Invisible Adjunct

I feel dirty to admit it, even, but I have to say that Paglia's comments on the Wolf-Bloom thing actually struck a chord with me. And I think Bloom is a loathsome turd in terms of the way he operates in the public sphere, and I'm fully inclined to credit that the outer turd could well be hiding an inner turd who puts his hands between students' legs, just because of that prior bias. Actually, I'm none too fond of Wolf, either, in those terms. I guess I'm thinking, "Why raise it now?"

It's not as if she's uncovering the secret fact that harassment occurs in universities. We have travelled that road a wee bit in the last twenty years. It's not as if we need one more person to explore the complex legacy that an act of unwanted intimate contact can leave: that road too is explored. Not done, not exhausted, but unless Naomi Wolf breaks with a lifetime of overly simplistic writing, I doubt she's about to break new ground on that score.

It's worth pursuing such a complaint in the name of justice when justice is still a reasonable possibility, but that's long since past here. If Naomi Wolf has survived, and by the external face of it, flourished all these years since, I think we're entitled to wonder: just how urgent is the need to tell us all about this? What exactly was the harm she suffered? In a way, I feel like it trivializes the circumstances of women for whom serious incidents of harassment have been actually seriously crippling in psychological terms, to have Naomi Wolf basically saying, "Well, this will make a good story, won't it?" It makes it that much harder to get people to understand just how serious these actions can be in some cases--and that much harder to explore the really, truly complicated human ground of intimacies that are not quite sought and yet not quite forced, of the dance of power and aspiration and desire and loneliness and gender and the fact that some men do things because they can and some women have had to deal with that.

"It makes it that much harder to get people to understand just how serious these actions can be in some cases--and that much harder to explore the really, truly complicated human ground of intimacies that are not quite sought and yet not quite forced, of the dance of power and aspiration and desire and loneliness and gender and the fact that some men do things because they can and some women have had to deal with that."

The problem, I think, is that it's just very hard to get people to understand this. I suspect it can only be done through personal accounts, which will almost inevitably be cast in terms of the narrative of victimology -- and with Naomi Wolf as the the vicim, well...

Though I think Paglia is out of line (e.g., the quotes cited in the Sydney Morning Herald piece), my response was similar to yours in that I wondered what was the point of raising this twenty years after the fact (or after the alleged incident). It will probably provoke a reaction against such charges, and will only serve, as you put it, to trivialize the issue.

A lot of people have an intense dislike for Naomi Wolf. I don't share this animosity, but I can certainly understand it (overly simplistic writing, yes, but she writes for a popular audience and she does reach a lot of women outside feminist academic circles).

What Tim said. I had thought about posting this story for the weekend over at Cliopatria, but I've done too much of the posting this week anyway and now IA's got the conversation going. If Wolf tells a story about 9 or 10 other women at Yale as we're promised, however, it may be that this can be something more than an ego-stroke for herself. From the little that we know, however, it does seem to me that the still breaking scandal at the University of Colorado is more likely to be important. Important because it is more current and because of suggestions that this kind of thing is fairly common in collegiate sports recruitment.

Hee hee. So help me, the Matt Richardson story cracks me up.

I think Wolf is a tiresome bore who generally insults the intelligence of women (perhaps this a peculiar academic reaction?). But if Bloom is a boor, then out the S-of-a-B.

"And put the Wolf far hence, that's foe to men...."

Just had to say that. I have no opinion on the actual issues.

It's hard to know if anything Donadio says is actually true if she's still repeating the "earth tones" lie about Wolf and Gore.

I think Wolf is only repeating a standard case or argumentation and making something afresh of what it is a probability and not a hidden and not reported problem, harrassment in universities. I think Camille Paglia is right; she is now pointing to a much more real problem, how a new generation of female social climbers manipulates the public opinion in order to make publicity for themselves. Paglia´s hiphotesis about wolf´s regression sounds very true. I think Wolf is a now middle aged woman reminding another time her teen period with the twofold objective of making good cash and reviving this blooming days.

See story in this week's Chronicle. It is worth a bogus registration to read:

Then the "encroachment" occurred. "The next thing I knew, his heavy, boneless hand was hot on my thigh [...]

Read the article in New York magazine. There is a reason to bring the incident up now, 20 years later. She is not out for money or fame, you cynics got it wrong. It is a very brave piece. Bravo!

Yale University's sexual harassment policy dictates a two-year statute of limitations on claims, and as such, Bloom will not face an investigation or disciplinary action.

Bloom, however, is reportedly considering filing a defamation of character lawsuit against Wolf.

Wolf said that she didn't report the charges earlier because she was a student on financial aid and Bloom was a towering figure of literature, and thus felt intimidated.

According to the article, Bloom dined with Wolf at her apartment, under the guise of critiquing her poetry manuscripts. She said rather than focusing on the poetry, she felt his hand slowly move up her thigh, which caused her to vomit.

As Bloom left, she said, he called her a "deeply troubled girl."

Dan Bloom writes:Read the article in New York magazine.

Here's your link ["Sex and Silence at Yale"].

What Wolf says about Yale's stonewalling rings true, but I get the feeling there's an awful lot unsaid in the Wolf-Bloom encounter. There was always an element of trading discipleship (which, for some faculty, probably included sexual favors) for intellectual endorsement. It is probably harder to advance--esp. as a woman (though there are now lots of gay male faculty)--if one remains strictly professional in all relationships.

Naomi Wolf had a hell of a lot of hair.

“You have the aura of election upon you."

Mad props to H.B. for having constructed a life in which that's not nearly the wackiest thing he's said.

Then he went to the table, took the rest of his sherry, corked the bottle, and left.

This detail had better cost him some social standing at Yale, otherwise there really is no hope.

"She said rather than focusing on the poetry, she felt his hand slowly move up her thigh, which caused her to vomit."

I find such an extreme reaction to be improbable. I understand disgust, nervousness, and fear, but not in such great quantities as to cause her to /vomit/. While I suppose it is possible, it makes me doubt her account.

If the guy's 50, which is a little gross to most 20 year olds, and you've had a lot to drink and are incredibly nervous about the meeting in the first place, I can see vomiting.

I was inclined to be anti-Wolf, but after reading the story, I think it was one worth telling. It seems to have been handled so badly by Yale officials, too.

But why was she THAT upset? She goes on for five pages but never explains the basis of her outrage. She admits it wasn't physical revulsion because she was sexually active. She implies it was because she was his student and he tried to take advantage of the situation, but I reject that, too. What really shattered her when he touched her thigh was the realization that he was totally uninterested in her poetry---that her literary ability, such as it was, wasn't worth one minute of his time and the ONLY reason he accepted her as a student was because he wanted to have sex with her. She couldn't handle the rejection, so to speak, and still can't. Bloom, on the other hand, seems to have accepted his rejection with less anxiety.

But why was she THAT upset?

On a scale of 1 to 10 (feel free to extend to two decimal places), precisely how upset should she have been, our good arbiter of emotional appropriateness? How should she have manifested that upset and what should her accompanying thoughts have been?

What really shattered her when he touched her thigh was the realization that he was totally uninterested in her poetry

You can't know this. You can only guess, and if you're guessing, you can't say "really."

Bloom, on the other hand, seems to have accepted his rejection with less anxiety.

Bloom, not being--in this case--subject to undue influence, could well avoid anxiety. I'm sure you knew that.

I am sure this comment will get heat -- but really: her apartment? candles? wine?

She makes it sound as though he forced her into inviting him over, as though she couldn't have met with him any other way. That's the part that doesn't ring true to me.

Bloom probably shouldn't have done it -- but can we talk about mixed signals? If you're in a situation where there is room for misinterpretation, and the 'encroachment' isn't really all that terrible (it was hardly assault), surely the thing to do would be to say "sorry, you've got the wrong idea," and move on.

Wolf's own story doesn't seem at all in the same league as the other (serious) incidents she goes on to report. As a piece of reportage, she probably would have done better to leave her own story out; as an attention-getter, I suppose she's doing just fine by leaving it in.

I don't know about the rest of you folks, but whenever I used to make a move on a woman (my wife insists that such days be history) it was on someone in my age frame and I didn't first put my hand on her inner thigh. If things were as Wolf tells them, Bloom's move was a gross violation of any student-teacher relationship.

Timothy writes:

"If Naomi Wolf has survived, and by the external face of it, flourished all these years since, I think we're entitled to wonder: just how urgent is the need to tell us all about this? What exactly was the harm she suffered? In a way, I feel like it trivializes the circumstances of women for whom serious incidents of harassment have been actually seriously crippling in psychological terms"

How about crippling in educational terms? I thought the message that not all damage done by this sort of thing is to individual female psyches (but also to institutions, and their mission) was the whole point of the article.

Go Naomi!! Gutsy 'alumna'-hood.

How long before we hear of Bloom's retirement, accompanied by a several sighs of relief muffled by testimonials and crap about his "long and illustrious career"?

My money is on July.

Unlike Burke, I don’t doubt that Wolfe was traumatized by her encounter with Bloom. As well, her trauma seems to have been exacerbated by her unwillingness to confront or discuss the issue at the time. However, there does seem to be a rather deep seated quest for recognition at work here, both in her initial relation to Bloom and her in more recent approach to Yale. It’s clear that much of the story is not given to us and we have to reconstruct it as best we can. It has been suggested (#18) that Bloom was only interested in her for sex and not her poetry. I find this unconvincing. I think it more likely that he took her on as a favor to her advisor. What is clear, to me, is that she sought to have a deeply meaningful encounter with Bloom about her poetry. I would suggest she had two conflated desires for the course: to work with Bloom on her poetry and to engage with him personally. Without seeing the poems it is difficult to say whether her desire was reasonable. She thought that the dinner and drinking was an extension of the classroom and Bloom appears to have taken it for a social situation and hit on her. (The tabloid side of me wonders if he wouldn’t have had more luck if he’d praised her poems first.) From his point of view I can well imagine a situation in which he saw a student of moderate gifts pursuing him all semester in an attempt to obtain personal contact. He mistook that desire for a sexual interest and made a pass. Given that Yale did not proscribe such behavior until 1996, we can say perhaps that he’s a cad, but I would suggest it only appeared as harassment given the deep emotional significance she appears to have invested in the situation. He made a pass at her. She refused. He stopped.

I must confess that if I were at Yale and on the receiving end of her queries, I too would be very cautious about responding to her. She seems to feel that because the development office duns her for money the university is obligated to respond to her in a way which satisfies her but which she cannot articulate: “I explained that in a transparent, accountable institution, it is Yale’s job to have crafted a standard response to complaints of this kind, not mine.”
She again appears to want two things which she conflates: She wants the university to assure her that it has a fair and open harassment policy and she wants the university to acknowledge Bloom’s alleged bad behaviour towards her. However, because she started the conversation with her allegations the university is understandably hesitant to respond. It cannot acknowledge her complaints without a hearing and it lacks the mechanisms to hold one. Thus all it can do in responding to her is to place itself in an actionable position in respect to either her or Bloom. It is unfortunate that her friends talked her out of doing anything at the time. It is even more unfortunate that the lesson she appears to have drawn from this is not to encourage students to speak out but rather to litigate.

She seems to feel that because the development office duns her for money the university is obligated to respond to her in a way which satisfies her but which she cannot articulate.

Don't offices of alumni relations strive to keep the college experience fresh in the minds of aging graduates? Perhaps it backfired here.

A flip comment, I know, but without the hounding by the development office, this article would have never appeared. It sounds like Yale wasn't asking her just to make an annual donation but to represent the university in some prominent role. I think, given that the school was calling on her to do them a favor, she had ever right to demand an answer about an issue that mattered to her. If Yale's administration felt uncomfortable discussing their harassment policy, then they should have told their development office to back off.

Character assassination when it's deserved...

I think Wolfe makes a valid point. Let's not
forget what a complete and utter cancer Harold
Bloom has been on "the humanities" for the last thirty years.

He's a small-minded boor of a man with no
discipline. He simply believes that William
Shakespeare was more important than Christ, Caesar and Plato put together.

Why modern academia puts up with his flatulent
sewage of digress is a mystery to me.

When you realize that every future generation
will read much less Shakespeare than the previous
one, it gladdens my heart in terms of my hatred
for Bloom.

Have you seen pictures of Harold Bloom? If he
even came near me, I'd vomit as well, wine or not.

Yes, let's praise the man who wrote "Shake-
speare, the Invention of the Human" or "Stories
and Poems for Extremely Intelligent Children of
All Ages". Self-indulgent drivel.

The only thing Wolfe got wrong in her piece was
that Bloom is important.

Just like the last Civil War veteran dying, when
Harold Bloom dies (which hopefully will be soon...
I can't stand another book like "Genius"), an era will have died with it.

The end of self-indulgent academia.

Brian Wallace