That would seem to be the takeaway from this remarkable letter (written, I am told, by Judith Butler) in support of Avital Ronell, who teaches in German and Comparative Literature at NYU: Download BUTLER letter for Avital Ronell. The signatory list reads like a "who's who" of "theory" (as they call bad philosophy in literature departments), from Butler to Zizek (with a few honorable exceptions, of course). But far more revealing is the content of the letter.
Professor Ronell, it seems, is the target of a Title IX complaint and investigation at NYU; the details are not known to me, and are not revealed in the letter. But this is apparently irrelevant. From the remarkable first paragraph (boldings added by me):
Although we have no access to the confidential dossier, we have all worked for many years in close proximity to Professor Ronell and accumulated collectively years of experience to support our view of her capacity as teacher and a scholar, but also as someone who has served as Chair of both the Departments of German and Comparative Literature at New York University. We have all seen her relationship with students, and some of us know the individual who has waged this malicious campaign against her. We wish to communicate first in the clearest terms our profound an enduring admiration for Professor Ronell whose mentorship of students has been no less than remarkable over many years. We deplore the damage that this legal proceeding causes her, and seek to register in clear terms our objection to any judgment against her. We hold that the allegations against her do not constitute actual evidence, but rather support the view that malicious intention has animated and sustained this legal nightmare.
Imagine that such a letter had been sent on behalf of Peter Ludlow, Colin McGinn, John Searle, Thomas Pogge or anyone other than a feminist literary theorist: there would be howls of protest and indignation at such a public assault on a complainant in a Title IX case. The signatories collectively malign the complainant as motivated by "malice" (i.e., a liar), even though they admit to knowing nothing about the findings of the Title IX proceedings--and despite that they also demand that their friend be acquitted, given her past "mentorship of students". (I imagine many faculty members found guilty, correctly, in a Title IX proceeding have also mentored lots of students, chaired a department, and produced notable scholarship.) If Professor Ronell had any role in soliciting this letter, it looks to me like a clear case of retaliation against the complainant that will compound her and the university's problems.
But you get a real sense of the hypocrisy and entitlement of these precious "theorists" in the concluding paragraph of the letter addressed to the NYU President and Provost:
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. If she were to be terminated or relieved of her duties, the injustice would be widely recognized and opposed.
We may put to one side that Professor Ronell's "grace," "keen wit" and "intellectual commitment" are irrelevant in a Title IX proceeding. What is truly shocking is the idea that she is entitled to proceedings that treat her with "the dignity rightly deserved by someone of her international standing and reputation." Apparently in the view of these "theory" illuminati dignity in Title IX proceedings is to be doled out according to one's "international standing and reputation." So while Professor Ronell "deserves a fair hearing, one that expresses respect, dignity, and human solicitude," other "lesser" accused can be subject, without international outcry, to whatever star chamber proceedings the university wants. Moreover, only one outcome of the process is acceptable, regardless of the findings: acquittal. Any other result "would be widely recognized and opposed," I guess because grace, wit and intellectual commitment are a defense against sexual misconduct and harassment.
With friends like these....
ADDENDUM: Several readers asked how I got the letter. A Continental philosopher in Europe was solicited as a signatory (he declined), and passed it on to me.
ANOTHER: For more on the letter, see here.
AND MORE: Reader Henry Cohen writes: "As an editor, I was amused by the comment, 'we have all worked for many years in close proximity to Professor Ronell.' How many feet from her did they work? I think they meant that they have all worked closely with her. In addition, "close proximity" is redundant; although proximity might be greater or lesser, it's always close."
FURTHER THOUGHTS: On the retaliation issue, even if Prof. Ronell had nothing to do with the letter (I have no reason to think she did), its signatories include many NYU faculty, thus making NYU liable for retaliation (I am not a Title IX expert, but from what little I do know, this looks like classic retaliation in violation of the law). In addition, of course, the letter is probably defamatory, since it basically calls the complainant a liar (though without naming him/her).
AND ONE MORE: I am heartened to see the widespread condemnation of this outrageous letter from academics across fields, including literary studies (see, e.g., this concise assessment from Prof. Merve Emre (English McGill). The question remains how the signatories could have thought this was an appropriate letter to initiate in the first place. I know various reporters are looking into this.
6/13 UPDATE: Some thoughts on the CHE article about this disgraceful affair.
ANOTHER: Apparently Butler & friends learned how to write this kind of letter from Derrida!
AND MORE: An appropriately scathing assessment from a German publication (see esp. the last paragraph).
6/20 UPDATE: Jennifer Doyle has "trouble thinking."
Recent Comments