THE MORES OF THE HIPPIE COMMUNE, WITHOUT THE HIPPIES? First Things editor Joseph Bottum (via Stephen Bainbridge) has some scathing comments about Duke University, particularly the default position of much of its faculty when allegations of a lacrosse team party gone bad arose.

Sex and radical politics are supposed to fit together easily, but the Duke lacrosse case suggests that the casual hedonism of the nation’s campuses and a radicalized professoriate with real power cannot, in fact, live together. I’d just as soon lose them both. But one or the other has to change. It’s a good bet that most schools will see that protecting their students requires stripping power from the professors. A good start, but only half the lesson.

A Duke student working at First Things (via Hootsbuddy) takes a more measured tone. He agrees that some faculty members rushed to judgement.

In any reckoning of Duke’s actions during the lacrosse scandal, the actions of the Group of 88 must rank as particularly egregious. Rather than wait for the evidence, these professors took their all-purpose epistemology of racism, classism, and sexism and turned on their own students. Most of them defend themselves even now. Insofar as criticisms of Duke are directed at these faculty members, they are perfectly legitimate.

He goes on to note that not all professors still live their lives as if Bull Connor is Director of Public Safety and LBJ is sending your boy home in a box.

Thankfully, the Group of 88 does not represent the majority of professors at Duke. And as is the case in many universities, the loopy left at Duke represented by the statement was heavily concentrated in a few humanities departments. Recently, 26 members of the economics department signed a public letter in support of the lacrosse team, expressing regret for the actions of the Group of 88. Duke law professor James Coleman has publicly and frequently criticized Nifong and defended the lacrosse players. Any criticisms of Duke faculty members should be limited to the Group of 88 rather than the other 1,500 Duke professors who likely care very much about the students whom they teach daily.

And he makes a broader point about the collegiate rabbit culture.

Duke has in the past few years become something of a symbol for the libidinous, drunken social life that is supposed to characterize American universities. Tom Wolfe’s novel I Am Charlotte Simmons (which takes placed at “Dupont University,” by which he obviously meant Duke) had much to do with this. A graphic Rolling Stone article followed, and the Duke lacrosse scandal of course fit nicely into the narrative. From what I’ve learned of Duke’s social scene, both from reading reports and from talking to students, it’s obvious that some of these criticisms are true. Many students abuse alcohol, much of it takes place in the context of fraternities, and the sexual libertinism that Wolfe so lasciviously chronicled in his novel does indeed have some resemblance to the truth.

And yes, the Rolling Stone survey is lurid. Long-term readers will recall that the Chicago Sun-Times did a series on the rabbit culture at Illinois, and once we get more daylight and more warmth, an enterprising reporter could probably find similar goings-on in DeKalb.