I have not received permission from the authors of these emails to print them in their name, so with the exception of Andrew Pessin, I have replaced their names with letters A-D. These letters are especially important in understanding how the colleagues closest to Pessin handled the conflicting demands of friendship and collegiality on the one hand, and the pressure to condemn hate-speech on the other. Note that some colleagues urge Pessin, as is the administration, not to defend himself, but just apologize.
March 3, 308 PM
to Andrew Pessin
Hi Andy,
Just met up with A. for lunch and he gave me at least the short version of the to-do around your Facebook post. I really wanted to say I’m so sorry all this shit is converging on you right now and I hope you are surviving it all.
I also wanted to share a few thoughts because I’m likely to be asked to talk about this in public at some point (and I think it’s probably important that I do so) and I want you to know the kind of things I’m likely to say.
I assume you know I consider you a good friend. It’s rare that we both like AND respect people in this world, and I feel a pretty deep sense of connection with you even though we haven’t spent much time together in recent years. I really hope nothing I say or do will change that.
We’ve talked about Israel a bit and you know our views differ. I know that my epistemic position is definitely formed in part as a reaction to the pretty extreme holocaust-based zionistic education I got … I felt like I was being taught to have a victim mentality that bordered on the paranoid. Of course it’s not paranoia if the fear is based sufficiently in reality and I do know some Jewish history and I have a sense of current trends. So I have a degree of skepticism about my own opinions. I am also sympathetic to your consistent observation of various moral double standards that Israel is held to. This is all to say that I CARE a lot about this topic and struggle with it at a personal and intellectual level. And I believe myself to be relatively open minded.
With that it mind, you won’t be surprised that I really didn’t like what you wrote on FB. I read it when you wrote it and I interpreted it as stemming from a pretty intense pain and defensiveness you must have been feeling. (Is that unfairly patronizing / paternalistic?) Those were (and these continue to be) tough times and moral emotions appropriately run high in circumstances like these. Also as a philosopher, I can parse what you said and see the moral point you were making. I can even see a technical way to read it as non-racist. But the language is harsh and obviously inflammatory and I think a reasonable person would certainly expect anyone –even an apolitical person– with Gazan relatives or friends or even just a person with socialization more sympathetic to the plight of average Palestinians, to be hurt and angered by the words you used. That’s how I felt and I’m an Israeli Zionist!
I would, of course, defend your right to say them. And I think the context (outside the classroom, off campus) in which you said them also matters a lot.
But I’d also say that the way you said what you said did not exactly model our ideal of philosophical discourse. I think it’s possible to offer sharp, incisive, bullshit destroying analysis that is also framed in language that could be rationally processed by someone who disagrees with us (and FB is obviously a place where those people will read what we write.) In a deep way, I believe that that is how we should strive to engage topics like this, whether in the classroom, with our friends or our families. That’s, ultimately, my critique of you in this situation. And that’s the approach I’ll try to take when talking to others about this. Obviously, I would be very willing to talk with you about any of this and I’ll listen to anything you have to say about any of the pragmatic / professional / moral / personal issues.
Yours in friendship,
B.
March 3, 550 pm
Andrew Pessin reply to B.
thank you, B., and i don’t have time for a complete proper reply — multiple shit-storms all converging — but I rather think you’ve got it all wrong. the post is about hamas (a point few people seem to understand). it was written during the war with hamas, it was about the blockade inflicted upon hamas, and all the violence it refers to was perpetrated by hamas. in fact there is nothing racist in arguing that just as a person would be justified in restraining something posing continuous lethal threat to it, so israel is justified in restraining/blockading hamas. If you understand that in fact the post is defending the israeli blockade on hamas, then its substance is not at all racist — and i hope that is one point you might stress to others as you speak about it. As far as the language/analogy in play — i do acknowledge that it invites alternative offensive/racist readings, and as soon as that was called to my attention (ten days ago) I promptly apologized for the inadvertent offense, took ownership of the looseness of the language, and immediately deleted the post. That is a second important point to stress to anyone you might speak to. (But again keep in mind, between us perhaps — even this language (I think) applied to Hamas is not racist, but in fact apt — Hamas’s commitment to violence against Israel and Jews, its hundreds of murders under its belt, its shooting of thousands of missiles and civilians, and its nearly daily pronouncements of its intention to destroy Israel by genocide — its behavior and proudly pronounced ideology — is precisely what makes it comparable to a rabid pit bull. Because people read the comparison as about “Palestinians” at large, or “Gazans”, it sounds offensive — but again — the post is actually talking only about Hamas.) Third, when this came up I went through all my FB postings for the past four years, many of which are about Israel/Hamas etc. I was happy to see that this was the only one that came close to that line of being offensive (even tho I don’t believe it is, when properly understood). There is plenty of strident argument for israel’s perspective, but nothing coming close to that line. The third point you might make is that there is no pattern here. This post was a singular phenomenon.
So, to summarize — if you do find yourself talking to others — what you might stress is (1) the post is about Hamas, not Gazans or Palestinians, (2) when I was alerted by a student of the offensive reading she had of it, I promptly apologized for the language and removed the post — this was more than ten days ago, and (3) there is no pattern here.
That is all for now — shit storms calling.
A
March 4, 1205 AM
reply to Andrew Pessin
Andy,
I actually completely accept that reply and have deep sympathy for the point as directed at Hamas (not mentioned explicitly in your post, right?). I also appreciate your recognition that the language may not have been the most effective, given its larger implications. I do think its important to note that if you feel you’ve been misinterpreted, you have been misinterpreted by at least some people of good will, not looking to vilify you or Israel. And I take your removal of the post as recognition of this fact. I will definitely stress the three points you make, which I absolutely agree with, given your clarifications.
March 4 944 AM
Andrew Pessin to all the philosophy majors/minors
Dear fellow philosophers,
Let me start by apologizing for you any discomfort you might be feeling as a a philosophy student as result of the Voice this week. At some point I will produce a rather full response, including some criticism of the newspaper for going ahead with such inflamed smears against me without even offering me the chance to respond. Now unfortunately things must fester publically until the next issue at the earliest, after break. Rather unfair, if you ask me, and again, I know how uncomfortable this must make you feel. (I would feel uncomfortable in your shoes.) What I will say to you now is that the post in question was presented entirely out of its very relevant context — including that it was written last summer during the war between Israel and Hamas, and was part of a series of posts about Hamas — and in fact is being quite seriously misrepresented. (What I will acknowledge is that my language in the post invites that misrepresentation, and I take and took full ownership for that, and in fact both apologized for that and took the post down already two weeks ago when its offensive language was first brought to my attention. Indeed I explicitly condemned and disavowed at that time the view which is now actively being ascribed to me.) A little later I’ll explain what the post is actually saying (or attempting to), which bears essentially no resemblance to what it is being represented as saying, and perhaps you will see how reading a text outside its proper context allows it be read in ways profoundly different from the author’s intentions. But for now I ask merely that you reserve judgment, that you consider that the post is specifically about Hamas and not about “Palestinians” in general, and that when you have all the facts before you (the date and context of the post, the intentions of the author, the acknowledgement/apology for the loose language which invites misreadings, and the fact that it was taken down two weeks ago immediately when the offensiveness was communicated) you can then reasonably reach whatever conclusions you think are right.
If the Voice had chosen to ask me to respond before publishing those letters perhaps a lot of this could have been avoided; alas. But either way I do apologize to you for any discomfort you may be feeling, and hope that it won’t compromise your ability to relate to me. In fact I am nothing like the person being represented in those letters, and can only hope that those of you who know me well enough, know that well enough to be true. (And I do thank those of you who took some time to email me this week; much appreciated.
ap
March 4 227 PM
to Andrew Pessin
Subj: Your note to students
Hi Andy,
One of our students just shared the note that you wrote to them today. First, I really appreciate your writing to our majors & minors. I think that’s really helpful, and I’ve heard a couple of positive responses from students. At the same time, I feel I just have to say that I’m not totally comfortable with your response to the College Voice articles.
I guess I feel it’s really important to acknowledge that the comparison between “Gaza” (the word you used) and a rabid pit bull is dehumanizing, period. It’s not just that people are reading your post out of context. Comparing people to animals is really problematic in any context, and my instincts tell me that it would be good for you to apologize more directly for making that comparison, rather than insisting that you only intended to make a claim about Hamas.
I think the deeper problem with your post is that the analogy you used was gratuitous. You could have made the point you wanted to make about Israel’s relationship with Gaza without using the offensive comparison at all. I take it you were responding in part to criticisms of Israel’s blockade of Gaza. Critics might put pressure on Israel to relax the blockade for humanitarian reasons, but then more munitions will flow in …etc. But you could have said all that without the offensive comparison.
Anyhow, I guess I just wanted to say that I am well aware of the context, and am totally sympathetic to the political point that I think you were trying to make in your post. As you know, some of [my wife’s] family was also in the line of fire last summer. And you know I almost always really appreciate your pro-Israel perspective.  And I think we really need your voice on campus. I just have to say that I also feel that your post crossed a line, and I’m pretty sure that I’m not misreading it.Â
I am also feeling increasing pressure … to respond in some way, with a public reaffirmation of the department’s commitment to inclusivity. I’m not exactly sure how to do that, but I wanted to let you know that I might go public at some point with what I hope is a constructive statement. I think a lot of damage has been done to our department, and we need to think about how to repair it.
Thanks,
A.
March 4, 416 PM
Andrew Pessin to A.
A.
I appreciate the pressure you are under (and apologize for it), and your taking the time to articulate your view — but there is quite a lot more to say here. It’s rather ironic that a post intending to criticize Hamas — about as anti ‘inclusivist’ an organization as you can imagine — ends up being criticized as being anti-inclusivist. If you could just wait it out till over the early break, I’d appreciate it. Writing something more detailed up will be my first project after break, and I will try to persuade you that indeed you are misreading the post. (While acknowledging that my language easily invites that misreading, and recognizing that when so many misread the same way, it’s fair to say the text supports that reading — however what’s important also to recognize is how in fact the text, in context, also supports a very different reading, which happens to be the intended reading. There is nothing ‘anti-inclusivist’ in the actual substance of the message; it is an attack on the perpetual violence of Hamas. And in fact there’s lot more to say about the specific role of analogy/metaphor in this piece, once you recognize it is about Hamas — but I can’t say it now. So if you could hold off on your “public response” until I’ve had some time to explain myself, I would appreciate that courtesy. And anyone who pressures you — responding by saying you’re giving me some time to explain myself (in light of our life circumstances) seems pretty reasonable.
Andy
March 4, 433 PM
Andrew Pessin to A.
and incidentally, the word “gaza” in the post is being used the way the word “washington” is used in standard journalism to refer to (say) the obama administration …. “according to washington, the iran deal is a good thing” — ie as a way to refer to the ruling power in the territory, ie Hamas. Israel was at war with Hamas (that was “the current situation in Gaza”), this was one of a series of posts (still up!) all explicitly about Hamas and its operations during the war, the “blockade” by israel was specifically ON Hamas (instituted after Hamas seized power, and restricting only military/dual use items for Hamas’s use), and all the violence perpetrated by “Gaza” (ie “the repeated efforts to destroy Israel and Jews”) including specifically “the suicide bombings on buses” was perpetrated by Hamas. Anyone who knows any of this history and context could see rather clearly that the subject matter of the post — when the world was demanding the release of the blockade ON HAMAS — is Hamas. (Having said that, I’ve acknowledged that the words alone support the offensive reading — and have apologized for that — but it’s important to understand that the words ALSO, in context, DO support the intended reading. The post is attempting to defend a blockade on a vicious organization with a long history of violence and daily declarations of future violence.
As for the aptness of the metaphor — once restricted to Hamas, not “gaza” in general and certainly not “palestinians” — more later.
have to go deal with kids.
March 4, 10:12 PM
A. to Andrew Pessin
Hi Andy,
I’m really concerned about what it might mean, both for you and for the department, if you respond more publicly (say, in the College Voice) in the same way that you’ve just responded to me. Of course you have the philosophical skills to lay out a coherent interpretation of even the most offensive expression. (You are the one who wrote the book about “the craziest ideas from the smartest philosophers,” and you know it’s a book that I admire.) Â But you have to think hard about how it will look in this particular case if you put those skills on display. That such an elaborate rationalization is needed is the whole problem. What you wrote was really offensive on the face of it. And actually delivering the rationalization (as opposed to just saying “I’m really sorry for saying something so horrible”) is likely to make things worse, because it signals that you don’t quite get how offensive your post was. I’m sorry–it’s hard for me to say all this, but I think it needs to be said.Â
Best,
A.
March 5, 624 AM
Andrew Pessin to A.
thank you, and i do get it — i am prepared to apologize rather forthrightly for the offensiveness. but it’s also important, in some separate context, for people to realize i do not in fact possess the racist view they are asctribing to me from the post. to see that, they have to see what i was actually thinking/intending when writing that post. if’s not a ‘rationalization’ it’s an explanation — in my mind these words refer to hamas because this is the context in my mind. so I appreciate the need for a simple apology, full-stop, because the words can (legitimately) be read the offensive way. But I am not apologizing for holding the view expressed by that reading, because I don’t and never have held the view, since in fact I was writing about hamas.
March 5, 726 AM
A. to Andrew Pessin
Thanks, Andy. I really appreciate this. I think this is a fair way to frame things. I have to rush to get ready for class. There is also a meeting this morning at 8:30 about planning the campus forum that’s scheduled for after break. I am thinking about going to that, just so we have a departmental presence. I may not say much–just want to be present.
We can hold off on making any kind of departmental statement for a little while (many of the students will be leaving for break today anyway). I’ll just keep consulting with folks to see what if any kind of departmental statement might be most helpful/constructive.
Take care (and be safe on the roads today. I just got to the office, and the roads are pretty bad.)
March 5, 744 AM
what you can say is that the views expressed in the post are those of the indiv, not the dept; and that people should please wait until he’s had a chance to clarify his views before reaching final judgment
gotta go
March 5, 145 pm
to philosophy majors/minors/philosophy dept
Responding to Pessin’s email to majors/minors
Subj: Our commitment to inclusivity
Dear philosophers,
This has been an incredibly difficult week. Larry Vogel, Kristin Pfefferkorn, Simon Feldman and Derek Turner have had intense ongoing discussions about how we as a department might respond to Professor Pessin’s Facebook post, to the letters to the editor in the College Voice, and to the response to those letters that Professor Pessin shared with the department yesterday. We will continue that conversation over break, and we may make a more public statement as a department once Prof. Pessin has had the chance to share his own take on things with the broader campus community.
But I wanted to write to you all now … as an ordinary member of our philosophical community here at Connecticut College. You know I care deeply about the department and about all of you. And there are a few things I want to say. These are my personal views, and I am not speaking here for the department, or for Professors X, Y, or Z.
First, I hope that all students–including those who were moved to speak out about Prof. Pessin’s Facebook post–feel welcome in our classes and at our department events. I feel very strongly that the students who have spoken out are not the problem, and should not be made to feel that they are the problem.
Second, I feel that both Prof. Pessin’s original Facebook post and the response to the Voice articles that he shared with the department yesterday are inconsistent with the kind of inclusivity that I, personally, want for our department.Â
Third, I really hope that all of us will make an effort to participate in the events planned for after spring break. I hope that we will have a strong departmental presence at those events, and that we will, as a group, reaffirm our department’s commitment to inclusivity.
Fourth, please know that my door is always open, and that I am willing to discuss these difficult issues with any of you, even if you disagree with what I have shared here.
Thank you,
A.
March 5, 215 pm
B. to majors/minors/philosophy dept
Thank you, A., for sharing those thoughts with all of us.
I’d like to share a few of my own. For now, they are somewhat abstract, but I look forward to discussing the particulars with all of you who are interested, later this month on campus and / or whenever the opportunity arrises down the line.
1. As a philosopher, teacher and person, I believe in an ideal of discourse that enables constructive dialogue and promotes mutual understanding.
2. I think it is important for all of us to recognize that some social and political issues are difficult to discuss in ways that live up to this ideal. When any of us fails to live up to this ideal, I believe that the appropriate response is more conversation that newly strives to meet the ideal. One crucial requirement on this conversation is genuine effort on all sides to charitably understand where others are coming from; why they think –and feel– as they do; and why they’ve expressed themselves as they have. And what if one side is “coming from†a place of hostility to all you hold conversationally dear?
3. I affirm an absolute commitment to aspire to inclusivity in the philosophy classroom and the College as whole. Perhaps most importantly, this inclusivity is one that has room both to allow and even require the deepest criticism of those with whom we disagree. I take this kind of criticism to be an essential component of the kind of discourse that intellectual and moral virtue depend upon. Moreover, this kind of criticism is a manifestation of respect for the persons with whom we disagree. It means we take them to be within the space of reasons and that we therefor take them to be persons, worthy of our intersubjective intellectual engagement.
Wishing everyone well …
B.
C. to philosophy majors/minors/dept
Dear Colleagues and Friends,
Thank you, [colleagues]. I concur. And as a Jewish member of our Department and one who has tried to get our new Hillel House off on a good footing, I feel a special connection to all this. Let me be clear: Prof. Pessin’s Facebook post does not speak for the Philosophy Dept., the Hillel community, or “the Jews.” Nor do I.
I am sympathetic with Prof. Pessin’s complaint that the Voice published its letters on Monday without giving him a chance to respond in public. Still, I worry that his wish to contextualize his Facebook post will only exacerbate the animosities by making it seem like he is the victim here. For my part, I hope he will admit the hurt he has inflicted, rethink his use of social media and such inflammatory imagery, and apologize “full stop.” Then, with the good will of the community, we can shift in the direction of discussions about the meaning of inclusive excellence, the nature and limits of free speech, and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict: something about which Prof. Pessin has a right to his opinions, objectionable though some may find them to be.
Judaism as a religion and Jewish culture are multifaceted in themselves and are not equivalent to Israel. Don’t amalgamate American Jews with Israel. Furthermore, Jews both within and outside Israel have a wide range of opinions about Israel. I hope our campus can be open to diverse political opinions, expressed in civil ways, even if those opinions seem very wrong-headed to some. (the final ref to Pessin not to Jihadi goals)
A really important “wild card” in all this is how citizens of our community use social media. Though Prof. Pessin took his Facebook down, it is now immortalized because some who feel wounded are spreading a photo of his posting around the internet, eliciting sometimes hateful and threatening responses from all over the world.
In the meantime, my understanding is that students are using Yik-yak to vent their grievances and spleen anonymously. This yikking and yakking creates its own dynamic of hate speech on all sides. We ALL all have a responsibility to avoid this and refocus on the kind of public discourse [my colleagues] describe as the hallmark of a liberal-arts college and a healthy Philosophy Department. What’s happening to our civilized conversation?
Have a good break.
C.
March 5, 428 PM
B. to philosophy majors/minors/ dept Â
Dear All,
I’d like to extend Professor C’s helpful observations about the multifaceted nature of Judaism, Jewish culture and attitudes toward Israel to Gazans and Palestinians, as well as to the much larger populations of Arab and non-Arab Muslims and Arab Christians worldwide who are nearly as diverse in their political and religious affiliations as culture itself. We must take care not to conflate these groups or essentialize them in our social / political / religious discourse.Â
March 5, 602 PM
to Andrew Pessin
Subj: a little more explanation
Hi Andy,
I wanted to let you know what prompted my message to the majors and minors today. One of our students was in my office crying this morning, devastated by the message you sent to our students yesterday, and wondering what the rest of the department thought. The student was really hurt by your apparent unwillingness to offer a straightforward apology, and expressed to me that your message was more hurtful than the original Facebook post. Anyway, I just felt I couldn’t let it go unaddressed as everyone leaves for break.
Anyway, I hope what I wrote didn’t have the effect of throwing you under the bus. But the mere fact that students are hurting I think means that there is a problem with inclusivity. Would you like to get together over break sometime to talk? If you are going to write a piece for the College Voice, I would also be glad to take a look, not in the interests of telling you what to say (we might disagree about how to frame it), but I might be able to offer political advice about how things will be perceived around campus.
What an awful week, all around. I just realized that the rest of us have all been talking face to face all week, but we haven’t seen you since this all blew up. I’d be glad to get together for lunch or something …
March 6, 1220 PM
to Andrew Pessin
Subj: C’s attempt to build a bridge
Dear Andy,
At a dinner on Wednesday night honoring CS for her Chair in History, AD leaned over to me and said, “Whatever happens, don’t throw Andy under the bus.” I can imagine you may feel that that’s just what happened yesterday when we (and particularly I) wrote our open letters to the Department. I want to make it clear that I’m doing my best to distinguish my admiration for you as a teacher, scholar and creative writer (and all-around amazing creative person), my respect for you as a friend who is “firing on all cylinders” (some of them broken) and my respectful disagreement with you on Israeli politics FROM my belief that you crossed a serious line when you wrote the August 11 Facebook post.
I wanted to wait until you had a chance to respond to Monday’s Voice before I said anything public about the matter, and, as I pointed out in my letter, I believe you had a right to be told about what was coming and to answer these serious accusations. But when students received your letter and then rumors were circulating about whatever took place in the Dean’s Office, I felt it was important to separate the Facebook post “in itself” from all the contextualizations and rationalizations that began to turn you into the victim – when you started it by using dehumanizing “rabid dogs” imagery. Some students were crying in our offices because they felt that your power as a rationalist was overwhelming your compassion as a man.
In my opinion, a bright line needs to be drawn, and you have a role in drawing it, between political opinions and hateful imagery that will, whether you intend it or not, be read in the ways it has been read and cause “collateral damage” to the Department, our Jewish community on campus, and the College, not to mention yourself. This line will be very hard to sustain, as once you start explaining yourself by reference to your political opinions, the conversation will shift in the direction of a debate where reasonable people will disagree and can argue the fine points until they are blue in the face. But that’s just the issue: the arguments end up drowning out the precipitating act and the hurt it has caused, and this leaves those who feel attacked more angry than ever.
I imagine you feel it’s unfair to isolate the Facebook post from your other Facebook posts and all the other accusations that have come your way. But my recommendation, for what it’s worth, is that you concede that the post was a terrible thing to say, that you feel the hurt it has caused and do everything you can to isolate it from the words, words, words that surround all the related issues. Once you try to put it into “perspective,” it gets confused with all the other issues about which you (should) have a right to speak forthrightly. And then the hate the Facebook post appears to express becomes the filter through which all your political opinions get seen.
My advice is: Don’t let your critics drag you into mixing together your mistake with political opinions to which you have a right. In other words, say “I’m sorry” flat out. Simply admit that your emotions in the midst of war sent you over the edge and made you say something you truly regret (if you do). And then, having done your best to separate your mistake from everything else, try to open space for conversation that should clearly be protected free speech.
To you, this may seem all too easy for me to say from the sidelines. But I want you to feel comfortable in the Department, and I know that, although we felt hurt by your Facebook post and its aftermath, we stand by you a scholar, teacher and friend who’s struggling on so many fronts all at once.
This is far from sufficient, but it’s the best I can do at the moment. I hope we can all get together soon and show our community as a Department. I’m willing to meet or join the group any time until we head to Florida on March 14 to commune with the sun and baseball.
I am willing to stand up for all the good things I’ve said in my first paragraph, even though I can only do it if it’s clear that you have starkly separated the Facebook post from everything else.
Best,
C.
March 7 1128 AM
to philosophy majors/minors/ dept
Dear Philosophers,
[I have had] more time to think about all this and I have something personal to add that I was wrong to omit in my comments on March 5th:
Professor Pessin is not only a respected colleague, teacher and writer but also a friend. I have always known him to be thoughtful, considerate and concerned with the wellbeing of others and my own. Because of this it pains me that I did not say this earlier. Sometimes it is important to reaffirm friendship when we have been most critical of each other. I reaffirm my commitment to a discourse that facilitates understanding of his and others’ perspectives (even while disagreeing). I also believe we must acknowledge that misunderstanding is sometimes inevitable and unresolvable, given our different contexts and assumptions. We need Andy Pessin as an active member of our community for so many reasons, not the least of which is that the loss of his voice would be a substantial loss to our political diversity. I hope that many of us can, even while hurting, recognize that he is a valued contributor to our intellectual lives.
Moreover, I extend a corresponding welcoming message to all those in the community who speak out on this topic. That welcoming message is a precondition of the meaningful talking and listening that will hopefully occur as we go forward.
I don’t know all of you well but I hope you know that you are all welcome and encouraged to contact me and / or arrange to meet with me to share your thoughts, concerns or questions.
Best,
B.
March 7, 1203 PM
A.
To philosophy majors/minors/dept
Hi everyone,
I wholeheartedly agree with the kind words that Professor B. has shared here. I hope that some of the critical judgements that I shared are taken as the starting point for the kind of open philosophical conversation that I feel blessed to have had with some of you this week (thank you Billy, Rachel, Deion, and Jennifer). I also want to thank Prof. C. especially for discussing these issues in his classes.
I should have added the other day that it’s really important for us to say what we think but to do so in a way that does not exclude Professor Pessin from our philosophical community. That would also be inconsistent with the value of inclusivity. He is one of us, too, and I am glad for that.
Be well, everyone, and have a good spring break! If any of you can think of ways in which we as a department can carry the conversation forward, please let us know.
A.
March 7, 1215 PM
C. to philosophy majors/minors/department
Hear, hear, Prof. B. Thanks for echoing what I’m feeling and putting it better than I could have. Disagreement and even the expression of grievances take time, and we still have a lot to go through together. But the goal of all this is to learn how to work through conflicts and make peace. If we can’t do that at our college than it’s hard to ever imagine doing in the larger world.
C.
March 9, 936 AM
to Philosophy Department
Hi everyone,
So, last week, things unfolded really fast. I know that in my own case, Something new would happen before I had the time or space to process what had just happened.
Could we try to get together later this week just to talk things through? I think we’ll all have to be present in a big way at the post-spring break discussions, and I think it would be good for us to talk some amongst ourselves about how we might contribute. Andy, I know that you and I have not been on the same page–and honestly, that’s okay. Even if we are not all on the same page and presenting a united front, I’m sure there’s a lot we can all agree about. For example, I think it would be good to talk about how we can all work to prevent the discussions from being an opportunity for the broader community to “pile on.” I think it’s okay for us to have different views about things without necessarily being in an adversarial relationship going into the post-break discussions….
Thursday is fine with me, though I have a lunch meeting already scheduled for 1:30. Am free either before that or later in the afternoon.
Andy, thanks for your lovely letter [of apology] to the [College] Voice, which I just saw. I do hope we can meet later in the week. We might need to start the meeting with hugs all around!
Best to all,
March 9, 840 PM
Andrew Pessin to his philosophy department colleagues
I do understand that during the recent episode you were all under a lot of pressure from multiple directions, and that things were moving very quickly and unpredictably. Nevertheless—no matter what precise sin you may think I was guilty of—I must register my profound disappointment with your collective response, personal, moral, and philosophical. Far more heartening were the messages I received from students and other colleagues that reflected more nuance, sophistication, character, and compassion than any of my department colleagues. I am not interested in talking about this further at this time, do not wish to hear any response from you now (please respect that wish), and am not available to meet this week. Feel free to do and say what you feel you must on this topic, in whatever future contexts, but leave me out of it. When we return from break I will behave perfectly civilly toward you and fulfill my ordinary department responsibilities, but this is not an issue I can foresee us discussing profitably or productively for some time to come.
Pingback: Salem on the Thames - Analysis, Anti-Israelism, Campus News & Climate, SPME Research - SPME Scholars for Peace in the Middle East
Pingback: BDS, Anti-Intellectualism, Safe Spaces for Hate: Reflections on the U. Michigan Controversies – 24/6 Magazine