Here; an excerpt:
Kipnis dedicates a chapter of her book to questioning a sexual assault allegation our fellow graduate student brought against a faculty member. Kipnis questions this allegation on the basis of a limited set of evidence, without consulting with our colleague or those close to her to check a number of important details in the case. Moreover, Kipnis reinforces her claims with unsubstantiated speculations. Her construction of the narrative is, as a result, irresponsible. We feel compelled to express how dissonant Kipnis’ retelling of these events is with our first-hand experiences of them and with the people involved in them, and to express our concern for Kipnis’ conduct, both as an author and as a faculty member at NU.
The claims Kipnis makes about our colleague compose an image of her that is often unrecognizable to us. For instance, the conjecture that our colleague’s Title IX filing against a faculty member in our department was motivated by a desire for revenge is implausible to all of us who have gotten to know this compassionate, conscientious and diligent student. Those of us who are close to her know that it was only after much hesitation and deliberation that she gave a confidential statement to the Title IX office, and that she did so because she thought it was her moral obligation in light of an ongoing lawsuit.
The second paragraph is the only concrete example of a misrepresentation on Kipnis's part. It is true, as I noted in an earlier posting, that the student only came forward with her complaint in the wake of the lawsuit by the undergraduate against Ludlow. I do not recall Kipnis implying that the student was motivated by a desire for revenge, however; the implication, if there was one, was that having dumped Ludlow in favor of her longterm boyfriend, to whom she subsequently got married, her memory of events two years earlier may have been colored by the complicated emotions, the changed relationship status, and the passage of time. (Kipnis, by the way, did try to contact one graduate student close to the complainant, but she declined to speak with Kipnis. [This student tells me she was only contacted by Kipnis regarding the Title IX complaint.])
In general, it is fair to say that responses to Kipnis would be more compelling if they were able to offer concrete examples of mistakes, rather than blanket assertions without supporting evidence.
UPDATE: A reader points out, correctly, that much later in the Kipnis book (pp. 237-238), Kipnis does speculate about whether revenge might have played a role. The speculation isn't very plausible on the evidence adduced, and it is not the impression her actual chapter on the case gives, fortunately. I remind readers of the NYT apt summary of the Kipnis book.
Recent Comments