Let’s discuss the way we live now

The above comment appears to misunderstand the thrust of the article, which, as I understand it, is concerned to stress that more needs to be done *alongside* any reform to harassment policy. It seems undeniably true that various reforms need to be considered. But this does not invalidate attempts to raise concerns about the actions of institutions, even when they are constrained by poor reforms. As I read the piece, it appears to suggest that those in charge of the faculty themselves conceded they could have done better to communicate with students in several respects. Thus it seems reasonable to bring those shortcomings to light in order to try and improve the future culture for female graduate students, both in Oxford and elsewhere. One thing I have observed, in following this case since last June, is that various attempts to raise broad issues about the climate for graduate students have been silenced. We have been urged to focus on the limitations of harassment policy, on the stringencies of due process, on need for reasonable calm, and so on. The article makes the point that these attempts to re-direct our attention in various ways serve to overlook, or downplay, significant forms of systematic harm which affect student life. This point seems accurate to me, and is consistent with my own experience of these issues over these past months. I raise this point because it seems that the above comment is yet another attempt to re-direct attention towards certain – albeit important – matters of formal policy. This is at cross purposes with the main argument of the article, which is trying to show us that there are other things to worry about. Even well-intentioned efforts by institutional leaders, under great constraints, can be the justified subject of critical opinion. To suggest otherwise is to acquiesce to power simply because it is wielded with a friendly face. Moreover, the above comment makes a distinction – as philosophers are wont to do – between what is trite in a philosophical context, and what people in ‘many other contexts’ might find to be appropriate. Yet as I see it, this philosophical exceptionalism is part of the problem that this article addresses. Many philosophers, especially younger graduates who have yet to be acculturated (negatively, in my opinion) to the ways of the (patriarchal) profession, will not share the same sensibility. These people might retain a sense of the ordinary horror and frustration raised by this case and the way it has been handled. They may also feel that recourse to the familiar tropes of the profession is not the way to best facilitate change and support a friendly environment. (For perhaps those tropes contribute to the problems being called-out here in the first place). We should not rest content with our received conceptions of what is normal in academic philosophy. Finally, I find it interesting that Paula Boddington is defensive of the faculty’s actions, and chooses to criticise and silence a graduate student’s attempt to raise issues that need to be discussed both in Oxford and throughout Higher Education. I know many graduate students who are reluctant to speak about their negative experiences within this institution. Perhaps this is why.