Personally, I find these arguments objectionable for various reasons I don't care to get into, but either way I think it's probably a good idea to be aware of where people are coming from when engaging with pieces like this
I don't think that representation of the Ewell paper is quite accurate, though admittedly it's been over a year since I read it.
Despite being Jewish (would have had different significance later than during his time!) Schenker was a proud german nationalist and in his own words considered his method one of the ways german people could assert their superiority over other cultures.
The Ewell paper is actually pretty clear that schenkerian analysis is technically valid and quite valuable for many purposes. But also that its origins were in an explicitly racist project, and that applying it without understanding that frame could get you racist results even if you didn't intend them.
It's easy to go after this paper because it sincerely uses "critical race theory" vocabulary, but it's a solid contribution to answering the question "why are some fields so incredibly white even if no one intends them to be that way?"
The essay both-sides it, but Ewell's paper is researched and professional even with its flaws, while in context Jackson's response was fairly nasty and defensive, basically just accusing Ewell of black antisemitism.
I've been following this particular one for years (grew up on schenkerian analysis, in a musical family) and I am definitely not neutral on it. Ewell's moral rigidity on this is unpalatable sometimes and I think you could fairly call him a hothead. But the author's description of the conflict is a lot more "balanced" than the conflict itself really deserves. This is essentially an academic raising a painful point within a field that he clearly loves, and others trying to shut it down because of the embarrassment they feel it exposes them all to.
Seeing how the author misrepresents this issue to make their point makes me not really trust the rest of it. I just happen to be somewhat informed on this one.
edit: Actually let me go a step further and agree with you a bit - I think Kipnis's point would be more clearly made if she didn't make her own perspective on the merits of the Ewell paper such a big part of that section of the article.
I'm not even sure that the actual written paper had even been published at that time: the basic arguments of the paper were first summarized in a conference presentation, and of course it is terrible form to publish a purported critique of something that hasn't even been fully presented in full detail! The whole thing has really reflected pretty badly on the authors of these 'critiques', for very good reasons overall.
> Was Schenker promoting a race that he didn't even belong to?
I think this is an error, trying to map our understanding of race onto the past like this. I don't know what race Schenker thought of himself as. He was Jewish, and he consistently asserted the natural superiority of german people and culture. That doesn't cleanly reconcile with any conception of race that I've come across, which indicates to me that those conceptions are not a useful lens here.
My goal wasn't to start up the is-schenkerian-analysis-racist-or-not quagmire here. It was to point out that I believe the author of this essay has misunderstood or misrepresented a more nuanced conflict for their own purposes.
(It's worth noting the flip side of that argument, too - we literally have historical sources telling us "when you see a composition made of big, white notes, that will sound a lot better if the performer improvises on them melodically on the spot, keeping the overall meter of the white note" (Lorenzo Penna, Li primi albori musicali). And of course, on-the-spot improvisation has been mastered to an unprecedented degree in the modern day by the "black" tradition of Jazz!)
But he's thrived himself. He's got a swish appointment just outside of Boston.
So now what, we want the same thing with academia? That they can do whatever they want, secure in the knowledge no one will report them?
And isn't "craven snitch" an oxymoron? To be a snitch you need at least a bit of bravery, even if you are being anonymous, since there's always the chance you'll be found out.
For those who bravely make it to the 3rd paragraph.
You can't have that kind of harassment without the assistance of those you are reporting to. Being how I'm not there, I'm going to defer to the administrators to decide what's important and what's not.
All of those exhibit cowardice because snitching is attacking someone without allowing that person confront the attacker.
I'm not sure where to draw the line, perhaps it's never really clear.
On the one hand, society institutes these rules and we supposedly claim to be rule following people.
On the other hand, people who try to have the rules enforced are labelled as "snitches."
Your answer to why tragedies occur but even when people knew, nobody did anything.
Do the rules matter or not?
Go to the cops and try to turn yourself in for that time you ticked a "I have read the terms and conditions" checkbox dishonestly. I suspect you'll find some rules matter more than others.
Nobody is special. Must follow rules. You will be reported. Zero sympathy. No exceptions. Are we in East Germany?
Imagine if you were French. Or had a pulse. I swear, society is overrun with gross troglodytes.
Look, lets be real honest here. The snitch is usually an unattractive jealous busybody, regardless of "rule breakage".
If the rule is so bad… shouldn’t they fix the rule? But it’s there for a reason, so they shouldn’t fix it. It’s not broken.
Also: if you could just as easily break vs. change a rule, want to do so, but still believe it's generally a good rule - is it better to just break it?
I guess this is what both sustains and dooms autocracies.
And the rules against romantic relationships with subordinates are there to protect the less powerful against exploitation by the more powerful. That's a really bad area for you to be extolling the virtues of breaking the rules. That's not how progress happens.
So I'm not very persuaded by this argument.
