Remember the Colin McGinn case? Famous philosophy professor at the University of Miami behaving extraordinarily badly? There’s a very good, very thorough review of the story online — the only problem with it is the bad editor who slapped a really stupid title on it: Is it ok for a UM professor to burden a student with sexual advances? I’m pretty sure the answer to that one is NO.
The story describes an awful situation in which a woman was sexually harassed by a man in a position of power, and the end result was that her career was wrecked, and he resigned from the university…but he continues to natter on smugly, publishing books, and retaining the support of other famous philosophers. The University of Miami does not emerge smelling of roses, either.
So on September 14, 2012, Claire did what she calls “one of the most difficult things I have done.” She accused the most famous philosopher in the department of sexual harassment. She submitted his offensive emails to Wilhemena Black, the coordinator who oversees the university’s compliance with Title IX, a landmark federal statute that prohibits schools receiving financial aid from the Department of Education from discriminating by gender or allowing sexual harassment.
Thirty-five days later, UM officials ruled there was insufficient evidence. Instead, they accused McGinn of the more tepid “failure to disclose a consensual romantic relationship.”
McGinn didn’t tarry. He resigned before he could be found officially responsible for anything, then took to the internet to proclaim his innocence. This spurred a spate of high-profile stories about the case from Slate, the New York Times, Chronicle of Higher Education, and elsewhere. Claire — whom New Times has given a pseudonym because she is an alleged victim of sexual harassment — declined their requests for comment but spoke to New Times for the first time.
“I never slept with him or had sexual contact with him. I never even kissed him. So how was his obsession consensual or romantic?” Claire says. “I came to UM to learn and grow as a philosopher, not to have my professor tell me he had an erection when he thought about me and found me a stimulating mental construct to masturbate to.”
The article includes many examples of their correspondence: he is being smarmily suggestive, she is clearly uncomfortable and struggling to keep the situation professional while not offending the Powerful Man in her discipline. I can’t imagine interpreting any of it as a “consensual romantic relationship”. The university blew it in their management of this problem.
Philosophy doesn’t come off well, either.
Colleagues also came to his defense. In a letter posted on the blog, UM philosophy Professor Edward Erwin wrote: “These two people had developed romantic feelings toward each other which deepened as time went on. Theirs was a true romance.” Asked for comment by New Times, Erwin declined, citing a “lawsuit.”
Philosophers Oliver Sacks, Esa Saarinen, Stephen Schiffer, and Steven Pinker also spoke publicly in McGinn’s defense.
It would have been nice if they’d even tried to get a woman philosopher to comment. Maybe they had a hard time finding one who wasn’t exhausted from battling her male colleagues? Also, if philosophy is supposedly one of the humanities, how come so many philosophers are oblivious to humanity?
It’s a good article, but I keep coming back to that lousy title. What kind of incompetent ninny wrote that? Did they even imagine that the answer could be “yes,” and that this was an interesting topic to debate?
Betteridge’s Law of Headlines strikes again!
@ 1 Looks deliberate too.
Just a comment on this: “Philosophy doesn’t come off well, either. Philosophers Oliver Sacks, Esa Saarinen, Stephen Schiffer, and Steven Pinker also spoke publicly in McGinn’s defense.”
This is hardly a list of prominent philosophers (indeed, half aren’t professional philosophers at all).
I think a better sense of philosophers’ attitude toward McGinn can be found at Brian Leiter’s Blog (which is the de facto notice board for academic philosophy) or at Feminist Philosophers.
Did you clear this blog entry with MN first?
Modern academic philosophy departments appear to have a severe sexism problem, but in regard to the four names mentioned, I don’t think Sacks or Pinker are considered philosophers, and I’ve never heard of the other two. I refuse to have the name of David Hume besmirched by Colin McGinn! ☻
On McGinn, I was a fan of his before this. Time to get out the ‘No Heroes’ doctrine I guess.
Read a bit of the story, and those emails/texts he sent her are so completely, obviously out of order I can not fathom why he would keep sending them. Even if you genuinely believed there was mutual attraction, and leaving aside for a moment the multitudinous other and better ways of pursuing that; after sending one, perhaps two at most, messages along those lines and having it ignored, does it not become obvious that the person in question is not interested in you? So why continue? It doesn’t make any sense.
That Pinker name looks familiar… hmmm… did not expect his name to be on this “pholosopher’s” defenders list.
They know that philosophy may be just a mash of concepts expressed with words, but people are not just philosophy concepts? Words have real effects, (‘mightier than the sword’, eh) not just philosophy abstractions. That emailing your fantasies (when embedded in a severe power structure) is more than just virtual discussion.
Philosophy has always been looked down on by “elitists”. Philosophers did NOT have to live down to the expectations of all the “elitists”.
slithey tove
Really? To me it was “I’m totally not surprised”.
@Thumper #6
The mentality is the same as that of the guy who, when I was a twelve year old walking home from school, stopped his car blocking the sidewalk, exposed himself to me and proceeded to masturbate. The thrill is all tied up in taking advantage of someone vulnerable and forcing your attentions on them. That’s why he sent inappropriate e-mails in the first place and why he continued to send them when he realised she was uncomfortable. That was the whole point.
AFAIK, Sacks is not a philosopher, he’s a doctor who’s written some marvelous books on neuroscience, and science in general. And I’m also deeply disappointed by his support for McGinn.
Giliell #8:
If you are NOT — politically progressive, a Muslim
but ARE — reasonably famous, and acting like a jerk
THEN a defense or endorsement from Pinker is not far off.
Ah, true romance, when a person in a position of authority uses their power and status to make unwanted, unreciprocated sexual advances upon someone who is dependent upon them for a successful career, and then smears that person when rebuffs don’t work and they go to one’s superiors with evidence of inappropriateness. *swoon* /sarc
So… Aren’t philosophers supposed to be better at thinking things through than this? If this is all the discipline has to offer…
Oh, btw for those thinking the guy was “honestly mistaken”, here’s an excerpt (quoted in the article) from a book he wrote himself:
Now tell me please he didn’t know exactly what he was doing.
Once again, harassment down the power curve is shown to be permissible. And it is all her fault. Never his.
In other news, water is wet.
Creepy Ol’ Colin McGinn sounds like the beginning of a limerick…
A sad and ugly story. Philosophers are generally good at arguing their views–intelligent, clever, quick witted and well-trained. And top-level figures like McGinn are often very confident, aggressive debaters; the cut and thrust of sharp reductios and quick retorts are part of how they engage with each other. It’s not hard to see how those skills and personality traits sometimes combine with success and recognition to make the thought that ‘ye might be wrong’ unthinkable, or how the status of a famous colleague might lead others to dismiss the thought too.
@ nich, I hesitate to imagine how that limerick would continue on and end considering what we know of the results of this story.
Creepy ol’ Colin McGinn, indeed.
Disappointed in Oliver Sacks. I had moderately high esteem for him. And yet another reason to be disappointed in Pinker.
1. This is rather telling about the nature of “true romance”.
2. It is rather telling about the nature of Erwin’s philosophy that he is talking about developing romantic feelings while the person actually involved is saying how she resisted advances from a man telling her how he masturbated thinking of her.
Gotta love how the actual evidence is dismissed as insufficient while the completely evidence-free narrative of “true romance” becomes incontrovertible fact. Philosophy at work, ladies and gentlemen.
Yes, how could anyone mistake this for anything but consummate professionalism? I know that I tell my underlings that I find them ‘a stimulating mental construct to masturbate to’, oh wait, I don’t! Because that is gross & wildly inappropriate. I can’t imagine what a disappointing and offputting experience this must be for Claire, I’m really sad for her and hope that she goes on to do whatever it is she wants, free from the slimy come-ons of those in positions of authority.
McGinn wrote a “philosophy of physics” book a few years ago. (Here’s a review, sadly paywalled.) I read as much of it as I could stand. It was trash. Comparable in quality to your common-or-garden crackpot.
Thumper #6
Not to a reasonable person who cares about the people around him. But to a predator? Makes perfect sense.
I wonder how many times he’s done this before and it got hushed up.
Oliver Sacks and Steven Pinker are definitely not philosophers. They would say the same themselves, I’m pretty sure – especially Pinker, who is married to someone who definitely is a philosopher.
Stephen pinker is a world famous psychologist whose work is well regarded. His most recent book is THE BETTER ANGELS OF OUR NATURE. I am surprised to hear of his defense of this man. Some of you seem to believe some negative things of Pinker. I would be interested to know what they are.
He’s a sexist male chauvinist pig, and a bbbbaaaadddd scientist who doesn’t understand the meaning of evidence in science. And that his opinion/bigotry is evidence.
hotspurphd #25
Which comments lead you to believe that?
hotspurphd #25
He has a panache for Evolutionary Psychology sexism (here’s one example, but it’s all over the place) and he had a close relationship with the billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, including appearing in his logs for the so-called “lolita express” private plane. I also remember Pinker defending the man, but can’t find any link to that right now.
“he thought about me and found me a stimulating mental construct to masturbate to.”
Well then, clearly a huge misunderstanding here! What can be wrong about a stimulating mental construct!!? Say, like God, for instance?
At least McGinn didn’t – so far as we know – mewl at her puckered love cave like a smirking hungry hamster.
@ nich #16
Creepy ol’ Colin McGinn
Consumed a whole bottle of gin
went out for a walk
and proceeded to stalk
a student, without her permission.
@ ibis #9
“The thrill of the chase”, to use a crude cliché?
@ LykeX #23
That is the particularly worrying point.
Thumper & Lyke
Well, the article says he has a child with a former student (though she didn’t take classes with him). So there’s that.
Also, many of the voices who speak for better oversight and protection are from people who worked with him…
hotspurphd
Well, that completely dishonest “Better Angels of Our Nature” would be one piece of evidence…
@25, hotspurphd
The inclusion of this random info is making me amused. Plus the capitalization.
@25, hotspurphd
Also, random off topic stuff should go into the off topic comment area, not here.
I like some of the stuff Pinker has done; but not his infatuation with Christina Hoff Sommers (a sure-fire tell if ever there was one), or his support for evolutionary psychology, and he’s quite capable of writing gob-smackingly stupid shit, for which his peers laud him.
In what way was ” Better Angels” dishonest? Always glad to amuse with such an important thing as capitalization.
LykeX @ 23:
One of my university classmates went on to pursue a PhD in philosophy of mind in the US. Once, in the course of recounting a series of anecdotes on the theme of “the crazy people you meet doing philosophy”, he told me that there was a very highly thought-of professor of philosophy in the US whose disgusting behaviour towards women was an open secret in the discipline– indeed, his behaviour was so atrocious that he was not allowed attend conferences without a chaperone from his university on hand to smooth over any ruffled feathers. And as far as his university was concerned, this was “the cost of doing business” to have an academic of his calibre on the faculty. I have no idea if this was McGinn (in fact, I can’t even remember if my friend told me his name) but when this scandal first broke, the story my friend told was the first thing to pop into my head.
In a case of
#NotAllPhilosophyProfessors, there’s a story told about the logical positivist A.J. Ayer that is recounted in his Wikipedia article:About Pinker’s latest book- I found this by Sastra on PZ’s blog
“I just finished reading his Better Angels of Our Nature: Why violence has declined. I thought it a well-reasoned and researched testament to the power of humanism and a excellent resource for rebutting the folks who think the world is worse than it has ever been and people never more wicked. One would think that evidence to the contrary would be welcome … but it’s not. My neo-pagan spiritual friends would have none of it. I hold out even less hope for the Jehovah’s Witnesses.”
Does anyone have anything specific to say about the book- negative that is?
And about my caps I’m so sorry to have done that. I don’t know how to do italics and caps is quicker for me. But in the future I will use ” “. Will that be ok.
I really do dislike the tendency for some on this site to pounce on anything, to make fun of someone, hurt or wound. But I understand the need to do this. Pity. I know it is a “rude site” and this was quite mild but sometimes it is not and sometimes hurtful and uncalled for. Do you ever wonder about the # of false positives-I.e. The number of people you attack for an inferred reason who are in fact innocent? Ever wonder about the harm you do? I can personally attest to having been innocent of what I was accused of and hurt by vicious attacks. Sometime a simple question for info is greeted by accusations of being a death cultist, Xian, immoral asshole, etc. and then it is Explained to me how good you all are at picking up on trolls. Well, as I said, there are false positives, always.