Paglia's Attacks Are Hypocritical

If, as Camille Paglia alleges in The Crimson (Feb. 7, 1994), "[t]he standard of academic debate in this country is very low," then she must take her share of the blame for this situation. Lurching from soundbite to soundbite, Paglia mistakes overblown rhetoric and ad feminam attacks for analysis and insight.

That Paglia herself is a woman and a self-described (anti-feminist) feminist in no way lessens the misogyny of her attack on four female Harvard faculty. It is indeed telling that what the four faculty members whom Paglia attacks have in common is not their ideological sympathies nor their sexuality, but their gender.

In particular, Paglia accuses Professors Barbara Johnson and Marjorie Garber of "posturing" as feminists for the sole purpose of advancing their careers. The absurdity of Paglia's accusations hardly needs comment. Since when did being a feminist help any woman's tenure portfolio? Paglia paints a picture of an Academy so terrorized by feminist ideologues that the old boys faintly cower in terror, their hands--no doubt--cupped in front of their, er, more private parts. Move over, Harvey Mansfield and endowed co., here comes Lorena Bobbitt and not only is she pissed, but--much worse--she's tenured.

What does bear scrutiny here is the degree to which Paglia's own posturings have been highly marketable and even more highly lucrative. Presenting herself as, variously, the ultimate outsider; the last remaining "authentic" voice of feminism; a battle-weary warrior for truth, justice, and the 'merican way, poor, poor Professor Paglia hits the lecture circuit, appears on talk show after talk show and yaps, yaps, yaps, about how she has been denied her "rightful" place at the academic table because she dares to speak the unpopular "truth." Yet the uncomfortable truth for Paglia is that her traveling one-woman show resembles noting so much as Eva Peron's triumphant world tour reprised for the postmodern landscape of tabloid TV.

I can only assume that when Paglia attacks scholars, feminist and otherwise, for putting self-aggrandizement and self-promotion before the concerns of students and "real" scholarship, she is her own best--which is to say, worst--case in point.

Finally, while we do not question The Crimson's right to cover Paglia's hissy fit, we do question your judgment in repeating her highly personalized and even scatological attacks on named Harvard faculty. Obviously, The Crimson has a right to print what you will; the First Amendment guarantees it. What the First Amendment can never guarantee, however, is good judgment Ann Pellegrini '86   Paul B. Franklin   Gay and Lesbian Issues Tutor   Winthrop House