When our heroes aren’t.

Many familiar with the world of academia and critical theory will have been following the Avital Ronell sexual harassment case (also referred to as a ‘Title IX’ case in the U.S.)
The case is as much a window into the closed world of ‘progressive’ social theorists and academics as it is an example of the changes being wrought in the era of #MeToo and reassertion of victims’ rights as a political and not merely technical or legal issue.
There have been some good and some not so good articles written about the case, some in support of the alleged victim and others less so. Then there was the shocking letter in support of Ronell signed by such academic luminaries as Judith Butler and Jack Halberstam. The Chronicle of Higher Education had it thusly:
[The letter] listed her many accomplishments in the fields of philosophy and literature and seemed to suggest that her stature in those fields and at the university should be considered in the investigation. Though the letter’s signatories said they didn’t have access to a “confidential dossier” from a Title IX investigation, they stated their “objection to any judgment against her.”
“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,” the letter said. “If she were to be terminated or relieved of her duties, the injustice would be widely recognized and opposed.”
Butler has since issued a sort-of-reversal in the form of a tepid list of regrets. Halberstam hasn’t.
I wasn’t aware of Ronell’s work but as a queer / transgender person and former humanities student I am certainly aware of Butler’s and Halberstam’s. They are among the contemporary leading lights in queer academia. They are as close as queer studies academics get to being rock stars. Both Halberstam and Butler have made a career out of describing — and critiquing — power structures in society. So it was beyond disappointing to see both of them putting their name to a letter which rehashed all of the tired old tactics that abusers in positions of institutional power use to silence their victims.
Without knowing any of the facts of the case, the letter attacks the victim’s character and the motives behind his complaint. Despite not knowing the facts of the situation, its signatories claim to know that Avital Ronell could not possibly have victimised one of her students. Crucially, the letter invokes and repeatedly refers to the institutional power of its authors — academic luminaries — and Avital Ronell herself (‘her international standing and reputation’) as reasons she should not be punished by NYU. The letter threatens displeasure and some other, undefined consequence if Ronell is sanctioned by the university.
These tactics will be familiar to many victims of abuse that has taken place in institutional settings.
It’s not difficult to imagine that such a letter is both hurtful and quite possibly also alarming for the alleged victim of sexual harassment in the case. To not be believed is already a form of injury that survivors have to face in order to come forward. Academia is a small and cloistered world. There just aren’t that many people working in a given field. Rumours run rife, and established institutional players have a disproportionate influence over their junior colleagues’ careers. Whether institutional power of this kind is wielded by a Harvey Weinstein type or by a middle-aged queer Jewish woman who also happens to be a celebrated international academic is really beside the point.
Both Butler and Halberstam should know much better than this. The fact that they didn’t makes me wonder about the many types of abuses of institutional power that may take place in a university setting, and whether the signatories to the letter are still capable of identifying their own ‘blind spots’ or abuses of power after years in the ivory tower themselves.
