There have been numerous news stories about packages I and others received this past summer. I am not sure that any of them capture just how troubled I have been by this. I have been so troubled, in part, because of its apparent connection with what I take to be a campaign of harassment by Brian Leiter. I think it is best if I turn my energies away from these events, and back to both my philosophical work and my efforts to improve the profession, but, first, I think it is worthwhile being clear about some facts:

1) I was sent a package of feces in the mail this summer, as were three other philosophers. This package arrived at my place of work with no postmark or return address. I discovered that this happened to the three other philosophers on October 6th.

2) The four of us are connected only in that we were entangled in a dispute with Brian Leiter two years previous. We had not met prior to Brian Leiter's attack on my work in July 2014. To this day, I have only met one of the four.

3) At least one of those packages was sent from the 60666 zip code, which is the zip code for O'Hare International Airport.

4) All of the packages were sent with excessive postage and no postmark. 

5) One package, sent internationally, had an undated customs form filled out incorrectly with fictional information, which some have claimed is linked to Brian Leiter. As it was filled out, it would not likely have been accepted over the counter at a post office.

6) That package was tracked for the first time at O'Hare International Airport around midday on June 23rd. 

7) Brian Leiter had a flight that left O'Hare International Airport on the afternoon of June 22nd. 

8) Brian Leiter denies that he sent the packages. 

9) Some have put forward the possibility that a friend, fan, or foe of Brian Leiter sent the packages. If a friend or fan of Brian Leiter, it is strange that fictional information that could be linked to Brian Leiter was used. If a foe of Brian Leiter, it is strange that the linking information was not placed on all packages. These options, of course, do not exhaust all of the possibilities. Moreover, strangeness might be expected for someone sending feces.

10) This case is closed everywhere but with the Merced Police, who wait upon action by USPS.

In my view, the most likely scenario is one in which all four packages were dropped off at a USPS Collection Box near the airport and then later picked up and taken to the post office at the airport, at which time the international package began to be tracked. If this is true, it is very unlikely that any video footage can be obtained regarding the packages, since most collection boxes do not have video cameras nearby. In any case, there are a large number of candidate collection boxes, many of which only pick up mail once per day, early to midday. Given his itinerary, it is possible that Brian Leiter is responsible for sending these packages, but he denies it. It is also possible that someone else sent the packages. 

Unfortunately, regardless of whether or not Brian Leiter sent the packages, these events have brought his campaign of harassment against me to the forefront of my mind, which has been difficult for me. What is helping me handle this situation is the support I have received from a great many philosophers, both now and over the past years. I am very grateful for this support and I very much hope that this situation has an end date. I know, of course, that just presenting these facts could lead to further harassment. I am taking that risk because I think I have a right and a duty to voice these facts and to shed light on how this situation has affected me, which appears to be a matter of public concern.

By chance, I reported the events of 2014 to my university for an internal review in early June 2016, and said in that report that I hoped the saga was over. I renew that aspiration now. 

Update 1/15/17:

Alan Richardson also received a package in December, which led me to follow up with the USPS investigators working on this. The newest investigator assigned to the case sent me the following message last week: "I conducted some additional follow-ups on your complaint and I have referred this matter to our Chicago Division.  I do not know when or if they will contact you regarding this issue.  It’s important to note that often cases are not accepted for federal prosecution for a variety of reasons, including insufficient evidence or the case not meeting federal prosecution thresholds for that particular District." If I hear anything further worth sharing, I will post an update.

Posted in

15 responses to “Some facts (Updated 1/15/17)”

  1. Matt Avatar

    his campaign of harassment against me
    I this is really not a very accurate account, as far as I can tell.
    Looking somewhat quickly at Leiter’s blog,there are apparently five blog postings by him that mention you since the summer of 2014:
    https://www.google.com/search?q=Jennings&btnG=%C2%BB&domains=leiterreports.typepad.com&sitesearch=leiterreports.typepad.com
    One of these largely compliments your work. Two others quote philosopher David Wallace criticizing, largely rightly it seems, your statistical analysis. Several of these posts reveal that you were trying to attack (“harass”?) Leiter by, for example, misrepresenting him as advocating the closure of PhD programs that serve women and minorities. That last bit was a bad performance indeed. No one likes to be criticized. I’m sure that being criticized on-line in less than kind terms isn’t very fun. (In small ways that has happened to me. It wasn’t fun.) I’m a more flies with honey than vinegar sort of guy myself, so tend to think that Leiter doesn’t always serve himself well by being as direct or forceful as he sometimes is. But, this isn’t “harassment” in any plausible sense of the term.

    Like

  2. Nick Avatar
    Nick

    Hi Carolyn, I just wanted to offer support and to say that I’m sorry that you’ve had to go through this.
    FWIW, I honestly consider you something of a hero for doing what you’ve been doing with the ADPA. You’ve given prospective graduate students the most valuable information they could possibly receive, given their situation, and you’ve put pressure on poorly performing departments to start fulfilling their basic obligations towards their graduate students. I doubt that any of us could think of a single individual in recent memory who has done more for the profession, almost single-handedly. So again, thank you.

    Like

  3. Carolyn Dicey Jennings Avatar

    You are welcome to your perspective, Matt, which I am sure is shared by others. Your perspective may be partly based on incomplete knowledge. In case that is true, I will provide more context for my claim of harassment. At the time of the events in July 2014 I put up a post at this blog, “Why I believe that Brian Leiter intentionally attacked me.” I took it down later because of what I perceived to be a threat by Brian Leiter at his own blog, posted at the same time as this tweet: https://twitter.com/brianleiter/status/487704121819283457. Since that tweet propagates a falsehood that is clearly intended to make me look bad (I did not even utter the statement he ascribes to me), I took the threat on his blog to mean that he would continue to say false things about me if I did not remove that post. I saw my options as to either take down the post or take legal action, which I did not want to do for various reasons. When I took down the post, he removed the threat. It is captured in a screen shot here: https://twitter.com/JadedPhD/status/514505276800909312 . I have also received emails from people reporting falsehoods Brian Leiter has told them about me and these events. So my perspective is not limited to the blog posts you mention. But in the blog posts you mention I believe he is trying to damage me and my reputation and I believe this is a form of harassment which makes my work environment more hostile than it should be. That is my perspective.
    As for David Wallace–he did not criticize my statistical analysis, but offered a different one that answered a different question. (In that part of the post I was discussing a set of programs, and he wanted to redirect the conversation to a question about whether individual programs should close, which I did not really want to discuss for various reasons.)

    Like

  4. Carolyn Dicey Jennings Avatar

    Nick–thank you. This really does mean a lot to me.

    Like

  5. Matt Avatar

    This is the last thing I’ll add here, but I have looked at the material you’ve posted here, and cannot make out a “threat”, at all, in any plausible sense of that term, in the “screen shot”. If there are other non-public things, I cannot say anything about them, but of course assume it’s clear why non-public things don’t influence others. As for the disagreement with Wallace, that wasn’t at all how it seemed to me (or others, I think) but leave you to your interpretation.

    Like

  6. Carolyn Dicey Jennings Avatar

    This is the threatening part: ” I do hope Prof. Jennings will return to her scholarship and stop digging her hole deeper in this matter. Having secured a tenure-track job at a UC Campus, following a prestigious post-doc, she is undoubtedly a very capable scholar. But her obsession with this issue, and her repeated misrepresentations, usually at my expense, are doing her no good.”
    Now, one might ask, why are her “misrepresentations” “doing her no good”? (I am putting aside here the fact that I strongly disagree that my posts contained misrepresentations at Brian Leiter’s expense.) Is society generally intolerant of misrepresentations? Is it intolerant of Brian Leiter’s misrepresentations, for example? Was he doing himself no good when he presented me as a liar? Should we be concerned about Brian Leiter’s future in philosophy given this misrepresentation? Obviously not. Here is a more plausible reading: my “misrepresentations” are doing me no good because Brian Leiter is ensuring as much, and will continue to do so. It is a vague threat, but a threat nonetheless.
    I am not alone in reading the passage this way. This is how Jaded, PhD read the passage. You can see that she links it to the threats aimed at both Carrie Ichikawa Jenkins and Noelle McAfee. And, in support of this reading, the passage was removed once I took down my post.

    Like

  7. mondelez Avatar
    mondelez

    CDJ – It seems germane that BL’s alibi (and the fact that he felt like introducing one at all) – that he was in Germany at the time and therefore couldn’t be the sender – doesn’t seem to hold water.
    A few follow-up questions: a) did all four recipients receive the packages at similar-enough times that they were likely all mailed at the same time? I don’t think it’s public when the non-tracked packages arrived at their destinations; b) how did you come by the info that BL flew on the 22nd?
    Please do your best to move past this, and you and the others have my condolences for having gone through it. But keep in mind, whether he did it or not, my impression is that BL never forgets a perceived slight.

    Like

  8. Paul Avatar
    Paul

    I agree with mondelez that BL never forgets a perceived slight. For my part, it is my hope that everyone in the profession will “slight” him so relentlessly that he runs out of sh*t to send.

    Like

  9. johann Avatar
    johann

    Leiter seems to have updated his post to say that he has four main suspects. Which I guess means there are at least five main suspects. http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2016/10/there-is-no-bottom-to-vile-in-cyberspace.html

    Like

  10. Carolyn Dicey Jennings Avatar

    FYI, I reported it to the police on July 13th, the day I found the package in my mailbox. I am not sure where BL is getting his information, but it is factually inaccurate.

    Like

  11. johann Avatar
    johann

    That’s a worthwhile clarification, CDJ, considering the insinuations in Leiter’s update. No need to publish this comment.

    Like

  12. Carolyn Dicey Jennings Avatar

    The police in Merced have verified that the report is dated July 13th, so the misinformation did not come from Merced.

    Like

  13. johann Avatar
    johann

    My goodness. And at the end of BL’s ‘update’ about this incident he writes, “Alas, I fear this will happen again, given the careless reporting about it.” Prescient. Or something.
    Now, why would he predict that this would happen again? Why would he think that the reporting about it would motivate this to happen again? I honestly have no idea. If the perp was someone other than BL, I don’t know why the reporting would or wouldn’t make this incident any more likely to occur again. Maybe his reasoning is because it made BL look bad to begin with so may as well keep going with it? Seems implausible to me. But then again, I’ve believed BL is behind this all along.
    The only thing I can think of is that BL did the first mailings and the subsequent one as well because he was upset that the first ones made him look bad and felt like lashing out?
    I’d ask about the customs & tracking information on the current mailing but probably best to keep that on the D/L. If it originated from somewhere other than 66666, I’d cross-check BL’s travel schedule…
    I’m sorry once again you’ve all gone through this.

    Like

  14. grump Avatar
    grump

    Was it misinformation, CDJ, or BL’s “alternative facts”?

    Like

  15. Paul Avatar
    Paul

    Everyone with any sense knows that BL is the likely (and entirely plausible) culprit. Those who remain in doubt will eventually come around.

    Like

Leave a comment