The Fight Over Feminism on Campus


Review of Unwanted Advances: Sexual Paranoia Comes to Campus by Laura Kipnis (HarperCollins, April 4, 2017)

When Northwestern University professor Laura Kipnis wrote an irreverent essay for the Chronicle of Higher Education in 2015 about regulations on campus, and discussed a sexual assault case, it sparked discussion, praise, outrage, protest (literal mattress-waving protest), clarifications, and several Title IX complaints against her for retaliation against a Title IX complainant.

These responses to a controversial essay are to be expected and encouraged, with the exception of the last item: formal university complaints demanding punishment of professors who express their opinions on campus events are a threat to academic freedom, and Kipnis’ follow-up essay, “My Title IX Inquisition,” detailed her disturbing experience with this particularly repressive form of campus bureaucracy.

Now Kipnis has written a book about her experience, Unwanted Advances: Sexual Paranoia Comes to Campus, and about the case of former philosophy professor Peter Ludlow that sparked her essay. But the bigger issue for Kipnis in her book is an attack on the fate of feminism. On the cover of Kipnis’ book is her own pull quote: “If this is feminism, it’s feminism hijacked by melodrama.”

But actually it’s Kipnis’ book that gets hijacked by melodrama, by virtue of the story she gets tossed into and then her choice to view all feminism on campus through the lens of this experience. Kipnis accuses people of “casting real people in fictive roles”(84) But Kipnis is just casting Ludlow in a different fictive role, one at least as implausible.

Kipnis reveals evidence that undermines the case against Ludlow. But the defense Kipnis makes of Ludlow is hard to swallow. She praises his “misplaced egalitarianism” to explain why he bought drinks for an underage undergraduate, kissed her, persuaded her to come back to his apartment, and then slept in the same bed with her. Kipnis tells us “he thinks treating women as equals temporarily brackets the issue.”(64)

Let’s be honest here. Ludlow’s an old man with a penchant for young female students, not a paragon of feminism guilty only of believing too much in equality.

When reporting the student’s claim that Ludlow said older woman become “mentally rigid,” Kipnis doubts Ludlow is telling the truth in his denial: “he looked abashed and said he’d recently been dating an ‘age-appropriate’ woman who barely wanted to leave the house. His social world had shrunk to the size of a postage stamp.”(86) Poor Ludlow, with his stamp-sized social world, forced by the flaws of old women to go drinking and sleeping with young students.

Even here — where Kipnis realizes that Ludlow was probably lying — she manages to convey the sympathy of the unfortunate man who tries to date women his own age, only to realize that they are too dull for a man of his greatness.

I don’t know what the truth is about what happened (and Kipnis raises many valid doubts); but I do know that Kipnis is not necessarily a reliable judge in pursuit of a feminist target.

It’s also notable that Ludlow was never actually seriously punished by Northwestern. He received a slap-on-the-wrist for being found responsible in the initial complaint, and then quit his job before there was a ruling in the second complaint.

Kipnis is so desperate to attack her feminist enemies that she ignores the men running her university who were the ones who decided to let her twist in the wind for a few months. The complaint against Kipnis should have been rapidly dismissed, but instead Northwestern bizarrely contended that it was obligated to investigate every Title IX allegation.

Alan Cubbage, vice president for university relations for Northwestern, had said in a statement: “Northwestern University is firmly committed both to academic freedom and to free speech, but it is also required to investigate and respond to allegations made by complainants that particular actions or statements might violate Title IX.”

That is absolutely not true. Northwestern University is not required to investigate allegations of a violation of Title IX. It is only required to investigate allegations that actually might violate Title IX. Universities must respond to Title IX complaints, but they are not obligated to investigate them. Northwestern has recently altered its policies to reflect this fact.

Expressing opinions about campus issues is not an act of retaliation. If it were, it would be a devastating blow to academic freedom and also the right to speak out against sexual violence on campus. Every accused rapist could file a counterclaim and effectively silence the victim and her supporters from speaking out.

In this particular case, because the student had filed a Title IX complaint against Northwestern’s Title IX coordinator, the complaint against Kipnis was given to outside lawyers hired by Northwestern, who then spent 72 days investigating the complaint. Obviously, lawyers are going to pick the path that minimizes legal risk for the University and maximizes billable hours.

There are fundamentally three problems with Northwestern’s system. First, it has no faculty involvement. Second, it has no system for dismissing frivolous complaints. Third, it has a disastrous appeal process.

Both the complainants and Kipnis criticized the process for banning recording of interviews and for making it difficult for Kipnis to learn the charges against her. And Kipnis noted in her essay that the investigation included questions about her beliefs that seemed to threaten academic freedom.

And Northwestern’s policy has additional serious problems, especially the appeal procedure where students, faculty, and staff/public appeal to different people. So, in Kipnis’ case, if she and the students were both dissatisfied with the outcome, they would appeal to different authorities who are each given the power to make a final ruling without any appeal possible.

University policies too often serve the needs of the administration rather than sensible principles. At Northwestern, the principles of academic freedom have been too often neglected.

Interestingly, Kipnis wrote that the investigators had offered to mediate by claiming that the complainants were willing to settle for an apology from her and a promise that she wouldn’t write about this subject again. A graduate student who had filed a complaint against Kipnis declared, “We never offered to withdraw our complaints, we never asked her to apologize, we never asked that she never write about this again.”

This creates the disturbing possibility that lawyers working for the Northwestern administration had unilaterally offered to dismiss the Title IX complaints against Kipnis in exchange for her silence about the issue. If so, this is an astonishing attack on academic freedom, and one that needs further investigation.

But Kipnis mentions none of this in her book. It’s possible she never noticed what was happening, because she was convinced that the feminists were the enemy, not the people running her own university.

It also important to note that Northwestern’s policy on retaliation has nothing to do with Title IX. It’s a general policy that applies to any kind of retaliation for any kind of complaint, and it remains poorly defined and subject to abuse.

Yet Kipnis lets the Northwestern administration off with barely a complaint in her book. She sympathetically explains that “no one knows what Title IX demands of universities. University presidents don’t know.”(140) According to Kipnis, “I never really learned if any Title IX charge that’s filed has to go forward (this was later a matter of dispute).”(139)

Kipnis was a victim of administrative indifference to academic freedom. But targeting the real villains is the last thing Kipnis wants to do. Those administrators are nice, sympathetic people (as she repeatedly points out in her book). They seem to defend her at times. They never speak out against her. And ultimately, they hold the power in this relationship. It’s her job, and her salary, that they control. More importantly, blaming administrators is a dull business. Blaming a whole ideological movement, the misguided feminists, the federal government—that’s what really interests her.

Kipnis loves drama. She writes about how “Shakespearean” the Ludlow case is, and how much she enjoys that part of it. Administrators are death to drama. They drown you in paperwork and carefully lawyered statements. They never take a side, never express a position, never fight for a cause. So Kipnis could never tell a story about bad administering, even though that was at the core of her case.

Kipnis’ error is imagining that feminism rather than the campus administration is the real problem. But her sex-positive version of feminism has some serious flaws. Kipnis worries that the anti-rape feminist activists are reinforcing archaic stereotypes of women as victims. But Kipnis herself likes to employ some nasty old stereotypes of women as gold diggers, wondering if a student “spotted a potential gravy train”(85) and asking, “aren’t Title IX officials setting schools up as cash cows for some of our more creatively inclined women students?”(173)

According to Kipnis, “male professors who become the object of someone’s fantasies are likely to end up jobless and destitute.”(84) In this anti-feminist fantasy, men are the powerless victims of the evil women. Kipnis informs us that tenured male professors don’t really have the power in any relationships: “Youth and attractiveness may also offset the weight of institutional standing and higher degrees.”(94) Yes, what power does a mere tenured professor at a top university have in academia compared to the mighty influence of any random sexy lady? Is this really supposed to be a feminist argument?

And Kipnis wonders, “The question becomes how seriously we…should take a retrospective retraction of consent.”(95) Of course, no one takes that seriously at all, because you cannot retrospectively retract consent. Yet Kipnis thinks a woman “can now change her mind about whether she really consented.”(122) The real question is whether we believe a women who claims lack of consent years later with no substantive evidence, not this mythical evil of retrospective non-consent.

Over and over again, Kipnis tells us how oppressed male professors are, how powerless in the face of the vast feminist machine: “sex is our era’s Communist threat, and Title IX hearings our new HUAC hearings.”(32)

Kipnis dips into paranoia when she wonders if one feminist professor “had advised her students to file the Title IX complaints against me—she did seem rather invested in the situation.”(131) Oddly, although Kipnis certainly knows about Ludlow’s numerous defamation lawsuits against his critics, she seems unconcerned at the notion that a professor would sue another professor for helping a student who says she was sexually assaulted file a Title IX complaint. Yet how is that any different from the injustice done to Kipnis? Anyone can sue anyone. Anyone can file a Title IX complaint. The issue is not whether people make complaints, but how universities respond to them.

Ludlow’s case has a lot of ambiguities, and even Kipnis admits to thinking, “I wasn’t convinced that Ludlow shouldn’t be dismissed.”(223) But there are very real violations of academic freedom done in the name of campaigning against sexual misconduct, some far worse than what happened to Kipnis.

One is the disturbing case of David Barnett at the University of Colorado, who was charged with retaliation and discrimination and harassment for defending a student of his who was found guilty on dubious grounds of sexual misconduct. The administration fired him, although a faculty committee recommended a year’s suspension, and eventually paid Barnett a big settlement. But Barnett was found not guilty of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation. In the end, Barnett was dismissed for “unprofessional” behavior in writing a critical report in which he committed the crimes of “hearsay,” “sarcasm,” and being “offensive” “derogatory” and “inappropriate.”

Kipnis notes that a tenured professor and orchestra director was “forced to resign his position” because of a relationship with a member of the community orchestra who became a student, after anonymous letters were sent to the administration. But this was a religious school, and he was getting divorced.(178) It’s good old fashioned conservative correctness, not feminism, that’s at the core of many injustices that are being blamed on Title IX or anti-harassment policies.

Title IX and harassment rules can be abused, but often the cause is the old conservative anti-feminism being re-packaged for harassment complaints. Feminism didn’t invent violations of academic freedom, it’s just being used as another excuse for it.

Kipnis admits that at colleges with rape cases, “in some cases they have done disgracefully little.”(39) Kipnis deserves some credit for actually talking to some students at Northwestern: “I became a bit less dubious about the alarming stats as I started hearing just how normalized unwanted sex is….”(191)  But overwhelmingly, this is a book with a clear message telling women to shut up and deal with it.

Let’s not pretend that teaching women how to yell “no” and avoid getting too drunk (Kipnis’ primary solution to the problem of campus rape) have anything to do with increasing female agency. At the same time, teaching women not to be a victim is not the same as blaming the victim. It’s like teaching black kids how not to get shot by the police. No one imagines it’s their fault, it’s unfair that it has to happen, but it’s foolish not to have “the talk” with black children. And women need a similar kind of talk about sexual assault until we manage to teach men not to rape.

Still, Kipnis is right when she argues that there are some serious problems with how universities address sexual assault on campus. As Kipnis observes, universities see sexual misconduct more often in terms of PR than the rights of individuals: “Ludlow was bad for the brand.”(226) Unfortunately, Kipnis buys into the argument of male oppression by feminists rather than seeing the nuances of how colleges deal with sexual assault and mistakes made against all parties.

Kipnis doesn’t really offer much in the way of structural solutions. She recounts her mother being literally chased around a desk by a professor she worked for, and Kipnis calls upon us “to see a professor’s idiocy as comic fodder, not an incapacitating trauma.”(156) But why can’t we say that it’s sexual harassment, and let women decide for themselves whether having sexual predators as bosses is funny, traumatic, or simply disturbing? Dismissing sexual harassment as a big joke should not be a feminist stance.

So what do colleges need to do? First, there needs to be much more emphasis on criminal investigation and prosecution of rapists, instead of influencing victims to handle a case within the university system. Second, there needs to be more realistic education, including many of Kipnis’ ideas. Third, there needs to be clear rules and due process standards. “Clear and convincing evidence” should be the standard for all campus violations. Punishable requirements for affirmative consent need to be eliminated along with rules that nullify consent if there is any degree of intoxication. Fair rules of evidence, notification of charges, and similar standards need to be defended. Protecting due process is not incompatible with cracking down on sexual assault.

Universities also need much stronger standards of academic freedom, to recognize that classroom speech and public discourse should normally have very strong protections against charges of sexual harassment made for ideological reasons.

Kipnis and other critics of feminism imagine a great rape hysteria rampaging across campuses and destroying the lives of oppressed male victims. But the truth is that most sexual assaults at universities are never reported or punished.

The title of Kipnis’ book has a double meaning. She’s saying that “unwanted advances” by men are not a big deal (“how do you know they’re unwanted until you try?”) and that anti-rape activism is an unwanted advance in feminism that undermines women’s autonomy and treats them as victims. Kipnis asks, “What dimwitted sort of feminism wants to shelter women from the richness of their own mistakes?” When those mistakes lead to nonconsensual sexual activity, the feminist sort of feminism should want to shelter women from the “richness” of that experience and punish the criminals who target vulnerable women. For Kipnis, the personal is political, and her own experience with attempted censorship causes her not to question the Feminazi stereotype imagined by conservatives who think that militant anti-rape feminism has taken over campus administrators.

Users who have liked this post. Please consider sharing on social media and/or making a comment below.

  • avatar
  • avatar

4 thoughts on “The Fight Over Feminism on Campus

  1. John K. Wilson,

    Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful response. I’ve been mulling Kipnis’s book extensively over the past few weeks and it was interesting to read a different perspective on this. One small oversight I would mention is that Kipnis does indeed make a point of addressing administrative bloat, noting that the “ratio of administrators to students has nearly doubled since 1975” while faculty to student ratios have been more or less stagnant. This has not only led to ballooning tuition costs, but also, as both you and Kipnis note, a PR minded approach to student-institution relations.

    The problem with this administrative growth in US universities, aside from the obvious missapplication of resources involved, is that it sets up a student-as-consumer model that comes into direct conflict with the larger mission of universities, and of professors in particular. With Title IX investigations, as in the case of student surveys determining tenure decisions, the outgrowth of these administrative policies is really based, more than anything (Note, this is absolutely an opinion), on the notion that the customer, i.e. the student, is always right— cynical and depressing as this might seem. But professors have obligations beyond making their “customers” satisfied and those most deserving of tenure will not necessarily be the most popular among students. I can recall trying to convince other students as an undergraduate in a professor survey session not to negatively rate a tough grading, but very gifted English professor. Students, I found at the time in discussions, tended to take this as an opportunity for revenge with little consideration for just how seriously administrators weighed these breezy little questionnaires.

    This is a bit digressive, I realize, but I would suggest that, while you clearly have some valid differences of interpretation with Kipnis over the impact of academic feminism on Title IX investigation, you seem to actually agree with her more than you disagree, particularly relative to the spectrum of current opinion within academia on these investigations.

    Though I can see where you differ with Kipnis’s take on contemporary feminism as reinforcing outmoded ideas of female passivity, I wonder how you feel about her notion of the pernicious effect of overly simplistic sloganeering and lack of critical thinking when it comes to ideas like “rape culture”, “slut shaming”, “victim blaming”, and “survivors must be believed”. Undoubtedly, campuses ought to make accusers feel safe in bringing forward cases and should have mechanisms for disciplining and, in some cases, dismissing professors and students found guilty in these cases, but it seems to me that the “fifty-fifty plus a feather” standard employed under preponderance of evidence is pretty troubling as a standard of proof for such consequential matters.

    Sorry to go on here, but I wonder what your thoughts are on this: if we basically recognize that people are apt to lie and mistreat each other in all sorts of situations based on myriad, often strange motivations, and that even eye-witness statements have increasingly been shown to be shakily reliable at best in a great many recent criminal investigations and exonerations (I’m thinking the Innocence Project here), what makes the situation of Title IX accusers fundamentally more reliable than those who bring allegations and charges in other sorts of crimes? Is it simply that the cause of justice for survivors justifies the collateral damage to those falsely accused and disciplined, or is there some other reason to think that this group is significantly more credible than the population at large?

    Thank you again for your insight.



    • Thanks, Mitch: The argument is not over whether rape victims are more credible than other crime victims, but whether they are less credible. In general, crime victims are believed with very little doubt, and falsified crime reports are very rare. But rape victims are more distrusted, and as a result, rape is far less often reported and prosecuted, and less often believed, than other serious crimes. The evidentiary problem with rape is that if you do not believe the victim without outside witnesses and evidence, most acquaintance rapes can never be punished. When it comes to sloganeering, I think all sides can be guilty of that (PC? Feminazis?.) As for the standard of proof, I prefer clear and convincing evidence over preponderance (50+). And I strongly disagree with the federal government imposing any standard on colleges, especially a lousy one. However, below the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, I think most people adjust their standards to fit their hunch about whether someone is guilty or not, so I’m not sure it makes a huge difference.

  2. John,
    I certainly agree that all sides are guilty of using tropes, slogans, and ad hominem attacks in these cases, but my point is more that academic culture and debate ought to strive to hold itself to a higher standard of discourse than the broader public sphere. My concern is that the broadening of the definition of “sexual assault” with things like retroactively retracting consent creates a situation that, rather than bolstering the community’s support for survivors, actually makes all claimants appear dubious. This might be analogous to the way in which our police officers, despite doing good work in many areas, have essentially lost the public trust through abuses in certain areas where they had calculated that ultimately the ends would justify the means. Just to be clear, in this analogy, the police are like the Title IX investigatory apparatus, not the claimants themselves. This isn’t to say that this loss of credibility is just, but if we see some accusations or codes as overblown and unfair, we tend to take a more skeptical view of all those who bring cases, which leads to an unfortunate scenario where University PR is the only thing truly being served by the current system. The public sense of justice having been done disappears if people feel that the innocent are being swept up alongside the guilty. It seems to me this has the potential to undermine the whole process

  3. Pingback: Another Kipnis Case at Northwestern | ACADEME BLOG

Your comments are welcome. They must be relevant to the topic at hand and must not contain advertisements, degrade others, or violate laws or considerations of privacy. We encourage the use of your real name, but do not prohibit pseudonyms as long as you don’t impersonate a real person.