sense. They will recognize that the author originally got a key detail wrong, and corrected it with a strikeout in order to leave a record of the changes that were made to the text of the original post.
However, if I knew little about these events, I would probably interpret the summary as follows:

"Evidence eventually established that the stripper had been lying. 'Nonpartisan' originally wrote that evidence also established that the sex between the three white members of the lacrosse team and the stripper had been consensual. That text was later stricken. Presumably, 'Nonpartisan' has corrected the narrative to show that the weight of the evidence on the consensual nature of the sex that took place is not conclusive, one way or the other."

Thus, while the original erroneous assertion was quickly corrected, readers who are new to the case will base their understanding on a presentation that--while factually correct--is arguably just as misleading as the original version.
My explanation of this presumed readers' error is longer than the succinct description itself. Perhaps that illustrates that there can be non-obvious obstacles to the transmission of information in a clear and correct manner, aggravated by the not-yet-fully-established conventions of 'academic' blogging.
In case it's not obvious, I'll add that I believe that the actions I've described by 'Nonpartisan' and 'Ahistoricality' were undertaken in good faith. It's easy to make these kinds of mistakes.

[Rich Puchalsky]

Ralph: "My inclination, however, is to keep them between KC and me, rather than to hash them out here, where they'd be confused with mindless smears by Mr Y, Rich and others. For their opinions, I care less."

Ralph, you're blustering because every defense you've tried out here has turned out to be wrong. Care to revoke your "Horowitz copied him withour permission" trial balloon now that you know that Johnson's CV links to Frontpage?

The real scandal here, as far as I can tell, is your opinions, not the Group of 88's. You exemplify the circle-the-wagons, my-colleagues-are-always-right mentality that racists always decry in areas like African-American studies but could really care less about as long as it favors them. You call my comments mindless smears, but I've backed up every argument I've made with evidence, while you have never acknowledged being wrong even as you turn from one twisted fabrication to another.