But that seems to be of a different order to the allegations that Naomi Wolf puts against Harold Bloom - that he thrust his hand between her legs.
I wouldn't have called the first an example of *sexual* harrassment. It's prejudice, but not harrassment, and defintely not sexual harrassment.
Rushing to generalisations about sexism at Universities seems to me to avoid the reason that this story has legs: Naomi Wolf says that Harold Bloom thrust his hand between her legs, when he was a professor, and she a student.
If it is true, it is an allegation that ought to cost him his job, his reputation and lead to criminal charges. But as far as we can see, Wolf has made no complaint to the police. She has only aired the allegation in the newspapers.
There is, it seems to me, a question of natural justice here. Bloom, as much as anyone else, is entitled to be considered innocent until proven guilty. There's no use throwing around generalisations about the behaviour of professors as such, when considering the case of this professor.
The college say that they cannot adjudicate on a case (under their own internal disciplinary code) that is over twenty years old. That does not strike me as a cover-up. It strikes me as reasonable. How could you judge a case when the only evidence is allegation and denial, dating back 20 years?
Wolf's actions in airing the allegations in the press are outrageous. Bloom has no redress for the smear on his character.
It is easy to make up stories about people. I could easily say that on his visit to London Doug Henwood was boorish and stole five pounds from me. There would be no way of disproving the allegation. (Of course, he didn't - on the contrary he was very generous and charming.)