I’ve been waiting to blog about this until Naomi Wolf’s essay was actually released, so I could make a meaningful statement about her accusations rather than speculating blindly.
Wolf’s accusation takes centre stage in the media, but the majority of the article focuses on the climate at Yale. The problem is that, despite Wolf’s insistence that she is not out to vilify Bloom, her writing is not clear enough to establish whether the plethora of anecdoatal evidence is meant to support her point about Yale, or her case against Bloom.
And aside from her own accusation against Bloom, very nearly everything she says in unverifiable rumour, or unverifiable hearsay. I’m not saying she’s wrong in her accusation, or in her portrait of Yale. What I am saying is that I don’t have enough information to judge either way, and Wolf’s essay doesn’t lend her any credibility. Even if her accusation against Bloom is true, she comes across as using it, not because of any damage done to her, but because it will get her essay extra attention. True or not, she brought the issue to the court of public opinion, and here her credibility matters, and is influenced not only by what she says, but how she says it.
If I were forced to choose a side, I would choose Bloom’s, mostly because he is an old man whose work I respect, whereas Wolf’s politics and mine disagree violently. That being said, I will not say that Bloom is innocent, or that he is guilty. I simply don’t know enough.
