For someone who says that he doesn't read the blog very much, Starn certainly has quite the detailed critique . . .
Unfortunately, it seems off-base.
Duke's own website says that Holloway, when she took over at AAAS, recruited Lubiano; so his beef is with the University's webmaster, not me:
Duke's own website says that AAAS has 13 "primary" faculty; again, his beef is with the University's webmaster, not me:
It had 15, and the two Bakers left this fall to go to Vandy. He's right that the post failed to take into account the Bakers' departure (I should have said 13--was operating from an old list).
On Baker, he identified himself as an AAAS prof--Starn, basically, is faulting me for taking Baker at his word. I can just imagine the sins Starn would find in me if I hadn't taken Baker at his word.
I never said that Duke's arts and sciences faculty had only prof who "criticized" Nifong--I said "unequivocally criticized" Nifong, and used the qualifying adverb deliberately. I made that point--ironically--in a post about the very op-ed Starn suggests I didn't read:
Among the arguments I made in the post was that Starn's op-ed could read as Nifong's opening statement at the trial that now seems unlikely to occur--