These are facts I should have included in the original post, because I think it highlights that people caught in situations like my friend’s feel like a primal scream is the only thing they’ve got left to use. Susan’s first comment alluded to an important truism: once someone is promoted to an administrative position, the university’s reflexive defense is to justify that decision, no matter what kind of a rolling disaster he or she is. I have seen (and, sadly, experienced) this to-the-barricades attitude used to defend indefensible administrators before.

I find my self giving much thought to your friend and her situation. She has now decided to write to her former supervisor. I am not sure I agree but I am assuming that by now, revenge will be eaten cold. Did she have an avenue of complaint to pursue? Presumably that was a dead end.

I am intrigued that nobody has addressed your aside about single women and their economic vulnerability. Has feminism not progressed far enough to overcome this? I was about to make a remark about precious pricks (a term I usually reserve for men) when I realized that your friend’s supervisor was a woman. I do not wish to imply that all women need partners to “protect “them; an insurance policy, someone to pay the bills temporarily, a shoulder to lean on.What about emotional vulnerability? This should apply equally to men and women. I am left wondering if there is a solution.

On the other hand, I would not call this act courageous. You yourself point out that it is, in fact, an exercise of power. Now that the power has shifted in your favor, there is no risk to you, and hence no courage in the confrontation. It’s just an act of revenge that will make you feel good.

True confession: I’m invested in questions of fair play in work envirnoments not just as Said Friend’s friend, but as someone who once had a Very Bad Job. (So bad that the tenure line had existed for 17 years and no one had ever been tenured in it!) I gave a F. U. speech to my soon-to-be former department when I resigned–and it felt great! People were angry–how could they not be, to have an assistant professor get up in their faces? Even my friends and supporters were angry, because they thought that my speech made it difficult for them to justify supporting me. But I was sick and tired of playing by the rules of an alchoholic family–don’t ever confront the problem, just pretend like we all get along. but I’m pleased to say my speech was prescient about all of that department’s problems, and the biggest jerks are still there, and still making each other miserable. Schadenfreudelicious!

That said, my decision to spout off was a calculated one. I had already secured another tenure-track job, and I worked in a department with no other experts in my major fields, so I’d never have to see them again, nor would I need to fear retribution (in reviewing grant proposals, peer review, etc.) They could bad mouth me at my former institution–but they were doing that anyway.

The letter is not a gratuitous rant; it is measured and based on facts. It is, however, aimed at undermining and humiliating this person. Because I know this person well, I am sure that she will be extremely disturbed. And while she may only be undone for a finite period of time, still, she will never again be able to dismiss me with easy relief and satisfaction.

I have also named names in the letter–of colleagues and students who concurred and supported me–and I make clear that those named have read and authorized the letter (which they have done). I have done so because bullies or abusers are only successful when they isolate and marginalize their victims (as happened to me). Abusers thrive on silence. Victims come to power when they assert their voice. Institutional oppression/repression, in turn, thrives on “civility.” Justice or truth, in such a situation, requires subversion. Because I no longer have any ties to this institution (other than my good friends who support me in what I am doing), and thus will suffer no consequences (nothing I wrote is actionable–it is just damning), I actually, for the first time, have some power. I am eager to exercise it.

This letter is meant to fuck things up. And yes, it is an act of revenge. I have yet to hear why seeking revenge is such a bad thing. I no longer want to hear that “living well is the best revenge.” This is a category mistake. Living well is living well (which I am doing). Causing pain as payback to someone who ruined your life is something completely different. I have heard that I should take the “high road.” My response is that being direct, exposing, and even destructive in certain situations is the responsible and even courageous thing to do.

The plans for the letter have changed, and I will be sending it only to my former supervisor because one person mentioned does not feel comfortable with me sending it to faculty colleagues, and I am happy to respect this person’s wishes. It should nonetheless have a negative impact on my former supervisor’s life and this knowledge, in addition to living well, will help me move on.

I would have to agree with the people who say not to send the letter. What’s the pragmatic outcome the letter-sender wants? What effect does she intend to have? What is her “ask,” to steal from the lobbyist people: what is she asking the recipients of her letter to do? In my opinion, the more concrete the ask, the better … if she’s asking them all to feel outraged or have their awareness raised, that’s not really going to do much.

As long as she’s out of that place, my take is that the best way to spell revenge is l.a.w.s.u.i.t.