67 thoughts on “Yippee-Ki-Yo-Kipnis”

1. Kipnis comes off little different from the endless stream of undergraduate shit stirrers who half-ass confrontation then act wounded (yet smug) when a shitstorm erupts.

   This includes adolescent indulgence of self-serving inaccuracies which seem calculated yet also arrogantly incurious. Kipnis has said she knew little about Title IX until after she published an a high profile essay about it.

   As undergraduate provocateurs always do, I’m sure she’d say she’s “not a journalist”. Except isn’t being a scholar, particular one published in the Chronicle of Higher Education mean doing the research and getting things right?

   [The Chronicle seems to have a similar attitude as the clarifications still don’t two, not one, students accused the unnamed prof of assault and the he says he dated says it’s a lie.]

   There’s also a sophomoric cognitive dissonance – after fudging details to fit a hyperbolic polemic, complaints that others were over-dramatic and careless about words and events.

   What puzzles me most is how she’s hard on students for behaving like fragile flowers with no agency while framing aggressive behavior of grown men as hapless or lacking agency.

   Where is the snarky discussion of the intellectually embarrassing threat posed by a 50 something professional who can’t bother to figure out a college freshman is a teen and getting her drunk is career poison and illegal? Where’s the tough minded derision for his denial of knowing choices rather than a passive “slippery slope”?

2. Sorry that should read, “clarifications still don’t mention that two, not one”.

3. I should also clarify the undergraduates I refer to are those who go viral with reactionary editorials that spark outrage, get people fomenting about free speech and are often rather inept.

4. Yes. Kathryn Pogin clarified this in The Huffington Post and tried to clarify it to the Chronicle of Higher Education and they treated her… like a hysterical female splitting hairs over dumb facts that don’t matter. Here’s the article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathryn-pogin/melodrama-notes-from-an-ongoing_b_6805676.html (I’m almost positive you’ve read it, but for anyone who hasn’t.)

   So that “Oi vey” private email that got whoopsy-daisied to Pogin: That’s Gender Discrimination right there. It is also patent Gaslighting.

   ‘She is crazy. She is dismissed. We do not alter our footnotes for the ‘facts’ of a hysterical female. After all, a hysterical female is incapable of facts.’

   I’ll go on record: That should be a complaint against The Chronicle, right there.

   Would it be taken seriously? No. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t a valid complaint.

   It is not confusing. It is not hard to spot. It is all right there for everyone to see. And jeez louise, Foucault wrote a whole damn book on it. Are these people truly PhDs in the Humanities? Seriously?! Because I’m not seeing that anywhere.

   Whoever does not understand the power play and inherent sexism of the label “crazy” (or treating someone like they’re crazy) shouldn’t be paid to teach anyone.

   So what confuses this issue for people? Institutional power and an uber-masculine swagger, so far as I can tell. That is all.

   And Kipnis oozes it throughout her piece. Non-stop, cock-a-doodle-doo bravado. (Good lord, how she loves herself! And yet she accuses others of subconscious masturbation. A deft mind, no doubt. And possibly sexually harassive? She certainly meant to shame the man teaching the only/voluntary SH workshops at NU… and not because he had no idea what he was talking about which would have been a valid complaint… Certainly if Kipnis is entitled to accuse “David” of subconscious masturbation in a public forum, I should be entitled to wonder if that isn’t sexually harassive/bullying. It’s a personal attack based on her projections, I would say.)

   Anyway, back to her article. Cognitive dissonance is exactly right.

   Kipnis offers absolutely no proof of her claims for the power of fragile students and/or women. On the contrary, her evidence supports the opposition. Even at face value, with distorted facts, read the bare-bones “facts” and then consider her conclusion. They don’t add up. She is the hysteric. Not her students.

   Finally, you said: “What puzzles me most is how she’s hard on students for behaving like fragile flowers with no agency while framing aggressive behavior of grown men as hapless or lacking agency.”

   Yes. It would seem women/survivors are responsible for the sexual desire of men/abusers, whereas men/abusers are victims of their own desire. Women (this totally applies to race and other issues, too) are somehow expected to manage how others/abusers view them. This is an utterly insane proposition. You are literally suggesting that minorities exist entirely for-others/for-those-that-oppress-them. Again, I’m not seeing any evidence of a Humanities Ph.D. here. I really wish I was. :(

   The upshot is that those with institutionalized power are entitled to act in such a way that they would literally be flunked out of a Kindergarten classroom.

   Again, for the record: I am inclined to think that if you would be tossed out of a Kindergarten classroom, you shouldn’t have a Ph.D. or be teaching.

   Hardcore, I know. But also rational. I welcome arguments.

   Finally, I wrote this in a private context about Kipnis’ article, but I have already written too much to segway elegantly. Please forgive me. (I am of the opinion that we are very much on the same page.):

   “What’s weird to me is how clearly the evidence of hysteria that she offers is in fact proof that these men are never punished. The editor that she talks about — he was a sexual harasser, he was cheating on his wife, and he was not doing his job. Did he get fired? Was he called out to his wife? Did ANYTHING happen? Nope. Her article is literally all posture. The only striking thing about it is her blind confidence that she’s right. But none of the evidence she offers points to that. It points to an institution that has no SH training to speak of and is therefore negligent…”

5. PS: The Arendt/Gaus interview is so relevant to these issues, I feel. If you are a smarty-pants person, please take the time. It is such a joy: https://youtu.be/dsoImQfVsO4

6. This is a nasty, ad hominem piece of work. Need to take a shower now.

7. Could you please explain why?

8. I don’t see it as any more ad hominem or nasty than Kipnis’ original piece. The only differences are:

   1) She attacks her own students, those with *less power* than herself, by calling them fragile and hysterical. That is gaslighting. That is an abuse of power. She openly mocks her own students who calmly and civilly explain that they do have triggers and who are, in fact, addressing these triggers as well as any tough grown-up could. What should a student with a trigger do? And how is that not a chilling effect? Kipnis’ contempt will be shown in her grading, no? Is that a “crazy” thought?

   Anyway, I’m attacking her. And for all her whining, she’s got plenty of power and is in no way dependent on my approval.

   The same cannot be said for Kipnis.

   2) Is there any evidence of a functioning Sexual Harassment & Assault policy at NU? I’m serious. Because Kipnis’ article indicates that there is not. And instead of addressing facts, she personalizes with accusations of hysteria and her own masturbation fantasies.

   If Kipnis doesn’t want to get personal, then she probably shouldn’t. Unfortunately, her entire article for The Chronicle is ad hominem.

   Unless there’s something I missed. I am more than willing to listen.

9. I guess, most fundamentally/structurally, my biggest concern is this — If 9/10 of Northwestern Professors agree that the Office of Sexual Harassment Prevention is a joke (and I’m inclined to agree) and that reporting sexual harassment and assault is for mentally unstable sissies (here, I disagree), then how can any student at NU report such offenses made against them? They already know the result. At which point, how is there any Office of Sexual Harassment Prevention at NU in anything other than title?

   Any help understanding this is appreciated.

10. Ha, I only know l’affaire Kipnis through online academia, where the issue has been mostly constructed as about academic free speech and the procedural fairness of Title IX-type investigations (which, going by what’s in the public domain, do seem fucked up). But I hadn’t actually read her original piece until now (well, I skimmed it), which is pretty dickish and, if not quite deserving this kind of snarky ad hominem response, doesn’t exactly NOT deserve it either.

    I remember when my department at [Top 3 department in the world] held a big Departmental Atmosphere for Women meeting for faculty and grad students. The convenor kept wanting to talk about whether teacher-student relationships were okay, which seemed thoroughly beside the main point (which was about our then reputation as overall hostile for women. Things have since improved, apparently).

    A few years later the grad students had a big email back-and-forth about sexism in our dept. It was a real penny-drop moment for me when one of the guys said something like ‘I actually respect women who can laugh about it [i.e. what would now be classified as sexist micro-aggressions]’. I suddenly realised Oh my God, he thinks he’s one of the good guys!

11. This isn’t exactly an ad hominem response. Ad hominem means that you dismiss someone’s arguments because of who they are, right? (i.e., since Kipnis is a professor, I can believe nothing she says.) That’s not really what Nix is doing.

    Instead, Nix is talking about the persona Kipnis constructs for herself as a brave, sexy, swaggering truth seeker. Nix is saying that that persona is idiotic and despicable. Which I think is accurate.

    You could argue that the persona is a secondary point to Kipnis’ argument. I don’t think that’s accurate though. The point of her piece, it seems like, is actually the persona—the argument is really that Kipnis does not care about these sexual harassment complaints, therefore she is awesome, sexy, cool. And because she is awesome sexy cool, the sexual harassment complaints are foolish. The persona is woven into the argument. Nix is trying to address that.

12. @Jones: “J’accuse” has been top of mind in relation to NU for 7 years and counting. But Kipnis ain’t no Dreyfus. She is definitely NOT the scapegoat here, though she’s certainly tried to pose for it.

    Also, the Prof/Undergrad ban on sexual relationships does seem to me like a bait and switch (the problem is generally more student-on-student as Kipnis spends exactly 1-2 sentences on), but I don’t disagree with the new prohibition. What shitbag is turned on by that degree of disadvantage? This is age AND position. It’s too unfair. It’s way beyond dating someone much younger than you. And there is a precedent for this in other professions. Students are clients. Is that a problem?

    Of course, “romance” will happen, as Kipnis loves to point out. But now it must benefit the least powerful. Or they might report you. So if you think your student is too “unbalanced and/or immature” to handle a relationship with you (oh, great, wise, adult prof), what the fuggedity-fuck are you doing? Ha! I so, so mean this. I have no pity at all. None!

    @Noah Yes. Exactly. — “the argument is really that Kipnis does not care about these sexual harassment complaints, therefore she is awesome, sexy, cool. And because she is awesome sexy cool, the sexual harassment complaints are foolish.”

    This is why I think she’s a bully. And I fail to see any argument at all. I see the swagger. I see that in spades. But I am not seeing the rational, measured argument I absolutely DO expect from an academic. I want evidence. Kipnis offers her readers a load of self-referential, hubristic shit.

13. PS — My last comment might make it seem like I think this is about Student/Prof relations. I don’t think that;s what this is about at all. I think this is about Sexual Harassment and Assault on Campus and how SH is recorded, investigated, and enforced. Just so I don’t ever, ever get spun… :/

14. And I do need to say (sorry) — I was really upset by Kipnis’ discussion of “false” belief in institutional power, like students, et. al. are crazy for believing in big, bad institutional power.

    She’s obviously never been locked up. And she takes that for granted for everyone. That’s actually an amazing assumption. I honestly don’t know how not to hate her. What a stunning exercise in “freedom/power.” Ugh.

    And she’s assuming none of her students have been incarcerated, too. I find this… I don’t even know. I honestly would celebrate if she lost her job. She should not be teaching anyone. At no grade level. No one.

15. On the ad hominem question:

    I hear Noah’s defense of Nix but yet the piece starts with the snarky

    “I’d like to commend her on her heterosexuality, on her cis-gender, on her white skin, and her evident comfort with (and indeed, ignorance of) all that these markers might entail.”

    Which isn’t quite

    “Nix [talking] about the persona Kipnis constructs for herself as a brave, sexy, swaggering truth seeker. Nix is saying that that persona is idiotic and despicable.”

    Nix is in her right to criticize Kipnis on her public personae but that is not what she is doing in the quote.

    If Nix had held back from attacking Kipnis based on who she is with flippant sarcasm, and rather focused on critiquing her public persona, perhaps the point Noah highlights would have been made stronger.

    What I am left with as a reader is the feeling Nix enters the debate in much the same way Kipnis does: with “wit” and “humor” and good dose of indignation.

16. Nix — sorry if I was unclear; I meant “l’affaire K” to be neutral as to the justice/injustice of the case. And I didn’t mean to give a thumbs up to faculty-student relationships; they’re inherently creepy and coercive, even when we’re talking grad students, let alone undergrads. (My point about our meeting was that that wasn’t the topic du jour; convene another damn meeting for that one…)

    I’m curious as to the end of your last comment: “I honestly would celebrate if she lost her job. She should not be teaching anyone. At no grade level. No one.”

    There’s at least two different ideas you might be expressing here:

    (1) her op-ed shows that she doesn’t have enough intellectual rigour to teach anyone — basically, if she’s clueless enough to write something like that, then she’s too clueless to be an effective teacher. On this idea, the op-ed is evidence of her character, and that latter is why she should go.

    (2) she should lose her job because of the op-ed. Regardless of her actual merits as a teacher and scholar, the op-ed is itself a violation of some appropriate norm…I don’t know what, maybe something about bullying or intimidation…not trying to pick a fight here, genuinely unsure.

    Can you say which idea you have in mind (it could be both)? And, if (2), could you say what makes the op-ed (or her other behaviour? I’ve only been following the case, like, seventh- or eighth-hand) a sackable offence?

17. On the ad hominem question, I see where you’re coming from Noah, but I still there’s a lot of ad hominem in Nix’ piece and comments.

    This is perhaps not worth debating, since (unlike most philosophers) I think ad hominem arguments are not always a bad thing.

    But: what else are we to make of the counting-off of Kipnis’ various traits — cis, post-menopausal, white, never been incarcerated, etc. This is standard stuff for debates about privilege — well, Jon Chait would think that, wouldn’t he? He’s a cis, straight, old, white guy, a Yankee fan etc.

    Detailing your opponent’s properties — who they are, what their experiences have been — I think it’s either naive or disingenuous to say that this isn’t supposed to do any ad hominem work. If it isn’t, why do people in these debates keep doing it?

    You could say that the purpose of such detailing is not to debunk your opponent’s claims, but rather to diagnose, after you’ve refuted them through non-ad hominem means, how s/he could have come to make those comments. i.e. it’s not s/he’s like this, therefore what s/he says is wrong but what s/he says is wrong — see, I’ve just argued that — and, incidentally, here’s a causal story about how s/he comes to his/her view.

    But to construe things in this way is, I think, to pay far too little heed to rhetorical effect. I think of the show Deadwood here — there’s a scene where the odious EB Farnum is running for mayor against Sol Starr. (Farnum has been mayor twice already) Here’s Farnum’s election speech in full; see if you can guess Starr’s religious persuasion:

    “I give no long speech tonight. You know me and my works. I’ll not question those either who have faith in my rival or make faith in issue of any sort (he pantomimes a long, crooked nose). We’re long past the time of the Pharaohs. I cannot decree Mr Starr make exodus. A clear choice for deadwood — Farnum twice-measured, Starr once-cut gestures to his groin. EB Farnum. Tested and proven true. Farnum! Christ knows he earned it.”

    Now, even supposing that he followed this up with a longer speech attacking Starr’s policies, it’s obvious that the anti-semitism is meant to turn voters against Starr, independently of anything else. Likewise when in contemporary debates we detail the privilege of our opponents — it is meant to make their claims thereby less plausible. The moral cases are very different — Farnum is a vile anti-semite, and Starr’s background actually has no bearing on the merits of his candidacy — but the basic rhetorical effect is similar.

    Like I say, I’m not even as all anti-ad hominem as most philosophers are. But I do think it’s here, and it’s pervasive in call-out culture/check your privilege/etc. debates. I don’t think anything is gained by ignoring it, or denying its presence.

18. Jones, that makes sense re ad hominem. And I guess then I have to agree that it’s not necessarily a bad thing in every case, since pointing out positions of power/where you’re situated within culture seems relevant in many cases. It’s interesting that ad hominem and arguments from authority are basically the same thing, right? Kipnis’ argument is based in no small part on her authority as a teacher (she knows whereof she speaks.) That’s endemic in public discourse it seems like; the “I was there” argument.

    The original op-ed included misleading statements about an ongoing sexual harassment complaint; Kipnis said among other things that the student and professor had been dating, which is actually disputed (the professor says they were, the student says they weren’t.) It seems really careless and reckless, and seems like it lacks the kind of care for your students wellbeing that you’d hope to see in a professor (but often don’t, of course.)

19. To Jones (and everyone): The most galling part is how Kipnis calls the Title IX investigation as an “inquisition” and a sign it is out of control. Which is a disingenuous misinterpretation short of lying in only the most technical sense. Her version of events rests upon readers not understanding how Title IX works.

    Schools are required to have a Title IX Coordinator. The only way to protect teachers from dubious complaints is a formal process with authority to resolve them. Kipnis is essentially outraged by there being process at all.

    She can’t or won’t recognize how failures of past informality eventually forced people to seek legal and regulatory redress in ways leading to the present caution she finds constricting.

    She also ignores specific larger contexts which impacted her experience. The teacher in the case she wrote sought legal retaliation against everyone involved. Thus the “scary” outside investigation, because NU couldn’t use the internal coordinator who can review and resolve tenuous allegations with less drama. It’s also arguably why students were ready and able to make a complaint against her.

    [She also fudges why her faculty support member had to recuse himself (his status and sharing of confidential info was more than she says). http://dailynous.com/2015/05/30/northwestern-and-title-ix-whats-going-on/%5D

    NU’s handling of many recent events seems more ass-covering than competent and likely to escalate scandal. Kipnis may have reason to feel ill treated.

    Yet given how many details she elides, omits or fudges to serve her narrative, I suspect she was so outraged at being accountable at all she wouldn’t have noticed if they kissed her ass.

20. I’d argue the “ad hominem” of the post is mirroring Kipnis to point out her flaws. Her point against harassment training involves a protracted riff on how the instructor was symbolically masturbating during it. She’s attacking problems of hyperbole with hyperbole.

    I also think “ad hominem” can exist yet not be an invalidating fallacy at best. A fraught issue involving subjective, arguable terms (like who has more privilege) may permit the valid use of fraught language. I also think what qualifies as “ad hominem” can be subjective, even recursive, i.e. dismissing an argument as “ad hominem” can itself be “ad hominem”.

21. Note: I see that in writing the two comments above I directed the wrong comment at Jones (sorry) and my point about ad hominem has already been addressed, perhaps more coherently by others. This is what comes from leaving a half-finished comment in an open browser all night.

22. @Ben and others concerning ‘ad hominem’ —

    I don’t know if my piece is ad hominem or not. But I do know why I commenced with:

    “I’d like to commend her on her heterosexuality, on her cis-gender, on her white skin, and her evident comfort with (and indeed, ignorance of) all that these markers might entail.”

    I don’t think her position is possible in the absence of all these markers. I also want to point out her markers to her, because she seems to be completely ignorant of them. She speaks as if she is universal, right, true, common sensical, objective… like, ‘duh! It’s so obvi.’ She speaks as if she’s unmarked. That’s privilege. And if your entire argument hinges on the contingencies of your birth, if your entire argument hinges on your luck, on your being a “big time winner” in the lotto of life, you don’t really have an argument at all. What you have is privilege and a giant outlet for your “free speech.”

    She’s just cock-a-doodle-dooing her own social status, it seems to me.
    Her fundamental argument is, in fact, not an argument at all. It is an attitude.

    ‘Can’t these hysterical women/students just relax and enjoy that they “have it?”’

    Yeah, well, a lesbian or asexual or incest survivor or ex-sex-worker or stalking survivor or trans-person or whatever, might not welcome these repeated, heterosexist, overt sexualizations. In fact, they could be rather traumatic experiences/paralyzing. Many people get plenty of attention just walking down the street. You think they really want to experience more of that at school and work?

    Kipnis is literally suggesting that if you can’t ‘relax and enjoy it,’ there is something WRONG with you. You are weak and hysterical and need to toughen up. Well, I am very sorry we can’t all be like her. (jk – I wouldn’t ever want to be like her – she’s a bug-killer.) But you have to be in a very specific position to even offer up such a suggestion to others.

    Kipnis wrote a very aggressive article on a very sensitive and traumatizing subject with which, according to her, she has absolutely no experience. She has to ponder what she would do if it happened to her. She doesn’t know.

    And as such, she has no understanding of the impact of emotional flooding — http://www.aaets.org/article178.htm — nor does she consider educating herself worth her time. Again, lucky her. But that doesn’t make her strong or tough or sexy or of a better breed of Feminism (ps: where be that Feminism?), that just makes her ignorant, arrogant, and inexperienced. She really is not a “survivor” and she attacks people who are by calling them weak. Nope. That’s wrong. I attack her back.

    I don’t know if it’s ad hominem or not, but I do think it’s 100% just in light of her original piece and her twitter feed, which has some really shit stuff (recently) joking about the legal advice of the grad student who filed complaint against Ludlow. Or, at least, that’s my read of it. I just discovered her twitter feed and I am not a fan.

    Finally, it seems to me that her only evidence for her position on SH and Title IX is her position. What else does she offer? High school-style gossip, incorrect “facts,” personal anecdotes, and her own feelings on the matter. But those feelings, in my view, are only possible for a very elite and lucky few. Her only argument *is* her social position imo… is it not?

    @Jones I’ll be answering your question over why I want to see her fired in a bit. Re Dreyfus: No need to explain! I got the gist and you’re correct. J’accuse, j’accuse, j’accuse… :)

    @MrFengi Thanks for that. I’d add, even if Ludlow and the grad student were dating (and I have no knowledge of anything whatsoever), but even accepting this as a premise – How is that a defense against rape? Of the many people I know who have been raped, it’s the one who was raped by her BF who suffered the most, not the ones (yes, several, including one man) who were roofied. I guess I just want to say, that’s not even a defense.

23. I guess it boils down to this: Kipnis attacks people for being different from her and holds herself up as a standard.

    OK. Fine. Let’s talk about what exactly this standard is.

24. Finally, as to the ad hominem, which I am willing to keep considering, but under the circumstances I don’t really feel as a harsh critique: Arendt says something in the interview that I posted that I consider very revolutionary and which has been coloring my analysis of politics, identity, power, praxis, etc. for almost a decade now.

    She says: “If one is attacked as a Jew, one must defend oneself as a Jew. Not as a German, not as a world-citizen, not as an upholder of the Rights of Man.”

25. One other articulation in response to the ad hominem accusation, before I respond to Jones (I want to be careful, concise, and thorough with that).

    It was absolutely my intent to lampoon Kipnis, to ape her, pantomime her, and slapstick the hell out of her. I’m not sure if I succeeded, but that was definitely my intent.

    If your response to that avowed intent, is to say: ‘Hey! Personal attacks are mean and wrong! She can’t help what she is, or where she’s been, or she’s what been through, or how she feels.’

    My response to you is: I know that. Does she?

    And if you think my argument weaker because it is performative, well, I don’t see how Kipnis has any argument to speak of.

    That academics have lined up to support her should be a thorough embarrassment to the entire profession.

26. Well, just to speak to the rhetorical/informal logic here — the point of calling an argument ad hominem is not that it hurts somebody’s feelings. The point is that such an argument does not engage with the content of your opponent’s argument.

    (This is usually coupled with the further claim you should engage with the content of what your opponent has said, not the characteristics of the opponent herself. But I think there are often solid pragmatic reasons for not doing this)

    Kipnis’ potentially hurt feelings are neither here nor there, at least vis-a-vis the accusation of ad hominem.

27. Oh! Thank you! I didn’t know that. Well, I am actually only engaging with the content of my opponent’s argument. I actually made a point to ONLY use what she offered me in her first article.

    Now, I inferred that she was white based on her voice within the article, and I did check her Wikipedia article where I say her picture. But that’s not why I checked Wikipedia. I wanted her dates of birth and graduations because she references her good old days.

    As for the other markers, he made it quite clear to all readers that she was cis-, heterosexual, and menopausal. These markers were dropped throughout her argument.

    Strictly speaking, according to the above definition, I don’t think I’ve been ad hominem at all. Re-read her original piece. I made a point of only using what she gave me and to do no further research, svae her DOB and grad dates. The two previous scandals I was aware of due to… news.

    Sorry for the length of time it took me to understand the accusation. It’s not a term I hear a lot or pay attention to radar-wise. And I have been known to have very idiosyncratic ignorances. Whoops!

28. In case anyone missed it, Kipnis published a piece yesterday responding to The Daily Nous: http://dailynous.com/2015/06/07/a-response-to-daily-nous-guest-post-by-laura-kipnis

29. @Jones: I’m not sure what Kipnis achieved in her op-ed for The Chronicle save the complete and thorough debasement of reporting procedures (if they weren’t already). If I should be accused of hyperbole on this count, I would ask — What more could she have done? And what is her argument, besides?

    That actually is a major problem, and I think it does merit the Title IX complaint against her.

    Imagine what it might feel like to be one of her students who experiences gender-based violence and knows of her article, i.e. a survivor smart about your own situation. Where do you go? To Joan Slavin/The Office of Sexual Harassment Prevention? It/She is clearly a joke in everyone’s eyes.

    There was that PopeHat leak which was apparently a joke(?): http://popehat.com/2015/05/31/leaked-northwestern-university-email-states-rules-for-title-ix-investigations/ but that actually further proves my point, maybe.

    If these rules and prohibitions are the laughing stock of NU Faculty, how is there any Sexual Harassment & Assault Policy at NU. Tenured profs have WAY more power than Joan Slavin. NU is a bureaucratized power structure wherein reporting to someone general/supposedly unbiased (Joan Slavin) lands you with a prof who could go either way. If that prof is someone like Kipnis, the student/complainant is automatically screwed six ways from Sunday.

    So, is my problem Kipnis or the structure? The answer here is both, but the mainly structure. I consider her intellectually lazy, unconsciously cowardly, and depressingly unquestioning as pertains to equal rights. However NU enables her.

    Thus, if she were sacked, while I would be very happy about it, both privately and publicly, I also wouldn’t necessarily see it as a victory for students/survivors. Dylan’s ‘Only a Pawn in their Game’ comes to my mind.

    I think Kipnis is overtly gaslighting the students of NU. She accuses them of hysteria and provides no proof. The power play of this, and her shit scholarship, both come into play — to answer your question directly (I hope). She should be terminated for the well-being of NU’s students, which I do believe has been undercut by her shoddy scholarship.

    However, with that said, lots of people at NU should be. Kipnis’ articulation is par for the course, as far as I understand that course, and takes me back to my fundamental concern/question, namely:

    Is there a functioning Sexual Harassment & Assault policy at NU?

    All indicators from Kipnis’ article point to no. She should be fired because she didn’t catch this and blamed students in lieu of her own institution. But her singular termination would not be justice.

    NU’s fundamental structure and Sexual Harassment & Assault Policy both need to change. They absolutely should be investigated by an external agency — and a mean, victim-loving, hard-ass agency at that. That would be justice in my eyes. Of course, I’m not about to hold my breath.

    So, my answer is both, although I’d be the first to admit this isn’t half as rigorous on my part as I had hoped it would be. Please feel free to prod me. I’d prefer to be clearer on this. Interlocutors that challenge me rationally help me get there. And questions very rarely offend me.

30. An interesting article on the affair in the New Republic:

    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121973/hostile-renegotiation-professor-student-relationship

    As for the post, it suffers from its intemperance and inclines one to disregard it — not, I presume, the author’s intent.

31. @Alex Buchet Perhaps. Unfortunately, at this juncture, I’m rather convinced that the points made by the post can’t be heard at all, using any voice, regardless of how “sober” the writing style.

32. And to be absolutely clear, Alex Buchet, the article you posted really didn’t make them, although I do appreciate the reference.

    If you’d like to debate that, I’d be more than happy. Otherwise, well, everyone’s a critic. Particularly if all it takes is one line/

    I find your comment shitty and mean-spirited. And that judgment of your comment has at least as much merit as yours. Probably more.

    You know what they say about opinions.

33. Oi, Alex Buchet. The more I think on it, the more I think your comment is pure shit. https://twitter.com/MistressNix66/status/608508563032424448 Your comment is respectability politics. But let me make this clear — I would never want to be like you.

34. “I find your comment shitty and mean-spirited. And that judgment of your comment has at least as much merit as yours. Probably more.”

    Actually, you are wrong. Potty-mouthed adolescent shrieking such as yours is worthless.

    “Oi, Alex Buchet. The more I think on it, the more I think your comment is pure shit.”

    Pathetic.

35. Come on, Alex; name-calling to criticize someone for name-calling is just silliness.

    I’m going to close this down at least for the moment. Thanks for commenting all.

36. Okay; Nix prefers to have things open, so I’m going to comply with her request.

    I’d just point out that Kipnis’ original piece is actually really aggressive, though couched somewhat differently than Nix’s. Kipnis is insulting people, pretty deliberately. Part of what Nix is doing is pointing that out.

37. Maybe I should stay out of this (100% I should stay the hell out of this) because it’s probably none of my business (it’s 100% none of my business), but Noah’s converted me to the cause of peace and love on the internet [I know, right?], so —

    Nix, I just had an enlightening and amicable exchange with you, where I really, sincerely appreciate, just as one human being communicating with another on the internet, that you took the time to think through and state your view as clearly as possible. You could have blown me off with a funny two-line reply, but instead you respected my questions and me as a person. Thank you.

    Alex, I enjoy and admire the hell out of a lot of your posts here. I know you’ve written about racist representation in comics, and I know (?) that you’re French, which makes you automatically to the far left of almost any American.

    From what I’ve read from you both here at HU, I think you’re both people of good faith, genuinely concerned about progressive causes including representation and diversity…I don’t know what to say next: play nice? Don’t shout at each other? Who made me your mom? I dunno, just…

    …Breaking: Local “Samaritan” stabbed while intervening to break up fight…

38. Thanks for that, Jones. :)

    I’m not the type to blow anybody off. Not ever.

    However, [insertion of an email excerpt with Noah, that he has encouraged me to share]:

    The problem with the accusation of intemperance is I that can’t defend myself against it. It’s one of those words like “crazy” and “hysterical” which encourage people to simply dismiss another. It seems the best one can do with it is play into it to the point of hyperbole, hence “Yippee-Ki-Yo Kipnis.”

    Ad hominem I can address and explore. I can’t do shit about “hysteria,” “intemperance,” “crazy.” :(

39. Also, to explain my influences for the piece (beyond “J’accuse”) and address the accusation that I am merely a potty-mouthed adolescent suffering from intemperance…

    When reading Kipnis’ original op-ed for The Chronicle, a certain poem by Mark Twain leapt into my brain much the way Kipnis intuited “David”s masturbation.

    Supposedly, Mark Twain presented to this to “The Mammoth Cod Club,” and the thought makes me laugh:

    I thank Thee for the Bull, O God,
    Whenever a steak I eat,
    The working of his mammoth cod
    Is what gives to us our meat.

    And for the ram, a meed of praise
    He with his mighty cod
    Foundation for our mutton lays
    With every vigorous prod.

    And then the boar who at his work,
    His hind hoofs fixed in sod,
    Contented packs the embryo pork
    All with his mighty cod.

    Of beasts, man is the only one
    Created by our God,
    Who purposely, and for mere fun,
    Plays with his mammoth cod.

40. Intemperate? I found this article remarkably restrained given the provocation of Kipnis’s own, in too many places, bombastically self-congratulatory essay. Especially when we consider the immoderate ridiculing of “David”: below the belt in every sense.

    I needed a shower.

    Nix could have been, perhaps even should have been, wildly intemperate on the topic of Kipnis’s conceit that she’s “still got it”. She’s still able to reassure herself that a perceived flirtation is a self-evident cipher of her sexual desirability. And felt the need to broadcast that? One wonders what was at stake.

    Let’s turn to this ad hominem mini-debate. First, we’re not dealing with a closely reasoned discursive argument here. Pitched as an “opinion” piece, Kipnis avoids the requirement for intellectual rigour. Therefore it hardly seems appropriate to demand that Nix reconstruct and engage with what Kipnis could have argued for but doesn’t. Any logic in the essay under scrutiny is tendential at best.

    Second, the charge of ad hominem illegitimacy misses the mark which concerns precisely those markers Nix notices and which Kipnis either doesn’t notice or fails to address. Accordingly, Nix satirically draws attention to Kipnis’s (strategic?) lack of self-reflexivity as the enabling condition for her grand diagnostic gestures. Who is Kipnis speaking for? Certainly not everyone. That’s the point.

    Could Kipnis’s essay in itself be construed as a species of harassment? Two points, one procedural, one substantive. Procedurally, it strikes me as uncontentious that a Professor’s “opinion” would tend to command a larger sphere of influence with greater authority imputed to it than the voice of a student. Yet she’s “baffled” as to how this essay, written in the name of “academic freedom” – and as if that’s sui generis – could have been perceived as “retaliation”. And that’s without addressing the minifying language which reprises (deliberately?) a culturally sedimented army of concepts, largely expropriated from the sphere of psychoanalytic discourse as has already been well documented, where the cultural baggage attached to these terms is anything but value-neutral. Could she really have been unaware of that?

    Which brings me to the second point. Kipnis’s bricolage of suggestive rhetoric, mobilised under the parabolic title of “sexual paranoia”, this charged jargon of inauthenticity, ironically undermines the very “consensual” adult agency she is so concerned not to see vitiated through a hegemonic structural embargo on student-staff liaisons. It’s a valid albeit immensely intractable concern, where a ‘freedom to’ impacts upon a ‘freedom from’.

    However, her injudicious tropology infantilises the students at a far more profound, regressive and inimical depth than any administrative regulation of behaviour could ever hope to achieve.

    I’m not sure that’s the effect she intended to produce.

    Or is it?

41. Wow – is there even a point to this screed? Other than rampant name calling toward Laura Kipnis? (And, really, nothing like putting “tee hee” into the mouth of a woman you don’t like for sheer pettiness.)

    I get that the author sees Kipnis as an overprivileged handmaiden to the patriarchy, but is there an actual argument here? Something that might cause those of us who maybe have some sympathy with Kipnis brand of sex-positive/anti-censorship feminism to possibly reconsider those ideas a bit. Not seeing it here.

42. Well, to be quite frank, I think the problem is you. Unfortunately, an author cannot be more intelligent than their reader.

    Good day, and good-bye.

43. PS – I tell you, sex-positivity requires the consent of both parties. Not just the one with tenure, not just the one giving grades, not just the one with a dick.

44. 1) I beg to differ – the problem is the author and their muddled writing. 2) Show me where Laura Kipnis is *remotely* anti-consent. The real point of issue is that she disagrees with some current notions about the nature of consent – eg, Kipnis takes issue with the idea that any difference in power* between two people basically nullifies sexual consent. I believe Kipnis is arguing for a more nuanced view than this, and I agree with her.

    *(BTW, I’ll note also that little thought is given by the “privilege” fetishist crowd that differences in “power to” do not automatically translate to “power over”.)

45. 1) The nebbish editor.

    2) She conflates a known sexual assault of an undergrad by a prof and an ongoing rape case (I don’t know the details; do your own research at Daily Nous: http://dailynous.com/) involving a grad student and calls this newly-minted fictional case evidence of over-sensitivity on the part of the student body.

    Please read her first article carefully and do some follow-up research. Thanks.

46. ‘the “privilege” fetishist crowd’ Aw yeah, privilege gets me so hoooooooot…..

47. “Kipnis brand of sex-positive/anti-censorship feminism”

    I don’t really think this is about sex positivity. Nix is not anti-sex as those lines are usually drawn; I’m not either, as I think(?) you’d agree.

    There are a number of arguments made here; I think you’re being distracted by a tone you don’t like. The central argument (I’d say) is that Kipnis’ ridicule of the Northwestern sexual harassment policy is deeply confused. Kipnis thinks she’s being super-smart and super-sexy when she points out problems with the policy, and concludes basically that all sexual harassment policies are stupid. Nix is pointing out that in fact the reason Kipnis can find problems so easily is that the sexual harassment policy at Northwestern is inadequate.

    I think the argument that Nix is calling into question all disproportions of power is inaccurate. Student/teacher relationships are a pretty particular thing; they’re explicitly hierarchical, and teachers have pretty definite and codified power over students. There are also major issues of fairness in terms of other students when professors sleep with one. You don’t have to object to any and all power differences in relationships to see student/teacher relationships as being a problem.

48. ” I’ll note also that little thought is given by the “privilege” fetishist crowd that differences in “power to” do not automatically translate to “power over””

    Right; they don’t always—but in the case of teacher/student relationships, they really do. Teachers have power over grades; they may have a say in things like grants; they have professional networks and are going to be considered more credible than students almost always, which means they can damage student reputations easily even if they’re not in a direct supervisory role. Some acknowledgement of this on Kipnis’ part might be helpful.

49. I dunno, Noah. Students have a hell of a lot of power over teachers, particularly in these post-tenure times. Believe me – I speak as a teacher.

    Nix:
    ‘Well, to be quite frank, I think the problem is you. Unfortunately, an author cannot be more intelligent than their reader.’

    Calling those who disagree with you stupid is bound to backlash on you. Particularly when the above sentence is grammatically wrong.

50. Students have certain kinds of power in certain kinds of situations. But that power is all through the administration. I just wrote about this at The New Republic, and talked to numerous faculty, fwiw.

    The sentence is not grammatically incorrect. “Their” is perfectly acceptable as a singular pronoun in English. Don’t be a jerk, Alex.

51. Here’s the New Republic article:

    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122010/professors-do-live-fear-not-liberal-students

52. No, it isn’t. And Nix could have made exactly the same point while simply changing ‘an author’ to ‘authors’.

    I mean, Nix actually wrote this in a tweet:

    Fuck intemperance into the ground

    …when Nix obviously meant to say:

    Fuck temperance into the ground

    Look, my point is that a writer who dismisses people disagreeing with that writer as being too stupid to understand the text, should not be so careless with the language. The old but wise cliche of people in glass houses abstaining from throwing stones, you know?

53. Well, if we’re going to be that way, what’s a “cliche,” and does it rhyme with “leash” or “glitch”?

    Also, why should people believe you because you speak as a teacher? It means you have personal experience, of course, but it also means you have a vested interest.

54. I just want to say — Don’t let the genre throw you.

    It seems to me like the only people who are *very upset* by this piece are people objecting to my insolent tone.

    Well, that just means you don’t like insolent tones. I happen to adore them. Really. I fucking LOVE them… when, that is, there’s a cause for the insolence.

    I could rattle off writers, musicians, philosophers, visual artists… but that would take forever.

    I understand that some people are put off by insolence and shrieking in all things full-stop.

    I do find this a very incurious stance, very reactive, and downright sensate. It’s like a body that recoils but never stops to figure out why.

    So I suppose I see a certain political consequence to such a reaction.

    But with that said, I’m willing to chalk it up to taste.

    Simply know then, that someone’s tone has the power to blind you to any content, reasoning behind, or cause for, said tone.

    I can’t stand modern country music or passive-aggression. Man, I understand.

55. “should not be so careless with the language.”

    And if you want to be taken seriously, maybe you shouldn’t use idiotic petty grammar policing? Come on, Alex. It’s just silliness. Cut it out.

56. And I do feel like once we’re into grammar policing we’re well past diminishing returns. So, I’m going to close this. Thanks for commenting all.

57. All right; Nix’s preference is still to have it open, so I’m reopening. Let’s avoid grammar nitpickery, please, though. Thanks all.

58. FWIW, my modern(ish) Fowler’s says they/them/their have been used to refer to singular agents since the 16C, so, me, I’d go with Fowler on this one

59. “FWIW, my modern(ish) Fowler’s says they/them/their have been used to refer to singular agents since the 16C”

    Really? How vulgar.

60. Alex Buchet, your offended sensibilities are hilarious. I am both pleased and amused to bestow upon you Pedant of the Year award. Or would that be egregiously vulgar? How vulgar? How funny. Except, inter alia, you’re calling Nix vulgar. But it’s this constant preachy jabbing at Nix that’s vulgar and enervating and beside any point that could usefully be made. People might begin to think you had a personal axe to grind here. Do you?

    Let’s get back to a discussion of the actual issues, can we?

61. Have you ever heard of this weird new invention called a ”joke”, Dr B?

    Have you noticed that I was making fun of myself?

    I suppose you’d need to grow a sense of humor first. Or some sense, period.

62. Alex, that’s so occluded as a joke that in future could you please deign to signpost your future jokes so that those of us who have had a sense of sense and humour bypass could be alerted? Thanks.

63. It’s hardly an occluded joke if your reading had extended, as it should have,to the debate between Evelyn Waugh and Nancy Mitford in U and Non-U Revisited concerning (as every schoolboy knows) the vulgarity of the word ‘mirror’.

64. Alex. Enough. I’m familiar with this debate and many others on specularity. But I’m finding this interpersonal sniping boring and petty. I’m happy to engage with you but not if it’s going to be a trading of insults.

65. Dr B, you are the one who started by insulting me. And I am not happy to engage with you; trolls bore me.

66. Alex, I consider you to have done little but troll these comments throughout. And I wonder why.

67. Dr. B and Alex, can we dispense with the snippy back and forth? I’m tempted to delete the whole thing as a distraction, but am hoping we just move on. Thanks.

Comments are closed.