'What Happens to #MeToo when a Feminist is Accused?' - Zoe Greenberg
This article poses several questions about intrinsic inconsistencies in the #MeToo movement, which is undoubtedly a crucial social movement in our time. Our typical understanding of sexual harassment and assault involves a male exerting his privilege and power over a woman. Yet, this understanding is reversed in this case, where Professor Avital Ronell is found guilty of harassing a former graduate student, who was a male (Nimrod Reitman)
The dynamics at play in this instance are complex, yet crucial for understanding the depth of the scandal that ensued. Both Professor Ronell and Mr. Reitman identify as part of the LGBTQI+ community and share an Israeli heritage. But Professor Ronell holds the privilege of being a powerful academic, possessing a standing that is respected at the international level. This reflects the power that she possesses over a student seeking to work under her guidance. Furthermore, Professor Ronell was backed by renowned feminists such as Judith Butler, who wrote to NYU in support of the former.
An important angle to this story becomes the response to the allegations of sexual misconduct: reference to 'international standing' and testimonies by close friends as to her conduct with students seems similar to a male defense. This involves vouching for the character as well as the respectability enjoyed by a person within an industry. It then extends to questioning the survivor's intelligence, their response as well as the delay in speaking up. The fact that this comes from established feminists seeks to de-legitimize the movement at large. There is no question as to the success of the movement in terms of lending mutual courage in order to speak up against sexual violence and misconduct. However, renowned persons who have considerable influence and following vis-a-vis the movement do not recognize their privilege and standing, when faced with such a situation. They chose to defend a colleague instead of stand in solidarity with a survivor.
Professor Ronell is returning this year to teach a course at NYU. She has since been granted a fellowship residency in Monaco and is a visiting fellow at Harvard. The allegation and her resultant suspension has not affected her employment opportunities as well as standing, as can be clearly seen.
The larger movement is now faced with serious dilemmas. Is a person defined by their misconduct and blatant disregard for the person they hurt? To what extent does privilege and positionality influence a person's culpability and the operation of due process? What is the response to an instance of misconduct on part of a self-acclaimed feminist? Whether there ought to be boundaries on relationships between academics and students?
These are uncomfortable questions that we must grapple with. And while we must hold those ignorant of the consequences of their actions responsible, we must make progress towards understanding our diversity and struggles.
This article poses several questions about intrinsic inconsistencies in the #MeToo movement, which is undoubtedly a crucial social movement in our time. Our typical understanding of sexual harassment and assault involves a male exerting his privilege and power over a woman. Yet, this understanding is reversed in this case, where Professor Avital Ronell is found guilty of harassing a former graduate student, who was a male (Nimrod Reitman)
The dynamics at play in this instance are complex, yet crucial for understanding the depth of the scandal that ensued. Both Professor Ronell and Mr. Reitman identify as part of the LGBTQI+ community and share an Israeli heritage. But Professor Ronell holds the privilege of being a powerful academic, possessing a standing that is respected at the international level. This reflects the power that she possesses over a student seeking to work under her guidance. Furthermore, Professor Ronell was backed by renowned feminists such as Judith Butler, who wrote to NYU in support of the former.
An important angle to this story becomes the response to the allegations of sexual misconduct: reference to 'international standing' and testimonies by close friends as to her conduct with students seems similar to a male defense. This involves vouching for the character as well as the respectability enjoyed by a person within an industry. It then extends to questioning the survivor's intelligence, their response as well as the delay in speaking up. The fact that this comes from established feminists seeks to de-legitimize the movement at large. There is no question as to the success of the movement in terms of lending mutual courage in order to speak up against sexual violence and misconduct. However, renowned persons who have considerable influence and following vis-a-vis the movement do not recognize their privilege and standing, when faced with such a situation. They chose to defend a colleague instead of stand in solidarity with a survivor.
Professor Ronell is returning this year to teach a course at NYU. She has since been granted a fellowship residency in Monaco and is a visiting fellow at Harvard. The allegation and her resultant suspension has not affected her employment opportunities as well as standing, as can be clearly seen.
The larger movement is now faced with serious dilemmas. Is a person defined by their misconduct and blatant disregard for the person they hurt? To what extent does privilege and positionality influence a person's culpability and the operation of due process? What is the response to an instance of misconduct on part of a self-acclaimed feminist? Whether there ought to be boundaries on relationships between academics and students?
These are uncomfortable questions that we must grapple with. And while we must hold those ignorant of the consequences of their actions responsible, we must make progress towards understanding our diversity and struggles.
No comments:
Post a Comment