The "Sexual Harassment" That Wasn't That Ruined Colin McGinn's Career
Katie Roiphe has a chilling piece on Slate about a philosophy professor who's lost his "job, his reputation, his income, his stability." And why? Read the story. And then this from Roiphe:
The questions here enter foggy territory that would take true philosophers or maybe novelists to navigate: Should a man, even an arrogant man, lose tenure and a long, lustrous career over what was probably a blundering excess of attachment, a burst of infatuated blindness? His mistake was that he was romanticizing what was happening, was carried away by an idea, by a feeling, and did not take the sensible or professional steps.The sexual harassment script is so vivid in our minds that to a certain extent it doesn't matter if events technically unfolded according to it; one can feel the writers of the original Chronicle of Higher Education article, and the New York Times piece, rushing past the details of the story, which are murky at best, to the meaty and wonderful generalizations. Very often when I talk about the case to academics, especially philosophers, they are impatient to get past the troublesome facts to the gleaming and satisfying theme. ("A Star Philosopher Falls," reads the New York Times headline, "From Star to Ruin" reads the Chronicle of Higher Education's.)
One bright, ambitious young philosopher I met at a party says it doesn't matter if there was a warm consensual romantic relationship. He said the problem of sexual harassment is so rife in philosophy that it is good for someone to be strung up and an example to be made. He went on to explain that Colin is precisely the kind of abrasive, arrogant man who would do something like this, and used as an example the title of his memoir, The Making of a Philosopher, which he viewed as a sign that Colin is narcissistic and full of himself. (I have by this point in my reporting absorbed that many people think powerful, arrogant men should be punished, though I myself like a powerful, arrogant man.)
One of the reasons I think people revel so much in the downfall of someone "like" Colin is that we like to hear news that the world is humming along just as we suspected, that all the prejudices and slights and wrongdoings we have always imagined are yet again proved to be real. Our fears that the "powerful" or "arrogant" are corrupt and abusive of the less powerful and less arrogant are confirmed. Our instinctive distrust of those who are stars, who have succeeded spectacularly, is vindicated by news of ugliness or corruption. We like, in other words, a good cliché.
What happened in the halls of the philosophy department at the University of Miami is much messier and more ambiguous and dingy and depressingly human than the glamorous black and white of the political language--sexual harassment. There is no arrogant, successful man sending dirty missives, no innocent, wronged victim to rally around; instead there is a whole complex swamp of motives and hopes and judgments and desires and ambitions, many conspicuously, spectacularly ill-advised, and there is a little bit of human warmth.
Related: About The Bora Controversy: If There's Anything That Makes Women Unequal To Men, It's The Need To Be Treated Like Fragile Pieces Of China.
Update -- comment from "Science lady" that's worth reading that was left on the Bora link just above:
Another science insider here. I am an active participant in women in science type groups and often see this sort of overblown hand-wringing about the perils of being a female scientist. Any and all hardships of making a career in science (and it IS hard) are viewed through the lens of gender, and massive amounts of thoughtful deconstruction expended on analyzing and fixing the perceived gender bias. Not to be glib, but similar single-mindedness in the pursuit of their research questions would go a long way to vaporizing the perceived barriers. Tellingly, many senior/successful female scientists are wary of participating in these groups--too busy working, and quite possibly not wanting to get sucked in to the hand-wringing circle. (Of course, they are viewed as unsupportive traitors to their gender.)I know Bora quite well, and have interacted with him over 10+ years. He is indeed a bit socially awkward and not the best at reading cues--he is the sort that stands chatting for 15 minutes as you try to move on to the next person, is over-enthusiastic in his gestures, and laughs at the wrong moments sometimes. He is also extremely smart, a great synthesizer of ideas, and one of my favorite people to talk science with. He has always been all these things. In the realm of online science journalism, he seemed to have found the perfect way to use his undoubted skills, and he did so in a way that helped other people far more than it helped him. It's only recently that he's even had a salary for his blog-related stuff, and the spin from his accusers that his massive powerfulness was sooo scary that they dare not speak up is an utter joke. The entire debacle is sickening and makes me want to write nasty things about these harridans, and certainly I will do them professional harm should their "pitches" ever cross my desk.
Like others, I am too entangled in the science world to comfortably use my own name here.
Posted by: Science lady at October 20, 2013 11:37 AM
I appreciate the fact that you want to come to the rescue of this gentleman whose career has been ruined.
Unfortunately, I can't get past the fact that he did a really stupid thing.
Patrick at October 20, 2013 7:14 AM
He did, but I wonder about this woman who has her boyfriend talk to the press, but she won't? something is messed up. Colin didn't slip her a date-rape drug. If his career is over, then surely, her career should never start--she has poor judgement, an inability to set boundaries, and a very odd way of dealing with conflict.
KateC at October 20, 2013 7:22 AM
KateC, all valid points.
Something isn't kosher? Hard to say what. Perhaps she got in trouble with her boyfriend over the intimate conversations, so she made out like it was sexual harassment (which cannot happen between teacher and student, by the way, but can happen in the scenario in which he hired her to do research) so as not to get dumped.
Which is the only explanation I can think of as to why her boyfriend is still with her.
And perhaps, in the interest of fairness, her career never should begin. But be real. What are the chances of that happening? Society favors the victim, particularly if it's female over male.
And since he was the one in the position of power, he should have put the brakes on this. Or better still, not let it get started.
Patrick at October 20, 2013 8:25 AM
@Patrick:
> I can't get past the fact that he did a really stupid thing.
Well, thank goodness neither you, nor I, nor Amy, nor any reader of this blog has ever done a stupid thing in our lives!
TJIC at October 20, 2013 9:37 AM
This incident simply gave McGinn's detractors an opportunity to ruin him. Despite their characterizations, and those of the boyfriend, McGinn was never accused of sexual harassment by the university. The relationship was obviously consensual and largely instigated by the young woman.
Their indictment of McGinn has little to do with the facts of the situation, rather it hinges on his sex, race, and academic status. Basically they claim that academia is rife with misogyny and harassment, white men are responsible, ergo McGinn is guilty of misogyny and harassment because he is a high status white man. The very fact that he attempted to defend himself by addressing the facts of the situation is purportedly proof that he is a victim blaming misogynist.
What's interesting is that many of the outlets, like the NYT and Salon, that had originally covered this as a sexual harassment case have revisited the issue, recognizing that it's likely that McGinn was the victim of a witch hunt. Because his attackers have been very candid in acknowledging that their motivation was to purge academia of a high status white man, and that even if McGinn isn't guilty of the specific charges that they've accused him of, men like him are guilty, and so he makes a suitable proxy.
Umberto at October 20, 2013 9:57 AM
Subject matter aside, Katie Roiphe can really write.
Canvasback at October 20, 2013 10:36 AM
I'm with Umberto on this one. And the notion that men are in "positions of power" is disproven by both the result and the swift (and unquestioning) way it was achieved.
jdgalt at October 20, 2013 10:38 AM
TJIC, I've done plenty of stupid things in my time. Reading and responding to your post comes to mind as a recent example.
On the other hand, I'm not doing anything that is almost universally recognized as putting a permanent end to my 20+ year career.
Patrick at October 20, 2013 11:10 AM
*he wrote that he "had a hand job imagining you giving me a hand job"*
I can see how this would be misinterpreted by the liberal media. Obviously this is the opening line in a treatise on Hagel v. Kant.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at October 20, 2013 11:10 AM
That anyone takes 'sexual harassment' seriously as a charge, insult, or accusation anymore is a testament tot he stupidity, weakness, bigotry, and cowardice of way to many people who have authority without ability.
Robert at October 20, 2013 11:28 AM
I didn't say that men were necessarily in "positions of power." He was in the position of power because he was the teacher and the employer. Therefore the coercive power is entirely his.
The retribution has nothing to do with who has the position of power in a sexual harassment scenario (which cannot exist outside the workplace). The position of power rests with the person who can exert coercive persuasion: "Have sex with me or you're fired."
Patrick at October 20, 2013 12:42 PM
Amy, I know we've had our disagreements lately but am wondering if you'd still welcome my using your Personal Counseling service(s) sometime in the near future. I really appreciate your highlighting these issues re bogus SH claims, as I went through a similar bad experience a few years ago and still am having serious issues with anger and depression over it.
Anyway, any help or references you can provide are appreciated... and I should also mention I found Dr. Paul Elam's great "A Voice for Men" site through your site a few years ago, which has helped a bit already, so thanks for that too.
qdpsteve at October 20, 2013 1:20 PM
qdpsteve, I'm sorry to hear that you've had a bad experience with this issue.
I wish you the best in getting past this experience. Being on the receiving end of a bogus sexual harassment complaint would make any reasonable person angry.
Patrick at October 20, 2013 1:56 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/10/20/the_sexual_hara.html#comment-3992158">comment from qdpsteve"I know we've had our disagreements lately"
Oh, please don't categorize me in the group with all these victim-feminists who can't bear the slightest offense or disagreement. I can debate people here and disagree with them virulently but not think ill of them in the slightest.
I don't have the slightest issue with you. I don't even remember what we disagreed on. I looked it up -- something about religion. I have a blog so people can post their opinions, not so they can help me create an echo chamber. Disagreement makes for good discussion.
So, yes, private session -- see how it works here:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/private_sessions/
And very sorry for what you're going through.
Amy Alkon at October 20, 2013 2:18 PM
Patrick: thanks, that was classy of you to share.
Amy: thanks to you too, and you've been a breath of fresh air for me lately. I do respect your opinions a lot as well, even when we disagree. Will be in touch, hopefully sometime between now and around New Years. (I know that's a bit of a stretch but I need to get some nickels rubbing together first.) ;-)
qdpsteve at October 20, 2013 2:38 PM
@Patrick I agree w/ you that his behavior was certainly imprudent, but there is no evidence that he attempted to coerce her or threatened retribution. That's why there was no charge of harassment.
He claims that he'd never solicited her for sex as well, her boyfriend denies that and she's not willing to make a statement. So what we're left with is the story of a older man foolishly becoming enamored with his star struck protege.
In fact, the only element of coercion that's at play here is that it may be that she claimed harassment in order to get out of fulfilling a paid academic assignment that he had arranged for her. According to their correspondences, and his account, that's what precipitated her change of heart. He pressed her to complete the assignment and she became angry and filed the harassment complaint.
Umberto at October 20, 2013 3:13 PM
My sister was sexually harassed (and not this vague, shades of gray type either) and when she went to her employers, they said they didn't want to move against the man because "he was a veteran" (this was a conservative D.C. think tank). It's good to debate the areas where sexual harassment claims run into the ambiguities of the real world, but this idea that a) it doesn't exist and b) all the power is on the side of the alleged victim is gross overstatement.
I don't know what happened with McGinn, but note that Roiphe's article is based only on the emails McGinn shared (which is a FERPA violation and much more serious than the woman Amy chided in the Bora thread for sharing a conversation over coffee with the world). What is clear is that McGinn failed to report a relationship with a paid subordinate, which is a university violation. I am also surprised that McGinn resigned. It is very hard to get a tenured professor fired (see Ward Churchill) and his arguments for why he didn't fight this case sounded weak, given the circumstances.
Astra at October 21, 2013 5:34 AM
The entire debacle is sickening and makes me want to write nasty things about these harridans, and certainly I will do them professional harm should their "pitches" ever cross my desk.
Classy.
...and massive amounts of thoughtful deconstruction expended on analyzing and fixing the perceived gender bias.
To call the gender bias in science "perceived" is to ignore the evidence, a non-scientific stance. The recent Moss and Racusin study (comparing evaluations of identical CVs with the name changed) showed that gender bias does occur and is practiced by both sexes.
I agree with Amy and "Science lady" that constantly looking for bias is a good way to see it everywhere. Gender bias falls into the category of "life isn't fair" (e.g., the same reason I have been more successful than a male colleague who has paralyzing shyness). That being said, I have encountered it and it has affected my career, and the idea that it is a solved problem deserving no more attention is ridiculous.
Astra at October 21, 2013 5:43 AM
"but this idea that a) it doesn't exist and b) all the power is on the side of the alleged victim is gross overstatement."
I don't think anyone is claiming that it never happens. What we are claiming is that the bogus reports, incredibly vague standards, and original-sin assumptions make it nearly impossible to sort out which cases are legitimate. And I think that was the intent all along. Point (b) above is related to that. In the corporate world, sexual harassment cases are nearly always undertaken against staff and low-level management; executives are de facto exempt, and they usually know it. I've seen this first-hand, where execs routinely get away with stuff that would get a staff member fired.
Further, I offer this: men harass men, and women harass women, and nobody cares because that harassment isn't, by definition, "sexual". What is it about man-on-woman harassment that makes it infinitity-times-ten worse than other harassment?
Cousin Dave at October 21, 2013 6:50 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/10/20/the_sexual_hara.html#comment-3994608">comment from Cousin DaveKingsley Browne makes this point in Biology At Work -- that men giving each other shit is normal day-to-day behavior, and that giving women shit is EQUAL treatment, not harassment. You give people shit in the way you can go after them -- teasing them about whatever area is vulnerable: their sexuality, their funny haircut, etc.
So, women in the workplace are now demanding special treatment. Equal treatment is no longer enough.
Amy Alkon at October 21, 2013 7:04 AM
Further, I offer this: men harass men, and women harass women, and nobody cares because that harassment isn't, by definition, "sexual". What is it about man-on-woman harassment that makes it infinitity-times-ten worse than other harassment?
Agreed that harassment occurs all around, which is why I tend to put it in the "life isn't fair" category. For me, sexual harassment deserves separate consideration (when it comes to addressing it) because of the rapid degree of change in how society deals with women in traditionally male jobs and because the numbers imbalance (in STEM fields at least) leads to expectation bias (e.g., the classic xkcd cartoon about girls and math).
Astra at October 21, 2013 7:13 AM
o call the gender bias in science "perceived" is to ignore the evidence, a non-scientific stance. The recent Moss and Racusin study (comparing evaluations of identical CVs with the name changed) showed that gender bias does occur and is practiced by both sexes.
No it didnt. That study had soooooooo many holes in it
lujlp at October 21, 2013 10:50 AM
No it didnt. That study had soooooooo many holes in it
We argued about that when Amy first posted on it. As I recall many of your arguments were based on a faulty understanding of the research method (e.g., not realizing that the CVs were identical, that they were circulated as part of a study rather than for real jobs, etc.). Perhaps you have more substantive criticism now, but otherwise I stand by my opinion that their study showed how both male and female scientists draw more negative conclusions about the capability female applicants based on gender along.
Astra at October 21, 2013 11:26 AM
I'm not opposed to addressing legitimate incidents of harassment and discrimination, but I think that it's appropriate to criticize the sorts of agenda driven claims that are being promoted in reference to these incidents.
It's apparent that there is a cohort of activists who want to restructure STEM fields in the image of gender feminism and appoint themselves as thought police. They've been behind the recent spate of blow ups arising from tech conferences, and the attacks on prominent figures in the tech community, like Dave Winer. Take a look at Rebecca Greenfield's articles at The Atlantic to see what I'm getting at. According to these folks claims of meritocracy in STEM are a lie promoted to justify misogyny and racism.
Umberto at October 21, 2013 11:30 AM
"For me, sexual harassment deserves separate consideration (when it comes to addressing it) because of the rapid degree of change in how society deals with women in traditionally male jobs and because the numbers imbalance (in STEM fields at least) leads to expectation bias..."
To me this reads like special pleading: "Our needs are more important because wimmenz!" And it does not address my question about male-on-male, female-on-female, or female-on-male harassment. Why is it that every male-female interaction is defined as "sexual" with the male automatically cast in the role of aggressor, while all other interactions are considered inherently non-sexual? And why is "sexual" harassment so much more horrible than non-sexual harassment?
Cousin Dave at October 21, 2013 1:22 PM
Ah, perhaps I wasn't clear. By "separate consideration" I was not referring to affirmative action or any similar activity. I was trying to say that the origins of (and therefore responses to) sexual harassment can be different from other types of harassment because of rapid historical change and a sharp numbers imbalance. I personally don't treat every negative male-female interaction as "sexual" or more horrible than other forms of harassment and did not make that argument here. Rather, I was pointing out that it still exists, despite what I have heard some asserting here and in the Bora thread, and has negative consequences. I am not any more chipper about the other types of harassment that commonly occur in academia, trust me.
Astra at October 21, 2013 2:03 PM
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. As a counter-example, I point at the fields of nursing, phlebotomy, and real estate, in which the work force is overwhelmingly female and has been for some time. And yet even in those fields, sexual harassment law specifically regards the relatively rare male employees as primary aggressors. So my claim is that addressing historical or numerical imbalances is not the intent of these laws.
Cousin Dave at October 22, 2013 8:42 AM
Leave a comment