Jonathan Ichikawa (UBC) reports that he and his wife, Carrie Jenkins (UBC), have received from a Toronto lawyer a notification that Brian Leiter (Chicago) is prepared to take legal action against them in the Courts of Canada over “various Internet postings which he alleges defame him.”
Leiter claims to have been attacked or defamed by:
- Carrie’s pledge on her tumblr blog to behave with civility towards other philosophers and colleagues;
- Carrie’s post to Facebook of the complete text of Professor Leiter’s email of July 2, 2014 regarding that pledge;
- the so-called “September Statement”; and
- the post on the Feminist Philosophers blog entitled “Sometimes An Apology Doesn’t Help.”
Leiter has demanded that the couple:
publish on the Internet, for a continuous period of at least six months, a lengthy apology and retraction (which his lawyer drafted). If we do not, we are warned, Professor Leiter ‘will pursue his legal remedies.’
The message from the lawyer mentions that other signatories to the original September Statement may also be the targets of legal action, and that Leiter’s lawsuit against the couple will involve “a full airing of the issues and the cause or causes of [Carrie’s] medical condition.”
Merry Christmas, philosophy profession.
UPDATE: Brian Leiter has posted about this litigation at Leiter Reports. A copy of the letter his lawyer sent is here. The reply by the lawyer for Ichikawa and Jenkins is here. Leiter’s central claim is that Jenkins exaggerated the harmful health effects she experienced as a result of his hostile communications with her.
I agree with both the tone and the expressed meaning in the last line: “Merry Christmas, philosophy profession.” And BTW, thanks for the “Daily Nous”.
Yes, thank you for the Daily Nous! The philosophy profession is well-served.
Only Leiter would argue that a Tumblr post about behaving civilly would be defamation.
Fascinating development. I suspect that if he goes through with it he will use the opportunity to seek discovery from third parties (like this website), though Canada narrows discovery a lot more than the US does. As with the UK, Canadian libel law is somewhat medieval and pro-plaintiff, but in this case I would suspect they have a good chance of winning, particularly if they file a counter-suit over Leiter’s far worse statements about the putative defendants here. Imagine a judge or jury comparing Jenkin’s reasoned and gentle initial post with Leiter’s response. Also it would be interesting to get Leiter under oath and confronted with some of the alleged sockpuppetry some have accused him of engaging in.
Leiter has clearly been cowed by the philosophicabal.
Shame on Leiter. But Grinchy behavior is in keeping with the persona he cultivates. He is doing more to damage his own reputation than any tumblr post ever could. Bravo Leiter for hastening the demise of the broken prestige system you represent!
I am still trying to figure out how it makes sense to threaten Carrie and Jonathan with a defamation suit over (in part) *my* blog post. Can we sue people for other people’s blog posts? Is that a thing now?
Magicalersatz: “Just to be clear, I posted this in full consultation with Carrie Jenkins and with her approval.”
Let us know if they need help with legal fees. I’m sure there are enough of us around willing to help ease the costs.
He will sue this time, and he has a decent chance of winning. And if he does he will (try to) use the victory as a reason to not step down from the PGR editorship as promised. He will (try to) benevolently forgive the other early signatories of the SS in exchange for their acquiescence qua PGR board members.
Note that the settlement offer included reference, in the event the offer was not accepted, to litigation by Leiter not only against Ichikawa and Jenkins but also “perhaps others among the signatories of “the September Statement”.
Time now for the December Statement, condemining, on moral and professional grounds, this threat against members of the profession.
He is philosophy’s version of Krampus, and it’s sad that he represents the profession. I can’t wait to see the handful of self-supportive emails he posts from his sycophants to bolster his case. For a guy who rails about people being too thin-skinned about internet criticism, he’s pretty sue-happy about internet criticism.
Why not post a link to Leiter’s full account: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2014/12/carrie-jenkins-boycott-statement-september-falsehoods.html
E: there is a difference, however, between ‘internet criticisms’ and false/defamatory statements. I cannot judge whether Jenkins made a false/defamatory statement against Leiter, but he clearly believes that she did, and thus (given the amount of damage the september statement stuff) has caused his professional reputation, it seems reasonable that he would take action. My sense is that he has a pretty good chance of winning, but I do not know enough details.
I am not sure whether this needs saying, but Leiter’s recent post makes some assertions and insinuations that shouldn’t be accepted unremarked-upon. First, he says that I ‘very unwisely misrepresented’ the contents of the letter we received, but doesn’t describe any particular misrepresentation. I think my description of the letter was wholly accurate; one can of course judge for oneself.
Second, the idea that anything that has happened this week constitutes an effective admission that the September Statement was misleading is a pretty big stretch. Our lawyer described what we’d said as ‘lawful expression’ because that’s what’s relevant for the purpose of defamation suit. Of course I think the September Statement is true. That’s why I signed it. I still think that, and I’d sign it again.
I am no sycophant of Leiter, but, reading his lawyer’s letter, I have to admit that he has a point. The SS and Barnes’s post made public claims to the effect that Leiter’s behavior had caused sufficient psychological harm to Jenkins to impair her ability to work. But if those claims are inconsistent with the facts, then they might be false, and if false, then defamatory.
I do not agree with Leiter’s decision to bring suit, as nothing about this ugly episode of elite infighting reflects well on our discipline.
Perhaps if this blog linked to what Leiter says rather than just editorialising then maybe the discussion would be better. And hey, between you and me, its not up to this blog to use the Philos-L email list in the UK as a source of ‘news’. The very idea that we have to hear from this blog via Philos-L that the PGR has been published is not a good sign for the ‘New Consesus’.
Jesus, people, can we just leave Christmas out of this?
I hate, hate, hate the fact that Leiter has chosen to go down this route, and implore him not to, but I do remember reading the comments surrounding ‘Sometimes an Apology Doesn’t Help’ and thinking that this was some sort of mass hysteria worthy of The Crucible. Take Anne Jacobson’s:
‘We may not understand why someone finds something very traumatic, but in fact the statistics for those who get systematic bullying are VERY dim. We’re taking suicide, heart disease, possibly cancer, etc.’
What on earth was this doing in a discussion of an ineffectual, but hardly malicious, apology? And anyone who tried to give some perspective on the matter was shot down in the comments. Perhaps had a more reasoned debate been possible online, and a frenzy not whipped up, this sorry saga would not now be playing out in the courts.
I am no fan of Leiter’s–I think he is quite the blowhard and a bad influence on the profession–but I think he is absolutely in the right on this. I hope he prevails.
Even if he wins he loses. BL should look up ‘pyrrhic victory’. In fact, the self inflicted damage already seems to be done. He should cut his loses while he still can.
in regards to whether or not Professor Leiter has a case, it would seem to me to be a factual inquiry into whether he caused the distress cited in the September statement. Considering how much time I have spent on this mess, even though I am not actively involved other than discussing the matter with colleagues and reviewing the various stories about the situation, it would not seem too difficult of a stretch of the imagination that Professor Jenkins indeed was distressed and harmed in the manner described in the September statement by Professor Leiter’s behavior. Seriously, a person makes a post promising to act in an appropriate manner in the profession without naming any counter examples and Mr. Leiter becomes enraged!? Considering how he has acted in the past, I would be worried if I became his target and I think it would undoubtedly cause harm to my other professional activities (e.g., reducing my speaking up about issues in the profession out of fear of further enraging Professor Leiter). I’ll end by just stating that if a legal defense fund is set up, I’ll gladly contribute.
I’d say this news confirms that the following is an appropriate summary of the philosophy profession in 2014: http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/554/facepalm.jpg
Ligurio, it is improbable that Leiter will be able to prove that Jenkins did not
suffer psychological harm. She can state that it happened and there is very little he can do to dispute that. I don’t know why he thinks he has a strong case, but I think any litigation will result in further embarassment to him; especially since Jenkins and Ichikawa are not backing down.
Leiter’s actions are petty. I don’t think it’s worth our time to play amateur lawyers about the defamation case. I do, however, think it is worth our time to talk about the moral and practical implications of Leiter’s behavior on the discipline and our disciplinary culture at large (a conversation which would, in any case, be safe from his petty sue-happy grasp).
Three professors, all “philosophers,” behaving like kids.
And we claim to improve the minds and lives of our students when as members of a profession we behave like this.
Smh.
I don’t see how Jenkins and Ichikawa are behaving like kids at all. They are simply, calmly, responding to Leiter’s legal threat.
Is this really relevant for the profession? It’s a tawdry affair and private. In what way do either of these parties represent this profession? *Must* I choose one of them as the paragon of the profession and then indignantly take sides?
This lawsuit concerns the two parties and their friends and intimates. If I am neither, it concerns me no more than a lawsuit between any other two members of the profession. Why does THIS lawsuit especially merit the attention of those not close with any of the parties? Is this lawsuit really of profession-wide significance?
For those who are friends with the two being sued, by all means Jenkins and Ichikawa deserve your support and care in these circumstances. But this warranted concern is personal not professional.
I suppose many friends of J&I feel this is of deep political significance. Maybe. But it’s hard to disentangle the personal from the political here. Angry Internet fights between two very prominent academics with full professorships, armies of supporters, and blogs to boot just don’t seem as politically significant as so many other issues (even with this lawsuit thrown in). I do not see my own position in the profession – or the positions of most in the profession – in either of these well-off, politically powerful parties.
I guess I don’t see the point of caring about Leiter’s antics. He’s by his own admission often rude (or at least uncivil) but does not speak for the profession. The APA does that. Can’t we all just start ignoring Leiter’s antics? (I know Jenkins and Ichikawa can’t, but let us learn from this bad situation and treat it as a reason to focus our attention on DN and whatever institutions have a real claim to represent the profession.)
I wish the best for J&I. May this come to a swift satisfying end. They seem like nice enough people. But then again most people in the profession seem nice enough for me to hope that any troubles they face, including not getting a job, not resolving two-body problems, suffering under the burdens of adjuncting, etc., are quickly resolved happily. In fact, I worry more about those people (especially the jobless and marginally employed).
The PGR is meant to reflect a broad consensus of informed opinion on philosophical reputations. Yet the elite are prepared to go to enormous lengths to wrestle control of it from each other. What gives?
I guess the fact that he has to live with himself every day proves that you get what you deserve.
Also, LOL all day long at the fact that the litigation notice had to include his professorial title. He’s gotta let people know who he is at every turn. It’s like he’s begging to be psychoanalyzed.
Root, that might be how proof of psychological harm works in the freshman seminar; that is not how proof of psychological harm works in the courtroom.
Root and others have the relevant law wrong. Prof. Jenkins will need to offer proof of her claimed distress and that it was caused by Prof. Leiter’s conduct. The normal standard is that of a reasonable person.
Just to get clear about a few things…
I take it that when reading Leiter’s lawyer’s letter, we need to keep an eye out for statements that are (a) alleged to be false, and (b) alleged to cause Leiter harm. If so, the only such statements I see are that Leiter was a “tormentor” whose actions had “very serious” “effects” on her, including “impacting her health, her capacity to work, and her ability to contribute to public discourse as a member of the profession.”
From a cursory look into Canadian defamation law, my impression is that the burden would be on J&I either to prove these to be true or to prove that these statements didn’t cause him reputational damage?
The feministphilosophers post mentions that Jenkins had received advice from her counsellor to avoid contact with Leiter for health reasons. I assume this is true, and I assume that the counsellor’s testimony would be that Leiter’s actions did have these sorts of effects.
Do others agree with the above analysis of the legal situation? If I’ve got it right, does anyone have sufficient knowledge of Canadian defamation law to speak in a detailed way to Leiter’s chances of success? Does anyone know, if he lost, whether he would be liable for J&I’s costs of their legal defense? (Needless to say, I haven’t found anonymous, vague comments of “he’s likely to win” or “he won’t win” very helpful.)
What was Leiter defamed by? Here is the entire text of Jenkins’ tumblr post:
—
Yesterday was my first day as Full Professor at UBC, so it seemed like as good a time as any to reflect on a few points about how I want to conduct my professional life.
I think of the following as pledges concerning my future behaviour qua professional philosopher. I’m making them public in the hope (and expectation!) of being held accountable to them.* This isn’t a complete list of my aspirations in this domain, of course; just a few basic things to start out with.
When I look at these statements, formulated quite generally as they are, they sound so basic that it feels important for me to note that there have been occasions where I haven’t behaved according to them (and this was received as entirely normal).
1. In my professional capacity, I will treat other philosophers with respect.
• In particular, I will treat other philosophers more junior and/or professionally vulnerable than myself with respect.
• I will not make negative personal comments about individual philosophers in professional contexts.
• If I disagree with someone’s work or ideas, I will find ways to express that disagreement without suggesting the person is unintelligent, lacking in credibility, unfit to be a philosopher, or otherwise undeserving of respect.
• I will not treat other philosophers or their work in ways that are belittling, trivialising, and/or exclusionary.
2. I will not react to behaviour that does not meet the basic standards described in 1 as if it were normal or acceptable within my discipline.
• I will make clear, in public, that in my opinion behaviour which does not meet the basic standards described in 1 is both unprofessional and unethical.**
• I will not accept or treat those whose behaviour regularly fails to meet these standards as normal or representative members of my profession.
• I will not lend my professional authority or support to such behaviour or to the people who regularly engage in it.
3. I will work with like-minded colleagues to find ways to make philosophy a discipline in which junior and otherwise professionally vulnerable academics are not routinely subject to behaviour that does not meet the basic standards described in 1.
* For clarity: it’s not my intention here to suggest that these or similar pledges should be made by every philosopher. These are statements about my own intentions.
** It’s good to get to work on one’s to-do list right away, right?
—
Note that Leiter is not mentioned in this post at all. It was Leiter himself that, egocentrically, assumed it was about him. After Jenkins posted this, Leiter writes to call her a “sanctimonious asshole.” But seriously, who but an asshole could have a problem with this post?
Here are the relevant lines from the September Statement:
“Professor Jenkins has been targeted by Professor Brian Leiter (University of Chicago) with derogatory and intimidating remarks privately by email in July, and recently with further derogatory remarks publicly on Twitter.” – TRUE
“Professor Jenkins wrote the following blog post in July:
http://csi-jenkins.tumblr.com/post/90563605390/day-one
in response to which Professor Leiter sent her an email saying that she comes across as a “sanctimonious asshole” (and indicating that he is not sure whether “in real life” she is a sanctimonious asshole or a “civilized person”). The email also intimates that Professor Leiter is contemplating litigation against Professor Jenkins, states that he is wondering “what she is ‘thinking’ if anything”, and asks if she plans to spit at him at the APA or chase him with a bat.” – TRUE
“He has now followed this up by saying publicly on Twitter that he has called Carrie a “sanctimonious arse”. He sent her another email in an attempt to apologise for ‘upsetting her’, “ – TRUE
“The effects of this on Professor Jenkins since July have been very serious, impacting her health, her capacity to work, and her ability to contribute to public discourse as a member of the profession.” – This is what’s disputed, but there seems to be evidence that it is TRUE.
(As far as I can tell, the September Statement does not use the word “tormenter” to describe Leiter — a word that only appears in HIS lawyer’s letter.)
—
Brian Leiter’s lawsuit threat is pathetic bluster aimed at scaring the entire profession away from criticizing him and his awful behavior. This is not the first time he has threatened stupid lawsuits, and it probably won’t be the last. I hope we stand together and make it clear that we disapprove of his strong arm (not to mention ineffectual) tactics to protect himself from criticism.
You may be disgusted, but you also didn’t read: there is nothing in the lawyer’s letter that claims Jenkins’s Tumblr post was defamatory. That was one way in which Ichikawa misrepresented the letter.
Ah well, time to add Leiter to that excellent category of people who can dish it but can’t take it.
I addressed the September Statement, too, Anon478.
Anon Grad Student and Bogart:
I simplified the issues because this is a non-attorney audience. While I am not a Canadian lawyer, I am a lawyer; I presume you are not. Anon, my point was that Leiter has a much harder burden than Jenkins when it comes to establishing what she felt. I was speaking in terms of litigation strategy rather than law. Bogart, you are conflating two things I believe; the reasonableness requirement you are talking about would apply only if Jenkins was trying to sue Leiter for an emotional distress tort or something similar. There is certainly no requirement that every time someone expresses how they feel that they are required to legally support that such feelings are reasonable under an objective standard. The central legal question would involve whether Jenkins was telling the truth, not whether her reaction to Leiter was substantiated or not.
So, if I understand this correctly, Leiter is trying to extort an apology from Jenkins and Ichikawa by threatening them and their friends with a lawsuit and its attendant costs. Who would want to have anything to do with this guy? I suggest that after this lawsuit is dismissed we all commit to giving Leiter 0% of our time and attention.
New Year’s Resolution: never read Leiter Reports again!
Correction to mine above, already noted in several places: wider threat of litigation limited to “original signatories of “the September Statement”, namely, the initial 20-odd, rather than the 600+.
I think this comment by “Towards Clarity” was right, with one exception:
> I take it that when reading Leiter’s lawyer’s letter, we need to keep an eye out for statements that are (a) alleged to be false, and (b) alleged to cause Leiter harm. If so, the only such statements I see are that Leiter was a “tormentor” whose actions had “very serious” “effects” on her, including “impacting her health, her capacity to work, and her ability to contribute to public discourse as a member of the profession.”
The exception is that the claim that Leiter was a “tormentor” doesn’t seem to appear in the September Statement or anywhere else that Jenkins and Ichikawa have been involved in. Unless I’m missing something, it appears for the first time in Leiter’s lawyer’s description of events, even though it occurs in quotation marks there.
Also, about whether the profession as a whole should care about J&I here: if their version of events is correct, then they’re facing a threat of a lawsuit only because they took measured steps to make professional philosophy a safer and more respectful place. Anyone who cares about that ideal should care about this case, assuming their version is true.
Also, if it’s relevant, while Jenkins is a full professor, Ichikawa is untenured.
Root, you wrote that “it is improbable that Leiter will be able to prove that Jenkins did not suffer psychological harm. She can state that it happened and there is very little he can do to dispute that.” That’s false both as a matter of law (since you’re a lawyer, surely you know this is not how matters of fact get hashed out in court) and as a matter of “litigation strategy”. Sure, she can state it, but he can use the usual tools of litigation to cast it into doubt. He can, I don’t know, call witnesses who will testify with respect to her behavior at that time in her life, he can call experts who can testify as to their expert opinions, he can cross examine her, he can look for evidence of the psychological harm that pre-dates his behavior, …
You were suggestion that the subject’s perspective is granted special status in court for matters of psychological harm. That suggestion is false.
Perhaps the “tormentor” reference is to this discussion:
http://rgheck.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-more-things-change.html
Does anyone else feel vaguely guilty or dirty after reading Leiter reports?
Anon478 said:
“You may be disgusted, but you also didn’t read: there is nothing in the lawyer’s letter that claims Jenkins’s Tumblr post was defamatory. That was one way in which Ichikawa misrepresented the letter.”
Leiter’s purported cause of action is libel, which is a species of defamation, so Ichikawa made no such misrepresentation.
Ditto!
Ditto–viz., I, too, feel like I need to shower after reading Leiter Reports.
Let’s stop feeding already oversized egos.
Anon Grad Student: do you really think Jenkins just made up her distress? All she has to do is testify about what she says she went through, and put witnesses up who can testify as to her behavior around the time. She doesn’t have to show that her mental distress reached some
specific level or objective standard of mental damage beyond what she said. How on earth would he disprove this? No reputable psychologist would testify that he or she is certain she was lying about this. No jury or judge is going to see Leiter’s communications and not believe it. The prior medical condition, even if true, isn’t relevant. All she needs to do is show that she subjectively felt this way based in his communications.
It’s hard to get any group to act collectively but I think that the philosophy New Year’s resolutions really need to include at least the following:
1. Stop visiting Leiter’s Blog (there are many other great outlets for news in the profession now, present company specifically included).
2. Agree to live by some set of principles regarding our professional code of conduct that specifically is conscious of our norms of discourse (be less hostile and negative…even when critiquing!), power differentials among faculty and students, and whatever else you may find important. Jenkins’ own pledge is a good example, I think.*
3. Remain vigilant about the issues that were stirred up this year (about the adjunctification of academic labor, about the intersections of gender, race, and class within academia, about Steven Salaita’s ongoing case, bystander intervention, etc etc).
If nothing else, I feel that philosophy has become more self-aware, more critical (in a good sense) in the last five years than it has in the last twenty. Let’s continue that.
*http://csi-jenkins.tumblr.com/post/90563605390/day-one