朱迪斯·巴特勒解释她为什么为罗内尔背书

To the Editor:

I can only speak for myself since the signatories of the letter addressed to the NYU administration regarding the sexual harassment charges brought against Avital Ronell are not a group with a single view, and different authors helped to craft the draft version of the letter that appeared online without our consent (“Battle Over Alleged Harassment Escalates as Former Graduate Student Sues Professor and NYU,” The Chronicle, August 16). When the signatories learned that termination of employment for Ronell was under consideration by NYU, we were bewildered by the severity of this possible sanction. We understood she was accused of conducting a “romantic friendship” and that her emails had been scrutinized for evidence of a sexual relationship.

致编辑：

关于Avital Ronell的性骚扰指控，我们签署了一封给纽约大学行政部门的信，因为这封联名信的签署者们并非均持同一观点，所以我只能为自己说话，不同的作者参与起草了这封信的草稿，这个草稿后来未经我们同意在网络上出现。当我们得知纽约大学正在考虑解雇罗内尔时，我们被这种可能的制裁的严重性搞懵了。我们当时知道的情况是，她被指控和学生进行“浪漫的友谊”，以及有人开始检查她的电子邮件，以寻找证明性关系的证据。

Our aim was not to defend her actions — we did not have the case in hand — but to oppose the termination of her employment as a punishment. Such a punishment seemed unfair given the findings as we understood them. In hindsight, those of us who sought to defend Ronell against termination surely ought to have been more fully informed of the situation if we were going to make an intervention.

因为我们手头没有案件的具体情况，我们的目的并非为她的行为辩护，而是反对终止她的工作作为惩罚。根据我们对当时的已发现的情况的理解，这种惩罚似乎是不公平的。 事后来看，我们这些试图保护罗内尔免于被解雇的人，当然理应更充分地了解情况后再进行干预。

Moreover, the letter was written in haste and the following are my current regrets about it. First, we ought not to have attributed motives to the complainant, even though some signatories had strong views on this matter. The claims of sexual harassment have too often been dismissed by discrediting the complainant, and that nefarious tactic has stopped legitimate claims from going forward and exacerbated the injustice. When and where such a claim proves to be illegitimate, it should be demonstrated on the basis of the evidence alone.

此外，这封信是急就章，以下是我目前对此的遗憾和后悔。首先，尽管一些签署人对此事有强烈的观点，但我们不应归咎于投诉人的动机。性骚扰的申诉经常因为对申诉人的诋毁而被驳回，这种邪恶的策略已经阻止了合法的诉求，并加剧了不公正。 应该仅基于证据证明此类申诉是否合理合法。

Second, we should not have used language that implied that Ronell’s status and reputation earn her differential treatment of any kind. Status ought to have no bearing on the adjudication of sexual harassment. All faculty should be treated the same under Title IX protocols, that is, subject to the same rules and, where justified, sanctions.

其次，我们的语辞不应该暗示罗内尔的地位和声誉可以获得任何形式的差别待遇。地位应该与性骚扰的裁决无关。根据美国教育法修正案第九条的条款，所有教师都应受到相同的待遇，即遵守相同的规则，并接受同等的合法制裁。

Immediately after the confidential draft letter was published online, I was in direct communication with the MLA officers (the executive director, the president and the first vice president) to apologize for the listing of my position within the organization after my name. I acknowledged that I should not have allowed the MLA affiliation to go forward with my name. I expressed regret to the MLA officers and staff, and my colleagues accepted my apology. I extend that same apology to MLA members.

在我们给纽约大学行政部门的保密信函的草案在网络上被公布后，我立即与MLA（译者注：美国现代语言协会）的工作人员（执行理事，主席和第一副主席）直接沟通，我向他们道歉，那封签署信上我的名字后附加了我在MLA的职位。我承认我不应该让MLA和我的名字在那封信上并列。 我对MLA的工作人员表示了遗憾，我的同事们接受了我的道歉。在此我向MLA的成员致以同样的歉意。

We all make errors in life and in work. The task is to acknowledge them, as I hope I have, and to see what they can teach us as we move forward.

我们都在生活和工作中犯错误。 我们的任务是承认他们，我希望我做到了，并且看看这些错误在我们前进的过程中可以教给我们什么。

朱迪斯·巴特勒

美国加州大学伯克利分校

比较文学和批判理论项目玛克辛·艾略特教授

朱迪斯·巴特勒是当代世界著名哲学家和性别研究的代表人物、英国人文社会科学院通讯院士、美国加州大学伯克利分校教授。