Speaker 1: Hey, this is a Bridget and this is Annie, and
Speaker 1: you're listening to stuff Mom never told you. Now today
Speaker 1: I want to give a quick trigger warning and because
Speaker 1: we're gonna be talking about more me too and sexual
Speaker 1: violence and sex crime. So if that is something that
Speaker 1: is difficult for you to listen to, just know that
Speaker 1: that is what today's episode is all about. On this show,
Speaker 1: we have talked quite a bit about me too, sexual violence,
Speaker 1: sex crime, sexual harassment, and I feel like we've actually
Speaker 1: been pretty intentional about talking about the different avenues of
Speaker 1: it when the victim is a man, you know, different industries.
Speaker 1: But this is the first time that we're really getting
Speaker 1: into what happens when the perpetrator is a woman and
Speaker 1: a notable feminist. And for a little little background, female
Speaker 1: perpetrators of sexual abuse are understudied, but according to a
Speaker 1: peer reviewed study the Sexual Victimization of Men in America,
Speaker 1: new data challenge old assumptions in the American Journal Public Health,
Speaker 1: men are more likely to be victims of sex crimes
Speaker 1: than we thought. For example, the CDCs nationally representative data
Speaker 1: revealed that over one year, men and women were equally
Speaker 1: likely to experience non consensual sex, and most male victims
Speaker 1: reported female perpetrators over their lifetime. Seventy pcent of men
Speaker 1: who were made to penetrate someone else a form of
Speaker 1: rape in the view of most researchers, reported female perpetrators.
Speaker 1: And likewise, most men who experienced sexual coercion and unwanted
Speaker 1: sexual contact had female perpetrators. And when women are behind
Speaker 1: bars and sexually abused by prison staff, the perpetrator is
Speaker 1: usually female. Quote. We found that, contrary to assumptions, the
Speaker 1: biggest threat to women's serving time does not come from
Speaker 1: male correction staff. Instead, female victims are more than three
Speaker 1: times it's likely to experience sexual abuse by other women
Speaker 1: inmates than by male staff. Yeah, and so what this
Speaker 1: data really shows us is that one, we aren't really
Speaker 1: doing a lot to look into what happens and what
Speaker 1: it looks like when a woman is the person who
Speaker 1: was the perpetrator of a sex crime. And to kind
Speaker 1: of going back to our episode on terry crews, we're
Speaker 1: not really fully acknowledging the depths to which men are
Speaker 1: and can be the victims of sexual harassment, sexual abuse,
Speaker 1: rape and all of that. It just seems like in general,
Speaker 1: this is a conversation that is sort of going on,
Speaker 1: had unreported, understudied, and all of that which brings us
Speaker 1: to the case of a vital Ronald. Ronald is a
Speaker 1: world renowned female professor of German and Comparative literature at
Speaker 1: New York University, and she was found responsible for sexually
Speaker 1: harassing a male former graduate student named Nimrod Rightman. According
Speaker 1: to The New York Times that they who they've really
Speaker 1: done the most sort of extensive reporting on this case.
Speaker 1: According to The Times, an eleven month Title nine investigation
Speaker 1: found that professor of now described by a colleague as
Speaker 1: quote one of the very few philosopher stars of this world,
Speaker 1: was responsible for sexual harassment both physical and verbal, to
Speaker 1: the extent that her behavior was quote sufficiently pervasive to
Speaker 1: alter the terms and conditions of Mr. Rightman's learning environment.
Speaker 1: Now the professor has been suspended for the coming academic year.
Speaker 1: Rightman said that she had sexually harassed him for three
Speaker 1: years and shared dozens of emails and which she referred
Speaker 1: to him as quote my most adored one sweet cuddly
Speaker 1: baby cocker spaniel and my astounding and beautiful Nimrod Gross
Speaker 1: that cocker spaniel. One for someone who's supposed to be
Speaker 1: like a linguist girl. Come on, yeah, that's that's pretty bad, Rightman,
Speaker 1: who is now thirty four and is a visiting fellow
Speaker 1: at Harvard, says that Professor Ronell kissed and watched him repeatedly,
Speaker 1: slept in his bed with him, required him to lie
Speaker 1: in her bed, held his hand, texted, emailed, and called
Speaker 1: him constantly, and refused to work with him if he
Speaker 1: did not reciprocate. Mr. Reitman is gay and is now
Speaker 1: married to a man, and Professor Rennell is a lesbian.
Speaker 1: The Reitman says that everything really started in when the
Speaker 1: professor invited him on a trip to Paris. This is
Speaker 1: before he was officially a student at the university. He
Speaker 1: had been admitted but was not had not actually started classes,
Speaker 1: but she was still set up to be his faculty
Speaker 1: advisor now. During this trip, he said that she asked
Speaker 1: him to come into her bedroom and read poetry to
Speaker 1: her while she was taking a nap. He says that,
Speaker 1: you know, he was kind of weird out by this,
Speaker 1: but was like, oh, I'm here, I better not rock
Speaker 1: the boat, better not make a scene. So he did it,
Speaker 1: and as he was doing it, she pulls him into
Speaker 1: his bed. He alleges and started kissing him on his torso,
Speaker 1: on his face, on his hands, and trying to grope him. Um.
Speaker 1: The next day, I s miler kind of thing happened,
Speaker 1: and he said, listen, you're my advisor, I'm your student.
Speaker 1: This is not okay, this shouldn't happen. And when I
Speaker 1: got back to New York, her power was knocked out
Speaker 1: in by Hurricane Sandy. And so she showed up to
Speaker 1: his at his apartment asking to stay and insisted on
Speaker 1: staying in his bed. And again, just like in Paris,
Speaker 1: once in his bed, she groped him, kissed him, he
Speaker 1: alleges and all of that. And so it really just
Speaker 1: sounds like a like a very familiar story, you know,
Speaker 1: where someone with more power is texting you email and
Speaker 1: you calling you, putting you in these sort of positions,
Speaker 1: only the genders are flipped. Yeah, And the New York
Speaker 1: Times obtained emails that she sent to him. Quote, I
Speaker 1: woke up with a slight fever and sore throat, she
Speaker 1: wrote an email on June. I will try very hard
Speaker 1: not to kiss you until the throat situation receives security clearance.
Speaker 1: This is not an easy deferral in July, she wrote
Speaker 1: a short email to him, time for your midday kiss
Speaker 1: my image during meditation. We're on the sofa, your head
Speaker 1: on my lap, stroking your forehead, playing softly with your hair, soothing.
Speaker 1: You hit it gone, yes, question mark. So that pretty
Speaker 1: clearly reads like sexual harassment to me. I don't know
Speaker 1: how anyone could think that those are appropriate emails to
Speaker 1: be sending. If you're a professor that you're setting to
Speaker 1: your student. You know it's pretty It's pretty clearly not okay.
Speaker 1: You know who does think it's okay? Is the professor.
Speaker 1: She denies all of these allegations. She says our communications,
Speaker 1: which Rightman now claims constitutes sexual harassment, were between two adults,
Speaker 1: a gay man and a queer woman who sharing an
Speaker 1: Israeli heritage, as well as a penchant for Florid and
Speaker 1: can't be communications arising from our common academic backgrounds and sensibilities.
Speaker 1: These communications were repeatedly invited, responded to, and encouraged by
Speaker 1: him over period of three years. She said she had
Speaker 1: no idea that he was uncomfortable with these communications and
Speaker 1: this behavior until she got this title nine complaint. Um
Speaker 1: there's a lot to unpack in that statement, I don't
Speaker 1: kind of know what she means that, Oh, we're both
Speaker 1: Israeli and we both enjoy camp can't be this is
Speaker 1: I can't be conversation. Sort of almost don't understand how
Speaker 1: this serves as a excuse for those emails, which she
Speaker 1: does not deny sending. Yeah, when I read that, my
Speaker 1: brow is kind of for I'm not sure what she
Speaker 1: was going for other than maybe like this is just
Speaker 1: how we like to communicate. I thought this was reciprocated,
Speaker 1: but yeah, maybe it's the idea is that we're both
Speaker 1: we both have the same cultural heritage, and we have
Speaker 1: a very close relate sationship that might appear suspicious on
Speaker 1: the outside, but it's actually just the way that we
Speaker 1: talked to each other. And that's the only thing I
Speaker 1: can think. Otherwise, I'm just like, what, you're both this Rali,
Speaker 1: So it's okay for you to sectually harass him? What like?
Speaker 1: It just it's like not it's like does not compute. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And her response is pretty much standard for how men
Speaker 1: react when they are accused of misconduct. As Vox puts it,
Speaker 1: Ronell's response to the allegations also echoes those of other
Speaker 1: powerful people. Many of them men accused. As part of
Speaker 1: Me Too, she has asked why Rightman didn't speak up
Speaker 1: if he was uncomfortable, and argued that he was just
Speaker 1: upset because of his intellectual inferiority. Quote. His main dilemma
Speaker 1: was the incoherency in his writing and a lack of
Speaker 1: recognizable argument, she said in an interview that was part
Speaker 1: of the Title nine process. So it really is this
Speaker 1: sounds like the same way that men respond when they
Speaker 1: are accused of sexual misconduct. It's like reading from a script,
Speaker 1: and it makes me really sad that as some one
Speaker 1: who is both an academic and a feminist, that she
Speaker 1: does not see that she's following this well worn script
Speaker 1: of how abusers respond when they're called out for their abuse.
Speaker 1: In May, the university found Professor Ronell responsible for sexual
Speaker 1: harassment and cleared her of the other allegations. And it
Speaker 1: has to be said that the fact that she was
Speaker 1: cleared all the allegations of things like groping, he's allegend
Speaker 1: these things happened when it was just them too, alone
Speaker 1: in apartments together. So take that for what it's worth.
Speaker 1: Right that the university clearly found her in violation of
Speaker 1: sexually harassing him, but they are not able to confirm
Speaker 1: that she groped him, she kissed him, all of that
Speaker 1: because those things happened. He alleges they happened while they
Speaker 1: were alone together. Yeah, and now Rightman and his legal
Speaker 1: team are thinking about suing the university. John Beckman, a
Speaker 1: spokesman for the university, wrote in a statement to the
Speaker 1: Times that n y U was simp athetic to what
Speaker 1: Mr Reitman had been through, but Mr Beckman added, quote,
Speaker 1: given the promptness, seriousness, and thoroughness with which we responded
Speaker 1: to his charges, we do not believe that his filing
Speaker 1: a multimillion dollar lawsuit against the university would be warranted
Speaker 1: or just Yeah, and we're gonna have a little bit
Speaker 1: more on why the university response to what happened was
Speaker 1: so complicated. After this quick break and we're back. So
Speaker 1: here's where things really take a turn. This professor, her
Speaker 1: colleagues really kind of made a big show of public
Speaker 1: support for her. They all signed an open letter to
Speaker 1: the university basically saying she's done nothing wrong, do not
Speaker 1: punish her. I mean, I have to say, frankly, I
Speaker 1: was pretty disappointed in this behavior. The people who signed
Speaker 1: onto this letter are some of the most important feminist
Speaker 1: critics and scholars that the world has. I'm talking people
Speaker 1: like Judith Butler, who you know I studied quite a
Speaker 1: bit when I was getting my degree in women studies
Speaker 1: and when I was in graduate school. Judith Butler was
Speaker 1: the author of Gender Trouble, which is probably one of
Speaker 1: the most defining texts of feminist theory and criticism that
Speaker 1: we have, and it just astounds me that she would
Speaker 1: attach her name to a letter like this. Yeah, especially
Speaker 1: when I guess the results are not final, like the
Speaker 1: investigation is still sort of ongoing. Another really important feminist
Speaker 1: critic and scholar who signed onto this letter is Guyatri Spivak,
Speaker 1: who again is one of the most important feminist scholars
Speaker 1: in the world. I'm kind of shocked and baffled that
Speaker 1: these women would sign onto this. So here's what the
Speaker 1: letter said. Although we have no access to the confidential dossier,
Speaker 1: we've all worked for many years in close proximity to
Speaker 1: Professor Ronel and accumulated collectively years of experience to support
Speaker 1: our view of her capacity as a teacher and a scholar,
Speaker 1: but also as someone who has served as chair of
Speaker 1: both the departments of German and comparative literature at New
Speaker 1: York University. We've all seen her relationship with students, and
Speaker 1: some of us know the individual who has waged this
Speaker 1: malicious campaign against her. We wish to communicate first in
Speaker 1: the clearest terms, are profound and enduring admiration for Professor Ronnell,
Speaker 1: whose mentorship of students has been no less than remarkable
Speaker 1: over many years. We deplore the damnage that this legal
Speaker 1: proceeding causes her, and seek to register in clear terms
Speaker 1: our objection to any judgment against her. We hold that
Speaker 1: the allegations against her do not constitute actual evidence, but
Speaker 1: rather support the view that malicious intention has animated and
Speaker 1: sustained this legal nightmare. Um. Yeah, No. First of all,
Speaker 1: they flat out say, you know, we don't know the
Speaker 1: information that's out there about this case. So they start
Speaker 1: out their letter by saying, listen, we don't have the facts,
Speaker 1: but we do know that this professor is great. She's
Speaker 1: the chair of this department. No one is accusing her
Speaker 1: of not being the chair of these departments at n
Speaker 1: y U. No one is accusing her of not being
Speaker 1: smart or academically rigorous. You know, it's just that letter,
Speaker 1: like This is what makes me so angry when someone
Speaker 1: is being accused of sexual misconduct and other people step
Speaker 1: up and they're like, oh, well I know them, they're great.
Speaker 1: You weren't there, right, you don't know I'm I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm friends with plenty of people, and if someone said
Speaker 1: behind closed doors they're a monster, I'm not there behind
Speaker 1: closed person, it's just them too. So I would have
Speaker 1: to say I've never seen that behavior from X, Y
Speaker 1: Z person, But I'm at with them. I don't know
Speaker 1: their heart, I don't know what they're like. You know.
Speaker 1: It really adds fuel to this idea that people who
Speaker 1: are your buddies, people who are nice, people who are accomplished,
Speaker 1: can't also be harassers. I mean, it sucks when someone
Speaker 1: that you like it turns out that they're a harasser.
Speaker 1: But that's how accountability works. You have to hold everyone accountable,
Speaker 1: even if they are a friend of yours or someone
Speaker 1: that you respected. Yeah, I actually am am kind of
Speaker 1: going through this a little bit personally, where a very
Speaker 1: prominent person on the left, Keith Ellison, who I personally
Speaker 1: really like, as you know, just one is primary yesterday,
Speaker 1: is being accused of by an ex of domestic violence,
Speaker 1: pretty serious stuff, and you know, we're all sort of
Speaker 1: like circling the wagons and blah blah blah, and I
Speaker 1: kind of have no horse in the race, you know,
Speaker 1: in my view these kinds of things. I mean, I
Speaker 1: don't know what happened in that situation in my view,
Speaker 1: and the data would back me up. People don't tend
Speaker 1: to make up allegations of abuse, right, Like, the statistics
Speaker 1: are very clear that it's very unlikely that someone is
Speaker 1: making up a story to get attention for what ever
Speaker 1: reason whatever. But it's been interesting watching my professional political circles.
Speaker 1: A lot of people say I've worked with him very closely.
Speaker 1: I considered him to be an ally, like, I've never
Speaker 1: seen this behavior. I guess what I'm saying is it's
Speaker 1: okay to support your buddy or your friend if they're
Speaker 1: accused of something and you don't think they did it.
Speaker 1: If I were in this case, I would think it's
Speaker 1: fine to like call your friend and be like, listen,
Speaker 1: I don't know what's going on, but let me know
Speaker 1: if you need talk. That kind of thing. But you
Speaker 1: don't need to sign a public declaration putting your reputation
Speaker 1: on on whether or not they did, because I just
Speaker 1: would never do that, because if my best friend was
Speaker 1: accused of something awful, I would call them and be like,
Speaker 1: I'm here for you. I don't know what happened. But
Speaker 1: it's like you don't know, you know, even someone you
Speaker 1: think you know, you work with every day, you don't
Speaker 1: know what they're like behind closed doors, and is we
Speaker 1: can't imagine being so certain that this person didn't do
Speaker 1: what someone said they did just because we were buddies,
Speaker 1: just because I thought they were great. You know, that's
Speaker 1: just that how humans are. There are things about me
Speaker 1: my closest friends don't know. That doesn't include abuse and
Speaker 1: sexual harassment, but like people are vast and have size
Speaker 1: of themselves that even their closest buddies and their closest
Speaker 1: coworkers and stuff don't know about. And so that's why
Speaker 1: I always blows my mind when people put their name
Speaker 1: and reputation on I know X, y Z, they're a
Speaker 1: good person. They would never do this. Yeah, And I'm
Speaker 1: going to assume the women that signed this letter they
Speaker 1: had read the emails that were released in the text messages, right,
Speaker 1: because I don't see how you could be a professor
Speaker 1: and read these emails and think nothing on toward is happening.
Speaker 1: Clearly something's happening. She talks about kissing him. So if
Speaker 1: you're if you're an academic and you know, okay, well,
Speaker 1: I can put two and two together and deduced from
Speaker 1: this email that she is acknowledging that they kiss. And
Speaker 1: even if they're both adults, let's say that even if
Speaker 1: it was consensual in some capacity, in my view, she
Speaker 1: still has a power and balance over him, you know
Speaker 1: what I'm saying, Like, even even if it's two adults,
Speaker 1: if you are a professor and you were having a
Speaker 1: sexual relationship with someone like you're the person that you're advising,
Speaker 1: you have intense control over their academic and professional career,
Speaker 1: probably more than anybody else. So this guy's alleged that
Speaker 1: wasn't consensual, but even if it was, there's still a
Speaker 1: huge power and balance. And I would think that Judith
Speaker 1: Butler would know that. I would think that Spivac would
Speaker 1: know that because they write about this for a living,
Speaker 1: they studied this or a living, and so it's just
Speaker 1: really shocking to me that when it comes to your buddy,
Speaker 1: you can't see it, you know, kind of reminds me
Speaker 1: of in her episode about take Cuse, we talked about
Speaker 1: that very um poor taste joke about male rape in prison.
Speaker 1: And there's also another joke that makes me crams that
Speaker 1: I see a lot, and is that like when it's
Speaker 1: a female teacher professor going after a younger student, like,
Speaker 1: of course he's going to want it and be into it, right,
Speaker 1: like high fives to his friends, which is gross and wrong.
Speaker 1: It's just a double standard for how it was a
Speaker 1: male professor going after a female student, how it would
Speaker 1: be viewed and talked about in the media, versus a
Speaker 1: female professor and a male student. Yeah, we could do
Speaker 1: a whole episode around Matt, but wrong is wrong. It
Speaker 1: doesn't matter. Yeah, it's like we should. It's I see
Speaker 1: that double standard too, and I hate it and it's
Speaker 1: so gross. I think that men should be insulted by that.
Speaker 1: That you know, if you're a fifteen year old boy
Speaker 1: having a sexual relationship with a twenty two year old teacher,
Speaker 1: maybe you don't have the emotional maturity or wherewithal to
Speaker 1: understand how that's going to negatively impact you later in life.
Speaker 1: But it's almost like not allowing men to be emotionally
Speaker 1: complex creatures. And they're saying, oh, men are just horn
Speaker 1: dogs and it doesn't matter if it's an adult or
Speaker 1: it's a healthy sexual situation, that dude's gonna love it.
Speaker 1: It's like, no, men are also complex people, and it's
Speaker 1: almost like not giving them credit for being complex emotional creature.
Speaker 1: It's like it just assumes that men are just horn
Speaker 1: dogs who want to get it anyway they can get it,
Speaker 1: and that's just not true. It's not fair. It breaks
Speaker 1: my heart when men and boys are sexually abused by
Speaker 1: women and they worry that speaking out about it will
Speaker 1: make them be less of a man. We will many
Speaker 1: people question their masculinity just and it's like, you know
Speaker 1: that Terry Crews episode, it's no wonder why men don't
Speaker 1: speak up. It's no, it does not surprise me at
Speaker 1: all because we have all of this unfair sexualized stuff.
Speaker 1: When it's a man who is the target of sexual
Speaker 1: violence and it's messed up, that makes me upset. So
Speaker 1: this letter does something else that it's I think it's
Speaker 1: a hallmark of when men are accused of sexual misconduct.
Speaker 1: It sort of points out that that this professor is
Speaker 1: brilliant and that you know, the loss of her brilliance.
Speaker 1: If she was fired for her own behavior would be
Speaker 1: such a loss for the academic community. They write, If
Speaker 1: she were to be terminated or relieved of her duties,
Speaker 1: the injustice would be widely recognized and opposed. The ensuing
Speaker 1: laws for the humanities, for New York University, and for
Speaker 1: the intellectual life of these times would be no less enormous,
Speaker 1: and would rightfully invite widespread and intense public scrutiny. We
Speaker 1: asked that you approached this material with a clear understanding
Speaker 1: of the long history of her thoughtful and successive mentorship,
Speaker 1: the singular brilliance of this intellectual, the international reputation she
Speaker 1: has rightly earned as a stellar scholar in her field,
Speaker 1: her enduring commitments to the university and the illuminated world
Speaker 1: she has brought to your campus where colleagues and students thrive,
Speaker 1: and her company and under her guidance. Um First of all,
Speaker 1: if she were to be fired, the only person that
Speaker 1: would be to blame for her losing her job, or
Speaker 1: for any ensuing loss to the academic community or the
Speaker 1: humanities over the college would be her. She sent those emails,
Speaker 1: she sent those texts. That was her choice. If anyone
Speaker 1: would be to blame. It would not be the university
Speaker 1: or this person who is making these accusations. It would
Speaker 1: be her. She is an adult with a job. She
Speaker 1: is the one with the power, not her lowly grad student.
Speaker 1: If anybody was to blame for what they're saying would
Speaker 1: be this massive loss to the community or whatever the
Speaker 1: it would be her. And frankly, if you're somebody who
Speaker 1: is stupid enough to be sending text messages like this
Speaker 1: and traceable emails like this, maybe you aren't that brilliant
Speaker 1: after all. Maybe people have just told you that you're
Speaker 1: brilliant and you have ten years so you think you're brilliant.
Speaker 1: Like somebody who sends messages like this is a cavalier
Speaker 1: person who does not strike me as someone who is
Speaker 1: concerned with what they can bring to this academic community,
Speaker 1: and that should be squarely on them. Yeah, And the
Speaker 1: idea that being brilliant shields you from like you can't
Speaker 1: be punished for any wrongdoing, or that you shouldn't be
Speaker 1: that's ridiculous and not how things work, or not how
Speaker 1: they should work anyway. Diane Davis, chair of the Department
Speaker 1: of Tork at the University of Texas, Austin, who also
Speaker 1: signed the letter to the university supporting Professor l said
Speaker 1: she and her colleagues were particularly disturbed that, as they
Speaker 1: saw it, Mr Reitman was using Title nine a feminist
Speaker 1: tool to take down a feminist quote. I am, of
Speaker 1: course very supportive vote Title nine and the Me Too
Speaker 1: movement are trying to do of their efforts to confront
Speaker 1: and to prevent abuses, but for which they also seek
Speaker 1: some sort of justice. But it's for that very reason
Speaker 1: that it's so disappointing when this incredible energy for justice
Speaker 1: is twisted and turned against itself, which is what many
Speaker 1: of us believe is happening in this case. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: I wouldn't even call Title nine a feminist tool. The
Speaker 1: person who originated no your title nine points out that
Speaker 1: most of the people who use it to get justice
Speaker 1: are women. But this idea that only I think that
Speaker 1: that that understanding only fuels the idea that men can't
Speaker 1: be victimized and only women are victims. We know that's
Speaker 1: not true well, and also, I mean, feminism is about equality,
Speaker 1: so saying like only women can use Title nine I
Speaker 1: think undercuts what feminism is. I completely agree. So you
Speaker 1: might be wondering again, who in their right mind would
Speaker 1: sign an open letter supporting their colleague who had been
Speaker 1: accused of sexual misconduct when they in fact admit they
Speaker 1: don't have all the details. Um, if you followed the
Speaker 1: conversation around Judo Diaz and him and his you know,
Speaker 1: allegations of sexual misconduct, you'll remember that many people in
Speaker 1: his academic community and his his his fellow scholars on
Speaker 1: colleagues signed a letter and spoke up saying that they
Speaker 1: did not want him to be terminated. So it does happen.
Speaker 1: The Atlantic actually provided some context into why that might be.
Speaker 1: One factor. Universities are hierarchical. They right at the apex
Speaker 1: is the chief executive officer author a president or chancellor,
Speaker 1: and under that person are the deans of individual schools
Speaker 1: within a university. Then there are the heads of schools,
Speaker 1: often decentralized academic departments, who typically enjoy immense influence over
Speaker 1: departmental decisions from salaries to curriculums. Less officially tenured professors
Speaker 1: holds a great deal of sway determining their own research
Speaker 1: and teaching priorities, while getting some say over departmental decisions.
Speaker 1: At the bottom the untenured academics, hourly wage adjuncts, grant
Speaker 1: field researchers, contracted instructors, and the life overseeing all of
Speaker 1: this our schools governing bodies boards of trustees, for examples,
Speaker 1: which are often composed of leaders from outside the university
Speaker 1: who come with their own set of financial interests, political beliefs,
Speaker 1: and personal networks. This leads to a tendency towards tribal politics,
Speaker 1: in which professors tend to be loyal to their discipline
Speaker 1: and department. So basically, if you're at an academic university,
Speaker 1: there can be this weird hierarchy where you cannot want
Speaker 1: to go against someone if they are perceived as having
Speaker 1: a lot of power at your department. Yeah, I have
Speaker 1: a lot of friends who work in academia, and I've
Speaker 1: heard I've heard them talk about stuff like this and
Speaker 1: how it was upsetting. I mean, they got into the
Speaker 1: field because they love knowledge and they love learning more
Speaker 1: and they are all these politics that impact it and
Speaker 1: that make it difficult and that have kind of demoralized
Speaker 1: my friends who are working in academia. Yes, some of
Speaker 1: y'all might know that I'm a I'm a PhD school
Speaker 1: dropout and I can absolutely attest to what your friends
Speaker 1: are saying. And that was one of the I mean,
Speaker 1: there were many reasons why I dropped out of my
Speaker 1: my program, but one of them was that I was
Speaker 1: so overwhelmed by the amount of sort of politics and
Speaker 1: networking and we are dealing and it felt like this
Speaker 1: invisible network of like trip wires that I was never
Speaker 1: going to figure out, right. I was never going to
Speaker 1: figure out whose asked I should kiss and whose asked
Speaker 1: I didn't have to kiss. I was never to figure out,
Speaker 1: you know, who I should buddy up to if I
Speaker 1: wanted the best teaching assignment or the best whatever. I
Speaker 1: was already struggling in a program that I had no
Speaker 1: business in on top of you know, drowning and schoolwork.
Speaker 1: I didn't have the like a mental or emotional energy
Speaker 1: to also wheel and deal in that way. And that,
Speaker 1: I hate to say, that is a big part of
Speaker 1: grad school, at least in my program. I can't pat
Speaker 1: to every program, but knowing how to navigate what often
Speaker 1: it felt like a tense network of intersecting relationships was
Speaker 1: a big part of it. And I just had no
Speaker 1: I was already so completely overwhelmed with the actual school work.
Speaker 1: I had no ability to also factor that stuff in. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it takes a toll, and on top of that, securing
Speaker 1: grant money that sounds like it's It plays a big
Speaker 1: role as well and creates power imbalances. And in his
Speaker 1: book on the Dynamics of Higher Education in the US
Speaker 1: and around the World, the Australian social scientist Brian Martin
Speaker 1: argued that in academia, like any other hierarchy, quote, people
Speaker 1: exercise power not by virtue of their personal talents, but
Speaker 1: by virtue of the position they occupy. With some exceptions,
Speaker 1: He suggested that a professor's position on the university pyramid
Speaker 1: and their informal alliances determine the extent to which the
Speaker 1: individual can escape accountability for his or her actions. Academics
Speaker 1: and lower tears are very dependent on the good graces
Speaker 1: of their supervisors and others with influence over promotional decisions.
Speaker 1: If an academic in the upper echelons of the power
Speaker 1: structure commits some wrongdoing, his or her subordinates might feel
Speaker 1: pressured to disregard it or to come to the professor's defense.
Speaker 1: And this dynamic also, according to some adjuncts, enables bullying. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that is pale as old as time. During my time
Speaker 1: trying to get my PhD, my agnetic was exactly my experience,
Speaker 1: and I didn't make it very far along in my program,
Speaker 1: you know. I I dropped out pretty early on, and
Speaker 1: so my experience was only ever as a adjunct, as
Speaker 1: a t A, as a graduate assistant. When I was
Speaker 1: teaching at Howard, I was a full time but untenured instructor,
Speaker 1: which actually was the best experience I ever had because
Speaker 1: there were so many of us, and Howard as a
Speaker 1: practice at the time did not employ adjuncts, at least
Speaker 1: in my department, and so you did feel like you
Speaker 1: had some power in numbers because the university really needed us,
Speaker 1: Like like if we had all walked off the job,
Speaker 1: the university, the English Department would like cease to exist.
Speaker 1: But in other university settings, you know, when you are
Speaker 1: a t A or an adjunct, you just don't feel
Speaker 1: like you have a lot of power. And it's such
Speaker 1: a dependent relationship, like whoever your mentor is that can
Speaker 1: be the difference betweenhen or not you can pay your
Speaker 1: rent or not, whether or not you have to move
Speaker 1: home or not, or drop out or that you know,
Speaker 1: whether or not you get funding for a project, or
Speaker 1: you get a teaching assistantship like that could be the
Speaker 1: difference between you eating or not. And when you're an adjunct,
Speaker 1: if anyone's out there had been an adjunct, you make
Speaker 1: such bad money, like for like three months work, you
Speaker 1: might make like, you know, dollars, you know the amount
Speaker 1: of money I made when I was adjuncting and I
Speaker 1: was driving all over the state right like I would
Speaker 1: in one morning I would be at the University of
Speaker 1: Maryland and then the next two hours later I would
Speaker 1: be in Arlington's teaching another college. It was a very
Speaker 1: tenuous professional time in my life. And you just really
Speaker 1: don't have a lot of power, and unless you're like
Speaker 1: independently wealthy, it's such a tenuous situation that, I mean,
Speaker 1: I would be terrified to speak up of something that
Speaker 1: this happened if I was an adjunct or a graduate
Speaker 1: assistant or a t A. And we're talking about academia
Speaker 1: right now, but it a lot of this, a lot
Speaker 1: of what we're talking about reflects other things in me too,
Speaker 1: or people who commit sex crimes, like the support of
Speaker 1: colleagues of Ronell and that letter defending her brilliance, like
Speaker 1: we we heard that after after Louis k after Woody Allen,
Speaker 1: after Roman Plansky, or his contributions are very valuable to
Speaker 1: the field, Like we heard that after Bill Cosby and
Speaker 1: Harvey Weinstein. Yeah, we just hear this a lot. It's
Speaker 1: reflecting in what we're talking about today. Yeah, and it
Speaker 1: just goes to show that it really is about power,
Speaker 1: who was who was perceived as having it, and who
Speaker 1: was perceived as worthy of protection and worthy of support.
Speaker 1: And I hadn't even thought about this, but if you
Speaker 1: were at n y U, if you were in this
Speaker 1: program and you saw the way these very important people,
Speaker 1: I mean, Judith Butler is hugely, hugely, hugely influential in
Speaker 1: this field, if you were someone who was marginalized or
Speaker 1: you know, you were a t A or an adject
Speaker 1: or some thing and something had happened to you, and
Speaker 1: you saw the way these hugely important figures circled the
Speaker 1: wagons to throw this the accuser under the bus and
Speaker 1: be like, oh, we know the accuser, we know we
Speaker 1: know that they're full of it. Wouldn't you stay silent?
Speaker 1: I mean, it just creates this atmosphere that certain people
Speaker 1: will get protected and certain people will be thrown under
Speaker 1: the bus and you have to decide which one you
Speaker 1: want to be. I would think twice before speaking out
Speaker 1: if I saw this go down, and a part of
Speaker 1: me probably in the back of my head, I would
Speaker 1: be like, I'll just wait it out, or I'll just
Speaker 1: try to minimize my contact. And I think that's something
Speaker 1: that bugs me so much, is that. And I know
Speaker 1: I'm like focusing on Judith Butler, but like reading Gender
Speaker 1: Trouble in undergrad during my you know, getting a degree
Speaker 1: women's studies, that was a foundational feminist text for me,
Speaker 1: and I'm just so disappointed in her. Like Judith Butler,
Speaker 1: if you hear this, I really looked up to you
Speaker 1: and you were foundational and me understanding my role in
Speaker 1: this world as a woman and as a feminist. And
Speaker 1: I'm really disappointed in you. This hurts and I think
Speaker 1: that friendships are important, but I think you need to
Speaker 1: understand how many people out there. You are a model
Speaker 1: of what it means to be a feminist for a
Speaker 1: lot of us, and you want to know what this
Speaker 1: feels like for us. I'm really disappointed in Drewith Butler,
Speaker 1: and this is really kind of affirming for me as
Speaker 1: someone who is like academia. You know that the politics
Speaker 1: that are involved in academia get to people and they
Speaker 1: lose themselves, they lose their sense of integrity, and they
Speaker 1: can write the most badass takedowns and and you know,
Speaker 1: screeds um feminism or what it means to be a woman,
Speaker 1: what it means to be queer, what it means to
Speaker 1: be anything, and they can They're still not above being
Speaker 1: infected by this bullshit politics of academia and egos and power,
Speaker 1: and I mean, are corrupts. Power corrupts. I guess that's
Speaker 1: what I'm saying. And I guess I would have thought
Speaker 1: that these feminist leaders would have more integrity. And I'm
Speaker 1: just very disappointed and how this has all shaken out.
Speaker 1: I mean, you saw those emails. You saw that she
Speaker 1: talks about kissing her grad students in those emails. She
Speaker 1: does not say she didn't send those emails. She knows
Speaker 1: she sent them. Like, how do you account for that?
Speaker 1: How do you square that circle? I just I need
Speaker 1: to know, you know, as I I feel personally invested
Speaker 1: in this in a weird way. It really sucks, It
Speaker 1: really sucks. We have a little bit more to talk
Speaker 1: about here, but first we're gonna take one more quick
Speaker 1: break for a word from our sponsor, and we're back.
Speaker 1: Thank you, sponsor. The bottom line is nobody is above
Speaker 1: the law, not because they're brilliant, not because they're accomplished,
Speaker 1: not because they're a woman, not because they're your but
Speaker 1: a no one is it of the law. Olivia gold
Speaker 1: Hill was just really well at courts, She writes. In
Speaker 1: a society that takes sexual violence seriously, all accusations must
Speaker 1: be investigated, suggesting that an investigation I had of any
Speaker 1: decision is in and of itself an injustice, shows a
Speaker 1: total lack of concern for victims of this widely underreported crime.
Speaker 1: Many of those who signed this letter defending Ronow are
Speaker 1: feminist theorists who support these principles in theory. In practice,
Speaker 1: there should be no exceptions to these rules, even when
Speaker 1: the professor under investigation is a woman. And I just
Speaker 1: she puts it so well I could not agree more too.
Speaker 1: And like she said that quote, and like we said
Speaker 1: at the beginning, this is really underreported crime, and dismissing
Speaker 1: someone an accuser of an under reported crime is doing
Speaker 1: more damage, is having ripple effects for people who may
Speaker 1: be worth thinking about speaking up about harassment they're facing,
Speaker 1: and then just see this. It just has a lot
Speaker 1: more damage than I think at first glance. Some people
Speaker 1: might realize, Yeah, one of my good friends, she wants
Speaker 1: to put a status on Facebook that said something along
Speaker 1: the lines of, if we know that a lot of
Speaker 1: us out there are the victims or have been the
Speaker 1: victims of sexual violence and we don't often speak up,
Speaker 1: think about how those people are perceiving what you're saying,
Speaker 1: you know, think about the people who are watching and listening,
Speaker 1: and they may not say, Hey, what you're saying is
Speaker 1: victim blaming. Hey, what you're saying is wrong, But they're there,
Speaker 1: we're listening, we're watching, and keep that at but you know,
Speaker 1: like I'm sure Judea's butler and not for speak or
Speaker 1: thinking this is a one off thing. What's someone that
Speaker 1: we like, Let's do her the solid of speaking up
Speaker 1: on her behalf. But people are listening, people are watching,
Speaker 1: people are absorbing the messages that you're giving when you
Speaker 1: do that kind of thing. So that brings us to
Speaker 1: the end of this episode. And two listener mail and
Speaker 1: we have another letter about fan fiction today. Uh Sarah
Speaker 1: wrote my perception of fan fiction was, and to some
Speaker 1: degree still is, marred by the sort of stigma you
Speaker 1: discussed in your episodes. Whenever I finished the show or
Speaker 1: book that I really enjoy, I go through the mild
Speaker 1: depression that many people do, and I can no longer
Speaker 1: experience the story. This can sometimes be very hard on me,
Speaker 1: and I've looked down on myself for essentially not being
Speaker 1: able to get over it and move on in the
Speaker 1: real world. Because I was so ashamed of this tendency,
Speaker 1: I would look down on people who read or write
Speaker 1: fan fiction as the people who couldn't get over it,
Speaker 1: like I always forced myself to you. This winter, I
Speaker 1: went into a depressive episode that both coincided with and
Speaker 1: was complicated by my first entry into the world of
Speaker 1: fan fiction. I think it was already depressed, and therefore
Speaker 1: let myself start reading a fit because I felt so
Speaker 1: generally bad. Then I felt ashamed that I had done
Speaker 1: so and became even more depressed. This continued in a
Speaker 1: vicious cycle until am or two later I finally said
Speaker 1: get and started writing out my own story idea. After writing, editing,
Speaker 1: and sitting on the story for a few months, I
Speaker 1: posted it on a Oh three. It got fantastic reviews
Speaker 1: in the comment and with this unexpected external affirmation, I
Speaker 1: essentially came out of the worst of my depression overnight.
Speaker 1: I have issues with embarrassment and shame and many aspects
Speaker 1: of my life, and I've struggled to tell people that
Speaker 1: I've been writing fan fiction. However, these episodes of the
Speaker 1: podcast helped me identify the outside reasons why fan fiction
Speaker 1: is stigmatized and help me feel like reading and writing
Speaker 1: it is a valid hobby that many people participate in.
Speaker 1: I also used some of the points made in these
Speaker 1: episodes as springboards to tell my friends and family that
Speaker 1: I've been writing fan fiction. They've all been very happy
Speaker 1: for me, both because of the positive feedback I've received
Speaker 1: and because I've found a creative outlet. Writing fan fiction
Speaker 1: has been a very powerful and therapeutic experience. I've always
Speaker 1: wanted to write, but I have been limited by how
Speaker 1: hard it can be to invent new care actors and
Speaker 1: worlds from scratch. Creating a plot line within pre established
Speaker 1: universe broke down that barrier to entry, letting me explore
Speaker 1: my writing abilities right out of the gate. After the
Speaker 1: first kit fix, I wrote a fix centered around a
Speaker 1: female character that I strongly identify with from one of
Speaker 1: my favorite shows. In this fix, I explore emotions of
Speaker 1: failure and loss of control that I felt my own life,
Speaker 1: but in an amped up, intensified way that's possible in
Speaker 1: the high stakes situations that occur in the action adventure
Speaker 1: universe of the show. By writing out how this character
Speaker 1: experiences and eventually overcomes these emotions, I stumbled into several
Speaker 1: AHA moments applicable to my own anxiety and depression. As
Speaker 1: an aside, because I've had so many issues around embarrassment,
Speaker 1: and because this story has themes of not writing off
Speaker 1: your successes in the face of your failures, I'm going
Speaker 1: to make a shameless plug for this fix, which I'm
Speaker 1: very proud of. It's called The Gale, set in the
Speaker 1: Vultron Legendary Defender Universe and posted on AO three. One
Speaker 1: person said it was the best pick they've ever read,
Speaker 1: and someone else actually proclaimed it literary genius. Many people
Speaker 1: have told me I'm excellent depicting emotions and made them
Speaker 1: cry multiple times. Based on the speedback, I'm planning to
Speaker 1: submit it to a fan fit contest just for fun.
Speaker 1: If that sounds interesting to you, please go check it out.
Speaker 1: It's rated roughly TENA and up for language and depiction
Speaker 1: of injury and medical procedures. I love this so much.
Speaker 1: Congratulations on the great review, Sarah. I've been meaning to
Speaker 1: check it out. I can't wait to read it. Um.
Speaker 1: I'm really glad that fan fiction helped you, helped you
Speaker 1: kind of learn more about yourself and how to deal
Speaker 1: with your depression. Um. I can I relate so much
Speaker 1: to this, like writing a fan fiction and later realizing
Speaker 1: like I was dealing with something in a way that
Speaker 1: I didn't know. I didn't know how, so I was
Speaker 1: dealing with it through fan fiction and sort of coming
Speaker 1: to solutions through fan fiction. Um. And it just it
Speaker 1: makes me really happy that you found this, this outlet,
Speaker 1: this avenue for creativity. Yeah. I love that too. I
Speaker 1: mean you said that it almost snapped you out of
Speaker 1: a depression almost overnight. That's incredible. Um. I also like
Speaker 1: way to give a shameless plug. I can't wait to
Speaker 1: read this. So go read Sarah's fan ficture because it
Speaker 1: sounds amazing. Evelyn wrote, Annie asked us to give you
Speaker 1: some insight into how the closed door policy works in Europe.
Speaker 1: While I'm from hungry and our household closing the door
Speaker 1: is not a common thing. This is my experience from
Speaker 1: my own of my friend's lives. Others might see it otherwise. Also,
Speaker 1: I live in an apartment complex, a very common thing,
Speaker 1: and hungry mine is a huge ten story building For
Speaker 1: closing your door on our family. In a tiny apartment
Speaker 1: like this, you usually need a good reason. It might
Speaker 1: be because, Hey, you go to sleep at night, be
Speaker 1: your mom is cooking and you don't want the smell
Speaker 1: to come in, though most of the time you just
Speaker 1: need the smell to come in. It's way too good. See,
Speaker 1: you're listening to the same song over and over again,
Speaker 1: so your mom proceeds to march into your room and
Speaker 1: scream at you while shutting your door. Same d You
Speaker 1: have friends over and y'all are way too loud for
Speaker 1: your mom's liking, and she doesn't want to listen to
Speaker 1: y'all giggle. You and your mom both have your windows open,
Speaker 1: and the blowing wind outside the flat is way too
Speaker 1: much for your mom, so she marches to your room
Speaker 1: again to scream and close the door. Oh and this
Speaker 1: is only closing the door. If you lock the door,
Speaker 1: that's the equivalent of you either A being very very
Speaker 1: extremely mad at your family or be having sex. In
Speaker 1: the case of A, I've only ever done this once
Speaker 1: in the middle of a hissy fit and it was
Speaker 1: not well received. And in the case of B, you
Speaker 1: must lock the door because knocking is a small and
Speaker 1: significant thing for parents sometimes. I hope I can give
Speaker 1: you some inside into the Hungarian closed door policy. Um,
Speaker 1: that is hilarious and I was like dying laughing. Also
Speaker 1: that surminds me of me like my mom coming in
Speaker 1: and slamming the door because I'm listening to the same
Speaker 1: whole song over and over again. Um yeah, I would
Speaker 1: fit right in and hungry. Yeah, I've kind of forgotten
Speaker 1: about sleepovers in the My room was above my parents
Speaker 1: dream and it was really squeaky, So like two am,
Speaker 1: we we would hear the door open and we would
Speaker 1: all like pop into beds or sleeping bags and pretend
Speaker 1: to no one We're fooling no one that would been
Speaker 1: asleep this whole time. I love it. I love it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that was my experience as well. So thanks to both
Speaker 1: of them for writing in. We would love to hear
Speaker 1: from you. If you'd like to write to us, our
Speaker 1: email is mom Stuff at how stuff works dot com,
Speaker 1: and you can find us on Instagram at Stuff I've
Speaker 1: Never Told You and on Twitter. Mom Stuff Podcast, and
Speaker 1: thanks as always to our producer, Kathleen Quillian