To my comrades at the Alternative Orange,

To my comrades at the Alternative Orange,

I am writing to you, an organization that has time and again demonstrated its commitment and solidarity in the collective struggle to end sexism in particular, and all forms of social oppression and economic exploitation in general, to request that you publish my letter to Vice President of Human Resources Joan Carpenter lodging my formal grievance against Professor Stephen Dobyns for sexual harassment, my “Open Letter to the Syracuse University Community on Institutionally-Shielded Sexual Harassment," and this letter which I am writing to you now that will provide a reading of some of the positions that have surfaced on this issue in the last two weeks. I ask you to publish these documents because I firmly believe that sexual harassment is not simply a “personal” issue: rather, it is a social issue that is indicative of a much broader system of institutionalized harassment and subordination of women and, as such, cannot simply be understood in the “personalizing” terms of individual experience. In order to address sexual harassment as a social issue it must be opened up for public discussion. To engage in a public discussion of sexual harassment it is necessary to go beyond bringing personal experience (that either legitimates or delegitimates the existence of sexual harass as a social issue it must be opened up for public discussion. To engage in a public discussion of sexual harassment it is necessary to go beyond bringing personal experience (that either legitimates or delegitimates the existence of sexual harassment) into the public arena without situating this personal experience within a larger system. Public discussion means opening up the space to analyze, explain and critique (i.e., to reveal and make public) the social conditions which enable the perpetuation and maintenance of the system of sexism. Such social knowledge is necessary in order to enable people to intervene in these conditions and ultimately to transform them so as to abolish the system of sexism.

This progressive public space is urgently necessary in light of the fact that the mainstream local newspapers—The Daily Orange, The Post-Standard, and The Herald-Journal—have refused to publish my public statements in full while they have published a statement by Professor Dobyns, and, moreover, have published articles on this case which overwhelmingly side with those working to “individualize” specific instances of sexual harassment and prevent people from understanding the larger system of sexism that works to legitimate the continued existence of sexual harassment. In practice this demonstrates that in the name of occupying a “neutral” position on “the facts” and advocating for “freedom” of the “press” these newspapers have in fact supported a political position which trivializes and silences opposition to sexual harassment: In this letter I will address a few of the “public” responses that are representative of political positions that work to silence what is a much needed social opposition to sexual harassment in particular, and sexism in general.

In her letter to The Post-Standard (Wed., 4/12/95: A-11), Pam Greenberg claims that “the Marxist Collective has been virtually waiting for an issue such as this one to galvanize support for their larger aims” which she takes to mean “attack[ing] the Creative Writing Program and creative writers as a whole." Echoing the statements of Professor Dobyns that “Cotter is being used as a pawn and as a way of attacking the creative writing program” (The Daily Orange, 4/7/95: 3), Greenberg reasserts a McCarthyist logic which rejects with hostility, in the most reactionary and anti-intellectual manner, a Marxist analysis of the conditions which enable the perpetuation of sexual harassment. Further, she makes use of this McCarthyist logic (i.e., that the Communists have come to “take over” Creative Writing and “get rid of' creative writers) in order to sidestep and justify the sexist actions of Professor Dobyns in particular, and the continued existence of sexual harassment in general.

Informed by a broader trend within the Creative Writing Program in which students are discouraged from pursuing an understanding of progressive social theory and practice, Greenberg's logic is anti-intellectual and reactionary because it rejects progressive social opposition to sexism and affirms the status quo with out explanation. Like those professors who may quote social-theorists in class and tell students not to bother pursuing the study of intellectual or political issues because they will “warp your mind” and “damage” creativity, Greenberg's position pretends to have rejected Marxism from a position of knowing (i.e., as a “recovering Marxist"). However, she provides no explanation of what Marxism is, what the “problem” is with its analysis of sexism and the institutional and ideological conditions that have enabled sexual harassment to exist as a long term pattern, or what “reason” Marxist students would have to “get rid of' Creative Writing. Echoing Professor Dobyns who endorses the position that “the whole issue of sexual harassment has become a morass of uncertainty” (The Daily Orange, 4/7/95: 1), the position she advances is not concerned with educating people so that they can make an informed decision on what perspective they will hold in their words and actions on the issue of sexual harassment. She is instead concerned with POLICING students from pursuing the knowledge necessary to understand one instance of sexual harassment as part of a larger system of sexism. Further, it equates this policing with “good writing” by asserting (without arguing) that “it is a demonstratable fact that political correctness makes for bland and uninteresting writ ing” (The Post-Standard, Wed. 4/12/95: A-11). In short, in the name of “free expression” and against the “repressiveness” of “political correctness," Greenberg in fact endorses the policing of what people can and cannot say in their writing by equating her own political position with the so called “neutral” term “good writing.

Greenberg purports to be interested merely in learning “the craft of writing” and “not propagating a narrow social agenda." Yet, by assuming that writing can be separated from political concerns and further, calling for the continued “autonomy” of creative writing from other social practices she is indeed advancing a narrow social agenda: that “creativity," “good writing," and “freedom," are equivalent to the unregulated exercise of personal pleasure. Greenberg's position promotes what has emerged in contemporary culture as a culture of consumption in which it is understood to be “creative” to consume, and any mode of consumption (including sexual consumption) is understood to be an expression of artistic creativity on the part of an “individual” who remains autonomous from social relations. In promoting a culture of consumption as the basis of “good writing," Greenberg trivializes the whole history of politically concerned writers who have refused to mobilize “creativity” in the service of a petit-bourgeois self-interestedness and instead understand it as a social practice which enables the critique of existing social arrangements and opens up the space for the collective production of a truly democratic society free from economic exploitation and social oppression.

Writing that mobilizes creativity as a social practice which challenges existing social arrangements is often complicated because it is challenging to the way that we are often used to thinking. It therefore requires effort, discipline, and commitment to understand and engage with. It is this discipline and commitment that Greenberg rejects when she argues that “political correctness” makes for bland and uninteresting writing. In a culture of consumption and sensationalism, political principles are “bland” because they require thinking without “shocking” effects that appeal only to “immediate senses." For Greenberg, to overcome “blandness” it is necessary to mix include “sensationalism not sustained social inquiry” into writing. In short, Greenberg promotes a petit-bourgeois notion of “freedom” in which she cannot be bothered to engage in the “uninteresting task” of social emancipation because it infringes on her “individual” ability to exercise her own “desires” at the expense of those who have a relatively smaller degree of power and control over the conditions under which they live.

The foundation for the silencing of progressive social opposition to sexism in particular and other forms of social oppression and economic exploitation in general is further advanced in the position represented by Christine Woodhouse in her letter to the Daily Orange (Thurs. 4/13/95: 4). When Woodhouse states that “[Jennifer Cotter] might want to take a trip down to Marshal Street...and see how many comments are made about her breasts” and further that this kind of behavior “takes place all the time and is not worth...media attention," she indicates that sexism is pervasive and precisely BECAUSE it is pervasive we should do nothing to challenge it. In short, the best way to deal with the widespread occurrence of sexual harassment is for women to shut up and “get over it." Any attempt to address this widespread problem publicly and openly in order to raise our under standing of the conditions which enable the perpetuation of sexual harassment to continue is seen by Woodhouse and those who agree with her as merely “a childish attempt to get some attention."

By indicating that sexual harassment is not important enough to he dignified with a public response, Woodhouse evidently assumes that sexism is simply a product of the “bad attitudes” and “old habits” of corrupt individuals that will go away if we choose to ignore it. Yet in endorsing this understanding of sexism she cannot account for the oppression and exploitation of women on a global scale. She cannot account for the continued marginalization, harassment and oppression of women in the workplace and permeating into all aspects of social living. She further assumes that it is actually those fighting against sexism publicly (i.e., on a “feminist soap box") that “provoke” the continued existence of sexual harassment. In short, Woodhouse reiterates the same old sexist logic that “she asked for it” and now “she should get used to it." This position however, works to occlude the fact that it is precisely making any instance of sexual harassment an issue of public concern that helps open up a space for others to come forward and be taken seriously. In this particular case, making sexual harassment public has resulted in several students coming forward to the university to establish this as a pattern on the part of Professor Dobyns.

By erasing the history of feminist struggle Woodhouse, a graduating senior, and others dismissing the seriousness of any instance of sexual harassment, demonstrate an anti-intellectual rejection (whether conscious on their part or not) of progressive social knowledge of the politics of gender and the history of sexism. In doing so, this argument reveals the failures of a Syracuse University under graduate education in providing for all of its students the knowledges necessary in fighting sexism and other forms of social injustice. As a result, this reveals the failures of Syracuse University in living up to its expressed “basic commitment to preventing sexual harassment through education” (The Faculty Manual, 37). If the University is committed to the prevention of sexual harassment through education, it is not enough to organize seminars during freshman, graduate student, staff, or faculty orientations, nor is it enough to have “ad hoc” workshops outside of classes whenever a crisis occurs. Knowledges which can explain the systematicity of sexism and the conditions which make its continued existence possible must be a fundamental part of educating people on how to fight sexual harassment. Further, this must include the knowledges from those positions that argue that “education” or the reformation of the University as an end in itself is not enough to end sexism. Sexism is not merely a system of ideas that we must cast off to “adjust” to our already democratic society, it is part of a system of social, political, and economic relations which are themselves undemocratic and, as such, must be transformed.

Sexual harassment when it occurs is not simply a “fluke” but is a manifestation of a system of global oppression and exploitation. The economic system of capitalism, in order to maintain the reproduction and accumulation of capital, fundamentally relies upon and works to reproduce a division of labor and property relations in which the vast majority of the people on the planet (those who are separated from ownership and control of the means of production and, as a result, have only their labor-power to sell in order to survive) are subject to determination and control by those who privately own the means of production. In order to naturalize and justify this exploitation, divide the working class from effectively fighting this exploitation, and produce new specialized markets for consumption capital relies upon the production and reproduction of historically produced differences such as “gender," “race," and “sexuality." In short, these historically produced differences are the result of exploitation and serve in its ideological legitimation. In this context, sexual harassment can be understood as a concentration of practices meant to reinforce, exacerbate, and intensify gender differences thus contributing to the justification of the economic exploitation of women and maintaining a politically divided labor force that is, as a result, prevented from collectively fighting the entire system of social oppression and exploitation. With this in mind, in an historical moment in which there is a strong right-wing backlash against all socially oppressed and economically exploited groups in Congress, what enables Professor Dobyns and others to engage in acts of sexual harassment, aggression, and intimidation is not drunkenness or any other form of substance abuse. Instead, it is the backlash against feminism and as a result the backlash against women that allows this kind of behavior to continue and to be seen as legitimate.

Woodhouse and others seem to want to analyze concrete instances of sexual harassment according to a “case by case” method in which only the “worst case scenario” can be taken seriously (and even this is contingent upon whether or not the “best case scenarios are covered up so as not to make all cases look “ridiculous"). Yet, as sexism is systemic and global it can only be addressed effectively if all cases of sexual harassment are vehemently opposed. This is not to say that one concrete instance of sexual harassment is tantamount to this global pattern of harassment, oppression, and exploitation of women, but that it is a symptom of this global pattern and as a symptom can only be fully understood in terms of this larger system.

This above all means that opposition to sexual harassment must be approached with solidarity not selectivity. This leads me to the question: Where have Syracuse University feminists been on this issue? When I was an undergraduate in the Syracuse University Women's Studies Program I was taught by WS Faculty that “your silence will not protect you” and that “ssilence = complicity." These statements were held up by WS Faculty as the Foundation of feminist principles.If Women's Studies is to live up to its expressed commitment to feminism and the struggle to emancipate women then it must take a public stand against this back lash whenever it occurs. That Women's Studies has remained appallingly silent during recent events necessarily leads me to the conclusion that Women's Studies Faculty and Teaching Assistants evidently think that it is alright for a female student who has a different feminist view from their own to be sexually harassed. As a Marxist-Feminist however, I must argue that if sexual harassment is to be opposed in principle, then the sexual harassment of all women must be opposed, regardless of their ideas.

A few days ago a reporter, perhaps motivated out of a “Cold War suspicion," asked me why a Marxist Collective would have such an interest in this case of sexual harassment. To this I responded: “As Marxists they have an expressed and practical commitment to ending sexism and all forms of social oppression connected finally to economic exploitation. With this in mind, they have every reason to express their solidarity by taking a public stand against sexual harassment when ever it occurs. Further, I am indebted to them for doing so in light of the fact that other organizations have remained silent on this issue and refused to take a public stand." I hope that this series of texts that I offer to you for publication will help extend the space for public discussion that the Marxist Collective and the Alternative Orange have worked so diligently and persistently to secure.

In solidarity,


Jennifer Cotter
Graduate Student
Department of English
Syracuse University