Even extending her the benefit of every doubt, Avital Ronell's behavior was wildly inappropriate, and the letter written in support of her was a jaw-dropping embarassment. nytimes.com/2018/08/13/nyr…
"We testify to the grace, the keen wit, and the intellectual commitment of Professor Ronell." Seriously? Can you not hear yourself?
I'll admit I've signed a mass letter or two that I didn't read as closely as I should have, and that seems to have happened with some of the professors here. But still. Come on.
Pretty impressive how they managed to find forty feminist professors who'd never encountered someone covering for a prominent academic sexual abuser before, and so had no idea what they sound like.
This is also real cute: "Although we have no access to the confidential dossier ... we hold that the allegations against her do not constitute actual evidence."
Here's Zizek two months ago saying "the letter is actually okay because the bit about not knowing the details of the accusations was a lie, but you're going to have to take my word for that and not ask for details." thephilosophicalsalon.com/why-did-i-sign…
More Zizek: "The procedure against Avital is effectively targeting a certain psychological type, a certain mode of behaviour and speech for which there is less and less place in our academia." Translation: "It's just locker-room talk."
A full sentence from the letter, excerpted earlier in the thread: "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."
That's ... really bad. Like "make an appointment with a good attorney to figure out how bad it is" bad.
I may be reading too much into this, but I keep coming back to Ronell's claim that "these communications were repeatedly invited, responded to and encouraged by him over a period of three years." It's a very interesting phrasing.
First, "these communications" is strangely vague. She was his doctoral adviser. Of course he'd be inviting, responding to, and encouraging communication from her. That could mean anything from "thanks for writing" to "say more about how you want to kiss me."
And one word missing from "invited, responded to and encouraged" is "reciprocated." She says this was "florid and campy" talk between queer colleagues, and I've seen others defend it that way. But there's no indication in the public record that he sent similar messages to her.
There's a lot to unpack in the claims about queer academic culture that Ronell is making in her defense, but what she doesn't say strikes me as potentially as significant as what she does say.
