Interpreting a Modern Text

It'd been a simple request. I wasn't even asking for an apology, just something like "folks, I may have given you the wrong idea in the last class; I didn't mean to imply that Uriel was justifying Othello's murder of Desdemona."

But nothing doing; no way was Prof. Green going to submit to any aggressive, thrusting male. This wasn't the Elizabethan era any more.

How, she wondered to herself, could she effectuate a reversal and put me on the defensive?

Aha! "I was not commenting on your remark," she wrote, "but on that of the student who spoke after you who noted that spousal murder prompted by jealousy still occurred. It was in response to that comment that I stated that while it might still occur, it could in no way be excused or justified."

Zounds. I'd made a fool of myself.

She drew out the moment: "You appear to be having increasing difficulty with comments I make and are now under the belief that an unrelated remark was directed at you."

And something else: auditing students like me, she advised, really had no right to participate in discussions at all. If I continued having difficulty with her responses, "it [might] be best for you to concentrate on your position as an auditor and to listen to the class discussion."

Finally, in closing: "If you have any problem with my methods of teaching or about your position in the class as an auditor, please contact Dr. Bruce Greenfield, chair of the English department."

This was the third of our three email exchanges. As in the first two, I replied to her reply -- then never heard back:

From: "Uriel Wittenberg"
To: "Reina Green"
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 3:17 PM
Subject: Re: I don't believe in murder -- Acknowledge please

Why would an observation that husbands still kill their wives today prompt you to respond that murder is not justified? No one in our society is tempted to view such murders as justified. No, it's plainly my comment that Othello's love was genuine that you hastily interpreted as a "justification" for his murder of Desdemona. If that wasn't clear enough, your gestures also made it obvious that it was my comment you were responding to. None of the students I mentioned it to expressed any doubt about this.

It's also a fact that there was no other follow-up or examination of Sara's comment to the effect that Othello's love was not genuine. Is this issue not central enough to be discussed in a class on Othello?

Your denial is an implausible stretch, but I see you felt you had no alternative. If you admitted your response was directed to the point I expressed, denying that it was in error would be even harder.

This has become an established pattern now. You put forward a dubious claim; I question it; you pretend you said something different. This is also evident in our recent email exchange:

• You told the class that Edmund was the victim of actual social prejudice against bastards, then pretended you'd only claimed that that is how he feels internally.

• You told the class Lear is "mad" when he expresses unwillingness to see Cordelia, then (faced with a refutation from the text) tried shifting the issue to Lear's "gradual process" of going mad, refusing further discussion of your original claim.

• You told the class Kent is a truth-teller, then (faced again with a refutation from the text) tried shifting the issue to the question of exactly what it is that lands him in the stocks, refusing further discussion of your original claim.

Since this is now an issue not only of teaching methods but of academic honesty, I have decided to follow your suggestion and contact Dr. Greenfield.

It's notable that you would suddenly invoke the idea of using administrative rules to silence me, just after the class in which you discussed Othello's smothering of Desdemona as an attempt to make her stop talking. As you observed, she nevertheless continues to talk.