A few friends have recently emailed to ask my thoughts, as a Yale alum, on the emerging Naomi Wolff / Harold Bloom sexual harassment scandal.

So, first, let’s outline the accusations, in slightly less vivid prose than Wolff employs in her article:

1. Wolff invites Bloom over for dinner.
2. After dinner, Wolff places her manuscript on the table.
3. Bloom say “You have the aura of election upon you.”
4. Bloom touches her leg.
5. Wolff staggers off and pukes in the sink.
6. Bloom finds his coat, says “You are a deeply troubled girl” and gets the hell out.

In Wolff’s own words: “Is that all? Yes – that’s all.”

So, for the sake of charity, let’s assume Wolff’s twenty year-old retelling of an event apparently experienced drunk enough to involve tossing her cookies is accurate. The question, then: is what occurred clearly sexual harassment?

Oddly, a few days back, I had a very similar conversation with one of my roommates; a female friend had touched his leg while they were talking, and he wondered whether that necessarily implied flirtation, sexual attraction. After a bit of contemplation, we concluded: not necessarily. We both could easily site female friends of varying ages who use touch in an almost maternal way – a pat to the arm or leg to imply support, understanding. Interpreting my roommate’s friend’s minor touch as sexual advance, we realized, might be reading waaay too much into the situation.

And, frankly, I think that assessment still stands in Bloom’s case. From the tone of his classes or his recent books (such as How to Read and Why), it’s immensely clear that the man sees himself as raining pearls of wisdom upon any of the undistinguished masses clever enough to recognize his undisputed genius. By Wolff’s own account, Bloom often “called students, male and female both, ‘my dear’ and ‘my child’.” In other words, Bloom is clearly a rather paternal individual given to consistently displaying non-sexual affection towards the acolytes gathered at his feet.

Certainly, I don’t blame Wolff for seeing otherwise, considering the context of the events. Invite your professor over for dinner and drinks in a darkened, candle-lit room, and even odd pronouncements like “you have the aura of election upon you” might be construed as overture to sex. Yet, by candle or classroom overhead lights, it’s the same Bloom. In other words, I don’t think Bloom was hitting on Wolff, I think he was just being his odd, paternal, vaguely affectionate self.

[For anyone looking for similar arguments, though perhaps voiced less kindly towards Wolff and her position, I’d suggest these three pieces.]

Addendum: In re-reading, I realize this post sounds vastly more “harassed, huh? oh, just suck it up” than I intended. In fact, whatever happened between her and Harold Bloom, I’m mainly upset with Naomi Wolff’s disingenous approach to the matter. She uses Yale’s poor response to her twenty year-old case to unfairly paint the university’s current strongly enforced policies against sexual harassment. She implies that Yale’s ignoring of her complaint is indicative of similar treatment of current students; from friends’ direct experience, I know that’s not the case. Certainly, if Wolff’s agenda was positive change at the school, rather than simply time for herself in the spotlight, perhaps she could have taken the time to actually research (or at least mention the existence of) the current policy and approach to dealing with new incidences of harassment, then propose suggestied changes. But, then, odds are the university would have actually listened to her proposals, and perhaps even implemented them. And where’s the New York cover story in that?