Case Study of Patriarchy / Academic Hegemony

Recently I became privy to an interesting example of an internet pissing match between a "modern day feminist, struggling between the desire for social change and bitterness towards the depraved decadence of our backward culture." and a "professor of history at Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center, where I teach classes in 20th century US political, constitutional, and diplomatic history. In 2007-8, I was Fulbright Distinguished Chair for the Humanities at Tel Aviv University."

The former: Nicole Kubon.

The latter: KC Johnson.

Nicole contributes to the blog "decadent depravity of our dutiful daughters" and her most recent post "Super Bowl Madness: Athletes & Assault" seemed to irk some of the wayward intelligentsia obsessively scouring the internet for commentary over the Duke Lacrosse rape case, in paticular R. B. Parrish the author of “The Duke Lacrosse Case: A Documentary History and Analysis of the Modern Scottsboro”. This then got the attention of KC Johnson - co-author of "Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case", who took it upon himself to set up the internet/intellectual equivalent of a public caning, so that all could see how inferior and incorrect Kubon's views really were. This can be found on KC's blog, Durham Wonderland, but for my reader's sake I will reproduce it here in it's totality...

The Wonderful World of Nicole Kubon

Every so often, a post or comment comes along that even I find extraordinary. Such was the case with a recent post by Nicole Kubon, a self-described “modern day feminist, struggling between the desire for social change and bitterness towards the depraved decadence of our backward culture."

Kubon, who claims to possess a Masters’ Degree in social work from the University of Michigan, posted an item stating, “If you like the Duke Lacrosse Team because they are really good at running around, throwing balls to each other in little nets, and getting high after games, it might be hard to hear that they allgot inordinately drunk and sexually assaulted a stripper they hired for their drunkfest.” [emphasis added]

Not even the false accuser Crystal Mangum ever claimed that she was sexually assaulted by all the people at the party (though she did seem to make one assertion, which she quickly retracted, that 20 people had raped her). And, more generally, I was curious as to what evidence Kubon possessed to substantiate her assertion, and in particular whether she had read the official reports of the North Carolina State Bar and the North Carolina Attorney General’s Office.

In reply to an e-mail from me, Kubon asserted that in making her claims, she relied on this March 26, 2006 posting from Brendan Nyhan. Yet this particular Nyhan post was far from his last word on the matter--it certainly didn't reflect his overall views on the lacrosse case--and all the post did was to (correctly) suggest that the story was likely to get a lot of attention and to alert readers to the (error-riddled) Khanna N&O “interview” with Mangum.* In this respect, Kubon is sort of an extreme version of the Group of 88, someone who rushed to judgment about the case and then simply closed her mind to any and all inconvenient data points that emerged thereafter. Even most of the Group of 88, however, are not so fantastically closed-minded. (Houston Baker, Grant Farred, and perhaps Wahneema Lubiano would fall into Kubon territory.) In a follow-up e-mail, Kubon then retracted her claim that she had relied on the March 2006 blog post for her own writings, but refused to supply any additional material on which she based her assertions. She also declined to state whether or not she had read the AG’s report.

Quite oddly, Kubon further informed me that her original post hadn’t proclaimed that all (or even any) of the lacrosse players were guilty. I’m not sure how else anyone would interpret the following line: “They all got inordinately drunk and sexually assaulted a stripper they hired for their drunkfest.” [emphasis added]

Kubon also appeared to be quite angry that commenters had criticized her . . . cavalier . . . use of facts. She promised that, since she “believe[s] that something happened that night,” she will not issue a correction of her post, and that she has no obligation to actually substantiate her claims with facts or evidence.

It is, to put it mildly, rather difficult to come up with a response, other than utter contempt, to a figure who all but gloats about her closed-mindedness while making heinous accusations against people.

*--modified for clarity, and to stress that, given his position as a Duke-based blogger as of 3-26-06, there was nothing, in any way, improper about Nyhan's post.

- KC Johnson 2/3/11

Now what interests me in all this grandstanding, posturing and pettiness is the overall structure of these interactions in their entirety. It is very clear that KC and Patricia Dowd and R. B. Parrish are correct in their assessment that Nicole is wrong about the facts on the case - Johnson and Parrish are both published authors on the case and as such would be considered the "authorities" on the subject, at least academically. But what is also manifest in all of this is: this was essentially an offhand comment - nothing more than impassioned hyperbole - and more importantly not really a point that stuck out in the lengthy article that she penned. Yet here we have in front of us a credible scholar bending over backwards to publicly admonish someone seemingly completely removed from any of his academic circles or establishment connections: the internet equivalent of swerving your car twenty miles off the road to run over an ant. And it's hardly a gentle chastising either, it's filled with condescension "claims to possess a Masters’ Degree in social work" and derision "It is, to put it mildly, rather difficult to come up with a response, other than utter contempt, to a figure who all but gloats about her closed-mindedness". This all coming from an academic - and a famous one at that (although he became famous through the roundabout way of an infamous CUNY tenure battle that made national headlines).

Undoubtedly Nicole is guilty of a very liberal usage of literary tropes in referring to an inflammatory case that still lingers in our collective unconscious; and assuredly she is guilty of refusing to retract her statements or admit she was incorrect in her assumptions when confronted with a mountain of evidence; but this amounts to little more than a hill of beans in the sea of sprawling information that comprises the internet. This begs the greater question of why bother? Why would KC Johnson devote so much time and vitriol to squashing a gnat?

In the answer lies the justification of Ms. Kubon's greater argument. Let us begin:

KC Johnson, while correct, is correct ad hoc, and uses a statement built on hypothetical postulating as a wholesale and systematic deconstruction of Nicole Kubon as person and a human being. Her entire paragraph reads:

Keep things in perspective. Athleticism and team work are great things to understand, experience and even live by but when teaching children an appreciation for athleticism gets confused with an obsession for specific players or teams who then become focuses of ritualized worship (have you ever attended an actual Super Bowl party?), it is easy for people (especially young people) to lose sight that talented people are capable of doing, and have done, terrible things. If you like the Duke Lacrosse Team because they are really good at running around, throwing balls to each other in little nets, and getting high after games, it might be hard to hear that they all got inordinately drunk and sexually assaulted a stripper they hired for their drunkfest. It would probably be alot easier to agree that strippers are strippers and, well, oh yeah, she lied but take a minute and THINK ABOUT WHAT MATTERS MORE: RAPE OR SPORTS.

Now when contextualized, it is clear that her statement is figurative and not demonstrative, nor does she use the Duke Lax boys as one of the many clear and uncontested examples that her citations consist of. Unlike many of the commentators have claimed on Durham-in-Wonderland, this statement is not libelous, nor is it slander nor defamation of character. It is couched in the second person and posited as a hypothetical, and one that, frankly, just makes sense. IF I did like Duke Lax, it MIGHT be hard for me to hear they got drunk and gang raped someone. There is no error in logic here, nor is it any form of crime to draw that conclusion, or posit that question. The only thing I can fault Ms. Kubon with is her own hubris in adamantly defending her position, rather than allowing her writing to speak for itself. And while she and all of us are entitled to our own humble opinions we should also be able to defend our view points adequately in a public forum.

That aside, we should also be immune from ad hominem attacks as well. It is appropriately ironic that those seemingly so concerned with false accusation, slander and libel have no problem trashing someone they have never met on the basis of assumption, in what is both a backhanded and blatant portrayal of misogyny. Here are some posts from KC's blog (it should be noted that all comments require moderation and therefore it is reasonable to assume that KC had no problem allowing any of this to be posted):

Anonymous said... If you like the Women's Studies Program at Michgan because they are really good at making stuff up, throwing the phrase "rape culture" around, and getting high after poetry readings, it might be hard to hear that they recently reported a study showing that for every 100 female students on the Ann Arbor campus, 150 of them have been raped.

Anonymous said... Frankly, Kubon and those like her are pathetic. Without dissecting her words, I remain perplexed how such people are capable of functioning. However, her psychological framework {modern day feminist] reveals enough to understand her warped and demented view of life and society. Moreover, the Crystal Mangum affair is nothing more than an opportunity for this angry (perhaps abused) woman to vent her evil vexations upon a receptive audience of victims.

Anonymous said...

Nicole Kubon’s Experience according to her own LinkedIn listing: Marinated in government funded wackiness...read how your tax dollars are being wasted. Twenty-Something Relationships Columnist Examiner.com Sexual Assault Advocate Wayne County S.A.F.E. (Mental Health Care industry) March 2010 — Present (1 year ) Direct Services Intern Sexual Assault Prevention & Awareness Center (Mental Health Care industry) December 2008 — December 2009 (1 year 1 month) Jumpstart Corp Member Americorps (Government Agency; Non-Profit Organization Management industry) September 2008 — May 2009 (9 months) Assistant Program Coordinator Global REACH (Educational Institution; Higher Education industry) May 2007 — August 2008 (1 year 4 months) Research Assistant SURO (Mental Health Care industry) January 2007 — May 2007 (5 months) Conducted Background Research on Asexuality and Bisexuality Undergraduate Student Instructor Women's Studies Department - University of Michigan (Education Management industry) January 2007 — May 2007 (5 months) Group Facilitator for WS 100: Gendered Lives in the US Nicole Kubon’s Education University of Michigan MSW , Interpersonal Practice, Mental Health , 2008 — 2009 Activities and Societies: Sexual Assault Prevention & Awareness Center (SAPAC), Sexual Health Educators, Spectrum Center University of Michigan Bachelor's Degree , Sociology, Women's Studies , 2004 — 2007 Activities and Societies: Spectrum Center, Sexual Assault Prevention & Awareness Center (SAPAC), Students for Choice Additional Information

This last post is perhaps the most shocking and maybe it shouldn't be, maybe I should have come to expect this sort of thing in the digital age of mudslinging, but I'm glad I don't. The argument shifts clearly from Ms. Kubon is incorrect, to Ms. Kubon is legally culpable and liable, to Ms. Kubon is a dumb bitch feminist and wow clearly any view she has is stupid, she's probably a dyke and has huge hairy armpits (for the record KC, this is a literary embellishment, please don't sue me). The sum total I got from reading Durham-In-Wonderland: The Wonderful World of Nicole Kubon, was that KC Johnson is patronizing, condescending and implicitly supports/agrees with the inane ad hominem attacks on Ms. Kubon. He creates the tone and allows it to flourish, from the title (which is parody of "The Wonderful World of Disney" implying, not so subtlety or artistically, that it is a fantasy land) to the line "claims to possess a Masters’ Degree in social work" (imagine the converse claim as "claims to have a Malcolm Gladwell haircut and teach at a city college") all the way through the commentary he allows [author's note: I originally wrote a much harsher rebuke as a lengthy comment only to receive an error message and lose the entirety of the comment which is why I am writing this now] to published through moderation.

Now this sausage fest of Clockwork Orange type cyber-bullying coupled with loosely legal and academic misogyny is in stark contrast to the measured responses and empathy of Ms. Kubon herself on her own blog commentary:

Nicole Kubon says:

February 2, 2011 at 6:31 pm

I have read your comment and understand your passionate defense of the Duke Lacrosse Team. I must however, respectfully decline your request for a retraction that members of the Duke Lacrosse Team sexually assaulted a woman. I followed the Duke case closely and have indeed looked at the “facts” and studied the evidence and personally feel that an assault did take place. As this is a blog expressing my personal opinion, I do not feel that I defamed anyone. My mention of the Duke Lacrosse team was for example’s sake and was not even a focus of my article. I believe passionately that sexual assault is a serious matter, as I have dedicated my life to working with survivors of sexual assault and believe that the real tragedy here is that the defenses heard most passionately are those defending athletes, not the women assaulted by them. As much as you hope that I never have to endure the pain and anguish that the families of the lacrosse team suffered, I hope that you never have to endure the pain, anguish and devastation that sexual assault survivors, their families and friends must endure when their stories are disbelieved and they are personally attacked for coming forward against their perpetrators. Please contact me via e-mail at nicole@decadentdepravity.com if you desire any further discussion (which I’d be more than happy to make public, just not in a comment thread).
Nicole Kubon says:

February 3, 2011 at 7:11 pm

In response to your comment I will say two things:
1) And this is hopefully the last time I will have to make this point…my article is not about the Duke Lacrosse case or my opinion about their guilt or innocence. What I was exploring in my article is sexual violence in professional athletics, the Duke Lacrosse case is just one of many examples I used of athletes “accused, convicted or acquitted” of sexual violence.
2) The final paragraph of your comment,”Police knew who she was, where she lived, and that she had left two children at home alone, even before she had said a word. She was a known commodity,” is a perfectly illustrated example of what I find devastating. That someone with a bad reputation is not capable of being sexually assaulted and that any entertainment of the idea that she might be telling the truth is nonsense.
All kinds of men perpetrate sexual assault against all kinds of women on a daily basis. If a PROSTITUTE doesn’t want to have sex with someone and they force her to engage in sexual acts, even if they leave her with money afterward, she was still sexually assaulted. A person’s “reputation” should not qualify or disqualify them from being raped. Regardless of what actually occurred in the Duke Lacrosse case, the attitude offered about the “accuser” in this case is a perfect example of this contribution to a rape culture that I explored in the article.
Nicole Kubon says:

February 3, 2011 at 9:13 pm

A person’s reputation does not qualify or disqualify them from being a rapist either. Rapists come in all kinds, from the wealthy, respected father and business man, to the star athlete, to the scum of the earth.
My opinion having previously been made clear, it is exactly that, my opinion. And regardless of what actually happened the night the Duke Lacrosse scandal was born, for every man who is falsely accused of sexual assault, there are thousands of women who are disbelieved when they come forward about a sexual assault they experienced. So excuse my lack of concern for defending Duke Lacrosse.
I will no longer let this line of conversation dominate my article. As is stated in the description of my website, “our site was created as an outlet, a resource center, a ventilator for frustration for the modern day feminist.” These comments are not of this nature and thus are inappropriate.

Night and Day. While I don't agree with her assertion that "an assault did take place" the entire point is essentially moot, which she states herself "my article is not about the Duke Lacrosse case or my opinion about their guilt or innocence. What I was exploring in my article is sexual violence in professional athletics, the Duke Lacrosse case is just one of many examples I used of athletes “accused, convicted or acquitted” of sexual violence.". The entire argument by KC (and his minions) is essentially a rhetorically aside, a digression - pedantic narrow ad hoc stupidity.
So Nicole Kubon was sandbagged.

Nicole Kubon was stonewalled.

Nicole Kubon was railroaded by several published academics. When she refused to continue to publish their comments they took the fight to their turf: the male only world of blogs from men of letters. In one sense this is understandable, if only as a classic patriarchal response demonstrated through the framework of academic hegemony. Males and their collective system of authority are under attack, an attack that is logical and furthermore illustrates a grand hypocrisy and injustice that is continually allowed to be perpetuated in male dominated society. They respond in a pattern to be expected - playing by their rules, in their world. They change the argument to focus on an errant comment, and disprove it thoroughly until there is no possible recourse but accept their pronouncement. Then they relish their victory, in poor taste.
If you recognize this pattern it is because it is tattooed on our society. The best example of this is how conservatives have really established the best narrative in American politics by doing just that: repeatedly hammering home a trivial point as the keystone of a mindless logic that is allowed to flourish by merit of its repetition and simplicity.

Ultimately KC's excursion in mental masturbation, to show all his peers and contemporaries how big his anti-feminist crushing muscles are, is completely irrelevant and serves only to show how shallow and petty establishment thinking is when reacting to anything or anyone perceived as radical. KC's greatest contribution here is to show Ms. Kubon's paranoia of an aggressive male society is completely justified. Apparently irony strikes twice as KC's high profile lambasting has drawn much more traffic to her blog, and allowed her opinion to promulgate and disseminate amongst more minds.
The funniest thing is that if those with authority (and power) weren't so insecure in their position as to have the need to excoriate any modest opposition, their opposition wouldn't have so much credibility. By acknowledging Ms. Kubon, KC gives her much more recognition, and her opinion much more weight, than if he had chosen to ignore her completely.
The greater implicit truths contained within my dissection of this argument are:

1. Nicole's greater argument over the double standard of athlete's sexual indiscretions is non-fallacious
2. To reject Nicole's greater points and argument in toto because of the distortion of a statement taken out of context is fallacious
3. To reject Nicole's orginal thesis wholesale by discrediting her ad hominem is fallacious

And then again these truths allude to fact that:

1. Institutions of any gravitas (by society's terms, id est: the status quo) are extensions of the existing power structure which is patriarchal
2. Academia / higher education is not immune to this, it is largely an old boy's club that rarely does much to influence social norms, a fact KC should be well acquainted with after his tenure struggle
3. Why feminism is purely relegated to the garret of liberal arts colleges should speak for itself considering: Women have NOT had the right to vote for even a century yet, they comprise an extremely small amount of our elected officials, account for an equally infinitesimal portion of our corporate leaders et cetera.
4. Despite all that feminism remains a pejorative term, despite what has been demonstrated as clear oppression within our society, and the term feminist has the cultural connotation of an unattractive man hating lesbian who, as a caricature, can be completely disregarded. Thus threats to the power structure can be disregarded. This keeps a silent majority, those feisty women that occasionally need to be put in their place by cowards in bowties.

That none of this is blatantly obvious to a pompous and petty scholar who spends the bulk of his energy defending rich white boys of privilege that were so excited to "kill" and "skin" a bitch, that they were "cumming in their Duke issued spandex" is a big FUCK YOU AMERICA, (ESPECIALLY WOMEN).

So wholeheartedly FUCK YOU KC JOHNSON, ESPECIALLY IN THE ASS. [emphasis added]

God Bless Nicole Kubon, and all women like her

- DJV

PS: Don't sue me,
fucker.