A popular feminist philosopher is facing #MeToo accusations, and her supportive peers sound a lot like the people they criticize.
To put it plainly, the allegations against New York University professor Avital Ronell are weird. They involve Ronell, a lesbian, and her former graduate student Nimrod Reitman, who is a gay man. Here’s how the New York Times broke down the case on Monday:
In the Title IX final report, excerpts of which were obtained by The New York Times, Mr. Reitman said that she had sexually harassed him for three years, and shared dozens of emails in which she referred to him as “my most adored one,” “Sweet cuddly Baby,” “cock-er spaniel,” and “my astounding and beautiful Nimrod.”
NYU found Ronell, who teaches German and comparative literature, guilty of sexual harassment in May, but cleared her of other violations — Reitman’s complaint, which was filed two years after he graduated, also accused Ronell of sexual assault, stalking, and retaliation. According to the Times, Reitman claims Ronell “kissed and touched him repeatedly, slept in his bed with him, required him to lie in her bed, held his hand, texted, emailed and called him constantly, and refused to work with him if he did not reciprocate.” As we established earlier, it’s a strange case. But that last accusation is key.
Reitman’s charge that Ronell “refused to work with him” if he didn’t respond to her advances mirrors the imbalanced power dynamics that so many other #MeToo offenders have been accused of exploiting. As Vox put it, “Ronell’s case has all the hallmarks of a #MeToo story.”
The Times published excerpts from emails provided by Reitman where Ronell is clearly making advances on him. “I woke up with a slight fever and sore throat,” she wrote in the summer of 2012. “I will try very hard not to kiss you — until the throat situation receives security clearance. This is not an easy deferral!”
Here’s how Ronnell defended her conduct in an email to the Times: “Our communications — which Reitman now claims constituted sexual harassment — were between two adults, a gay man and a queer woman, who share an Israeli heritage, as well as a penchant for florid and campy communications arising from our common academic backgrounds and sensibilities. These communications were repeatedly invited, responded to and encouraged by him over a period of three years.”
After an 11-month investigation, NYU obviously took Reitman’s side when it came to sexual harassment. But academia’s feminist community hasn’t followed suit.
Quite the contrary. After the university made its decision in May, “a group of scholars from around the world, including prominent feminists, sent a letter to N.Y.U. in defense of professor Ronell,” as the Times reported. “We deplore the damage that this legal proceeding causes her, and seek to register in clear terms our objection to any judgment against her,” the signatories wrote in a draft that leaked online. “We hold that the allegations against her do not constitute actual evidence, but rather support the view that malicious intention has animated and sustained this legal nightmare.”
They continued, “We testify to the grace, the keen wit, and the intellectual commitment of professor Ronell and ask that she be accorded the dignity rightly deserved by someone of her international standing and reputation. If she were to be terminated or relieved of her duties, the injustice would be widely recognized and opposed.”
In other words, Ronell is wonderful, her accuser’s intentions are “malicious,” and she must therefore be innocent. That argument sounds familiar — it’s just the kind feminists have been inclined to condemn in Title IX cases over the course of the #MeToo movement. Note that their letter also came after the conclusion of a long investigation, and one that cleared Ronell of other violations.
And whose name was at the top of the list of signatories? None other than Judith Butler, one of the single most revered gender theorists alive today, whose work on “performativity” has been pivotal in feminist scholarship.
I’m all for nuance, but the question is whether Ronell’s defenders would apply the same standards to others, and the feminist community’s record suggests that’s not the case. Indeed, defenders of accused offenders, who use language similar to that in the letter, are routinely subject to attacks from feminists. Like other industry leaders accused of misconduct, Ronell has powerful defenders. But this time it’s the industry that makes her ardent base of collegial support seem pretty questionable.
