John in Carolina’s post, “KC Johnson Now”

Update 2, 7/10/09: The three paragraphs that I removed pointed out an error that appeared on another site. Although no one has questioned the accuracy of what I wrote, some have asked me to explain my deletion. The error on this site has been amended, and this made my comments moot. If this situation arises again, I will amend or comment on my post to acknowledge a correction made elsewhere, rather than remove the paragraph(s). I am sorry about any confusion I have created.

Update 7/8/2009: This post has been edited since it was first uploaded. Three paragraphs have been removed.

In his post “KC Johnson Now” on 24 May 2009 (http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2009/05/kc-johnson-now.html), John in Carolina (JinC) attacked fellow Duke Lacrosse (DL) blogger KC Johnson. I will examine two points that JinC raised, that KC Johnson banned Joan Foster and that Professor Johnson was untruthful about his sources that confirmed a Raleigh News and Observer (N&O) story from 1 April 2006. I will treat the second, more serious matter first.

The incident at Charlie’s
The N&O ran a story about an incident in which Duke lacrosse players were alleged to have behaved obnoxiously at a bar in Durham called Charlie’s. The second of these issues only emerged in the comments section at JinC. Professor Johnson indicated that he had spoken with both people who confirmed and who disputed this story in a comment at 8:57 PM.

John wrote at 7:35 PM, “You can imagine how hard they worked to confirm the shotslamming and shouting at Charlie’s story.
But no one could.
At least not until KC Johnson managed to find two witnesses he says ‘corroborated--in no uncertain terms--the story in Blythe and Stancill's article.’
Has KC ever disclosed that publicly until just now on this thread because he ‘had no clear grounds for attacking the article.’
What KC’s claiming about his ‘witnesses’ is very hard to believe.’ Another commenter (RD at 9:11 PM) pointed out that John was questioning KC’s veracity on nothing more than a hunch, and I agree with RD’s assessment wholeheartedly.

At 3:24 PM John wrote, “When I read KC's claim in his response to the post that he'd found 2 "corroborating" witnesses it was one of the saddest and toughest moments I've had blogging.” On a later date at 3:20 PM, John wrote, “I'm not sure KC found two ‘corroborating’ witnesses to the events Hopman claimed happened for reasons I first discussed on this thread when he first made the claim.” In response to a question from me in the comment thread, KC Johnson discussed this matter further (http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2009/05/roberts-art-of-deception.html). He specifically references the times and dates of email correspondence. Does John claim that these are blatant fabrications? If so, what evidence does he have? Surely John appreciates that claiming a professional historian has made something up is a very serious charge.

The Nonbanning of Joan Foster
John wrote, “I think DIW lost something important when KC barred Joan Foster, one of the people who's been most effective from the first in the fight for DL justice. All Joan did was to civilly and persuasively disagree with KC over his ridicule of Prejean.”

Johnson denied banning Joan Foster in a comment at 8:59 PM, saying that he instead closed the thread. I first commented at 2:16 PM simply to say that KC did not ban Joan. I gave the link to the DIW post in which the thread was closed and KC offered Joan his best wishes (given below), though I did not quote the DIW thread itself. I did say it was “troubling” that John made his claim, a statement I made because I believed the assertion to be false, based on what I or anyone else could see in this comment thread.

John replied to me at 10:45 PM, “Do you have anything dated and in writing that says KC didn't bar Joan Foster from DIW.
If you do and will pass it on, I'll give it a look with the intent of correcting "KC Johnson Now" if I can confirm what you send.
I hope you share.” I have two problems with John’s comment. First, KC Johnson’s comments were from 25 April, which predates JinC’s post by about a month. Therefore, it fulfills his condition. Second, John did not explain why his condition that the evidence must predate Johnson’s comments at JinC was even necessary. There is only one reason I can think of to explain why John would do so, that John was again suggesting KC Johnson was lying.

I replied that I did not have direct information. I had never seen anything to indicate that KC had banned Joan, nothing more. John wrote back, “Citation of a written and dated record that KC didn't bar Joan is important, given that on the basis of such documentation I'd update "KC Johnson Now" with a correction if what you provide is verifiable.
As can be seen above, you responded to my request with these two most relevant sentences: 

"I do not have direct information, one way or another. However, KC closed that thread for comments, and this is the only time I have ever seen him do that. ..."

Chris, I know you can see your answer is equivocal as to the question of whether you can cite a written, dated record that shows KC didn't bar Joan from DIW.”

I don’t view my answer as equivocal, but some of my befuddlement was clear. I had no way of knowing what might have transpired between Joan Foster and KC Johnson privately. Yet the only publicly available information said nothing of banning. More importantly, it seemed to me then (and now) that John had it backwards. Why was I being asked to show that KC did not ban Joan? Shouldn’t we all be asking John what evidence he had the KC did ban Joan (a point I made much later, at 12:18 PM)? I was considering quoting the comment thread from DIW on the Stone Center, but imho did so first, at 9:20 AM. As noted above, to me this documents the non-banning in the way John requested. If there is something lacking in it, John has never identified what it is.

Next Kelly (who appears to be Joan Foster) said that she used the term “banning.” Her argument is that she was made to feel unwelcome by harsh comments from Debrah and the fact that KC failed to clear a comment of hers for several hours. I think this is a poor argument. I, too, have sometimes felt discomfort from Debrah’s strong words, but this is in the nature of comment threads. I have also seen a comment of mine held in limbo for many hours as others were cleared, at JinC. Joan should have stated the facts and let others come to their own conclusions, not use misleading language.

John said at 1:31 AM, “Many people commented Joan was barred from DIW. If she wasn't, KC could have cleared the matter up with just six words: ’Joan Foster isn't barred from DIW.’
Did he ever do it? If so, where? If not, why not?” First, I don’t believe that rumor should be published as fact. Second, I think it was Joan Foster’s responsibility to ask KC Johnson, not the other way around. John’s comment at 1:12 PM suggests that he agreed with my second point: “Often bloggers don't publish a comment after which the commenter will sometimes ask: "Are you barring me from your blog?”

John replied to my comment at 12:18 PM by saying at 1:34 PM, “You say you are ‘troubled.’
I hope you can find verifiable documentation of KC saying BEFORE I published that he hadn't barred Joan. If you can produce that, I think you'll feel delighted; and I'll update the post with the new documentation. Absent such documentation, what you've been repeatedly saying here is starting to look like emoting rather than adult discourse.” I don’t consider my comments to have been repetitive, nor do I believe the use of the word “troubled” to be emoting (John himself used the term elsewhere). Why my comments don’t qualify in his mind as adult discourse is mysterious. Finally, I note that John moved the goalpost: the documentation must be before he published this post, a condition he had not previously made.

Knowing that it would be a lengthy undertaking, I offered John and Joan the chance to continue our discussion with my present post. Joan’s response (at 7:20 AM) was to give me a question to answer, “My question before I ever enter your blog...do you agree with these types of attacks, yes or no?” I don’t expect prospective commenters to answer questions any more than I wish to answer theirs prior to their making an appearance. It is doubtful that either John or Joan had ever read anything I have written. If they had, they would know that I treat even people such as Marc Fisher, with whom I disagreed strongly, with courtesy (http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/2008/12/wolves-in-blazers-and-khakis-in-defense.html). The same is true of Robert Zimmerman (http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/2009/05/devilish-discords-reply-to-robert.html), with whom I disagree less strongly. John replied at 12:25 PM, 
As a matter of courtesy I acknowledge your invitation.
Having read what you've posted here and at DIW, I hope you and others who've read what you've written can understand why I've no inclination to do so.”

I had indeed commented twice at DIW in the intervening time (http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2009/05/roberts-art-of-deception.html). Besides thanking Debrah for a lighthearted comment at 12:15 AM, I had also asked a question (9:39 AM) about the incident at Charlie’s, discussed at the beginning of this post. John intimated that I was engaging in questionable behavior, but I was only doing what he should have done, which is to ask KC Johnson for more information about the witnesses. Professor Johnson’s reply at 10:08 AM was informative, but it is too long to quote in its entirety here. My final comment at JinC was to ask John to explain his reasons more fully for declining my offer, but he did not reply.

Once Joan Foster indicated that banning was her choice of words, John had three pieces of evidence that no such banning had occurred, including Joan Foster’s own admission that it was she who was responsible for the misunderstanding. Even if he had not promised to alter his post, he should have done so on the general principle of making one’s posts as accurate as possible. He has not and neither has he explained why the evidence before us is apparently insufficient in his eyes.

Concluding remarks
In his post “KC Johnson Now” John has given a clinic in how not to blog. He failed to edit obvious errors (attributing “It’s Not About the Truth” to Chuck Yeager, not Don Yaeger*). He published a rumor as if it were fact. He failed to check with Professor Johnson about either the non-banning or the story about the bar. He apparently did not ask Joan Foster directly about her supposed banning, either. He questioned KC Johnson’s truthfulness twice but disclosed no evidence to support his innuendo. Moreover, by accusing KC Johnson of making up sources, John has cast a shadow over on any work that Professor Johnson has done that involves confidentiality, this despite the fact that both John and Joan Foster claim to admire Johnson’s contributions to the DL case. When called on some of these matters, he either ignored them or brushed them aside. In doing these things he has made it a little bit harder for those of us who want blogging to be held to as high a standard as traditional journalism.

I have never met John or KC Johnson. Professor Johnson and I have exchanged a few emails about the case, but we are not friends, though we agree about many aspects of the DL case. I know John even less well, primarily through his recent writings at JinC, Liestoppers, and DIW. I wrote this post because he failed to live up to the standards of civility and adherence to the truth that he evidently expects of himself and others. I call upon him to amend or retract his misleading statements and urge others to do likewise in a constructive manner. If he did, it would undo much of the damage he has done.

I know that this post will create some controversy, and my closing remarks are directed to people who wish to comment. First, there is a difference between saying that person X did a bad thing and person X is a bad person. The former is acceptable (but should ordinarily be supported in some way), but the latter runs the risk of being merely abusive. Second, the topic of this post is limited to how John and Joan Foster acted in this particular instance. Although I can imagine that there will be some legitimate tangents, I reserve the right to reject a comment that strays too far from this topic. Third, I strongly urge civility, even when disagreements are large and feelings are strong.
*Update 7/11/09: This has been corrected.