it's fine to sue one's employer and its officers; it's intolerable to sue peers and students in rape/assault/harassment (etc.) cases - See more at: http://digressionsnimpressions.typepad.com/digressionsimpressions/2014/11/how-to-reduce-retaliation.html#sthash.7gWerybd.dpuf[I]t's fine to sue one's employer and its officers; it's intolerable to sue peers and students in rape/assault/harassment (etc.) cases. So, here's a proposal (open to discussion): such a person should not expect job offers from other institutions, be invited to colloquia, special issues, handbooks and all other forms of professional honor we bestow on each other EVEN if s/he wins the ensuing court case. To be clear, this proposal falls short of professional shunning (i.e., not publishing and not citing--recall this post on the Arthur Koestler problem). This approach is also compatible with other, private acts of friendship and support (and outreach). In addition, it also takes no stance on the legal merits of individual cases.--Eric Schliesser
This proposal was rather narrowly tailored to address the deterrence and harms caused by aggressive legal strategies pursued by those peers who, after losing cases in front of university committees, go to court (recall also this post on the significance of indemnification). While my proposal generated considerable discussion, it did not generate even the semblance of a disciplinary consensus (despite Ed Kazarian's effort). Brian Leiter called it "startling and dangerous" on his blog, where he linked to one of those anonymous websites (which had plenty of criticism), and, in addition, he reproduced a misleading comment that he received by another anonymous critic. (I call it "misleading" because that critic never mentions that I am talking about contexts in which (a) one can still sue a university and its officers and (b) a university committee has already made a judgment.) But Professor Leiter was certainly not alone in thinking that I am entirely wrong in trying to discourage recourse to the courts in such cases. To be clear: my proposal was not motivated by a general aversion to lawsuits (after all, I have volunteered money to fund a student's lawsuit against a professor) nor by some nostalgic yawning after collegiality. (I am not against collegiality as such, but it seems to exist too infrequently to ask others to rely on it as a general principle.)
I was reminded of my proposal because today Dailynous reports that Peter Ludlow's case against Northwestern, various university officers, his colleague, Jennifer Lackey, and a grad student has been dismissed. I have no idea if this is the end of this case. (This case is distinct from a case involving Ludlow and an undergrad.) I am pleased by this outcome not because I have any idea about the truth of the matter, but because I worry that a full trial would have acted as a further deterrence on victims of harassment to come forward. This deterrence is not just personal (painful memories will be rehashed in public, one's character will be scrutinized intensely, etc.), but also financial. Given that few countries have generous legal aid, poorer graduate students will be at considerable disadvantage absent university support. And, unfortunately, universities do not have identical (legal) interest to the students involved.
The comments in the previous paragraph make clear that I have not been persuaded by the criticisms against my proposal. But I also have to admit that I do not have new arguments to offer. All I can report is that some male friends think it is important to keep access to the courts open as a safeguard against cases of gross miscarriages of justice in internal university proceedings. I think this access is not diminished if one only sues the university and its officers, but have not managed to convince others. So, I welcome new suggestions about what can be done to reduce the deterrent effects of these lawsuits against colleagues and students that have come forward to report cases of harassment (or worse).
As regular readers know, I am a huge fan of Ludlow's political activism and reporting. He showed courage and a fine-tuned capacity of empathy in reporting on Manning's court martial and the trials of Barrett Brown. For those of us that are concerned about government abuses, locally and abroad, as well as the growing surveillance state Ludlow has long been the must-read-person in professional philosophy. I hope he can find a way to move on after these cases and continue to find ways to use his analytical talents to generous political ends.
Comments