<p>Maybe that is how they learn to be less naive. And I find it hard to believe that most smart women over 18 are THAT naive. For most it’s not their first rodeo.</p>
<p>The only way it would be acceptable to me that this prof had access to female adolescents/very young adults is if they had been warned that he was a predator. And of course, no school would admit this. The power differential in these situations is just awful.</p>
<p>Are you labeling Bloom a “predator” based on what Wolf wrote or JHS’ post?</p>
<p>Yes. It sounds like he was constantly hitting on young women who were under his care as a prof. I’m not clear when Yale finally said that was not officially ok, but it doesn’t sound like anything is being enforced anyway and women are afraid to report. This is not like hanging out in a bar and having some guy make an advance.</p>
<p>Er… I asked you an either/or question. Which is it? JHS’ post or the Wolf account?</p>
<p>(“Yes” leaves me quite confused. Perhaps ironically so.)</p>
<p>They were both saying he was hitting on young women continually. The fact that he may have backed off when rebuffed, that would excuse an encounter in a bar, but not between prof and student. And it doesn’t excuse a college’s non response over years and years and the fear of women to report because their academic futures are in the hands of these people. I’m a psychologist. The worst betrayal of a trusting relationship like that is sexual. I can’t imagine that anyone would find this acceptable for their daughters.</p>
<p>I agree that it is not ok IMO, for college profs, or bosses or anyone who has authority over someone else to make sexual advances, however much they think the advances might be welcomed.</p>
<p>Even if they are NOT making advances, a smart guy would not put himself in the position where there are not witnesses that everything is on the up & up.</p>
<p>I have the impression that the enforced policy at Yale in 1983, was less than clear,especially if this guy was trying with every female that smiled at him and while no one took him up on it, it doesn’t sound like any admonishment (if it was dispensed), was noted.</p>
<p>Some women might have been afraid to report improprities, but take Ms Wolf. I read she was actually auditing the class, so she wouldn’t be receiving a grade. She contacted him afterwards by her own admission, to ask him to read some of her poetry. Admittedly, he was the big frog in her department, but why stay in contact with someone who traumatized you anymore than absolutely necessary? If she was afraid of him, why ask him for a recommendation?</p>
<p>She graduated from Yale in 1984. So this happened when she was either a senior or jr in college. You would have to be particularly naive/manipulative to get drunk with a known lecherous professor in your home alone. What sort of evening had she envisioned?
Did she perhaps not report it because she knew she messed up?</p>
<p>She makes a big deal in other writing about how empowered women are. Why in this case, is she trying to play the cowed victim?</p>
<p>[Naomi</a> Wolf Makes Much Ado About Nuzzling At Yale | The New York Observer](<a href=“http://www.observer.com/2004/03/naomi-wolf-makes-much-ado-about-nuzzling-at-yale/]Naomi”>Naomi Wolf Makes Much Ado About Nuzzling At Yale | Observer)</p>
<p>I would be shocked if my son experienced treatment like this in college. There is a power issue here that makes me very concerned. I repeat, if anyone posting here thinks it would be fine for a prof to be hitting on his/her daughter, okay. That’s your opinion. I don’t share it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wouldn’t think it was “fine.” However, if I learned that my D had invited said professor to her apartment for wine and dinner alone, I would literally wonder if she had lost her mind.</p>
<p>I thought they had dinner with other people who then left so she could discuss her work with this prof who was supposedly doing a course with her at the recommendation of another prof. How is this an invitation to sexual involvement?</p>
<p>If my daughter invited a professor to her home for a candlelit dinner, and the professor hit on her – I’d say, “what did you expect?” </p>
<p>I’ve raised my daughter to be smart & savvy when it comes to dealing with males. She was smart enough to protect herself at age 14. (I’d note that in my personal experience, 14 year old boys do their share of groping – a concept I shared with my daughter back when she was in middle school). </p>
<p>It doesn’t matter what the college policy is. I’m pretty sure that my kid’s colleges also had firm policies against underage drinking & marijuana use, but I’m equally sure that those things go on all the time as well. Politicians aren’t supposed to cheat on their wives and Secret Service agents aren’t supposed to consort with prostitutes, either. In real life, these rules are pretty uniformly interpreted as “don’t get caught.” </p>
<p>You may be a psychologist but I’m a lawyer, and I know darn well that you can’t change human behavior by passing laws or creating policies. Those laws and policies end up serving the function of protecting the institutions from financial liability far more than than changing behavior. There can be changes do to long-term, concerted efforts and cultural change. In my lifetime I have see big changes in attitudes toward cigarette smoking and open homosexuality… but the heterosexual sex, underage drinking & pot-smoking still is going on as strong as ever. </p>
<p>I would expect my daughter to complain if a professor or an employer was seriously hitting on her in a classroom context or in the workplace. (I also expect her to know the difference between a joke or faux pas and harassment). </p>
<p>I would also expect my daughter to know damn well that if she chose to socialize with those individuals privately, outside of school/workplace – then she would be setting the tone and changing the context. If she wants to “have lunch” with a coworker or instructor, then she could do it at a public, well-lit cafe – dinner one-on-one in her own home has different connotations. </p>
<p>I agree with EK – I don’t see how playing the role of cowed victim could be in any way empowering.</p>
<p>
The shared bottle of sherry would not be conducive to a working session.</p>
<p>Nor would be any particularly good reason for the co-occupants of the same house to leave the premises.</p>
<p>Bloom aside and how one raised their daughters to be more savvy aside . . .</p>
<p>The jumping off point for Wolf’s article was a persistent effort on the part of Yale to enlist Wolf as a donor, fundraiser, promoter, front-person and essentially an endorser of Yale. They were looking for a return on their educational investment. So . . . why so interested in her? Agree or disagree with her positions, she is a high profile writer about women’s issues and modern feminism. Do you suppose that Yale thought they would get something out of it in terms of improved image? They were asking for an endorsement and for her to lend vocal, public support to the university would be taken as such. In my reading it seemed like she wanted to revisit their policies before providing such support. She did not sound to me like she wanted to litigate in the press or imply harassment. She quite purposefully used the words “sexual encroachment” to imply that there was a breach of trust and appropriate roles without in this case rising to a reportable crime or institutional infraction. </p>
<p>It seems to me legitimate that she should not want to be a poster-child, representative feminist if she does not feel comfortable with the responsiveness and openness of the institution.</p>
<p>Well, that’s what I’m trying to say, saintfan. It sounds like the school stone walled for month after month before she said something in public and to now accuse her of wrongdoing for inviting a prof to dinner, I do not get. At every college I’ve attended I’ve had close relations with profs and it would never have occurred to me that I couldn’t safely be somewhere alone with one, male or female.</p>
<p>Here’s what happened, in her words:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>HAD audited, she’s referring to a previous course</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It seems like the dinner with wine was HIS idea…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ugh, I hate even quoting this stuff. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is she deeply troubled? After that event, with a revered professor who she is supposed to be having an independent study with, I would think so. But really he is really the deeply troubled one and to my mind it does cast into doubt the legitimacy of his literary criticism. How does he treat female students? How does he think of females in general? How can we trust what he thinks about female authors?</p>
<p>Why do you assume that Wolf’s uncorroberated account is accurate?</p>
<p>It sounds accurate to me and I’m a psychologist, but what if it isn’t? Do you theoretically believe it would be ok for a prof to do this to a student and a University to act as this writer describes? Because I don’t.</p>
<p>I’ve said what I think about the circumstances. I think that young women, my daughter included, need to take responsibility for their own actions and the signals they send. I know my daughter agrees with me because of a discussion over an incident involving a frat party that took place when she was a first year student. (She thought the frat boys were totally out of line and the woman involved was a total idiot to put herself in such a position).</p>
<p>The lawyer in me says that Wolf’s account is highly suspect, given the multiple contradictory statements reported in the article linked in post #27. One good clue that a person is lying is when they can’t manage to keep their story straight. The fact that she deliberately omitted information about how drunk she was at the time tends to undermine her credibility; the fact that, upon questioning, she admitted to having been quite drunk tends to undermine her ability to perceive and recall events with a great deal of accuracy.</p>
<p>Do good writers see and feel things differently than the rest of us?</p>
<p>Memory is a conundrum. Traumatic memory is even more fraught. That being said, I still think profs and other people in power need to uphold some boundaries. They are the adults. I have no grounds for a ruling on this particular situation, but in general, people in power (in my opinion) need to be the keepers of boundaries.</p>