A couple of weeks ago, I posted about what has come to be known in the professional philosophical community as “L’Affaire Hendricks,” in which Prof. Vincent Hendricks used several explicit and sexist photos (one example on your left) to advertise his logic course at the University of Copenhagen. I was, quite honestly, surprised to see so many defenses of Hendricks in the comment thread of my original post, though in retrospect I suppose I shouldn’t have been. I didn’t respond to most of them because, quite frankly, I think that their comments were all of a sort, that is to say, they did not meet the minimally acceptable bar of familiarity with women’s and gender issues in professional Philosophy to warrant a response. (Their comments exhibited a manifestly gross naïveté with regard to the global structure of women’s systemic devaluation, and so trying to convince them that Hendricks’ photos were evidence of sexism in the profession of Philosophy would be like trying to convince a Creationist that fossils are evidence of evolution in Nature.) Thankfully, Prof. Hendricks provided his own rejoinder to the debate in an interview here, so I can now in good conscience avoid his defenders’ objections and address the man himself.
Prof. Hendricks: Not to put too fine a point on it, but you SOOOOOO don’t get it.
Here’s the rub: you don’t have to intend to be sexist in order to for an action of yours to be sexist. As a matter of fact, and not to be overly-Kantian here, but your “intention” is the least significant criterion that one should use to determine the sexist nature of your actions. In fact, forget Kant altogether, your decision to use overtly sexist images is non-instrumentally useful, regardless of your intent. For the record, and to be manifestly clear, using overtly and demonstrably sexist images in the service of an otherwise worthy charity is not an excuse, neither instrumentally nor on principle. So, Prof. Hendricks, you (and your excuses) fail on every philosophically-legitimate moral account.
Kudos, by the way, to Anna Meera Gaonkar, the interviewer at the Danish newspaper Universitetsavisen, who continued to press Hendricks on his decision to publish the controversial photos on his own website. From that interview:
Gaonkar: But wasn’t the criticism directed at the photos as displayed in a different context, namely that of your own website?
Hendricks: I used some of the images on my private website in connection with a site that advertizes my logic course at University of Copenhagen. It was the connection between the photos and the course advertisement that lead to some criticism, especially in the U.S. Some saw the pictures as sexist. As I see it, I shouldn’t have placed the pictures on my private website without providing the context for the photos. I have officially apologized, and I immediately removed the images when the criticism was raised. Let me also point out that the criticism ended, even in the U.S., as soon as it became public that I did this as part of a charity initiative.
Goankar: What was the purpose of advertizing a logic course using photos of yourself surrounded by half-naked women dressed in school uniforms?
Hendricks: I initially thought it would be humorous and ironic to use these photos to advertize for a logic course. It was not my intention to provoke people or make them feel offended. It was an effort to promote a logic course, a course that would not otherwise appear particularly interesting to most students. I also wanted the course to have some appeal to young men who read these kinds of magazines but who rarely sign up for logic courses. Remember in this connection that there is a long video interview with me on Connery.dk as part of the launch of the charity initiative. In this interview I make some comments about my background and argue for the importance of perseverance, persistence, knowledge, information and informed basis for informed decision and action (something I regularly do through my columns and commentaries in newspapers and in my co-authored books: Tal en tanke, Oplysningens blinde vinkler, and soon NEDTUR! Finanskrisen forstået filosofisk).
Gaonkar: You say that the pictures are self-mocking. How so?
Hendriks: Look, what’s the chance that a professor at a university would be associated with anything that might even remotely resemble the scenario depicted in the pictures? It’s not my world. I am Professor of Formal Philosophy. I’m not a Clark Kent, model or rock star.
Oy vey. You may not be Clark Kent, a model or a rock star, Prof. Hendricks, but let me assure you that the chances that “a professor at a university would be associated with anything that might even remotely resemble the scenario depicted in [your] pictures” is far greater than you might imagine. Sure, it’s unlikely that a bunch of scantily-clad female undergraduates would huddle around their logic professor in the way your photos imagine, but the fact that the environment for students serious about Philosophy might be manipulated in a way that convinces female students that they have a less-than-optimal chance at success if they don’t– forgive the salacious verb-usage here- prostitute themselves is far more likely than you seem willing to admit.
I know, I know, people are going to say (and have already said) that I’m viewing this issue through a myopically-“American” or “feminist” lens. I’m inclined to respond that I can’t see how that makes any difference, as alleged sexism in our profession ought to be a concern for both non-Americans and non-feminists. Nevertheless, in the interest of fairness, I would like to invite Prof. Hendricks to contact me for an interview (to be published on this blog) for the American and feminist audience. I’ll even provide the questions in advance, so there’s no worry that the interview isn’t being conducted in good faith.
If you’re interested in reading an interview between Prof. Hendricks and myself, please send the following email to Vincent Hendricks at [email protected]:
Dear Professor Hendricks,
I am writing to encourage you to accept the interview request by Dr. Leigh Johnson, which you can read here. Your English-speaking audience is eager and willing to hear your response to the controversy surrounding the images associated with your Logic course. I hope you will make every effort to accommodate this request.
Sincerely,
{Your name here}
Come on, Professor Hendricks. Let’s chat. You can contact me here.