To return to the train of thought abandoned at the end of yesterday's post ... A large number of MLA members now believe that prominent feminist philosopher/theorist Judith Butler should resign her post in that venerable organization because she has used that position to make herself heard in a sexual harassment case on behalf of the harasser.
She had not consulted the MLA collectively before intervening in that matter, and the petitioners say this was professionally and ethically inappropriate.
A little more than a year ago now, a student at New York University accused professor Avital Ronell of sexual harassment. The graduate student. Nimrod Reitman, says that Ronell assaulted and stalked him. There are emails in which Ronell refers to Reitman as "my most adored one" and "sweet cuddly baby." Pro tip to all professors out there -- get your jollies from anyone in the whole universe who is NOT a student of yours and, in the event you ever feel compelled to send a student of yours an email using phrases like that (even if everything is mutual and consensual) take a very cold shower until the feeling goes away.
Reitman contends that it was emphatically not the case that everything here was mutual and consensual.
That sort of scandal is essentially a dime a dozen these days, and would not be worth mentioning here had Butler not gotten involved. She not only signed the a letter in support of respondent Ronell, she may have had a role in composing it. And the letter said: We testify to the grace, the keen wit, and the intellectual commitment of Professor Ronell and ask that she be accorded the dignity rightly deserved by someone of her international standing and reputation.
That kind of language sounds familiar. Dr Bill Cosby, too, is known for his keen wit. Lawrence Krauss for his intellectual commitment. Harvey Weinstein, too, had until quite recently a considerable international standing and reputation. And the acting career of Kevin Stacey might be considered a prolonged display of "grace." The Butler letter for Ronell's benefit is an eerie echo (not just in that sentence but throughout) of the sorts of things that are always said on behalf of powerful men caught out in such a matter.
Butler and some others may have taken the attitude that Title IX only protects those they see as on the wrong side of history.
Here's a piece on the Ronell case from Salon. https://www.salon.com/2018/08/18/when-a-woman-is-accused-of-sexual-misconduct-the-strange-case-of-avital-ronell/
The good news in all this is that Butler in recent days seems to have recanted of much of the nonsense in her letter, including the stuff quoted above. Sometimes even a distinguished philosopher who has already staked out a position can learn something, and can beat a more-or-less dignified retreat.
In particular, Butler now says: "we should not have used language that implied that Ronell’s status and reputation earn her differential treatment of any kind. Status ought to have no bearing on the adjudication of sexual harassment. All faculty should be treated the same under Title IX protocols, that is, subject to the same rules and, where justified, sanctions."
Karma points for her.
Comments
Post a Comment