How a Letter Defending Avital Ronell Sparked Confusion and Condemnation

Talk of an unusual Title IX investigation surfaced this week. It swirled around a letter, apparently signed by dozens of scholars, in support of Avital Ronell, a professor of German and comparative literature at New York University.

The letter, dated May 11 and addressed to NYU’s president and provost, said Ronell was under investigation by the university’s Title IX office. The signatories, worried that she had already been damaged by the proceedings and anxious that she would lose her job, asked that she receive “a fair hearing.”

It also listed her many accomplishments in the fields of philosophy and literature and seemed to suggest that her stature in those fields and at the university should be considered in the investigation. Though the letter’s signatories said they didn’t have access to a “confidential dossier” from a Title IX investigation, they stated their “objection to any judgment against her.”

“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,” the letter said. “If she were to be terminated or relieved of her duties, the injustice would be widely recognized and opposed.”

The letter cast Ronell as a “remarkable” mentor who maintains good relationships with her students. Meanwhile, it said the person who allegedly filed a complaint against the professor “has waged this malicious campaign against her.”

On Sunday, Brian Leiter, a professor at the Law School at the University of Chicago who writes a widely read blog about philosophy, posted a link to the letter. Leiter made clear his view on the professors’ appeal for Ronell. He published the message under the heading: “Blaming the victim is apparently OK when the accused in a Title IX proceeding is a feminist literary theorist.”

In short order, the letter drew condemnation from scholars on Twitter, some of whom called it “appalling” and “embarrassing.” Others questioned the veracity of the letter and asked how Leiter got hold of it. He responded that it was forwarded to him by a philosopher who had been asked to sign it but declined.

Judith Butler, a professor of critical theory and comparative literature at the University of California at Berkeley, was the first name on the list of signatories. (Butler, whose work on gender and sexuality is broadly influential, is also president-elect of the Modern Language Association.) She said in an email to The Chronicle that the letter pulled from Leiter’s blog was an “incorrect version” and that it contained errors in the list of names. Butler declined to provide a correct version of the letter or explain how this version was incorrect.

“The Title IX investigation had concluded prior to the writing of the letter which remains confidential as do all proceedings regarding this matter,” she said in an email.

Among the more than four-dozen names appearing on this version of the letter was that of Edward J. Sullivan, an art-history professor at NYU. He told The Chronicle by email that when he had become aware his name was included, he had asked that it be removed.

“The author was totally unauthorized to add my name to the letter,” Sullivan wrote. “I have brought it to her attention. I know nothing further about this affair.”

But another scholar listed as a signatory, Joan W. Scott, a professor emerita in the School of Social Science at the Institute for Advanced Study, confirmed that she signed the letter and stood fully by her decision to do so.

“This is an example of a kind of misuse or abuse of Title IX,” Scott said of the investigation of Ronell. She said she understood the accusations against Ronell to involve neither a quid pro quo nor unwanted physical contact. Scott was the co-author of a 2016 report for the American Association of University Professors on Title IX and how it can be abused.

Scott took issue with Leiter’s characterization of the the letter’s signatories, saying his comments revealed a bias against their field. Leiter wrote in his blog that “the signatory list reads like a ‘who’s who’ of ‘theory’ (as they call bad philosophy in literature departments).”

When asked if the letter suggested that Ronell’s should be treated with dignity because of her international reputation or if the signers were trying to influence the outcome of an investigation, Scott agreed that the letter had some “inconsistencies” in it.

“Many people who signed the letter knew more than they could say,” she said. She added that it was written and signed quickly because some of the signers had a growing and urgent sense that they had to do something. “The idea was to somehow testify that this was somebody who was beyond reproach not because of her international reputation, but because there have been no other allegations of this kind against her,” Scott said.

Catharine R. Stimpson, an English professor and former dean of NYU’s Graduate School of Arts and Science, also signed the letter and stood by her decision to do so.

“I’m a believer in due process,” she said. “I believe the timing was in response to a fear of possible revocation of tenure.”

A spokesman for NYU did not confirm any details of a possible Title IX investigation of Ronell. He said that “the matter is currently under review; beyond that we cannot comment specifically.”

He added: “NYU is committed — as it carries out its responsibilities to prevent, reduce, and respond to sexual misconduct — to respecting the rights and dignity of all involved and to ensuring the fairness of the process.”

He said he could not comment on the letter itself. Ronell did not respond to a request for comment.

Nell Gluckman writes about faculty issues and other topics in higher education. You can follow her on Twitter @nellgluckman, or email her at nell.gluckman@chronicle.com.