Lisa Chavez speaks out
Lisa Chavez is a tenured Associate professor in English at University of New Mexico, where she teaches creative writing--mostly poetry and nonfiction. She has two books of poetry published: Destruction Bay and In An Angry Season. She writes about issues of race, gender, class and sexuality.
On March 24 I wrote about the conflict that had erupted at UNM after some BDSM photos got Chavez into trouble with some of her colleagues. Yesterday I learned from the dankprofessor, who himself learned it from The Daily Lobo, UNM's student newspaper, that the head of the creative writing program is resigning over the matter. Sharon Warner submitted her resignation letter and is expected to step down at the end of next week. Her reason for resigning, according to the student newspaper report is that "her colleague has not been punished for posing in sexually explicit photos with students.” Those photos were advertisements for People Exchanging Power (PEP), a BDSM phone fantasy service and did not represent a sexual relationship. The students were graduate students already working for PEP. The Deputy Provost found no reason to sanction her.
Lisa Chavez has graciously agreed to talk to us about her work for PEP, the situation at UNM, about relationships between faculty and students, about misconceptions of BDSM and the difficulty some people have distinguishing between fantasy and reality, and about and the impact this is having on her life and the lives of some of the other gay, lesbian and bisexual faculty in the department. I am grateful that she agreed to talk with me about her story:
What happened that brought this incident to the attention of the university?
My department chair received an anonymous letter purportedly from “appalled parents.” I don’t know who wrote the letter, but I believe it may have been someone who had a grudge against me.
How did you get involved with PEP?
I had directed the dissertation of a very talented writer who’d been a sex worker for several years, who worked for PEP, and who wrote about sex work. Through her I’d heard of PEP and met some of the other women who worked there.
What kinds of involvement did you have and why? Was it primarily about a second job? Was it a community you wanted to be involved in anyway?
I started working for PEP originally because I needed another job. I initially began working at the office only, doing data entry, then moved on to taking calls.
I began working as a phone counselor for several reasons. One, I was very curious about what actually went on during the calls, and I hoped to write about it, mostly in fiction. Also, taking calls pays well, and I needed the money. I thought it was a perfect job, since I could do it from home.
While I was interested in the dynamics of BDSM relationships, and while I have always been interested and supportive of any type of “alternative” sexualities, I was not involved in the BDSM lifestyle myself.
How long were you involved before the storm at the university started?
I had begun working at PEP in February 2007, and the anonymous letter arrived in July.
The news coverage makes it sound like the colleagues who are upset are upset because of impropriety with students. The deputy provost found no such impropriety yet those colleagues are still upset. What is the source of their objection?
I’m not sure, because people are claiming they don’t have problems with me on the web site, but they have problems with me on the website with a student. I don’t really believe that--I believe they would have found a way to go after me even if a student hadn’t been involved. Frankly, I’m a victim of other people imposing their morality on me.
How much do you think that adult students need to be “protected" from faculty, and are there any benefits to students from close relationships with faculty? I wonder sometimes if we haven't separated faculty and students too much in our reaction to issues of harassment, etc.
I suppose this is part of what other faculty are angry about; however, I was not in a relationship with the student in the photos--other than the relationship between co-workers at PEP and as friends.
I do not think adult students need to be protected from faculty. Of course I believe sexual harassment and any coercion are wrong, but I don’t believe consensual relationships are wrong. In fact, there are cases of such relationships in my department, but they have always been heterosexual. There are also cases of true harassment, which have not been pursued. I believe I am being treated this way partially because the purported relationship was between two women, and also because they see a certain “luridness” in what some in my department called the “sex trade.”
I do think students and faculty both can benefit from close relationships--not sexual relationships per se, but friendships--and this is especially true in my field of creative writing. I have become friends with a number of the students I’ve worked with (and, for the record, I have never had a sexual relationship with a student, though I do not mean to condemn all such relationships), and I believe that the friendship helps us work better together. Creating writing is often a sort of soul-baring, and I believe that to work well together, we need to build up a mutual trust, which is something that goes beyond a formal student/teacher distance.
I believe part of the attacks on me stem from my good relations with graduate students. I have been told in the past that I should not be friends with students, something I utterly reject. Not only because I believe such friendships enhance our working relationship, but because as an unmarried woman in a department of married people with families, I often find I have more in common with the graduate students than I do with my colleagues. I have never had a problem with graduates students understanding the boundaries of our friendships—i.e. my friendships have never influenced me in terms of grades or treatment of students, nor have they expected it to.
It sounds like you and the student were simply working for the same organization and that the photos were taken in the context of advertising PEP’s services. Why do you think people seem unable tell the difference between fantasy, performance, and reality? Do you think those of us who do understand that difference have an obligation to educate others about it? Presumably you've been trying to explain this difference to colleagues and they don't understand. What seem to be the biggest roadbloacks?
I am continually surprised how my well-educated colleagues seem unable to tell the difference between performance (i.e. the photos) and real-life sex. This is particularly ironic in an English department. Recently, I was very publicly accused of participating in violent and coercive pornographic acts with students. This shows a profound (and I believe willful) ignorance of both the nature of the photos (i.e. advertisements) and of BDSM itself.
As most people would guess, PEP’s photos are staged. PEP is in the business of fantasy conversation and support for the BDSM community, and the founder of PEP, Nancy Ava Miller, is quite clear on what is legally deemed “pornographic” and none of the PEP photos fall into that category. Photos are meant to be suggestive, but that is all they are.
It also speaks to an ignorance about the BDSM community, a community that I have profound respect for. I think about the terms we use: “scene” and “play” for example. Just those words indicate the nature of BDSM, as they imply both fantasy and the consensual nature of the acts. Safe, sane, and consensual is a commonly used phrase in the community, which to me says it all. I think about how the photos I was in were really no more risqué than ads in fashion magazines, and it makes me wonder if people really believe those photos are reality, or if they simply choose to say so to damage my reputation.
While I would like the opportunity to educate people further about these issues, I have been shunned and excluded and not allowed to speak, so I have not had an opportunity to try to explain what actually happened. In that way, I have been recreated as the classic minority subject: the brown women/whore who has no voice.
But I have not lost my voice; I’ve simply learned something about discretion. This situation has radicalized me: I am firmly in support of other sex workers, and of sexual minorities. And I intend to speak out about that, and to write about it.
Regarding the economics of sex work (and academia), I imagine there are people who would be surprised to learn that a college professor needed to supplement her income. Can you talk a bit about the disconnection of pay and prestige both in academia and sex work as you see it?
You’ve struck at the heart of the issue for me. I see this as a class issue, as well as an issue of gender and sexuality. I know people are surprised I needed another job, and I think if they knew how much many professors make they would be surprised. I was raised by a single, working class mother, and the answer to financial difficulties has always been to get another job. I tried other jobs first, but they didn’t pay enough. One of the ironies of this situation is I told my mother what I was doing (i.e. working at PEP) and at first she had the expected motherly concerns, but the next she said was “how much does it pay?” and when I told her $40 an hour, she agreed that it was a good job, especially since I did nothing more than talk on the phone. As a girl, I was surrounded by single women who took any job they could--often more than one--to raise their families. Years ago, one of my mother’s friends was a former call-girl, and my mother did not seem to make any judgment about that.
What I really think I am “guilty” of is not making moral judgments, and of thinking of sex work as simply another viable form of employment, and one that has the potential to be quite lucrative.
Had you been "out" about belonging to any alternative sexual community prior to this incident? (Had you been involved in an alternative sexual community before then?) Do you think it would be safe for a faculty member at your university to be out about being involved in a BDSM community or a sex worker community?
In terms of being “out” in alternative sexual community, I’ve been open about being bisexual, but I haven’t been part of any other communities per se. I absolutely do not believe that it would be safe for any faculty member in my department to be out in terms of being a member of a sex worker community or a BDSM community. In fact, the effect of this has been chilling: the few gay and lesbian members of our department feel that the environment is hostile enough that one is reluctant to teach a class on Queer literature again.
What do you think are the most important things the rest of us should be talking about/thinking about when we look at your case?
Class issues are the first thing that come to mind, as I outlined above. People seem to be completely ignoring the fact that this was, in fact, a job, and a legal and legitimate one. But more importantly, I see this as an attack on sex work and alternative sexualities. I have learned so much about sex work since I began working at PEP. Even with all the hell I’ve been put through, I do not at all regret working for the company. I learned so much, and the ladies of PEP have been incredibly supportive. I’m 46 and not in particularly good shape--hardly the stereotype of the hot young sex worker. Many callers wanted an older woman. Most callers wanted a dominant woman. I found this incredibly empowering--first in that older women were valued for their sexuality, and that I was able to explore my own dominance. I also learned to be even less judgmental than I had been before about other people’s sexual choices. So many callers had felt years of shame for their particular interests, and often it was a relief for them simply to be able to talk without being judged.
So when I hear all the condemnation, I think that first, many of the people who are harassing me know nothing about the realities and the wide variety of types of sex work. So many people hold onto the idea that women must be coerced into it, or that something “happened” to them in the past, implying that no “normal” woman would be a sex worker. It’s another aspect of the virgin/whore dichotomy.
They also know nothing about BDSM. I’ve often thought that we should all adopt some of the tenets of the BDSM world: the idea of discussing consent and what will and won’t happen sexually before starting, i.e. safe, sane and consensual.
Finally, I’m really struck by how fearful people seem to be of sexuality, as if it is dangerous, something to be controlled and reined in. People are trying to shame me for being sexual, and for making money doing it. I reject that shame.
What is going on right now in terms of action around this case? And assuming that no disciplinary action is taken against you, will the environment be too hostile to stay? Are you involved in any action that would discipline others for harassing you? What are the issues there, to the degree you can talk about them.
The administration of the university has not taken disciplinary action against me nor will they as far as I can tell. Is the environment hostile? Incredibly so, and it continues to get worse, as the people who are harassing me get more vocal all the time. I am pursuing legal action, but can’t say more than that at this time. The university itself has not made any attempts to stop the constant harassment of me.
Regarding Sharon Warner’s Resignation as CW director: Sharon Warner has done a lot for the creative writing program, and I think everyone at UNM recognizes that. I do think it is, however, time for a change in leadership in CW. I also find it very unfortunate that she has used her resignation as a way to continue her attack on me.
Technorati Tags: BDSM, faculty-student relationships, higher education, Lisa Chavez, sex, sex work
Update, 4/6/08: Liz Derrington is the graduate student referred to in this story. You can read her story, in her own words, here.
Unpacking conflict in the academy
The nature of conflict is complex as might be expected and none of us is in possesion of all the facts of this case and should not rush to judgement. Also since this involves not only sexuality, but marginalised sexuality, it is bound to attract both interest and comment and this is evident from blogs and web media comments to date. It does however raise many issues about academic life that we can learn from, and hopefully the University of New Mexico can also learn from this. However to understand the process that has evolved there requires a degree of unpacking.
All of us have private lives, and many of us are likely to be engaged in matters, whether of morality, belief or politics, with which some colleagues may disapprove. Therefore once again the issue of the boundaries between private and public morality and behaviour arise. From the University's perspective the question is surely whether anything has been proven which is likely to be harmful to staff, students or the University's ability to function and provide a safe environment within which to carry out its functions. In this respect we should distinguish between the actions of Professor Chavez, and the actions of others subsequently.
The next issue is how organisations handle allegations against staff and students, whether anonymously or not, and how we balance creating a safe environment within which to raise concerns about matters that may effect the safety of others, while protecting the rights of individuals. Whistle blowing can be important but can be subject to abuse. There needs to be clearly understood processes available which preserve the presumption of inocence yet allow for inquiry in a non-adversarial manner that places the safety and well-being of those on campus as a high priority.
There is a peculiarity about this case which resembles certain other high profile instances of allegations of sexual or moral impropriety against faculty. That is that one would not expect those who disapprove of the activity in question to normally be searching websites pertaining to such activity. I do not think we know the exact circumstances of how this matter came to light, but the possibility of deliberate malfeasance needs to be considered.
Another aspect that is bound to raise concern and comment is any activity on campus or off campus involving power inequalities. No matter how well meaning, faculty need to consider whether any such behaviour is likely to be influenced by such inequalities. Clearly such abuse has taken place in the past, and all need to take great care to minimise its possibility. The question in this case is what are the reasonablr boundaries in such cases, for instance when are graduate students or postgraduate students considered sufficiently autonomous to make consensual decisions and should this also be extended to relationships between junior and senior faculty? The reality, and a central tenet of feminisms, is that all relationships have an element of inequality, and the importance of the issue is to recognise it, acknowledge it, make it transparent and mitigate possible abuse of it. Students must be able to have a sense of safety from exploitation and harassment and know that they can safely bring concerns to the attention of the authorities. It is important to determine whether any students have actually expressed any concerns to date.
Allegations of unethical behaviour have been made but it is unclear as to exactly what these refer to. Is it involvement in sexual activity of a commercial or marginalised nature? This is not inherently unethical, and abuses can occur within it as in any other walk of life. Is it exploitation of students? This has not been proven to date. Questions of ethically problematic behaviour require precise delineation.
Now let us examine what has happened since these allegations became known. Professor Chavez has apparently been cleared of wrong doing. We do not know if the investigation was in possession of all of the facts and accorded procedural fairness and natural justice to all parties. However it appars that there are many members of faculty who are unhappy with this result.
Mechanisms need to be developed to deal with respecting people's concerns, providing them the opportunity of input into any investigations and a sense of engagement, due process in testing of any evidence advanced, and a transparent communiation strategy. Conflict is inherent in diversity, and encouraged in universities as a creative force - but it needs to be recognised, acknowledged and managed constructively. Whatever the concerns were regarding the effect of Professor Chavez' actions on university life and environment by those who raised the issues, the effect of raising those issues is now far more likely to be detrimental to that environment. Urgent steps need to be taken to de-escalate the conflict and seek common ground in this dispute.
Universities place great emphasis onacademic freedom - the right to hold opinions and to criticise without fear of reprisal or harassment. When colleagues embrace values or lifestyles that may be contrary to our own, those choices may be debated but must also be respected, and the argument not the person made the subject of discussion. Any actions that limit Professor Chavez' ability to pursue her scholarly activities and teaching must be considered in violation of such principles. We also cherish our freedom of expression, and therefore our right to express opinions even when contrary to the dominant discourse, must be protected.
There has been much talk of the need for punishment, but for exactly what, and to what end, it is not clear.
There are a number of very important issues here that require careful examination and consideration of their implications for the proper conducting of the roles and responsibilities of an educational institution. Let us hope that constructive wisdom and energies will prevail and that all will learn from what happened here and put in place procedures and policies to prevent it happening elsewhere.
Michael Goodyear, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Dalhousie University
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
unpacking issues
Michael, thank you for such a thoughtful "unpacking" of the complicated and multi-layered issues here. I'm especially struck by a few things you wrote, and which I think turn the typical approach to a case like this on its head. For example:
It seems that the "actions of others subsequently" have been much more disruptive to the staff, students and department's ability to carry out its functions than were the actions of Lisa Chavez herself. She simply took a job as a phone sex worker and allowed images of herself to be used in advertising the service. While there might be some faculty or some students who, once aware of those photos, would feel uncomfortable interacting with Chavez becasue of their own feelings about sexuality, certainly that is the kind of "disruption" that universities are intended to create -- that is, the disruption of our comfortably held beliefs which are constantly challenged by new information.
I'm also struck by this statement:
Balancing the interests of those making complaints and those being accused is such a difficult thing to do. When the complaints come from an anonymous source it is even more difficult, and yet as you point out, sometimes anonymity is the only thing that will protect a whistleblower. It seems that in a case like this one the problem is that confidentiality regarding the investigation was not maintained at some level, and that there are a number of faculty who distrust the process engaged in by administration. To what degree is this an "administration trampled faculty governance issue," and to what degree is it a "we're disgruntled because the proper procedures didn't return the result we wanted" issue?
And of course as you point out the fact that the issue involves marginalized sexual activity (sex work, and not only sex work but BDSM phone fantasy work) makes it all the harder for people to be reasonable about.
It points out yet again how academic freedom and freedom of speech must never be understood to cover "everything but sex."
...because public space really matters!
Elizabeth
personal objections are not the same as ethical guidelines
Warner, the now-former creative writing director at UNM, says in the video attached to this news story "We think a message must be sent out not only to her but to other faculty members because: If this is not unethical, what is unethical?"
The reporting also attributes the initial bringing of the complaint to Warner herself, "saying that she brought the pictures and the web site where she found them" though previous coverage has identified the initial complainant as anonymous.
It seems clearer and clearer that the problem here is that some faculty have a major issue with legal sex work, and that they fail to distinguish working relationships from sexual relationships.
A question: If Chavez and the student in the photos were photographed instead working at a women's health clinic on the weekends, and some faculty were offended that they would be working together at a place that provided a service (abortion) to which those faculty objected, would we be having this discussion?
Chavez and the graduate student apparently had a working relationship. That work was in a legal part of the sex industry. While that may be upsetting to some people, I fail to see how it merits sanction as "unethical conduct."
(Note: The KRQE news story and the video are pretty sensationalistic, and I hesitated to link it, but I did so partly because a graduate student involved in the case speaks out, her identity shielded, and it seems so important to me that her voice is heard. If we listen to her it is very clear that she does not feel like a victim because nothing unethical happened to her.)
...because public space really matters!
Elizabeth
Lisa Chavez interview, and commentaries
Yes, Michael, these questions require precise delineation but such is true for those who really believe in due process and intellectual discourse and is an irrelevancy for those who are committed to anti-sexual campaigns and revitalization movements. All too many academics are unable to appreciate that the university state is turning into a police state. Once we understand this, we will understand what is all too often presented in academia- the omnipresence of a police mentality.
And if such is omnipresent, fear would be widespread. Might I suggest that it is "interesting" that I am aware of no UNM faculty member speaking up publicly in support of Lisa Chavez. Where are the supportive members of the English Department? The silence is deafening even when the university administration has come out and done the right thing.
Michael also observes-
Well, all too often in university life, feminisms re power inequalities are employed not to empower students but to empower selected faculty and selected administrators. Students are used by faculty at times to get what they want. No matter that students do not complain about whatever situation, the important point for egocentric professors is that they can speak for the students; comes right out of Nixon-Agnew and Reagan, et. al. speaking for the silent majority. In any case, power inequalities are rife at the university and some are sacred, such as tenure. Any critique of power inequalities in university life whether feminist or non-feminist based cannot be taken seriously without dealing with tenure. Do note that Sharon Warner resigned from her position, but did not resign from her tenured professorship.
To date the administration of the University of New Mexico has been exemplary as to how they have dealt with this situation. They merit the support of academics who truly take academic freedom seriously. Unquestionably their power is and will be continued to be challenged. Let us hope that they do not capitulate.
For those who are concerned about the university state becoming more of a police state and the university place becoming just another corporate workplace, do join me at my dankprofessor blog- http://dankprofessor.wordpress.com Particularly see my post on sexual policing.
Barry M. Dank
Mixed messages
I applaud your support of Professor Chavez and I appreciate Professor Goodyear's balanced comments. I wish the issues were clearer to me because all the lines seem unusually fuzzy when dealing with the incident and subsequent consequences. The issues are important and tug at my emotions and involve freedom of speech and action in all things legal sexually (and to press boundaries when needed), moral responsibility to one's self and students and/or institutions while championing individual rights. It does not seem to me that any student was harmed or coerced and the picture I saw of Chavez and her former student seemed nonoffensive. I agree with the University's position entirely. However, I visited the website involved and found it somewhat sleezy to my tastes and even more so when I realized its mantra that all "our beloved PEP phone counselors — REAL PEOPLE! REAL COMMUNICATION! were selling their "loving counseling and advice of dominant/submissive ladies for intimate fetish dialogue. ($119/hour, $99/45 minutes, $89/30 minutes. Higher rates to speak to Nancy.) P.S. Many of our counselors will consider meeting with you privately, passionately. Please inquire about rendezvous."
As a member of the bdsm community I recognize the enormous variety of information available on the web, much of it very helpful. I subscribe to a site myself where I can share information and meet others. I may find Dr. Chavez's reasoning about the good money she got for "telephone counseling" to supplement the poor money from her teaching salary somewhat questionable in my mind but certainly her right. Unethical -- probably no by my standards. Questionable in light of her position if the University had invoked a previous morals clause about sex work for profit among faculty, sure. And people (some faculty) might be equally (and equally unfairly) irate, Elizabeth, if she were an abortion counselor, but I doubt she'd be proclaiming she was making $40 a hour for her "help".
I agree with Dr. Goodyear that "there are a number of very important issues here that require careful examination and consideration of their implications for the proper conducting of the roles and responsibilities of an educational institution. Let us hope that constructive wisdom and energies will prevail and that all will learn from what happened here and put in place procedures and policies to prevent it happening elsewhere."
I agree with Dr. Wood when she defends sex workers and the legitimacy and value of their work.
I even agree, in part, with Dr. Chavez when she said she "found this work as a dominant incredibly empowering--first in that older women were valued for their sexuality, and that I was able to explore my own dominance. I also learned to be even less judgmental than I had been before about other people’s sexual choices. So many callers had felt years of shame for their particular interests, and often it was a relief for them simply to be able to talk without being judged."
I'm glad she learned these things. From personal experience (without using money as an issue and in free exchange with like-minded others) I've found such experiences rewarding, I hope more people find less costly ways to value their sexuality in all its ramifications.
Post new comment