The New York University “response” from spokesman John Beckman was issued last Tuesday, which is fascinating since he had nothing to respond to until early evening yesterday when the complaint was filed in New York Supreme Court.* Not that NYU needs to actually see something, know what it says, before issuing a statement about why it’s wrong.

In a written statement on Tuesday, John Beckman, an NYU spokesman, defended the university’s handling of the matter. “We have tried to work with Mr. Reitman to help him put this unfortunate chapter behind him, and we are sympathetic to what he has been through. However, given the promptness, seriousness, and thoroughness with which we responded to his charges, we do not believe that his filing a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the university would be warranted or just.”

Despite this deeply moving expression of advance empathy, Reitman sued NYU, although the ad damnum is left to the court and includes no “multi-million dollars” demand. Good try, though, NYU, even if it might have been wiser to wait until you knew what you were talking about before issuing a statement next time. Consciousness of guilt is a terrible thing.

But the facts underlying the claim reveal that NYU not only failed, but failed miserably, to deal with sexual abuse by their “star” professor. While the Title IX claim filed after Nimrod Reitman was taken seriously, it was only because gender theorist Judith Butler’s favorite humanities prof’s hundreds of repulsive emails made it impossible to ignore. This time.

4. The Title IX Report further explicitly found that by virtue of inappropriate language and improper and unwanted physical contact, Ronell’s behavior constituted a clear violation of NYU policy, “as these acts over a three-year period were unwanted and sufficiently pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of Mr. Reitman’s learning environment.” 5. Although NYU has now determined that Ronell sexually harassed Reitman for his entire time at NYU, NYU has failed to acknowledge that during that period Reitman informed a NYU Vice Provost, among others, about Ronell’s misconduct, and that NYU failed to take any action and thus prevent further harm to Reitman.

Long before Reitman graduated, and found out that Ronell’s constant threats that she had the clout to destroy his career if he didn’t acquiesce to being her boy toy, he complained about what she was doing to him. He complained to a vice provost. He complained to numerous other administrators. He complained plenty.

Reitman was told to keep his head down, avoid her and just get through his degree. He was told there was nothing they could do about his being sexual abused. He was told that was just the way Ronell was, and she was a star. Their star. Suck it up if he ever wanted a career in academia, because she could make him a star. Or destroy him if he didn’t play along.

But even after the “the promptness, seriousness, and thoroughness with which we responded to his charges,” NYU burned Reitman to do the least amount of damage possible to their marquee philosopher.

Reitman testified in excruciating detail about the sexual assaults perpetrated on him, over and over, by Ronell. And this was no single instance, no “he said/she said,” who knows what really happened scenario. Reitman corroborated his allegations not only with Ronell’s own emails, but contemporaneous witnesses to whom Reitman told what Ronell was doing to him. And what did the deeply empathetic NYU do about it?

After a thorough investigation, careful review of the testimonial and documentary evidence, and consideration of the totality of circumstances, the Investigators have determined that there is insufficient information, by a preponderance of the evidence, to support a finding of responsibility that Professor Ronell violated the University’s Sexual Misconduct Policies as it relates to non-consensual sexual contact. Similar to the allegations of inappropriate physical contact discussed above, Mr. Reitman largely claims that the inappropriate sexual contact occurred during private interactions with Professor Ronell. with the exception of (finned interactions between the two that Mr. Reitman indicated were observed on separate occasions by others; Of the four corroborating witnesses discussed above, only the two witnesses with a close familial relationship with Mr. Reitman (i.e., Ms. Pincus, Mr. Reitman’s mother; and, Professor Andrews, Mr. Reitman’s husband) corroborated observing some of Mr. Reitman’s allegations regarding inappropriate physical contact; however, neither of these individuals purport to have observed any contact that would rise to the level of sexual contact under the policy. Further, of the two other witnesses who indicate that Mr. Reitman disclosed to them that Professor Ronell touched. him inappropriately. neither stated that Mr. Reitman ever reported to them that Professor Ronell touched his breasts, buttocks, groin, or genitals; rather, as indicated in their statements, they indicated hand-holding, kissing, hugging and touching of the torso. In sum, none of the witnesses identiifed by Mr. Reitman, including those with whom. he has a close familial relationship. corroborated his allegations of sexual contact. As such, the Investigators have determined that there is currently insufficient evidence to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Professor Ronell engaged in prohibited non-consensual sexual contact.

It was impossible, given the Ronell emails, to pretend that nothing happened, much as that would have made NYU’s circumstances easier, and pleased the cabal of scholars more concerned with saving their pal from disgrace, but that didn’t mean they couldn’t trivialize the sexual assaults and reach the preposterous conclusion that it wasn’t proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, based on testimony, emails and witnesses. Oh, the emails.**

Bizarrely, the three-investigator panel used by NYU to address Reitman’s complaint completely discounts the contemporaneous witnesses, as they are related or associated to Reitman. That’s invariably the case, as who else does an abused person tell but people who are close to him (and the occasional vice provost, of course)?

Rumors have since swirled that Avital Ronell was well-known to enjoy the company of her students in ways that would make anyone not blinded by “the dignity rightly deserved by someone of her international standing and reputation” cringe. Maybe NYU was too well aware of the abuser it had on its hands? Maybe the vice provost had some personal knowledge of the person grabbing Reitman’s crotch?

Regardless, NYU had to protect its brand, and Avital Ronell was one of its brithtest lights, and it wasn’t about to let that light go out. So they found for Reitman on the more trivial accusations, as they had no choice given the voluminous and outrageous emails, but trivialized and diminished the sexual assaults that would have compelled discharge and public humiliation had it been any male prof.

As an aside, NYU says they suspended Ronell for a year. Is that true? Who knows, as they refused to tell Reitman what sanction was imposed. Is it suspension with pay, like a sweet paid holiday? Does she keep her free NYU apartment, a big deal in New York City? NYU refuses to tell Reitman and there is no evidence whatsoever that what they told the New York Times is accurate.

Whether the failure of NYU to protect Reitman from a sexual predator is worthy of a multi-million dollar lawsuit will be up a jury. Whether they failed miserably, and whether the cost-benefit analysis favored saving Ronell at the expense of Reitman, however, is why they’re being sued. Not only will this be exceptionally ugly for NYU, but this could bring down more “stars” than just Ronell. As it should.

Update: NYU critical theory post doc Dr. Mangalika de Silva has issued a press release defending Ronell’s honor. I leave it to others to decide the merit of her denials, but suggest that she would do better with a lawyer than someone who “engages the ontology of democracy, sovereignty, xenophobia and postwar reconciliation, anastasis and minoritarian becomings.”

Edit: One noteworthy addition is Ronell’s claim, for the first time, that she was denied the opportunity to “confront, question or cross-examine” Reitman, suggesting that the new feminist Title IX narrative is that cross-examination is necessary. This is absolutely true, although Ronell never sought an adversarial hearing until now, well after she lost. On the bright side, the trial in this matter will provide an opportunity to cross Reitman, but then, be careful what you ask for.

*Immediately after filing, my dear friend and Reitman’s lawyer, Donald Kravet, was kind enough to send me the filed complaint.

**These are not all, but only the quotes set forth in the NYU Title IX findings (this was OCR’d from the original, so typos abound):

• “My most darling” (see Attachment C, dated July221 2012i’at 4:52 a.m.);

• “Baby love angel” (see Attachment, dated February 7. 2015, at 9:05 p.m.);

• “My sacred” (see Attachment C,dated June 10, 2012, at 10;40 a.m.);

• “Awesome warrior angel” (see Attachment C. dated June 11, 2012, at 7:43 p.m.);

• “My astounding and beautiful and “my darling” (see Attachment C, dated June

12,2012, at 11 :40 p.m.);

• “Honig” (German for “honey” (see Attachment C. dated June 8, 2012, at 3:09

p.m,);

,. “Honey” (see Attachment C, dated May 25, 2014, at 5:04 a.m.);

• “My angel glory” (see Attachment C, dated June 30,2014, at 12:05 a.m.);

• “Baby” (see Attachment C, dated June 30, 2014, at 12:15 a.m.);

,. “My love” and “sweet baby” (see Attachment C, dated August 1,2014, at 4:07

p.m.};

• “Milk & Honey”(see Attachment C, dated June 17r 2012, at 10:52 p.m.); • -sweet cuddly Baby'” and “my cherished” (see Attachment C, dated September 29, 2014. at 1:21 a.m,);

• “My extreme beloved” (see Attachment C, dated October 1,2014, at 7;0,1 p,m.);

• “My sweetest, most transcendent” (see Attachment C, dated July 20, 2012, at 3:58’a.m~j;

• “My joy” (see Attachment C, dated July 12, 2012, at 3;07 p.m.);

• “Mon adore” (French for “my love”) (see Attachment C, dated July 12, 2012, at 5:02 p.m.);

• “My treasured” (see Attachment C, dated June 21, 2012, at 4:04 am.);

• “My most adored one” (see Altachment C. dated October 4, 2012, at 3:07 p~m.);

• “Most Honey-bunny” (see Attachment C, dated June 22, 2013, at 10:26 p.m.);

• “My most divine miracle” (see Attachment C, dated July 18,2013, at 4:32 p.m.);

• “Sweet-companion prince” (see Attachment C, dated August 26, 2012,at 1 :51 p.m.);

• “Most cherished” (see Attachment C, dated August 21. 2012, at1 ;09 p.m.);

• “Love of 1Tv9s” (see Attachment E); and

• “Cock~erspaniel” (see Attachment G).

• “I am overoomlng my extreme form of intimacy,. cocooning with you, sealing

myself into you … ” (see Attachment C, dated June 101 2012, at 10:40 a.m.);

• “EndlesstraJ1 of kisses” (same);

• “Sweetest honey-kisses” (see Attachment C,dated June 11,2012, at 7:43 p.m.);

• “Sweet kisses and champagne” (see Attachment C. dated June 12, 2012, at 11 :40 p.m.);

• “I <am so connected to u” and “oving u tremendously” (see Attachment C. dated June~O 2014, at 12;05 a.m.);

• “Your throne in my heart” (see Attachment C. dated June 30,20~ 4, at 12:16

a.m.);

• “I bestow a kiss upon you, as we used to,mid~day and aftemoons.”(see

Attachment C, dated AugusU,2014i at 4:01 p.m.);

• “Loving you downtown and all around the town”( see Attachment C, dated

October 1 i 2014, at 7:01 p.m.);

• “TIme for your midday ldss. My image during. meditation: we’re on the sofa, your

head on my lap, stroking you {sic} forehead, playing softly with yr [sic] hair,

soothing you, headaChe gone. Yes?” (See Attachment C, dated July 3, 2012, at

7:27 p.m.);

• “PIs hold me a little. tighter.” (seeAttachmentC, dated July 20, .2012, at 3:58

a.m.);. .

• “Please do not threaten me Or,yourself With ‘shattering us. ‘” and “I do not like to

be 1n the position ofsuppJicating for more of your attention or time.” (see

Attachment C, dated December 25,2012, at 12:30 a.m.);

• “I wish I could kidnap you; .;.” and “Baby, let me massage your feet,” (see

Attachment C,dated.luly1 8;2013; at 5;19 p.m.);

• “I miss you greatly and announce that , now am on a need to hear from you

basis.” (seeAtb;lchmentC, dated July 29,2013, at 4:53 a.m.);

• “have~·I told you enough how much I truly am in awe of you ..• you have

engravedJn me an image of you that fs jneffaceable.” (see Attachment C. dated

August 21, 2012i at 1:09 p.rn;);

• “Now let’s cuddle like cubs.” (see Attachment C; dated May 10,2014. at4:16

a.m.);

• “You lookM gorgeous; Couldn’t keep my eyes offyoull!” (see AttachmentC,

datM September 30, 2014, at 5:04am.);

• “lam having a.harcl time lettlng )’Ou go and want, if possible, to retrieve the idea

of a.”date’ that we agreed upon months ago.” (see Attachment C, dated

December 17,2012, at3:58 p.m.);

• “Loving you all around the universe and universityl'” (see Attachment C, dated

October 1, 2014, at 1:58 p.m.); and,

• “I am aglow, devoted to you, to us – and our daughter! Adoring you,” (see

Attachment E).