I had no agenda in the order of selection of the counterpoints to Wolf’s artilcle. I can’t even remember the google terms I used. I found somebody’s blog article which linked all three articles, which seemed to be from mainstream publications.

I find it a bit mind boggling that you would seem proud to admit ignorance. You are willing to conjecture on the “point” without reading it, based on your reading one “counterpoint” you find poorly written, so badly written you conclude the second counterpoint must also be specious. Whew. Breathtaking.

Looking further, apparently there were several dissections and defenses of Wolf’s original article. For anyone really interested, google “naomi wolf bloom”. Another treatment is here at ifeminist : http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0324campbell.html

Wolf isn’t really characterizing breast milk as a “gross liquid” so much as she is acknowledging that many adults are squeamish at the thought of drinking human breast milk themselves, and that it is that particular squeamishness that is being exploited in the example she cites.

The Obsever article says that Naomi Wolf had been in contact with Yale for months about sexual harassment issues. Why did she only get that email ten days before her article was due to come out? Reading between the lines, it’s pretty obvious that she was in fact being stonewalled, and when they realised she was going to publish an article, they quickly emailed her some PR guff as damage control.

Regarding said PR guff, which you have quoted extensively, all I can say is that it’s one thing having a grievance policy in place, and quite another having a culture where students feel safe to use it. Most organisations have a grievance policy in place these days; the fact that Yale does doesn’t prove anything regarding Wolf’s allegations about Yale.

I’m not sure why you seem convinced that the allegations re Bloom were a smear. The attempts to refute that were unbelievably weak– they haven’t even got a quote from him denying it!

Regarding the Observer piece, Wolf strongly implied in in her article that Yale, particularly Dean Brodhead, stonewalled her on how Yale was handling harassment issues in 2003. But the Observer actually checked and found out and learned that Brodhead sent Wolf an email resonding to her concerns before the article was published:

***********
Brodhead said that in his 11 years as dean, the grievance committee had heard four cases, which varied in “nature,” “gravity” and “the nature of appointment of the instructor the complaint was lodged against.” He said that “since unsubstantiated complaints can be regarded as libel and since the complainants typically wish their privacy to be protected, we do not publicize complaints.” Students themselves, he said, are free to make the information public.

“I took it that another of your concerns was to learn how robust and accessible our grievance process is, and here I’m happy to supply details,” Mr. Brodhead wrote. He described how sexual harassment is discussed at “mandatory meetings during freshman orientation,” and that freshman counselors and residential college deans are “well briefed on the issue.” He said Yale occasionally distributed leaflets on dining-hall tables “to remind students of the issue and of the available recourse if they seek one,” while “peer counselors trained by the Health Service give presentations in the colleges, athletics departments, fraternities and sororities, and they staff confidential hot lines that students are free to call.”

Mr. Brodhead said that Yale’s Undergraduate Regulations contained materials on the grievance procedure, as did the university’s Web site.
***********

So who is fooling whom?

Real sexual harassment is a serious thing, in academia and the workplace. Wolf’s story is pretty lame on Bloom and misleading on Yale’s current handling of the issue. So when someone here tossed off a comment on how Wolf exposed the truth about Bloom, it appears a smear has survived quite well.

Wow. That article is really, really straining to discredit those allegations; it’s obvious from the first few paragraphs. And all it comes up with is those old standbys “she was drunk”, her memories are not 100% consistent (if you’re a lawyer determined to read things uncharitably)”, “she was asking for it.” It’s a cookie-cutter replication of the smear job perpetrated on anyone who speaks up in cases of sexual assault and harrassment. Gnarled relationship my ass! I’m sort of really disappointed that anyone who actually reads a feminist blog could have fallen for it. Wasn’t the “rationalize” a few paragraphs in a giveaway that the piece was biased? Or the “tremulous”? Or the ridiculous demand that a piece written in memoir form– hardly uncommon in newspapers– should have been rewritten by a “disinterested reporter” (because women shouldn’t be allowed to tell the truth about their own lives)? I mean, even the headline should have given you a clue.

For god’s sake, what kind of article devotes a whole paragraph to quibbling with a writer subsituting “moved towards me” for “came at me”? It should be obvious: an article that couldn’t find anything else to discredit a harrassment victim with. Not just a smear job but a shoddy, transparent smear job. Still, I guess you can fool some of the people all of the time…

I wasn’t sure why that struck a slightly sour note with me, so I looked it up.

Wolf’s accusations are in a 2004 New York Magazine cover story here: http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/features/n_9932/

Criticisms of her 20 year old harassment allegation are here: http://www.observer.com/node/48872

http://www.slate.com/id/2096152/

From that reading, Wolf’s article was an unfair slam at both Bloom and Yale. FWIW