Wednesday, July 10, 2024

Sexual Harassment in Joyce Studies

To Declan Conlon, Conor Gallagher, and the Irish Times:

Thank you for your pair of June 28 articles about allegations of sexual harassment among scholars of James Joyce and about the expulsion of Fritz Senn from the recent Joyce Symposium in Glasgow.

As you know, the articles have elicited a response in the form of an open letter that was published online on July 5 and continues to be circulated within the Joyce community for additional signatures. The signatories of the present letter wish to express our misgivings about the open letter, which extends the harm it says it wants to alleviate. As Sam Slote has written in an individual response, the open letter exacerbates divisions in the community under a mask of coming to Senn’s defense. It dismisses the sexual harassment experienced by early-career scholars in the field. It undermines recent efforts to support and protect these scholars and demeans the colleagues who undertook that work on behalf of the whole community. And it misrepresents a number of important aspects of the case at hand.

Fritz Senn has earned widespread admiration as a Joyce scholar, and he has been generous with his expertise for many decades. Respect and love for the man and his work are strong, but at the Glasgow conference he engaged in behavior that left a young woman feeling distressed and shaken. Senn’s foundational contributions to our field do not negate the harmful impact of his behavior. Nor is he the only member of the community to have abused the responsibility that comes with having a high profile in the field. Indeed, the significant problem of sexual harassment within Joyce studies was what prompted the extensive safety measures made in preparation for the Glasgow symposium. These measures included: the establishment of a Code of Conduct, which was signed in advance by all conference participants; the development of complaint procedures consistent with the rules at the University of Glasgow; and the retention of an Ombudsperson for adjudicating complaints. Clear guidelines were established about the consequences of engaging in unwelcome advances. Contrary to what the open letter implies, these guidelines were strictly, thoughtfully, and discreetly applied in Senn’s case.

The open letter states that Senn “had offered [the young woman] chocolate and unwanted compliments, taken her photograph in a crowded place, and asked for her email address.” This diminishes the extent of his actions and downplays the inappropriateness of his comments. Unfortunately, the only people who can rebut the open letter’s version of the story are beholden to confidentiality: the Safety Team, the Ombudsperson, and the President and Vice-President of the International James Joyce Foundation. In addition, the letter makes no reference to the fact that the decision to expel Senn from the conference was approved by the President of the Foundation, who also approved the establishment of the Safety Team and the measures it put in place.

Some have asserted that, since a minority of the Joyce community engages in sexual harassment, rules guiding the entire community are unnecessary. But regardless of how many people actually speak or act in harmful ways, the responsibility for keeping its members safe belongs to the entire community. It is not criticism of anyone’s personal integrity to call for a collective effort to protect the most vulnerable members of our community, or to recognize the systemic issues that drive sexual harassment and abuse. These collective measures are not meant to discourage the lively discussion, friendship, and curiosity fostered by conferences, summer schools, workshops, and the like. Having conversations about safety and consent ensures that everyone can comfortably and openly engage with Joyce-focused events.

The writers of the July 5 open letter express a desire for the Joyce community to come together around the study and collegial celebration of Joyce and his work. The signatories of the present letter share this desire. But before it can become reality, the Joyce community must think more imaginatively about what collegiality means. We can be collegial while respecting differences of opinion. We can be collegial while respecting each other’s boundaries. However, collegiality must not require us to remain silent about harassment or to deny that it happens. It should inspire us, rather, to work together on this issue until all members of our community feel safe, welcome, and included.