I’m responding to “Speakers: Sexual ‘coercion’ tip of iceberg: Policy overhaul must consider ‘gender harassment’ they say at special summit,” by Julie Wurth.
Wurth quotes university anthropology professor Kate Clancy, who co-authored a national study on sexual harassment in STEM fields in higher education.
I have read this 292-page study. It is, quite simply, garbage in, garbage out, from the ridiculous sampling methodology, to the opaque and dated literature review, to the overwrought generalizations and contrived language based on predetermined conclusions.
To “gaslight” is to “manipulate (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity.” There is a problem in academia of male faculty sexually exploiting their authority over women, with notable local examples.
Instead of addressing this specific issue in terms of institutional power dynamics and patriarchy, Clancy chooses to gaslight all males on this campus as being part of a sexist “put-down” culture.
Her conclusions are vastly overstated and carelessly slanderous. They are supported by powerful bureaucrats wishing to deflect attention from actionable behavior among their own economic class of men.
If campus “climate” were as sexually and verbally abusive as Clancy claims, it would behoove Chancellor Robert Jones to immediately suspend business-as-usual and hold intensive, mandatory sensitivity training and interpersonal truth-telling workshops for at least a solid week in every office, classroom and laboratory on this campus. Moreover, he would be compelled to restrain his grandiose rhetoric about this institution.
But he won’t, because he knows that this “summit” reflects an ongoing administrative public relations effort; i.e., propaganda.