Yet Another Example Of Why Sexual Harassment In Academia Is Endemic
February 10, 2022 9:27 AM Subscribe
Three graduate students at Harvard have filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against the school and anthropology professor John Comaroff over the professor's conduct and the university turning a blind eye to it.
The case had exploded as in response to the internal Title IX investigation of Comaroff, 38 fellow Harvard professors, many of note, signed an open letter criticizing the lawsuit, only to be blindsided by the lawsuit, which claims among other things that Harvard had acquired one student's therapy notes and then provided them to Comaroff. Commentators have pointed out that the letter (which 35 of the signatories have "withdrawn" from) was an own goal for Comaroff, providing a demonstration of how he would retaliate against whistleblowers.
The case had exploded as in response to the internal Title IX investigation of Comaroff, 38 fellow Harvard professors, many of note, signed an open letter criticizing the lawsuit, only to be blindsided by the lawsuit, which claims among other things that Harvard had acquired one student's therapy notes and then provided them to Comaroff. Commentators have pointed out that the letter (which 35 of the signatories have "withdrawn" from) was an own goal for Comaroff, providing a demonstration of how he would retaliate against whistleblowers.
For once i am happy that Harvard has such an obscenely large endowment. I am guessing there are layers of bullshit ‘legal’ protections to keep it out of the way of litigation, but who knows, maybe its existence will enable even more victims to win damages from suing the life out of this corrupt and foundationally diseased institution.
posted by armoir from antproof case at 9:39 AM on February 10, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by armoir from antproof case at 9:39 AM on February 10, 2022 [3 favorites]
And the lawyers’ statement, the ordering of the points says it all:
“Professor Comaroff is not only a leading scholar in his field — he is a deeply caring person who has devoted his energy for decades …”
“Please remember, folks, what’s important here is to remember the good stature of the poor professor!”
posted by armoir from antproof case at 9:45 AM on February 10, 2022 [15 favorites]
“Professor Comaroff is not only a leading scholar in his field — he is a deeply caring person who has devoted his energy for decades …”
“Please remember, folks, what’s important here is to remember the good stature of the poor professor!”
posted by armoir from antproof case at 9:45 AM on February 10, 2022 [15 favorites]
As the daughter of an academic, I sat at many dinner parties where which profs were serial harassers was a topic of discussion.* Over and over and over. All of them not only kept their jobs but many of them moved into administration. (All of them retired before #MeToo which probably helped.)
So yes, endemic.
*Babysitting their kids was 'delightful' too. But, you know, academe is a family. A tenured, dysfunctional family.
posted by warriorqueen at 9:49 AM on February 10, 2022 [33 favorites]
So yes, endemic.
*Babysitting their kids was 'delightful' too. But, you know, academe is a family. A tenured, dysfunctional family.
posted by warriorqueen at 9:49 AM on February 10, 2022 [33 favorites]
that Harvard had acquired one student's therapy notes and then provided them to Comaroff.
whoever did this should be instantly fired without any recompense, prosecuted and sent to real jail.
posted by lalochezia at 9:52 AM on February 10, 2022 [75 favorites]
whoever did this should be instantly fired without any recompense, prosecuted and sent to real jail.
posted by lalochezia at 9:52 AM on February 10, 2022 [75 favorites]
I'm both reassured and saddened by the retraction.
Reassured that even people who are convinced of their own intelligence can admit to mistakes. "We failed to appreciate the impact that this would have on our students.... acknowledge this must be done "without presuming to know the full findings of confidential investigations or acting in ways that intimidate students and inhibit them from divulging experiences of harm.
Saddened because this is just yet another example of how professors default to siding with their colleagues instead of supporting students. At this point I assume that even scholars with an otherwise super keen sense of structural injustice would dismiss student complaints.
posted by spamandkimchi at 9:54 AM on February 10, 2022 [24 favorites]
Reassured that even people who are convinced of their own intelligence can admit to mistakes. "We failed to appreciate the impact that this would have on our students.... acknowledge this must be done "without presuming to know the full findings of confidential investigations or acting in ways that intimidate students and inhibit them from divulging experiences of harm.
Saddened because this is just yet another example of how professors default to siding with their colleagues instead of supporting students. At this point I assume that even scholars with an otherwise super keen sense of structural injustice would dismiss student complaints.
posted by spamandkimchi at 9:54 AM on February 10, 2022 [24 favorites]
The first graf of the original letter reads:
posted by gwint at 10:02 AM on February 10, 2022 [4 favorites]
Open Letter from Concerned FacultySo were the profs given false or limited information to go on? Or did they ignore some information and just focus on the one issue stated above, and reacted to a kind of "this could happen to me! He was only giving thoughtful advice to help a student stay safe!"?
On January 21, 2022, the Harvard Crimson reported that Professor John Comaroff had been placed on unpaid administrative leave for one semester and prohibited from teaching required courses in 2022-23, among other sanctions. Harvard’s Office of Dispute Resolution (ODR) found that Comaroff had “engaged in verbal conduct that violated the FAS Sexual and Gender-Based Harassment Policy and the FAS Professional Conduct Policy.” Although Comaroff had been accused by three students, only one allegation was found by Harvard’s Office of Dispute Resolution to have any merit. Based on the student’s account in the Chronicle of Higher Education (August 25, 2020), the allegation concerned Comaroff’s advice that openly traveling as a lesbian couple in a particular African country where homosexuality is illegal could lead to sexual violence. Since we the undersigned would also feel ethically compelled to offer the same advice to any student conducting research in a country with similar prohibitions, we are perplexed. How can advice intended to protect an advisee from sexual violence be itself construed as sexual harassment? What rules of professional conduct are broken by informing students of the risks of gender-based violence in the multiple locations around the world that do not recognize the rights of women and LGBQTIA+ individuals in the same manner as in the United States? As concerned faculty we seek clarification of Harvard’s professional criteria for us as advisors.
posted by gwint at 10:02 AM on February 10, 2022 [4 favorites]
From @MiamiOHClassics on Twitter:
How many Harvard professors does it take to change a lightbulb?posted by mhum at 10:03 AM on February 10, 2022 [98 favorites]
Answer: 38, but 34 might change their mind when they realize how power works.
The "retraction" was pure CYA - the dean had warned them ahead of time that the signatories (who had been offered the letter by Comaroff's wife/fellow researcher) didn't want to sign it because they were unaware of the details of the Title IX investigation, resulting in their asses hanging out for all to see when the lawsuit was filed. Furthermore, as the folks at LGM pointed out, this is the sort of letter that you can't meaningfully retract - if you signed it, you chose to defend a colleague at the expense of the people he abused.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:08 AM on February 10, 2022 [23 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:08 AM on February 10, 2022 [23 favorites]
The counter letter (signed by 73 faculty):
posted by spamandkimchi at 10:10 AM on February 10, 2022 [21 favorites]
We, the undersigned, write in strong opposition to the open letter signed by 38 Harvard faculty calling into question the sanctions against Professor John Comaroff. We are dismayed that these faculty members would openly align themselves against students who have lodged complaints about a tenured professor.I'll note that I recognized probably 18 of the 38 names on the original letter supporting Comaroff and only one name out of the 73 on the counter letter. I'm in the social sciences, so it makes sense that I would be more likely to know people who felt closer to an anthropologist, but also those faculty were heavy-hitters and proof (as the tweet by @popehat stated) "powerful professors can marshal powerful friends".
posted by spamandkimchi at 10:10 AM on February 10, 2022 [21 favorites]
Saddened because this is just yet another example of how professors default to siding with their colleagues instead of supporting students.
Students come and go, tenured colleagues are forever.
Not that that excuses anything.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 10:13 AM on February 10, 2022 [4 favorites]
Students come and go, tenured colleagues are forever.
Not that that excuses anything.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 10:13 AM on February 10, 2022 [4 favorites]
Henry Louis Gates Jr, Paul Farmer, Jill Lepore - nice, every day my deep, unabiding cynicism about the unaccountability and hypocrisy of people deriving fame from advocating for accountability gets justified
posted by paimapi at 10:15 AM on February 10, 2022 [11 favorites]
posted by paimapi at 10:15 AM on February 10, 2022 [11 favorites]
A comment seen elsewhere:
Letter against cancel culture is to elite academic as drawing of a tunnel on a cliff face is to cartoon character.posted by NoxAeternum at 10:16 AM on February 10, 2022 [41 favorites]
Another alum, now a prof at UCSD, has gotten really angry about this and is talking about her own experience at Harvard, including the e-mail she sent about her department head and the "never talk about this again" response.
Merciless on the the professors who signed the support letter and not buying the "they didn't know" excuse. Multiple people saying they absolutely knew it was more serious than a warning about how homosexuality is treated in Africa. For example, The Harvard faculty letter supporting Comaroff enraged me even more because 1 of the people I warned about Jorge (4 months before the story broke) signed that letter. "What can I do, he's tenured", they said.
This is the equivalent of your boss saying "my hands are tied, I don't have the budget to promote you" and then arguing against people who propose increasing the promotion budget. Only they're doing it publicly and assumed they wouldn't be called out on it.
Been seeing the phrase "elite impunity" a lot recently, sure is handy.
posted by mark k at 10:16 AM on February 10, 2022 [20 favorites]
Merciless on the the professors who signed the support letter and not buying the "they didn't know" excuse. Multiple people saying they absolutely knew it was more serious than a warning about how homosexuality is treated in Africa. For example, The Harvard faculty letter supporting Comaroff enraged me even more because 1 of the people I warned about Jorge (4 months before the story broke) signed that letter. "What can I do, he's tenured", they said.
This is the equivalent of your boss saying "my hands are tied, I don't have the budget to promote you" and then arguing against people who propose increasing the promotion budget. Only they're doing it publicly and assumed they wouldn't be called out on it.
Been seeing the phrase "elite impunity" a lot recently, sure is handy.
posted by mark k at 10:16 AM on February 10, 2022 [20 favorites]
I've been uh, following this very closely- and one slight correction:
The case had exploded as in response to the internal Title IX investigation of Comaroff, 38 fellow Harvard professors, many of note, signed an open letter criticizing the lawsuit, only to be blindsided by the lawsuit
The first open letter concerned Harvard's Title IX proceedings, the lawsuit is what the three women filed earlier this week. The Comaroff's and their lawyers clearly planned for the the letters of support (there were two, one in the Harvard Crimson, one in the Chronicle of Higher Ed) to get published before the students formally filed the lawsuit. It is plausible that not all of the signatories knew of that lawsuit, and even more possible they did not know the full contents of that lawsuit, which are fucking brutal. This isn't to excuse them - you don't sign an open letter if you're ignorant of the details.
Some highlights can be found in this Twitter thread
I'm frankly too burned out by this to recap all that's in there, but a couple of highlights:
-One Plaintiff had Harvard pressure her therapist to turn over her PRIVATE therapy notes, without her consent, despite her explicitly telling them not to do this, and then TURNED THEM OVER TO FUCKING JOHN COMAROFF, her ABUSER.
-Harvard made it possible for Comaroff to pressure various witnesses with retaliation.
-The complaint says that at a dinner with students and faculty in October 2017, as reporting exposed sexual harassment and assault by Harvey Weinstein, “Comaroff compared himself to Harvey Weinstein, and remarked, ‘They’re coming for me next!’” His wife Jean, also in attendance, disparaged women who confront or report sexual violence, commenting, ‘Whatever happened to rolling with the punches?’”
-Comaroff subjected his own advisee (unnamed here and not a plaintiff in the suit), to harassment: “He commented on her appearance; shared his attraction to other students (describing one student as ‘beautiful’ and another as ‘out of [his] league’); recounted his sexual history and sexual preferences to her in detail; and frequently shared sexual jokes that made her uncomfortable. He also winked at her in class, drank out of her water bottle in the middle of a course he was teaching, called her ‘my date,’ and kissed her on the forehead without her consent — all in view of other students.” He later cornered her in his laundry room and forcibly kissed her on the mouth without her consent. His abuse continued throughout the semester: He kissed her, grabbed her buttocks, and, on information and belief, sent her messages late at night asking about her sexual partners.” When confronted in his office, Comaroff “knelt in front of her, laid his head on her breasts, and told her he was impotent.” This student reported to Harvard’s Title IX coordinator; the complaint says, “Professor Comaroff obtained a copy of Harvard Student 2’s complaint and read portions of her complaint back to her verbatim. This intimidation tactic worked. It pressured [the complainant] to withdraw her complaint and would, apparently, dissuade her from participating in any further investigations, including of Plaintiffs’ complaints.”
More selections from the case file are in this NYMag article.
And there is far more, but in short, Harvard, various faculty members and administrators, really fucked up here. Not to mention all the abuse that previously occurred at U Chicago.
posted by coffeecat at 10:20 AM on February 10, 2022 [39 favorites]
The case had exploded as in response to the internal Title IX investigation of Comaroff, 38 fellow Harvard professors, many of note, signed an open letter criticizing the lawsuit, only to be blindsided by the lawsuit
The first open letter concerned Harvard's Title IX proceedings, the lawsuit is what the three women filed earlier this week. The Comaroff's and their lawyers clearly planned for the the letters of support (there were two, one in the Harvard Crimson, one in the Chronicle of Higher Ed) to get published before the students formally filed the lawsuit. It is plausible that not all of the signatories knew of that lawsuit, and even more possible they did not know the full contents of that lawsuit, which are fucking brutal. This isn't to excuse them - you don't sign an open letter if you're ignorant of the details.
Some highlights can be found in this Twitter thread
I'm frankly too burned out by this to recap all that's in there, but a couple of highlights:
-One Plaintiff had Harvard pressure her therapist to turn over her PRIVATE therapy notes, without her consent, despite her explicitly telling them not to do this, and then TURNED THEM OVER TO FUCKING JOHN COMAROFF, her ABUSER.
-Harvard made it possible for Comaroff to pressure various witnesses with retaliation.
-The complaint says that at a dinner with students and faculty in October 2017, as reporting exposed sexual harassment and assault by Harvey Weinstein, “Comaroff compared himself to Harvey Weinstein, and remarked, ‘They’re coming for me next!’” His wife Jean, also in attendance, disparaged women who confront or report sexual violence, commenting, ‘Whatever happened to rolling with the punches?’”
-Comaroff subjected his own advisee (unnamed here and not a plaintiff in the suit), to harassment: “He commented on her appearance; shared his attraction to other students (describing one student as ‘beautiful’ and another as ‘out of [his] league’); recounted his sexual history and sexual preferences to her in detail; and frequently shared sexual jokes that made her uncomfortable. He also winked at her in class, drank out of her water bottle in the middle of a course he was teaching, called her ‘my date,’ and kissed her on the forehead without her consent — all in view of other students.” He later cornered her in his laundry room and forcibly kissed her on the mouth without her consent. His abuse continued throughout the semester: He kissed her, grabbed her buttocks, and, on information and belief, sent her messages late at night asking about her sexual partners.” When confronted in his office, Comaroff “knelt in front of her, laid his head on her breasts, and told her he was impotent.” This student reported to Harvard’s Title IX coordinator; the complaint says, “Professor Comaroff obtained a copy of Harvard Student 2’s complaint and read portions of her complaint back to her verbatim. This intimidation tactic worked. It pressured [the complainant] to withdraw her complaint and would, apparently, dissuade her from participating in any further investigations, including of Plaintiffs’ complaints.”
More selections from the case file are in this NYMag article.
And there is far more, but in short, Harvard, various faculty members and administrators, really fucked up here. Not to mention all the abuse that previously occurred at U Chicago.
posted by coffeecat at 10:20 AM on February 10, 2022 [39 favorites]
Petty but, as I saw on twitter, this letter is Homi Babha’s first publication since 1994.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:23 AM on February 10, 2022 [44 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:23 AM on February 10, 2022 [44 favorites]
whoever did this should be instantly fired without any recompense, prosecuted and sent to real jail.
whoever did this was a person hired and retained by Harvard administration, who was part of a chain of command that enabled and encouraged this to happen, whose ethics violation in this example is likely not the only times they've walked a deeply immoral line, and whose actions are only heinous because this is one of the few times media has exposed the rest of us to actions like these
as they say about natural disasters - it's less about the phenomenon itself than it is about the human made systems failing to compensate for the stress. the ability to do better in terms of oversight and just basic fucking decency exists - that it didn't here is a result of, at best, negligence and, at worse, intentional obfuscation
posted by paimapi at 10:24 AM on February 10, 2022 [15 favorites]
whoever did this was a person hired and retained by Harvard administration, who was part of a chain of command that enabled and encouraged this to happen, whose ethics violation in this example is likely not the only times they've walked a deeply immoral line, and whose actions are only heinous because this is one of the few times media has exposed the rest of us to actions like these
as they say about natural disasters - it's less about the phenomenon itself than it is about the human made systems failing to compensate for the stress. the ability to do better in terms of oversight and just basic fucking decency exists - that it didn't here is a result of, at best, negligence and, at worse, intentional obfuscation
posted by paimapi at 10:24 AM on February 10, 2022 [15 favorites]
Wouldn't some of this also qualify for criminal investigations, not just academic ones? Like assault is assault, no?
posted by erattacorrige at 10:24 AM on February 10, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by erattacorrige at 10:24 AM on February 10, 2022 [4 favorites]
Fun fact: not at Harvard, but a close friend of mine who had been mistreated by an advisor with a long history of abusive behavior to his students, including sexual harassment, went to the then graduate student chair in a fury and laid out the specifics of the events in question. They then asked "did you know this?" to said grad chair, who blinked rapidly and wide eyed and said that the chair had had no idea.
Eventually we had a chance to confer with the person who had been harassed. That person had submitted full Title IX complaints through the same fucking chair a year or two before my friend's outburst, including initiating plagiarism and retaliation charges as well as the harassment.
Let me tell you, I'm real fucking cynical about academic leadership these days. I will note that the subsequent chair did indeed go to bat for us on later occasions--there certainly are some people who will stand up and do their best by junior people even when things get personally difficult. I keep those names close. But I've watched a lot of people who can talk the talk do some incredibly unethical things when it's their comfortable friendships on the line for bad behavior.
Honestly, I'm just glad this one wasn't as personally close to my networks as the STRI story a few months back, because that means I get a little more distant for a while.
posted by sciatrix at 10:32 AM on February 10, 2022 [22 favorites]
Eventually we had a chance to confer with the person who had been harassed. That person had submitted full Title IX complaints through the same fucking chair a year or two before my friend's outburst, including initiating plagiarism and retaliation charges as well as the harassment.
Let me tell you, I'm real fucking cynical about academic leadership these days. I will note that the subsequent chair did indeed go to bat for us on later occasions--there certainly are some people who will stand up and do their best by junior people even when things get personally difficult. I keep those names close. But I've watched a lot of people who can talk the talk do some incredibly unethical things when it's their comfortable friendships on the line for bad behavior.
Honestly, I'm just glad this one wasn't as personally close to my networks as the STRI story a few months back, because that means I get a little more distant for a while.
posted by sciatrix at 10:32 AM on February 10, 2022 [22 favorites]
One Plaintiff had Harvard pressure her therapist to turn over her PRIVATE therapy notes, without her consent, despite her explicitly telling them not to do this, and then TURNED THEM OVER TO FUCKING JOHN COMAROFF, her ABUSER.
That therapist needs to have their license revoked, and face actual prison time under the willful breach statute of HIPAA.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:33 AM on February 10, 2022 [42 favorites]
That therapist needs to have their license revoked, and face actual prison time under the willful breach statute of HIPAA.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:33 AM on February 10, 2022 [42 favorites]
I read the letter with real trepidation. (Happily, I guess, nobody I personally know is on the list. Cheers?)
Don't fuck your students. Really. Don't fuck your students. It's not that hard. There are billions of people in the world who aren't your students that you can fuck. I'm also attracted to young women; and I do everything possible to avoid ever making the ones I work with feel uncomfortable because that's the job I signed up for and it would be unfair to them. (And, it makes the lab run better...) Grow the fuck up and act like you care about the profession, or other humans, or basic ethics.
Everybody in academia who dates their students needs to be fired. Full stop. Everyone who is a voting member of an academic senate should ask to include that in the rules. I'm sure your mom had a good time back in the day and lots of excuses for why it was okay. There are also thousands of other scholars who actually give a damn about the profession and are just as talented. They deserve a chance to replace your asshole dad.
posted by eotvos at 10:38 AM on February 10, 2022 [65 favorites]
Don't fuck your students. Really. Don't fuck your students. It's not that hard. There are billions of people in the world who aren't your students that you can fuck. I'm also attracted to young women; and I do everything possible to avoid ever making the ones I work with feel uncomfortable because that's the job I signed up for and it would be unfair to them. (And, it makes the lab run better...) Grow the fuck up and act like you care about the profession, or other humans, or basic ethics.
Everybody in academia who dates their students needs to be fired. Full stop. Everyone who is a voting member of an academic senate should ask to include that in the rules. I'm sure your mom had a good time back in the day and lots of excuses for why it was okay. There are also thousands of other scholars who actually give a damn about the profession and are just as talented. They deserve a chance to replace your asshole dad.
posted by eotvos at 10:38 AM on February 10, 2022 [65 favorites]
I read about this over the past few days via WTFAnthro on Twitter.
As an aside to this news and if you have a generalized interest in change/accountability in anthropology, it looks like WTFAnthro started up in the wake of Akhil Gupta's decolonization talk a couple months ago (with decades of precedents in work by BIPOC scholars, e.g Michael Blakey, Ryan Cecil Jobson, and Diane Lewis).
posted by Wobbuffet at 10:52 AM on February 10, 2022 [6 favorites]
As an aside to this news and if you have a generalized interest in change/accountability in anthropology, it looks like WTFAnthro started up in the wake of Akhil Gupta's decolonization talk a couple months ago (with decades of precedents in work by BIPOC scholars, e.g Michael Blakey, Ryan Cecil Jobson, and Diane Lewis).
posted by Wobbuffet at 10:52 AM on February 10, 2022 [6 favorites]
From the WTFAnthro Twitter feed (thanks Wobbuffet):
Sanjay Srivastava
"I wish I was more surprised. There is a loophole in FERPA that allows universities to access students' private therapy records for the purpose of defending themselves in court. There was a notorious case at my university involving this with a rape survivor "
The Oregonian: Law allows UO to use rape victim's therapy records against her, columnist writes
There's a legal loophole that absolutely needs to change.
posted by indexy at 11:01 AM on February 10, 2022 [28 favorites]
Sanjay Srivastava
"I wish I was more surprised. There is a loophole in FERPA that allows universities to access students' private therapy records for the purpose of defending themselves in court. There was a notorious case at my university involving this with a rape survivor "
The Oregonian: Law allows UO to use rape victim's therapy records against her, columnist writes
There's a legal loophole that absolutely needs to change.
posted by indexy at 11:01 AM on February 10, 2022 [28 favorites]
The FERPA "loophole" is not applicable here, as the therapist was not connected to Harvard (in fact, it's likely that the student chose a non-affiliated therapist specifically because of what UO did.) So no, this is a therapist who willfully breached HIPAA, and needs to face the consequences.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:08 AM on February 10, 2022 [39 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:08 AM on February 10, 2022 [39 favorites]
Ack! That's even worse. Thanks for the clarification, NoxAeternum. I hope there are real consequences for such a breach.
posted by indexy at 11:12 AM on February 10, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by indexy at 11:12 AM on February 10, 2022 [4 favorites]
Willfully breaching HIPAA comes with penalties including a fine up to $100k and/or up to one year of federal prison time, above and beyond any professional sanctions such as loss of licensure.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:18 AM on February 10, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:18 AM on February 10, 2022 [5 favorites]
Furthermore, the student had not filed a lawsuit at the time, so that loophole wouldn't apply.
Additionally, in a contested practice, colleges and universities have been known to look at students’ mental health records as part of internal investigations—when the student is seeing a provider who works for the institution. But Kilburn says she was seeing an off-campus counselor unaffiliated with Harvard and that she never gave Harvard permission to ask to see her psychotherapy notes. She hadn’t filed a lawsuit at that point, either, meaning that the university couldn’t have legally compelled the therapist to hand over Kilburn’s file.posted by Lexica at 11:20 AM on February 10, 2022 [14 favorites]
There's lots to be outraged by here, but if the facts about the release of the therapy records as presented in the complaint are true, the therapist involved needs to be identified immediately. Their other patients need to know that their therapist may not value the privacy that is supposed to be an important part of that process.
And regarding the retraction of the letter, I wonder how many of those signatories are backpedaling only because it became clear that they might well be deposed or asked to testify in a trial, since their letter is clearly part of the retaliation against the victims.
posted by HiddenInput at 11:29 AM on February 10, 2022 [11 favorites]
And regarding the retraction of the letter, I wonder how many of those signatories are backpedaling only because it became clear that they might well be deposed or asked to testify in a trial, since their letter is clearly part of the retaliation against the victims.
posted by HiddenInput at 11:29 AM on February 10, 2022 [11 favorites]
Also, one of the letter signers is participating in an event today about the importance of believing victims.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:42 AM on February 10, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:42 AM on February 10, 2022 [5 favorites]
still makes me wonder - is it possible for humanity to setup an institution that doesn't cirle the wagons and protects bad actors as a matter of course?
posted by drewbage1847 at 11:46 AM on February 10, 2022 [7 favorites]
posted by drewbage1847 at 11:46 AM on February 10, 2022 [7 favorites]
The Open Letter isn't a good look for those 38 (several of whom I'm familiar with, one of whom I've met), but I don't know that I am confident in asserting that they all knew the full extent of the claims against Comaroff and were part of a coordinated retaliatory attack on the students. I'll admit, this could be wishful thinking on my part about scholars whose work and whose ethics (from what I've seen in the past) I respect simply making a mistake. That said, even giving them the benefit of the doubt that they legitimately thought that the only thing Comaroff did was say "Hey, it is super dangerous to be openly gay in many countries in Africa, and you could be brutally assaulted," they still should have known not to sign a fucking open letter in this day and age until you are 100% sure you have as much information as possible. I also wonder to what extent Comaroff & his attorney (and perhaps other associates) courted the letter writers with some bullshit, sanitized version of the events -- Hey, everyone, I'm in trouble for telling a gay student of mine they could get hurt in Africa, can y'all back me up here? But again, DON'T SIGN IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THE FINE PRINT.
On the subject of the therapist giving over notes, that's really, really bad, and they should definitely face consequences for it, but I'm also curious how that situation went down. I've been reading recently about the ways private investigators and skip tracers and the like bend (or more often break) the law to get restricted information, and I was shocked and amazed by some of the stories of how they were able to get otherwise competent, ethical people -- doctors, lawyers, therapists, police, etc. -- to hand over information that they absolutely knew they shouldn't. I complain about having to take an online FERPA refresher course every year, but maybe I shouldn't be so crass about it, because some of the social engineering these folks do is Jedi Mind Trick level shit. Again, not saying the therapist is innocent, but I doubt it was a case of "Hey, Dr. Such-and-Such? This is Dean Blah-Blah over at Harvard. Could you fax me Ms. Smith's records? Thx bye!" I wonder if they lied about the student being in danger of self-harm or something like that -- even otherwise rule-following people can be pressured into doing something they know they shouldn't because they think they are helping someone in an emergency. Or, they might just be a shitty therapist with no regard for their patients.
is it possible for humanity to setup an institution that doesn't cirle the wagons and protects bad actors as a matter of course?
That's the problem, isn't it? How do we build something that has a built-in system of reform that actually works?
posted by Saxon Kane at 11:55 AM on February 10, 2022 [7 favorites]
On the subject of the therapist giving over notes, that's really, really bad, and they should definitely face consequences for it, but I'm also curious how that situation went down. I've been reading recently about the ways private investigators and skip tracers and the like bend (or more often break) the law to get restricted information, and I was shocked and amazed by some of the stories of how they were able to get otherwise competent, ethical people -- doctors, lawyers, therapists, police, etc. -- to hand over information that they absolutely knew they shouldn't. I complain about having to take an online FERPA refresher course every year, but maybe I shouldn't be so crass about it, because some of the social engineering these folks do is Jedi Mind Trick level shit. Again, not saying the therapist is innocent, but I doubt it was a case of "Hey, Dr. Such-and-Such? This is Dean Blah-Blah over at Harvard. Could you fax me Ms. Smith's records? Thx bye!" I wonder if they lied about the student being in danger of self-harm or something like that -- even otherwise rule-following people can be pressured into doing something they know they shouldn't because they think they are helping someone in an emergency. Or, they might just be a shitty therapist with no regard for their patients.
is it possible for humanity to setup an institution that doesn't cirle the wagons and protects bad actors as a matter of course?
That's the problem, isn't it? How do we build something that has a built-in system of reform that actually works?
posted by Saxon Kane at 11:55 AM on February 10, 2022 [7 favorites]
Petty but, as I saw on twitter, this letter is Homi Babha’s first publication since 1994.
This guy was my Humanities professor at Uchicago back in the 90's....there is a certain New Yorker comic caption which I feel is quite pertinent to him.
posted by Esteemed Offendi at 12:09 PM on February 10, 2022 [15 favorites]
This guy was my Humanities professor at Uchicago back in the 90's....there is a certain New Yorker comic caption which I feel is quite pertinent to him.
posted by Esteemed Offendi at 12:09 PM on February 10, 2022 [15 favorites]
I also wonder to what extent Comaroff & his attorney (and perhaps other associates) courted the letter writers with some bullshit, sanitized version of the events -- Hey, everyone, I'm in trouble for telling a gay student of mine they could get hurt in Africa, can y'all back me up here?
The story is that it was his wife - who is also a Big Name in anthropology - who spearheaded the letters. Which is another part of why those letters were a stupid move on their part, because when you're facing a lawsuit saying among other things that you engage in professional retaliatation, giving the plaintiffs a) a clear example of such with b) a bunch of publicly documented witnesses who are now going to be eager to speedbump your ass to cover their own is, well...I think DJ Khaled put it best.
I've been reading recently about the ways private investigators and skip tracers and the like bend (or more often break) the law to get restricted information, and I was shocked and amazed by some of the stories of how they were able to get otherwise competent, ethical people -- doctors, lawyers, therapists, police, etc. -- to hand over information that they absolutely knew they shouldn't.
Which is why the therapist needs to lose their license - to make it abundantly clear to other therapists that their notes are sacrosanct, and fucking it up has serious consequences. That said, hammers need to drop on Harvard as well, because apparently they have a student's confidential medical record and no legal record of getting it legitimately.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:18 PM on February 10, 2022 [29 favorites]
The story is that it was his wife - who is also a Big Name in anthropology - who spearheaded the letters. Which is another part of why those letters were a stupid move on their part, because when you're facing a lawsuit saying among other things that you engage in professional retaliatation, giving the plaintiffs a) a clear example of such with b) a bunch of publicly documented witnesses who are now going to be eager to speedbump your ass to cover their own is, well...I think DJ Khaled put it best.
I've been reading recently about the ways private investigators and skip tracers and the like bend (or more often break) the law to get restricted information, and I was shocked and amazed by some of the stories of how they were able to get otherwise competent, ethical people -- doctors, lawyers, therapists, police, etc. -- to hand over information that they absolutely knew they shouldn't.
Which is why the therapist needs to lose their license - to make it abundantly clear to other therapists that their notes are sacrosanct, and fucking it up has serious consequences. That said, hammers need to drop on Harvard as well, because apparently they have a student's confidential medical record and no legal record of getting it legitimately.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:18 PM on February 10, 2022 [29 favorites]
The Open Letter isn't a good look for those 38
the open letter is a clear indication that people with privilege and power will protect their own without doing any kind of due diligence ie they will flaunt their power at the behest of other empowered elites at the detriment of a class of people they specifically have power over without a second thought
there isn't any kind of gray zone here - when you have a considerable amount of influence, how you wield your power requires much higher standards of scrutiny than someone without the same. if there does seem to be exonerative space then that's a matter of denial on your part
posted by paimapi at 12:54 PM on February 10, 2022 [23 favorites]
the open letter is a clear indication that people with privilege and power will protect their own without doing any kind of due diligence ie they will flaunt their power at the behest of other empowered elites at the detriment of a class of people they specifically have power over without a second thought
there isn't any kind of gray zone here - when you have a considerable amount of influence, how you wield your power requires much higher standards of scrutiny than someone without the same. if there does seem to be exonerative space then that's a matter of denial on your part
posted by paimapi at 12:54 PM on February 10, 2022 [23 favorites]
I may begin to believe Harvard is serious about ending sexual harassment and predation when it revokes the emeritus status of Jeffrey Epstein associate and enabler Alan Dershowitz.
posted by jamjam at 1:10 PM on February 10, 2022 [34 favorites]
posted by jamjam at 1:10 PM on February 10, 2022 [34 favorites]
Woman academic here. I would never sign a public letter without doing due diligence. I'm nothing to do with Harvard or even the discipline in question, but even I knew about the Comaroff case previously. I mean, it wasn't a secret. All signatories to that letter can frankly go to hell.
posted by recklessbrother at 1:28 PM on February 10, 2022 [43 favorites]
posted by recklessbrother at 1:28 PM on February 10, 2022 [43 favorites]
I am a prison abolitionist. I do not support jail time for anyone. But I am comfortable saying, full stop, that anyone who had any part in accessing a student’s private therapy records, and then handed them to her abuser so he could defend himself from her sexual harassment allegations, needs to never, ever work with students again.
posted by corb at 2:02 PM on February 10, 2022 [19 favorites]
posted by corb at 2:02 PM on February 10, 2022 [19 favorites]
In lighter news, Dr. indexy reports that academic twitter is snarking about 38 Special's "Hold On Loosely."
And, boy, does she have stories from grad school about professors behaving badly, but fortunately never in her direction.
posted by indexy at 2:06 PM on February 10, 2022 [1 favorite]
And, boy, does she have stories from grad school about professors behaving badly, but fortunately never in her direction.
posted by indexy at 2:06 PM on February 10, 2022 [1 favorite]
For what it is worth I share all these stories with my wife, a newly minted university department chair, and we talk about how she can not do this. It isn't as clear cut as people think for department chairs because they are relatively powerless. It sounds like a powerful leadership role but it is really more like being middle management in charge of a group of entrepreneurs. They are only bosses in very small and limited ways. These kind of issues are for the Title IX offices, Uni legal and HR to handle.
Also the university people involved are not allowed to discuss Title IX complaints with anyone not involved in the Title IX process ( a chair pretending not to know about other complaints is 100% how they would have to handle it). So even close faculty in a department will not know of a Title IX complaint against a colleague unless the complainant themselves makes it public. They also won't know of the outcome. It might not be possible to even do "due diligence" except via the whisper network which not everyone has access and which tends to asymmetric and incomplete information.
posted by srboisvert at 2:48 PM on February 10, 2022 [7 favorites]
Also the university people involved are not allowed to discuss Title IX complaints with anyone not involved in the Title IX process ( a chair pretending not to know about other complaints is 100% how they would have to handle it). So even close faculty in a department will not know of a Title IX complaint against a colleague unless the complainant themselves makes it public. They also won't know of the outcome. It might not be possible to even do "due diligence" except via the whisper network which not everyone has access and which tends to asymmetric and incomplete information.
posted by srboisvert at 2:48 PM on February 10, 2022 [7 favorites]
At both my undergrad and in my PhD program there were professors who were notorious for both regular baseline harassment/academic torture and sexual harassment. ALL of their fellow faculty knew who and what they were. To the point that some faculty members would advise female students to avoid academic paths that would take them into the classes of known abusers. And the ones that were just baseline assholes that thought you needed to break a student into a thousand pieces in order to build them into a "scholar", those were also advised against if you wanted to graduate in a timely fashion.
One of my good friends opted for one of the baseline asshole professors because he specialized in an area that she adored. One semester into her dissertation, she told the head of grad student affairs she was gonna drop out if she couldn't change her advisor. She was told, "You knew he was absurdly tough when you signed on. Stick it out."
They know. Those that care, don't care enough to risk their own jobs or reputations. Those that don't care, think it's just yet another area where the new generation of scholars are weak and soft and need to be shaped. "We lived through it, so should you."
It's total bullshit and makes me happy I left academics. After getting my PhD from the "easy" advisor and getting it approved by the "nice" committee. Who were in such high demand that the four of those faculty members were working themselves to death and were on 10 PhD advisory committees each semester at least.
posted by teleri025 at 2:58 PM on February 10, 2022 [24 favorites]
One of my good friends opted for one of the baseline asshole professors because he specialized in an area that she adored. One semester into her dissertation, she told the head of grad student affairs she was gonna drop out if she couldn't change her advisor. She was told, "You knew he was absurdly tough when you signed on. Stick it out."
They know. Those that care, don't care enough to risk their own jobs or reputations. Those that don't care, think it's just yet another area where the new generation of scholars are weak and soft and need to be shaped. "We lived through it, so should you."
It's total bullshit and makes me happy I left academics. After getting my PhD from the "easy" advisor and getting it approved by the "nice" committee. Who were in such high demand that the four of those faculty members were working themselves to death and were on 10 PhD advisory committees each semester at least.
posted by teleri025 at 2:58 PM on February 10, 2022 [24 favorites]
So this is all horrible and awful and horrible, and my god, those poor women.
Fun fact - the senior faculty defenders of bad behavior will often then make sure the junior faculty fall in line by making the tenure politics crystal clear. I haven't read the first letter (because I have enough screamy rage in my days right now) but I actually hope it's all senior people because if there were junior people who went along due to pressure, they have just screwed themselves on both sides of the issue. (Obviously if junior people signed of their own volition, they're also horrible. But - fun fact #2 - Harvard doesn't tenure until full, so even associate profs are "junior.")
posted by BlueBlueElectricBlue at 3:20 PM on February 10, 2022 [3 favorites]
Fun fact - the senior faculty defenders of bad behavior will often then make sure the junior faculty fall in line by making the tenure politics crystal clear. I haven't read the first letter (because I have enough screamy rage in my days right now) but I actually hope it's all senior people because if there were junior people who went along due to pressure, they have just screwed themselves on both sides of the issue. (Obviously if junior people signed of their own volition, they're also horrible. But - fun fact #2 - Harvard doesn't tenure until full, so even associate profs are "junior.")
posted by BlueBlueElectricBlue at 3:20 PM on February 10, 2022 [3 favorites]
Wow, that is a load of bullshit, all designed to dance around the simple fact that they illegally acquired the medical records of a complainant.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:39 PM on February 10, 2022 [4 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:39 PM on February 10, 2022 [4 favorites]
Well, Harvard has responded, weakly.
Yeah, the statement from the Title IX director about how they handle 'investigative material' by... quoting their policy on 'investigative material' and addressing no actual questions is a real strong look for them.
/s
posted by ApathyGirl at 3:39 PM on February 10, 2022 [6 favorites]
Yeah, the statement from the Title IX director about how they handle 'investigative material' by... quoting their policy on 'investigative material' and addressing no actual questions is a real strong look for them.
/s
posted by ApathyGirl at 3:39 PM on February 10, 2022 [6 favorites]
One of the Twitter conversations I saw was about how there are apparently two kinds of notes therapists take, and really savvy therapists put very generic stuff in the kind that are most likely to get seen--the part that insurance demands they fill out ("patient discussed family history. Session ended 3pm") and the real notes in another section that was more hidden. Or even took no electronic notes at all and kept paper notes somewhere securely.
And that's all great, but why the fuck is it something therapists have to ever think about??
It doesn't (maybe?) apply to this case because apparently the therapist handed the notes over, but you have to wonder what kind of pressure was brought to bear. Not an excuse but clearly this is a way more common thing than I ever expected.
posted by emjaybee at 3:40 PM on February 10, 2022 [12 favorites]
And that's all great, but why the fuck is it something therapists have to ever think about??
It doesn't (maybe?) apply to this case because apparently the therapist handed the notes over, but you have to wonder what kind of pressure was brought to bear. Not an excuse but clearly this is a way more common thing than I ever expected.
posted by emjaybee at 3:40 PM on February 10, 2022 [12 favorites]
It isn't as clear cut as people think for department chairs because they are relatively powerless.
Also, in most places, chairs are basically not trained, at all, about what to do if there are complaints about the behavior of one of the faculty in their department.
Chairship also is not a permanent position. Professors in the department rotate in and out of the chairship. If you botch the handling of a complaint and, in the process, piss off one of the tenured professors in your department, not only do you have to deal with that person until one or both of you retires or dies, that pissed-off person might turn out to be your chair a few years later.
posted by BrashTech at 3:42 PM on February 10, 2022 [8 favorites]
Also, in most places, chairs are basically not trained, at all, about what to do if there are complaints about the behavior of one of the faculty in their department.
Chairship also is not a permanent position. Professors in the department rotate in and out of the chairship. If you botch the handling of a complaint and, in the process, piss off one of the tenured professors in your department, not only do you have to deal with that person until one or both of you retires or dies, that pissed-off person might turn out to be your chair a few years later.
posted by BrashTech at 3:42 PM on February 10, 2022 [8 favorites]
Well, Harvard has responded, weakly.Holy shit, y'all. I've read some tone-deaf and victim-blame-y press releases in my time, but this is some next-level shit.
Representations that do not describe fairly or accurately the University’s processes with regard to obtaining and maintaining material during an investigatory process are extremely troubling to me because they may have a potential chilling effect on our community members’ confidence in the investigatory process and their ability to access counseling and other resources.
No kidding? It's the lawsuit that's making people afraid to seek counseling, and not, say, Harvard's utterly absurd policy on how it handles disclosure for internal investigations?
posted by Mayor West at 3:45 PM on February 10, 2022 [13 favorites]
Like, they could have at least made an attempt at defending their bullshit, by claiming that they're just following the rules on evidentiary disclosure by giving the defendant access to any documents that are being cited by the prosecution, or something.
They'd be lying, of course, because internal investigatory bodies like the ODR aren't bound by anything resembling those rules (why would you even HAVE an internal investigatory body, if not to avoid things like that? oh, right, to cover your own asses by skirting the law and handling disciplinary action in a room closed to the media), but at least it would look like they were trying to justify this massive fuckup.
posted by Mayor West at 3:50 PM on February 10, 2022 [2 favorites]
They'd be lying, of course, because internal investigatory bodies like the ODR aren't bound by anything resembling those rules (why would you even HAVE an internal investigatory body, if not to avoid things like that? oh, right, to cover your own asses by skirting the law and handling disciplinary action in a room closed to the media), but at least it would look like they were trying to justify this massive fuckup.
posted by Mayor West at 3:50 PM on February 10, 2022 [2 favorites]
> coffeecat: "Well, Harvard has responded, weakly."
Hmmm. It's couched in a highly cautious way (as we'd expect from a party to a lawsuit) but they're basically insinuating that paragraphs 134 & 135 from the complaint are lies. From the complaint:
posted by mhum at 3:50 PM on February 10, 2022 [8 favorites]
Hmmm. It's couched in a highly cautious way (as we'd expect from a party to a lawsuit) but they're basically insinuating that paragraphs 134 & 135 from the complaint are lies. From the complaint:
134. The investigation only got worse. In 2020, ODR contacted Ms. Kilburn’s psychotherapist, a private therapist unaffiliated with Harvard, and obtained the psychotherapy notes from her sessions with Ms. Kilburn. ODR did not obtain Ms. Kilburn’s consent for the release of those records.And this from Harvard's response:
135. After obtaining the notes without Ms. Kilburn’s consent, ODR then withheld the full notes from Ms. Kilburn, redacting swaths of the notes and refusing to disclose the redacted portions even as ODR’s investigator grilled her about the redacted contents during an interview.
• Harvard’s Office for Dispute Resolution (ODR) does not contact a party’s medical care provider except when a party has indicated that the provider has relevant information that the party wants ODR to consider. In that situation, ODR receives information from that care provider only with the party’s consent. We scrupulously follow this practice.Of course, they're just quoting from their policy handbook or whatever and not talking about the specific events of this investigation. But, come on, we know what this is.
[...]
• “Will both parties have access to the materials that ODR uses in reaching its conclusions?
Yes. During the course of the investigation, both the complainant and the respondent will have the opportunity to respond to all information used by the Investigative Team in reaching its conclusions. They will also have the opportunity to provide the Investigative Team with any additional information that they have. This information, like other information received from the complainant and respondent during the investigatory process, will be shared with the other. In addition, each party will have the opportunity to review and comment on the draft investigative report, and the Investigative Team will evaluate the comments before issuing a final report."
posted by mhum at 3:50 PM on February 10, 2022 [8 favorites]
The existence of schools like Harvard is a mistake. Too rich, too unaccountable, corrupt as fuck, sprawling alumni network inserted into the hiring process for powerful jobs all over the place.
If this case had happened at a state school there would be government mechanisms to threaten the school into some kind of compliance, but Harvard? They'll do the bare minimum to protect their reputation then go right back into abusing students as soon as this drops out of the news cycle.
posted by zymil at 3:51 PM on February 10, 2022 [12 favorites]
If this case had happened at a state school there would be government mechanisms to threaten the school into some kind of compliance, but Harvard? They'll do the bare minimum to protect their reputation then go right back into abusing students as soon as this drops out of the news cycle.
posted by zymil at 3:51 PM on February 10, 2022 [12 favorites]
still makes me wonder - is it possible for humanity to setup an institution that doesn't circle the wagons and protects bad actors as a matter of course?
No. Human institutions protect their own as a matter of course. Mutual protection is why we have in-groups and out-groups to begin with. And as members of an in-group people identify heavily with one another, which makes them able (and likely) to extend approval waaaaay beyond a reasonable doubt.
However, in all but the most dysfunctional organizations (ahem ... US police ... ahem) when someone goes too far afield they are tossed out of the in-group, which may even then do some soul-searching about how this person became one of them.
This is one of those things, like tax evasion or boy bands, that are just part of the human condition.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 4:16 PM on February 10, 2022 [4 favorites]
No. Human institutions protect their own as a matter of course. Mutual protection is why we have in-groups and out-groups to begin with. And as members of an in-group people identify heavily with one another, which makes them able (and likely) to extend approval waaaaay beyond a reasonable doubt.
However, in all but the most dysfunctional organizations (ahem ... US police ... ahem) when someone goes too far afield they are tossed out of the in-group, which may even then do some soul-searching about how this person became one of them.
This is one of those things, like tax evasion or boy bands, that are just part of the human condition.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 4:16 PM on February 10, 2022 [4 favorites]
FYI, the Harvard grad union put together this Open Letter in protest that is free to any and all to sign - you do not have to be an academic.
posted by coffeecat at 4:17 PM on February 10, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by coffeecat at 4:17 PM on February 10, 2022 [2 favorites]
Realizing that life is full of complexities and the human mind has incredible cross currents I think a subtle but on point assessment would be DONT BE A FUCKING PIG and since you (said pig) know you are one get fucking help in not being a pig (sorry real pigs you’re wonderful, this is meant for the human kind).
And a simple corollary . Don’t defend the pig and then pathetically to justify it. That just makes you a complete asshole. Really Farmer? Hero of the vulnerable? Really Lapore? Chronicler of the ‘real’ history? Well you both suck and we’ll never forget this
And stop punching down for fucks sake. God how hard is it to stop pounding on those without power. Jebus, another failed day for me for practicing ‘no hate’
Apologize Harvard, beg forgiveness and give these harassment victims 10 million dollars each so it doesn’t go to pigs and their defenders.
posted by WatTylerJr at 4:25 PM on February 10, 2022 [3 favorites]
And a simple corollary . Don’t defend the pig and then pathetically to justify it. That just makes you a complete asshole. Really Farmer? Hero of the vulnerable? Really Lapore? Chronicler of the ‘real’ history? Well you both suck and we’ll never forget this
And stop punching down for fucks sake. God how hard is it to stop pounding on those without power. Jebus, another failed day for me for practicing ‘no hate’
Apologize Harvard, beg forgiveness and give these harassment victims 10 million dollars each so it doesn’t go to pigs and their defenders.
posted by WatTylerJr at 4:25 PM on February 10, 2022 [3 favorites]
Hmmm. It's couched in a highly cautious way (as we'd expect from a party to a lawsuit) but they're basically insinuating that paragraphs 134 & 135 from the complaint are lies.
No, they're actually not, if you read closely - they're clearly hoping you get that impression, but there's holes you can drive a truck through.
During the course of the investigation, both the complainant and the respondent will have the opportunity to respond to all information used by the Investigative Team in reaching its conclusions
This actually supports the complaint if you consider what they're not saying as well as what they are. Complainants said that they were provided with redacted material and not the full notes, which were shared. The hole here is in those words "used by the Investigative Team" - obviously, for redaction to occur, someone had to look at that data and redact it, and then could still share the information with the abuser as long as they claim that they didn't use that material in reaching their conclusions and that it's just extraneous data.
Also: HIPAA privacy obligations apply to medical care providers, not the ODR
This absolutely means that they are confirming they received the records, but they're trying to place the blame elsewhere and say it was the therapist's job to protect the information, not theirs.
Another key red flag is here: A party may not supply information of any kind to be considered in the process if it cannot be shared with an opposing party
The fact that they included "of any kind" means to my read that they obtained information outside of the normal complaint process. So for example:
When talking to an investigator, saying "Yes, this has upset me, I'm in therapy."
Investigator, in a conversational voice: "Oh, with the student services?"
Student, assuming this is conversation and not investigation: "Oh no, I go over to X clinic close by, it's cheaper."
And then taking that information and sharing it with the abuser, like a fucking monster.
My guess is also that the therapist, in providing the notes, was told some version of "Oh, we're trying to take care of a student, she gets care here, we have heard that she's been harassed, we want to make it right, can we get this information so we can help her?"
Therapist: "Yes, but please don't share the full notes, because it could damage the client relationship" (a real thing therapists often say around notes.
Harvard: "you got it, don't share it with the complainant" *shares with other non-complainant people*
posted by corb at 4:44 PM on February 10, 2022 [14 favorites]
No, they're actually not, if you read closely - they're clearly hoping you get that impression, but there's holes you can drive a truck through.
During the course of the investigation, both the complainant and the respondent will have the opportunity to respond to all information used by the Investigative Team in reaching its conclusions
This actually supports the complaint if you consider what they're not saying as well as what they are. Complainants said that they were provided with redacted material and not the full notes, which were shared. The hole here is in those words "used by the Investigative Team" - obviously, for redaction to occur, someone had to look at that data and redact it, and then could still share the information with the abuser as long as they claim that they didn't use that material in reaching their conclusions and that it's just extraneous data.
Also: HIPAA privacy obligations apply to medical care providers, not the ODR
This absolutely means that they are confirming they received the records, but they're trying to place the blame elsewhere and say it was the therapist's job to protect the information, not theirs.
Another key red flag is here: A party may not supply information of any kind to be considered in the process if it cannot be shared with an opposing party
The fact that they included "of any kind" means to my read that they obtained information outside of the normal complaint process. So for example:
When talking to an investigator, saying "Yes, this has upset me, I'm in therapy."
Investigator, in a conversational voice: "Oh, with the student services?"
Student, assuming this is conversation and not investigation: "Oh no, I go over to X clinic close by, it's cheaper."
And then taking that information and sharing it with the abuser, like a fucking monster.
My guess is also that the therapist, in providing the notes, was told some version of "Oh, we're trying to take care of a student, she gets care here, we have heard that she's been harassed, we want to make it right, can we get this information so we can help her?"
Therapist: "Yes, but please don't share the full notes, because it could damage the client relationship" (a real thing therapists often say around notes.
Harvard: "you got it, don't share it with the complainant" *shares with other non-complainant people*
posted by corb at 4:44 PM on February 10, 2022 [14 favorites]
If history is in any way predictive (and I here I predict it is), here's a case of a professor at University of Rochester (Florian Jaeger). His misconduct was initially detailed in Mother Jones
She Was a Rising Star at a Major University. Then a Lecherous Professor Made Her Life Hell. . The title of the piece pretty much tells you what you need to know. More recently, here's the outcome after five years
UR settles federal sexual misconduct lawsuit for $9.4 million. Not only is Florian (now Tim) Jaeger still on faculty at UofR, he was promoted to full professor in the midst of this case. Why might you wonder? One answer is to follow the money. Academia is corrupted beyond belief by grant funding.
posted by bluesky43 at 4:49 PM on February 10, 2022 [10 favorites]
She Was a Rising Star at a Major University. Then a Lecherous Professor Made Her Life Hell. . The title of the piece pretty much tells you what you need to know. More recently, here's the outcome after five years
UR settles federal sexual misconduct lawsuit for $9.4 million. Not only is Florian (now Tim) Jaeger still on faculty at UofR, he was promoted to full professor in the midst of this case. Why might you wonder? One answer is to follow the money. Academia is corrupted beyond belief by grant funding.
posted by bluesky43 at 4:49 PM on February 10, 2022 [10 favorites]
If this case had happened at a state school there would be government mechanisms to threaten the school into some kind of compliance...
Oh, man, I wish that were true, but it's hard to be confident about it. Take the UC's for example.
posted by BlueBlueElectricBlue at 4:50 PM on February 10, 2022 [8 favorites]
Oh, man, I wish that were true, but it's hard to be confident about it. Take the UC's for example.
posted by BlueBlueElectricBlue at 4:50 PM on February 10, 2022 [8 favorites]
This absolutely means that they are confirming they received the records, but they're trying to place the blame elsewhere and say it was the therapist's job to protect the information, not theirs.
It's also trying to argue that it's on the up and up for ODS to have confidential medical records for a complainant without the proper legal authorizations. They're technically right in that HIPAA doesn't apply to them - but I'd imagine there are other statutes that do.
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:02 PM on February 10, 2022 [2 favorites]
It's also trying to argue that it's on the up and up for ODS to have confidential medical records for a complainant without the proper legal authorizations. They're technically right in that HIPAA doesn't apply to them - but I'd imagine there are other statutes that do.
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:02 PM on February 10, 2022 [2 favorites]
I agree. Things may have changed somewhat but administrations circle the wagons, particularly when there is money involved.
posted by bluesky43 at 5:03 PM on February 10, 2022
posted by bluesky43 at 5:03 PM on February 10, 2022
This is absolutely not isolated to the Ivy League, FWIW. I've heard similar horror stories at state schools. This is an academic problem and a Harvard problem, not just a rich institution problem.
posted by lab.beetle at 5:26 PM on February 10, 2022 [5 favorites]
posted by lab.beetle at 5:26 PM on February 10, 2022 [5 favorites]
> No, they're actually not, if you read closely
I'm reading the Harvard statement closely, and it does sound to me like they are claiming they had consent to receive the therapy notes.
"Harvard’s Office for Dispute Resolution (ODR) does not contact a party’s medical care provider except when a party has indicated that the provider has relevant information that the party wants ODR to consider. In that situation, ODR receives information from that care provider only with the party’s consent. We scrupulously follow this practice."
Where is the wiggle room here for "We spoke to the therapist and convinced them to send the notes, though we never got consent from the victim to send the notes"?
I think either Harvard is lying or the lawsuit is lying. My gut would side against Harvard, considering in general how horribly they have acted here, but this specific statement does seem firm to me that they are claiming they got consent to acquire therapy notes, in direct contradiction to the lawsuit.
posted by lewedswiver at 5:46 PM on February 10, 2022 [1 favorite]
I'm reading the Harvard statement closely, and it does sound to me like they are claiming they had consent to receive the therapy notes.
"Harvard’s Office for Dispute Resolution (ODR) does not contact a party’s medical care provider except when a party has indicated that the provider has relevant information that the party wants ODR to consider. In that situation, ODR receives information from that care provider only with the party’s consent. We scrupulously follow this practice."
Where is the wiggle room here for "We spoke to the therapist and convinced them to send the notes, though we never got consent from the victim to send the notes"?
I think either Harvard is lying or the lawsuit is lying. My gut would side against Harvard, considering in general how horribly they have acted here, but this specific statement does seem firm to me that they are claiming they got consent to acquire therapy notes, in direct contradiction to the lawsuit.
posted by lewedswiver at 5:46 PM on February 10, 2022 [1 favorite]
> corb: "No, they're actually not, if you read closely - they're clearly hoping you get that impression, but there's holes you can drive a truck through."
Oh, I guess that's what I thought "insinuate" meant.
In any case, the other part I thought was more directly aimed atinsinuating hoping you get the impression that the complainant is lying was claiming that they only ever obtain medical records with the complainant's consent while the complaint explicitly says that those records were obtained without her consent.
posted by mhum at 5:50 PM on February 10, 2022 [1 favorite]
Oh, I guess that's what I thought "insinuate" meant.
In any case, the other part I thought was more directly aimed at
posted by mhum at 5:50 PM on February 10, 2022 [1 favorite]
Going back to the professor's letter.
Here is a Higher Ed article they reference in their own letter. It's paywalled and I'm too lazy to excerpt, but it's depressingly standard for the genre. Three people named on the record, more willing to talk anonymously. Pattern of creepy behavior. Targets specific young women each year. Stories of consensual affairs. Unwanted kissing attempts. Existence of rumor network. Responding with threats about the bad impact on the career of those who've made allegations.
So I reread the professors' letter and retraction. The above is what the professors knew was alleged. They also know that the investigators will have other information. So nothing changed for them between the letter. They didn't get meaningfully more information. They just realized people were paying attention.
They were very worried about process and transparency, but of course they were only worried about the part of the process that protects them. They could have gone through all that and said "You know, you're not disciplining him for allegations made by 2 of the 3 students. We need you to be transparent about why not! Doesn't this rise to the level of harassment?! We're very concerned." They took the opposite tack, only raising concerns about the process when it hurt one of their own.
I certainly get academics wanting to defend themselves against administrative overlords, but I really wish that when they circle wagons they were just naturally inclined to protect their students as well.
posted by mark k at 6:35 PM on February 10, 2022 [14 favorites]
Here is a Higher Ed article they reference in their own letter. It's paywalled and I'm too lazy to excerpt, but it's depressingly standard for the genre. Three people named on the record, more willing to talk anonymously. Pattern of creepy behavior. Targets specific young women each year. Stories of consensual affairs. Unwanted kissing attempts. Existence of rumor network. Responding with threats about the bad impact on the career of those who've made allegations.
So I reread the professors' letter and retraction. The above is what the professors knew was alleged. They also know that the investigators will have other information. So nothing changed for them between the letter. They didn't get meaningfully more information. They just realized people were paying attention.
They were very worried about process and transparency, but of course they were only worried about the part of the process that protects them. They could have gone through all that and said "You know, you're not disciplining him for allegations made by 2 of the 3 students. We need you to be transparent about why not! Doesn't this rise to the level of harassment?! We're very concerned." They took the opposite tack, only raising concerns about the process when it hurt one of their own.
I certainly get academics wanting to defend themselves against administrative overlords, but I really wish that when they circle wagons they were just naturally inclined to protect their students as well.
posted by mark k at 6:35 PM on February 10, 2022 [14 favorites]
This is not only horrible, but merely represents the tip of the tip of the iceberg. Whenever you put people in positions of such power over the lives and futures of others (particularly vulnerable people), then pretty much guarantee they can keep that position for life no matter how heinously they behave, you are going to attract people who could not survive in an accountable world. The whole culture of academia and the fact that those in it will always close ranks when one of their own is threatened (perhaps because they are aware it could be them in the firing line next and they're doing a favour they may wish returned later) just encourages the worst kind of behaviour.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Harvard complaint submission process includes some kind of blanket 'consent' clause buried in the fine print aimed at allowing those investigating to source any and all information as they see fit. Absolutely not valid as consent for what they and the therapist did, but I can see that as being their distorted view of consent, given there is a clear culture of choosing not to understand consent in any way.
posted by dg at 7:41 PM on February 10, 2022 [4 favorites]
I wouldn't be surprised if the Harvard complaint submission process includes some kind of blanket 'consent' clause buried in the fine print aimed at allowing those investigating to source any and all information as they see fit. Absolutely not valid as consent for what they and the therapist did, but I can see that as being their distorted view of consent, given there is a clear culture of choosing not to understand consent in any way.
posted by dg at 7:41 PM on February 10, 2022 [4 favorites]
"Harvard’s Office for Dispute Resolution (ODR) does not contact a party’s medical care provider except when a party has indicated that the provider has relevant information that the party wants ODR to consider. In that situation, ODR receives information from that care provider only with the party’s consent. We scrupulously follow this practice."
Where is the wiggle room here for "We spoke to the therapist and convinced them to send the notes, though we never got consent from the victim to send the notes"?
Simple - they received the notes via a third party (note the hyperfocus on ODR's specific conduct.) This also ties back to other language used, to argue that they are in the legal clear with regards to possessing the notes.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Harvard complaint submission process includes some kind of blanket 'consent' clause buried in the fine print aimed at allowing those investigating to source any and all information they see fit. Absolutely not valid as consent for what they and the therapist did, but I can see that as being their distorted view of consent, given there is a clear culture of choosing not to understand consent in any way.
I doubt that (or at the very least, Harvard's legal department is smart enough to realize that such a clause would not survive legal muster.) Keep this point in mind - Harvard could easily end this discussion by producing a proper disclosure form signed by the victim, showing that they had the legal right to get the notes. The fact that the university is instead tying itself into knots with too cute by half arguments means that disclosure form doesn't exist, and they are hoping you won't notice.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:49 PM on February 10, 2022 [18 favorites]
Where is the wiggle room here for "We spoke to the therapist and convinced them to send the notes, though we never got consent from the victim to send the notes"?
Simple - they received the notes via a third party (note the hyperfocus on ODR's specific conduct.) This also ties back to other language used, to argue that they are in the legal clear with regards to possessing the notes.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Harvard complaint submission process includes some kind of blanket 'consent' clause buried in the fine print aimed at allowing those investigating to source any and all information they see fit. Absolutely not valid as consent for what they and the therapist did, but I can see that as being their distorted view of consent, given there is a clear culture of choosing not to understand consent in any way.
I doubt that (or at the very least, Harvard's legal department is smart enough to realize that such a clause would not survive legal muster.) Keep this point in mind - Harvard could easily end this discussion by producing a proper disclosure form signed by the victim, showing that they had the legal right to get the notes. The fact that the university is instead tying itself into knots with too cute by half arguments means that disclosure form doesn't exist, and they are hoping you won't notice.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:49 PM on February 10, 2022 [18 favorites]
Also in followup, signatory Evelynn Hammonds did respond about her signing the letter at her event with Anita Hill today, but tries the whole "I honestly didn't know about what I was signing" routine.
Sorry, Evelynn, but that dog don't hunt.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:56 PM on February 10, 2022 [6 favorites]
Sorry, Evelynn, but that dog don't hunt.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:56 PM on February 10, 2022 [6 favorites]
In some ways, this is a really interesting situation. Usually when you're being sued, the correct option is to shut your mouth because the words you say can be used to hang you. But Harvard also has a financial interest in not been seen as the sexual harasser protector that it is. So it's clearly workshopped this past PR, and will continue to do so, but actually, as we see from the above, reveals more about their position by what they choose to share and what they choose not to share.
I wonder also if they know about more harassers at the university and are hoping those students don't choose to blow the whistle too?
Also for those who didn't notice, the form to sign in opposition to this bullshit contains a place for Harvard students to report sexual harassment.
posted by corb at 7:59 PM on February 10, 2022 [3 favorites]
I wonder also if they know about more harassers at the university and are hoping those students don't choose to blow the whistle too?
Also for those who didn't notice, the form to sign in opposition to this bullshit contains a place for Harvard students to report sexual harassment.
posted by corb at 7:59 PM on February 10, 2022 [3 favorites]
Well, yes, I agree such a thing would not survive even casual legal scrutiny. It's the way they couch that part of the statement that makes me wonder if they're trying to avoid pointing out the existence of such a thing without actually saying 'we did/didn't get consent'. Admitting to the existence of fake consent would open another can of worms and make people wonder what else they do based on fake consent.
It's perhaps more likely that you're right - they never actually say they did or did not get consent in this specific case, but waffle on about how 'we don't do this' rather than saying 'we didn't do this'. Coupled with the emphasis on 'OCR doesn't do this' suggests someone else (some form of investigator, maybe?) did it.
posted by dg at 7:59 PM on February 10, 2022
It's perhaps more likely that you're right - they never actually say they did or did not get consent in this specific case, but waffle on about how 'we don't do this' rather than saying 'we didn't do this'. Coupled with the emphasis on 'OCR doesn't do this' suggests someone else (some form of investigator, maybe?) did it.
posted by dg at 7:59 PM on February 10, 2022
In some ways, this is a really interesting situation. Usually when you're being sued, the correct option is to shut your mouth because the words you say can be used to hang you. But Harvard also has a financial interest in not been seen as the sexual harasser protector that it is. So it's clearly workshopped this past PR, and will continue to do so, but actually, as we see from the above, reveals more about their position by what they choose to share and what they choose not to share.
I think the answer is simpler (and is similar to how Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law professor emeritus, has behaved as of late) - Harvard is used to controlling the narrative in these sorts of situations, and is flailing now that they have lost it. So they're desperately trying to regain control, forgetting the first rule of finding oneself in a hole.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:15 PM on February 10, 2022 [6 favorites]
I think the answer is simpler (and is similar to how Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law professor emeritus, has behaved as of late) - Harvard is used to controlling the narrative in these sorts of situations, and is flailing now that they have lost it. So they're desperately trying to regain control, forgetting the first rule of finding oneself in a hole.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:15 PM on February 10, 2022 [6 favorites]
It is hard enough to try to collect pseudonymous “informal” complaints, making it harder to gain “formal” complaints under Title IX undermines the whole program. The therapy thieves and the undersigned should be made to feel alllllllllll of that weight.
The 38 fuckups that fucked up with the fucking letter - they should all just get in the sea and stay there.
Even if the case was tossed for blatant falsehoods (it wasn’t, and not sure if “without merit” was a finding or editorializing a null result) — there still was no need to pile on to a letter because there is a very fragile setup here, and that is what I find unforgivable.
The thing these signers did not state, is that they had any idea how impossible it is to get to a “formal” complaint in Title IX. These are not anonymous slips of paper in a suggestion box, these are very serious commitments on the part of the complainant. It is super super hard to get students to trust enough to try.
These complainants often do not have enough time left on campus to make a formal complaint practical. Professional degrees and masters are like 20 months on campus, ramp up to a complaint can take months, and then cases can take a very long time. Otherwise they are so dependent on protection from retaliation in a long haul program that the downside is unimaginably bad.
Fucking with this trust is not allowed, people.
posted by drowsy at 8:16 PM on February 10, 2022 [10 favorites]
The 38 fuckups that fucked up with the fucking letter - they should all just get in the sea and stay there.
Even if the case was tossed for blatant falsehoods (it wasn’t, and not sure if “without merit” was a finding or editorializing a null result) — there still was no need to pile on to a letter because there is a very fragile setup here, and that is what I find unforgivable.
The thing these signers did not state, is that they had any idea how impossible it is to get to a “formal” complaint in Title IX. These are not anonymous slips of paper in a suggestion box, these are very serious commitments on the part of the complainant. It is super super hard to get students to trust enough to try.
These complainants often do not have enough time left on campus to make a formal complaint practical. Professional degrees and masters are like 20 months on campus, ramp up to a complaint can take months, and then cases can take a very long time. Otherwise they are so dependent on protection from retaliation in a long haul program that the downside is unimaginably bad.
Fucking with this trust is not allowed, people.
posted by drowsy at 8:16 PM on February 10, 2022 [10 favorites]
Fucking with this trust is not allowed, people.
The details are not my story to share but I have a family member who was utterly fucked over and rebuffed by her Title IX administrator to the point of causing a complete educational derailment and ongoing medical ramifications.
Title IX trust should not have to be earned but the reality is that the system does not work anywhere near as well as it should in some places and I have witnessed with my own eyes that trust being misplaced.
posted by majick at 8:26 PM on February 10, 2022 [3 favorites]
The details are not my story to share but I have a family member who was utterly fucked over and rebuffed by her Title IX administrator to the point of causing a complete educational derailment and ongoing medical ramifications.
Title IX trust should not have to be earned but the reality is that the system does not work anywhere near as well as it should in some places and I have witnessed with my own eyes that trust being misplaced.
posted by majick at 8:26 PM on February 10, 2022 [3 favorites]
Sorry majick - of course you are right. The program has to be worth that trust in the first place. Truly heartbreaking that the one you mention was not.
posted by drowsy at 8:40 PM on February 10, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by drowsy at 8:40 PM on February 10, 2022 [2 favorites]
is it possible for humanity to setup an institution that doesn't cirle the wagons and protects bad actors as a matter of course?
sure, yes, of course. most institutions don't protect their own, good or bad, once it costs them one thin dime. people get shitcanned all the fuckin time. but they DO protect them, often at great expense, if they have power. you want to end abuse, you put people in power that are less likely to engage in that sort of abuse. all these old white guy professors who refuse to retire (and seriously is this fucking guy a stereotype? making jokes about assault and then crying about his impotence??) are the most likely to do that.
posted by wibari at 10:01 PM on February 10, 2022 [4 favorites]
sure, yes, of course. most institutions don't protect their own, good or bad, once it costs them one thin dime. people get shitcanned all the fuckin time. but they DO protect them, often at great expense, if they have power. you want to end abuse, you put people in power that are less likely to engage in that sort of abuse. all these old white guy professors who refuse to retire (and seriously is this fucking guy a stereotype? making jokes about assault and then crying about his impotence??) are the most likely to do that.
posted by wibari at 10:01 PM on February 10, 2022 [4 favorites]
I'm just getting to this FPP so my apologies if this is redundant or irrelevant (I have not thoroughly read the thread). Having read the NYT article when it was published the, my impression of the specific cited acts as repored - there are almost certainly more that were not covered as it seems the complaint is trying to establish a pattern of behavior - was that their individual acts were individually, mostly low level. That's not at all to dispute the basis of the lawsuit. My reflection was that the response of the powers-that-be (ie. the administration and faculty of Harvard, and other relevant academics) was very classic "reflexively don't believe accusers". But in a way that the doubt was not focused on the factual basis of the accusations but on the substance of their effects. That was a distinction that occurred to me and which I hadn't considered before. At the same time, that made me super disappointed in the shows of support for the accused by people who should be more thoughtful than a schlub on MeFi. Unsurprisingly, really smart people, they are just like us - especially in the tribalistic components of human reason. I'd have hoped they would have applied their learned, critical powers more evidently here. My apologies if I'm just wrong about this or if this is non-constructive contribution to this conversation
posted by DeepSeaHaggis at 10:35 PM on February 10, 2022
posted by DeepSeaHaggis at 10:35 PM on February 10, 2022
Anyways, believe accusers (o at least don't categorically deny them) because the reasons for most any accusation of these types are - by dint of who is affected and by these being Roshomon-like at the level of fact and experience - inaccessible or alien experiences for the prevailing rungs in the social hierarchy and thus very likely to trigger tribal responses, as we saw here.
posted by DeepSeaHaggis at 10:49 PM on February 10, 2022
posted by DeepSeaHaggis at 10:49 PM on February 10, 2022
Harvard is used to controlling the narrative
Yes, this is central. Controlling the narrative is an obsession at that institution. Harvard has developed endless mechanisms to maintain a projection of preeminence, and these mechanisms are thoroughly knit into the social fabric.
Of course the problem with building your institution around looking powerful is that exteriorizing your value rots you internally. The focus on outward gatekeeping corrupts everything within: the quality of the work produced, and especially the agency and basic well-being of those less powerful (e.g. grad students). All must bow, first and foremost, to the very idea of Harvard.
Values are the same there - projection and surface are the priority. I swear the institution's ethical stance is basically, "do we look sufficiently progressive to the world while still making it abundantly clear that we are HARVARD?" But as this lawsuit shows, that very word, intended to signify "the best in the world," inevitably also signifies (and projects, enforces, protects) "classist racist sexist ableist colonialist white male power." In this, the institution's ethical positioning is internally contradictory (and that's an understatement).
Respect to the women standing up in this lawsuit. May their bravery - seriously, my god, the bravery this takes cannot be underestimated - put a proper chink in the wealthy rotting behemoth's armor of power-projection. (Hey, one can dream.)
posted by marlys at 8:00 AM on February 11, 2022 [15 favorites]
Yes, this is central. Controlling the narrative is an obsession at that institution. Harvard has developed endless mechanisms to maintain a projection of preeminence, and these mechanisms are thoroughly knit into the social fabric.
Of course the problem with building your institution around looking powerful is that exteriorizing your value rots you internally. The focus on outward gatekeeping corrupts everything within: the quality of the work produced, and especially the agency and basic well-being of those less powerful (e.g. grad students). All must bow, first and foremost, to the very idea of Harvard.
Values are the same there - projection and surface are the priority. I swear the institution's ethical stance is basically, "do we look sufficiently progressive to the world while still making it abundantly clear that we are HARVARD?" But as this lawsuit shows, that very word, intended to signify "the best in the world," inevitably also signifies (and projects, enforces, protects) "classist racist sexist ableist colonialist white male power." In this, the institution's ethical positioning is internally contradictory (and that's an understatement).
Respect to the women standing up in this lawsuit. May their bravery - seriously, my god, the bravery this takes cannot be underestimated - put a proper chink in the wealthy rotting behemoth's armor of power-projection. (Hey, one can dream.)
posted by marlys at 8:00 AM on February 11, 2022 [15 favorites]
if there does seem to be exonerative space then that's a matter of denial on your part
You know, I did say in my comment "this could be wishful thinking on my part," so I'm not sure why you felt the need to repeat that back to me in more accusatory form as a slam, since fundamentally we are on the same side on the larger issue of the case itself. I'm not denying that signing the letter was 1) an obvious case of circling the wagons to protect their own, 2) absolutely the wrong thing to do, 3) totally irresponsible given their status, and 4) something that they should face some sort of repercussions for. I'm in absolute agreement with those statements. I'm just not in agreement with saying that Jamaica Kincaid, for example, obviously must have known everything about the case and doesn't care about students and gleefully supports the white male colonialist patriarchy and thus should be cast into the sea, to pull from a few different comments in the thread. However I wouldn't hesitate to say that, like most people in privileged positions, she obviously thought first about her own position and colleagues and not those who are vulnerable, and she (and the others) should be called out for that in some form. I think there is possibly room between 100% innocent and 100% guilty for at least some of those 38 signers, even if their decision to sign was 100% stupid, selfish, and shitty.
I expect I may get further pilloried for this, but I think the question of forgiveness and restorative justice is one that needs to be asked (not regarding Comaroff, just the 38 signers). I've seen the word "unforgivable" and similar sentiments used in this thread -- specifically about the 38 -- but I think rather than saying "You signed it, you don't get to take it back, and you are always going to be a bad person because of it," we might be better served by saying, "you signed it, ok you want to take that back? That's fine, but what are you going to do to rectify this now and in the future?" I mean, we do have to have some sort of standards for reconciliation, forgiveness, restitution, at least in SOME cases, don't we? Or else life becomes a zero-sum purity contest with no one ever able to escape their past mistakes. And I'm not talking about Harvard's mealy mouthed PR apologies or some bullshit White Dude "I'm sorry if you interpreted my words in that way but I'm going to keep doing the same thing" apology. I'm not saying just automatically forgive people because they say, "I'm sowwy I was a bad wittle boy," or "I didn't realize what I was signing." I'm just saying that there's possibly room to say, "OK, you say didn't realize what you were signing. Fine, back that up with real atonement and then we'll know you mean what you say." I'm not even saying that I necessarily believe that any or all the retractions and apologies were even sincere, just that maybe, possibly, some of them could be, maybe some of them could be brought around to see the problem with signing in the first place, maybe some of them realize "Oh shit, I did a bad thing and this system that I'm a part of is fucked up," and getting some of those 34 over to the sides of the students making the complaint may be a better tactic -- especially if it can help dismantle the Harvard/higher ed power hierarchy, which is, at root, the cause of the problem, because that's what allowed Comaroff to do what he did and the 38 signers to do what they did -- than dismissing them all as unrepentant and irredeemable.
posted by Saxon Kane at 11:37 AM on February 11, 2022 [6 favorites]
You know, I did say in my comment "this could be wishful thinking on my part," so I'm not sure why you felt the need to repeat that back to me in more accusatory form as a slam, since fundamentally we are on the same side on the larger issue of the case itself. I'm not denying that signing the letter was 1) an obvious case of circling the wagons to protect their own, 2) absolutely the wrong thing to do, 3) totally irresponsible given their status, and 4) something that they should face some sort of repercussions for. I'm in absolute agreement with those statements. I'm just not in agreement with saying that Jamaica Kincaid, for example, obviously must have known everything about the case and doesn't care about students and gleefully supports the white male colonialist patriarchy and thus should be cast into the sea, to pull from a few different comments in the thread. However I wouldn't hesitate to say that, like most people in privileged positions, she obviously thought first about her own position and colleagues and not those who are vulnerable, and she (and the others) should be called out for that in some form. I think there is possibly room between 100% innocent and 100% guilty for at least some of those 38 signers, even if their decision to sign was 100% stupid, selfish, and shitty.
I expect I may get further pilloried for this, but I think the question of forgiveness and restorative justice is one that needs to be asked (not regarding Comaroff, just the 38 signers). I've seen the word "unforgivable" and similar sentiments used in this thread -- specifically about the 38 -- but I think rather than saying "You signed it, you don't get to take it back, and you are always going to be a bad person because of it," we might be better served by saying, "you signed it, ok you want to take that back? That's fine, but what are you going to do to rectify this now and in the future?" I mean, we do have to have some sort of standards for reconciliation, forgiveness, restitution, at least in SOME cases, don't we? Or else life becomes a zero-sum purity contest with no one ever able to escape their past mistakes. And I'm not talking about Harvard's mealy mouthed PR apologies or some bullshit White Dude "I'm sorry if you interpreted my words in that way but I'm going to keep doing the same thing" apology. I'm not saying just automatically forgive people because they say, "I'm sowwy I was a bad wittle boy," or "I didn't realize what I was signing." I'm just saying that there's possibly room to say, "OK, you say didn't realize what you were signing. Fine, back that up with real atonement and then we'll know you mean what you say." I'm not even saying that I necessarily believe that any or all the retractions and apologies were even sincere, just that maybe, possibly, some of them could be, maybe some of them could be brought around to see the problem with signing in the first place, maybe some of them realize "Oh shit, I did a bad thing and this system that I'm a part of is fucked up," and getting some of those 34 over to the sides of the students making the complaint may be a better tactic -- especially if it can help dismantle the Harvard/higher ed power hierarchy, which is, at root, the cause of the problem, because that's what allowed Comaroff to do what he did and the 38 signers to do what they did -- than dismissing them all as unrepentant and irredeemable.
posted by Saxon Kane at 11:37 AM on February 11, 2022 [6 favorites]
I think rather than saying "You signed it, you don't get to take it back, and you are always going to be a bad person because of it," we might be better served by saying, "you signed it, ok you want to take that back? That's fine, but what are you going to do to rectify this now and in the future?"
Here is what I think should be a minimum standard for people trying to retract their signatures to that letter.
Not saying "We didn't know all the facts but signed it anyway".
Saying, "On X day, I was approached by Y individual connected to Comaroff in the following way, who asked me to sign this letter. I did not know anything about the situation other than what they told me, but I believed them anyway because of their position, power, and status in the field. I now recognize this was an attempt to create good PR ahead of the story breaking. I believe the women who have come forward, and will make efforts not to side with the powerful over the powerless in the future."
Because these un-signers are STILL protecting Comaroff, by not talking publicly about the social pressure that was brought to bear on them by people trying to cover their ass. Their unsigning is a step but not sufficient.
posted by corb at 12:20 PM on February 11, 2022 [37 favorites]
Here is what I think should be a minimum standard for people trying to retract their signatures to that letter.
Not saying "We didn't know all the facts but signed it anyway".
Saying, "On X day, I was approached by Y individual connected to Comaroff in the following way, who asked me to sign this letter. I did not know anything about the situation other than what they told me, but I believed them anyway because of their position, power, and status in the field. I now recognize this was an attempt to create good PR ahead of the story breaking. I believe the women who have come forward, and will make efforts not to side with the powerful over the powerless in the future."
Because these un-signers are STILL protecting Comaroff, by not talking publicly about the social pressure that was brought to bear on them by people trying to cover their ass. Their unsigning is a step but not sufficient.
posted by corb at 12:20 PM on February 11, 2022 [37 favorites]
Saying, "On X day, I was approached by Y individual connected to Comaroff in the following way, who asked me to sign this letter. I did not know anything about the situation other than what they told me, but I believed them anyway because of their position, power, and status in the field. I now recognize this was an attempt to create good PR ahead of the story breaking. I believe the women who have come forward, and will make efforts not to side with the powerful over the powerless in the future."
corb, this is fantastic, and thank you for taking the time to write and post it.
posted by ApathyGirl at 12:27 PM on February 11, 2022 [5 favorites]
corb, this is fantastic, and thank you for taking the time to write and post it.
posted by ApathyGirl at 12:27 PM on February 11, 2022 [5 favorites]
Saying, "On X day, I was approached by Y individual connected to Comaroff in the following way, who asked me to sign this letter. I did not know anything about the situation other than what they told me, but I believed them anyway because of their position, power, and status in the field. I now recognize this was an attempt to create good PR ahead of the story breaking. I believe the women who have come forward, and will make efforts not to side with the powerful over the powerless in the future."
This phrasing is excellent, and I suspect making the identity of the "Y individual" public would be interesting. Whoever coordinated this PR effort (and, let's face it, helped put those now trying to retract their signature in an embarrassing position) does not deserve anonymity.
posted by Gelatin at 12:41 PM on February 11, 2022 [8 favorites]
This phrasing is excellent, and I suspect making the identity of the "Y individual" public would be interesting. Whoever coordinated this PR effort (and, let's face it, helped put those now trying to retract their signature in an embarrassing position) does not deserve anonymity.
posted by Gelatin at 12:41 PM on February 11, 2022 [8 favorites]
I think there is possibly room between 100% innocent and 100% guilty for at least some of those 38 signers, even if their decision to sign was 100% stupid, selfish, and shitty.
No there really isn't, for two reasons. One, as I've said in other threads, aggressive not giving a shit becomes indistinguishable from intentionality. Two, no matter why they signed on, the three grad students were no less hurt.
It's not about "innocent" or "guilty", but being culpable for your acts and the harm they do, no matter how pure your intent may be. (The OSP video on the "pure of heart" trope has a whole discussion on how pure intentions can be bent to horrific aims that makes a few good points about this.)
Which leads to:
I expect I may get further pilloried for this, but I think the question of forgiveness and restorative justice is one that needs to be asked (not regarding Comaroff, just the 38 signers).
As I've said in other other threads, restorative justice must start with contrition for one's acts and the harm they did. And the simple fact is that a hasty withdrawal of one's name from an open letter out of embarrassment is not contrition. Instead, contrition looks more like the point that corb made above, with acknowledging the harm signing the letter did, that any lack of awareness on their part does not excuse the harm that they did by signing and how they will be accountable in the future - which is the important part of restorative justice, as this essay details.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:44 PM on February 11, 2022 [10 favorites]
No there really isn't, for two reasons. One, as I've said in other threads, aggressive not giving a shit becomes indistinguishable from intentionality. Two, no matter why they signed on, the three grad students were no less hurt.
It's not about "innocent" or "guilty", but being culpable for your acts and the harm they do, no matter how pure your intent may be. (The OSP video on the "pure of heart" trope has a whole discussion on how pure intentions can be bent to horrific aims that makes a few good points about this.)
Which leads to:
I expect I may get further pilloried for this, but I think the question of forgiveness and restorative justice is one that needs to be asked (not regarding Comaroff, just the 38 signers).
As I've said in other other threads, restorative justice must start with contrition for one's acts and the harm they did. And the simple fact is that a hasty withdrawal of one's name from an open letter out of embarrassment is not contrition. Instead, contrition looks more like the point that corb made above, with acknowledging the harm signing the letter did, that any lack of awareness on their part does not excuse the harm that they did by signing and how they will be accountable in the future - which is the important part of restorative justice, as this essay details.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:44 PM on February 11, 2022 [10 favorites]
Whoever coordinated this PR effort (and, let's face it, helped put those now trying to retract their signature in an embarrassing position) does not deserve anonymity.
We know who it was - the Lady Comaroff, she of the "rolling with the punches" comment and a major name in the field in her own right, along with their legal team.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:46 PM on February 11, 2022 [3 favorites]
We know who it was - the Lady Comaroff, she of the "rolling with the punches" comment and a major name in the field in her own right, along with their legal team.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:46 PM on February 11, 2022 [3 favorites]
From Slate, "Why This Week’s Open-Letter Battle at Harvard Turned Into Such a Spectacular Mess":
posted by mhum at 1:37 PM on February 11, 2022 [11 favorites]
Open letters are a more curious and taxing genre than they first appear. They’re not mere vehicles for the ideas they explain or endorse. If that were true, letter authors might write an op-ed instead: just as nimble, just as public. But they’re not entirely about strength in numbers, either—that describes a petition, and produces sprawling hybrid things like the Great Barrington Declaration, a statement against tough COVID-19 mitigation measures that boasts more than 925,000 signatures from a small roster of public health experts and many more ordinary citizens. No, the open letter is a form of public writing that’s all about elite power, not democratic authority: collecting the right set of names, the names that matter, and putting their intellectual or institutional or personal clout to work.There's also some interesting stuff in this article more about open letters in general.
[...]
Why did the first Harvard letter result in such a spectacular collective face-plant? It’s not, as the critics of “cancel culture” might have it, because any talk of due process inevitably runs into the buzz saw of vindictive left-wing Twitter mob justice. It’s because it failed as an open letter. Most critically, its signatories did not see their own authority very clearly. They misunderstood how their support of Comaroff, and their status as senior scholars, would be perceived by their own students. But they appear to have been no less oblivious to how this vastly privileged wagon circling and endowed chair brandishing would be seen by academia in general, at a time when all the jobs have disappeared, and younger scholars deeply resent the senior faculty who fail to see the emergency for what it is. It’s also far from clear what the signatories hoped to achieve. Clarity from the dean about the process? A reversal of Comaroff’s (extremely mild) punishment? Explanations from the now-apologetic signatories make it somewhat hard to tell. Finally, Comaroff’s defenders entirely misread their audience. It wasn’t just Dean Claudine Gay and Title IX administrators who were reading their complaint. It was their own students, to say nothing of a wider world of peers, colleagues, and collaborators—most of whom have recoiled in horror.
posted by mhum at 1:37 PM on February 11, 2022 [11 favorites]
The Harper's letter worked? As I recall, that wound up being another case of signatories not looking before they jumped into an active volcano.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:52 PM on February 11, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:52 PM on February 11, 2022 [2 favorites]
> NoxAeternum: "The Harper's letter worked?"
I think it worked in the sense that it strengthened the resolve of their allies, perhaps tipped some fence-sitters into their camp, and (perhaps most importantly imho) managed to keep the mainstream media locked into their framing of "cancel culture" via the cultural capital & power of the letter writers. So while the reaction on the other side was mainly a combination of disappointment and derision, that was likely never their audience nor was it material to their goals.
posted by mhum at 2:30 PM on February 11, 2022 [1 favorite]
I think it worked in the sense that it strengthened the resolve of their allies, perhaps tipped some fence-sitters into their camp, and (perhaps most importantly imho) managed to keep the mainstream media locked into their framing of "cancel culture" via the cultural capital & power of the letter writers. So while the reaction on the other side was mainly a combination of disappointment and derision, that was likely never their audience nor was it material to their goals.
posted by mhum at 2:30 PM on February 11, 2022 [1 favorite]
I'm surprised nobody else has mentioned another infamous open letter from a group of academics rushing to judgement, this one from the "Group of 88" about the Duke Lacrosse case.
There's a LOT of depth to that story but I'll just note what happened in the end: the three accused players were declared innocent (not just "not guilty" but actually declared "innocent") by the NC Attorney General. The prosecutor, Daniel Nifong, was prosecuted, disbarred, and jailed for gross misconduct. The university settled with the three students for about $20 million each.
If we learn nothing else from this, let us at least learn to NOT SIGN ANYTHING until we fully understand what we're signing.
posted by math at 3:35 PM on February 11, 2022 [1 favorite]
There's a LOT of depth to that story but I'll just note what happened in the end: the three accused players were declared innocent (not just "not guilty" but actually declared "innocent") by the NC Attorney General. The prosecutor, Daniel Nifong, was prosecuted, disbarred, and jailed for gross misconduct. The university settled with the three students for about $20 million each.
If we learn nothing else from this, let us at least learn to NOT SIGN ANYTHING until we fully understand what we're signing.
posted by math at 3:35 PM on February 11, 2022 [1 favorite]
On one of the 38 signers:
"Over the last 8 years, Appadurai has repeatedly dismissed me as irrelevant; I have been yelled at in faculty meetings and publicly attacked by him in outbursts on email lists and social media, even as he also privately humiliated me in emails and texts to colleagues. My “crime” has been my disobedience, my unwillingness to accept “my place.” For that I have been unimaginatively labeled “dangerous,” or a “witch” who simultaneously conducts “witch hunts.” Beyond the fury directed at me, graduate students in the Department have been threatened with the retraction of letters of recommendation if they wanted to put me on their committee, and far-flung colleagues have conveyed to me disparaging comments made about me out of the blue."
posted by cushie at 7:26 PM on February 12, 2022 [6 favorites]
"Over the last 8 years, Appadurai has repeatedly dismissed me as irrelevant; I have been yelled at in faculty meetings and publicly attacked by him in outbursts on email lists and social media, even as he also privately humiliated me in emails and texts to colleagues. My “crime” has been my disobedience, my unwillingness to accept “my place.” For that I have been unimaginatively labeled “dangerous,” or a “witch” who simultaneously conducts “witch hunts.” Beyond the fury directed at me, graduate students in the Department have been threatened with the retraction of letters of recommendation if they wanted to put me on their committee, and far-flung colleagues have conveyed to me disparaging comments made about me out of the blue."
posted by cushie at 7:26 PM on February 12, 2022 [6 favorites]
« Older P. S. I'll find my frog. | I bless the rains down in Kokiri Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I'm guessing no.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 9:38 AM on February 10, 2022 [12 favorites]