“The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1980 is a federal law requiring the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to develop policies and oversee the information practices of federal agencies, primarily to minimize the public’s paperwork burden, improve information quality, and ensure information is used efficiently and effectively” (AI). This case, it is clear, has a placed a severe burden on the general public as well as my own record keeping in terms of sheer amount of information it has generated: the “blog” itself; my attempt to respond to it; as well as the thousands of pages of records, timelines, briefs and dossiers, grievance procedures and arbitration testimony, and public media. It is absurd. By the end of this academic year, I hope to close these files and take them down. At the same time, what I am placing in the public domain is a historical record of a “limit experience” in academia over the past two decades, as we move to a period in which the university itself is even.more under attack. We are far from the time when a Language writer being hired in a tenure-track (or endowed) position was news of a celebratory or scandalous nature (here). There is a real question whether my case is an endgame itself. Given that risk, I want to affirm my commitment to the university itself—even Wayne State, for all its flaws—as a political accomplishment that must not be abandoned. The glass remains half full not half empty as I try to understand my experience and gain lessons thereby.

Jonathan Flatley contd.

The tone shifts as the narrative advances, like a storm on Lake Huron becoming confused and deadly. Something like destruction is intended. To understand how this came about, it is necessary to return to a painful and unresolved episode in department history from 2010 that has hardly been accounted for—the suicide of Kathryne Lindberg. This event casts a shadow on all subsequent events in the series. Jump cut to 2019: as I narrated, Flatley’s first response to the student media campaign was immediately to join the pile-on, uploading protected documents from the Lindberg case to the “blog.”[1] Shortly thereafter, he circulated a much broader complaint, and demand, on behalf of the faculty at large (18 professors), citing the “blog” as evidence but outside any university discussion or procedure, with the most flagrant disregard of Due Process imaginable. This is the “string ’em up” moment of mobbing. As my then-lawyer Joseph Golden remarked, referring to the petition, “Who the hell do they think they are?” To the end of 2019, and likely thereafter, Flatley accelerated his attack, taking it to faculty meetings and circulating on Twitter that it was not too late for me to be detenured. I took action to end this harassment, and as a result there is a new level of document to discuss—the result of an internal investigation of Flatley and my 16 May 2025 letter to him, requesting that he remove the material.[2]

Flatley’s offensive was to upload his narrative of an argument between me and colleague Kathryne Lindberg, now deceased, in an American Studies hire in 2010. The details of that interaction are regrettable and I accounted for them. The question to ask, however, is what did they have to do with the student issues causing the commotion—grading an overdue paper and responding to triggering? Nothing. The document was pure Kompromat in the Soviet sense; an embarrassing piece of file copy from some internal procedure released to create maximum damage at a later time. This tactic is called “doxxing,” and it was used by other uploaders to the “blog” (Richard Grusin, Marie Buck). Without context or explanation, but with a false claim he had permission to do so, Flatley uploaded a lurid, embellished account of an argument with Lindberg that took place after a contentious hiring meeting. The narrative of that occasion is too complex to go into except for one important fact. Lindberg, after the event, raised a complaint against me that sought to get me terminated (“fired” as Flatley liked to say), and after failing to make her case, and depressed for other reasons, committed suicide in December 2010. On the bleakest day of an icy December, she parked her car at the Belle Isle Bridge and jumped into the river. Her body was recovered the next year. This was an event of profound psychic significance for our department.

There was a body in the room (of discourse, at least) that could not be discussed. A psychoanalytic interpretation can easily connect that terrible fact with the upload of the narrative itself, as repressed content that needed to be outed in the most violent way possible. The violence and transgression of the doxxing parallels the violence of Lindberg’s death, perhaps is a substitute for it. As we have seen above, on arrival at Wayne State Flatley was drawn into Lindberg’s orbit, and her schismatic view of the department as split between “Literature” and “Cultural Studies” on his arrival. The gradual deterioration of our relationship had everything to do with that split, extending to the division between groups of students. If “splitting” in the Kleinian sense is a form of defense, it is the flip side of what is known as “projective identification,” the expulsion of vulnerable feelings onto others by which they can be objectified and removed. That is precisely what is happening here: the psychic wound of Lindberg’s death is being projected onto me in the form of the document of our conflict. Flatley as author of that affect-laden content wants to remove it from himself and get it “out there” and away from himself.

If there is truth to this interpretation, it extends to other aspects of what followed. Immediately the faculty coalesced as a group around me as excluded bad object (in association with the document but also with the death). This was the mechanism that extended the mobbing from the “woke” student cohort, who had been acting like a distressed group for some time, to the university in general. A short while later appeared the “faculty petition,” united in the cause against me, organized and circulated by Flatley. Some time after that, a reporter from the Chronicle of Higher Education got wind of it; faculty and students swarmed the reporter and uploaded their comments to the press. The “blog,” here as well, was cited as evidence and the “faculty petition” published, where it remains online (but with the signatories removed). There is thus a daisy chain, a repeating series, of “uploads” of damaging content—all, I would argue, synecdoches of the fundamental department trauma that created the logic of splitting in the first place.

Flatley’s discussion of our interaction, also, can be read for its deeper argument. Giving him his voice, I quote:

In my opinion and according to my observations as a member of the English Department, Barrett’s angry, sometimes profane, unpleasant, and very aggressive behavior has exerted a surprisingly damaging effect on the overall atmosphere of the department. While he loses his temper only occasionally [N.B.], the threat of these violent eruptions colors and shapes how other people behave not only in his presence but also how people make decisions that might affect him or his students. Some people alter their behavior in order to avoid angering him or having to listen to him yell or lecture them; others try to directly confront him, which often produces the kind of eruption Barrett directed toward Kathryne; many simply do their best to avoid interacting with him. Given that Barrett aggressively asserts his authority in faculty meetings and on committees, constantly lobbying, in private and public, to increase his authority, almost all departmental business is impacted by his behavior. On the whole, this has had a corrosive effect on the collegiality of the department, indeed on its capacity for effective self-governance. [“Blog”]

Flatley’s litany of assertions is projective and false. While it is true the argument with Lindberg was unpleasant (due to both parties, I insist), this narrative is a “back formation” based on the event itself, interpreting diverse and unrelated issues that went before. It is “post hoc,” with the outrageous claim that I “aggressively assert [my] authority in faculty meetings and on committees, constantly lobbying, in private and public, to increase [my] authority.” This is delusional and overwrites my participation in meetings, where there may be differences of views at the very least, with a univocal, antagonistic narrative. What stands at the origin of this narrative, not mentioned, is the meeting with Danielle Aubert in 2006; there was no other occasion, though Jonathan strained to fabricate a few others from interactions where disagreement was expressed. The “object” whose placeholder is Lindberg is called up to make this narrative cohere. Flatley then uploads his “projective identification” onto me as a threat to the “collegiality of the department, indeed on its capacity for effective self-governance.” This is quite an assertion, blaming me for the department’s manifold woes—which were long term, across multiple disciplines, and well in place when I arrived.

In the grievance and arbitration process, more damaging assertions came to light. The chair’s notes from 2018–19, provided to the union lawyer, document a series of preposterous, slanderous statements in pursuit of my being removed from teaching, mentoring, and office. In one email, Flatley wrote:

I just wanted to alert you to *more* upsetting news that I got from [—], who talked to someone who [. . .] said that a couple years ago he was with BW at a bar, BW was drunk and was blaming all his troubles on me and how I ‘stole’ [—] from him. He specifically referred to me as ‘the enemy.’ [—] is actually pretty concerned about BW being violent. As are several other former students who know him pretty well. Like it’s a pretty active part of the conversation. Fear that he will do something violent. [Chair’s notes]

This fabricated and embellished series of projections and third-hand gossip is typical of what was going around in that period, which Flatley accelerated whenever he could. In another email, he made clear the extent to which he was “agitating” against me:

It was not nice, however, and I was not happy, to see Barrett Watten today at a faculty meeting. He is regularly in our building, 5057 Woodward, on the 9th floor, as well. He seems to be on his best behavior. However, I have seen this several times before after he has been censured for his uncollegial behavior. I was particularly displeased to hear him opine on what is best for the graduate curriculum. I want to remind you of the near unanimous view of the faculty in the department that his graduate faculty status should be revoked and that his office be moved. I’m overworked, and tired. I know that I have yet to be informed of a final decision about his status at the university. But I will do my best to arouse and agitate the faculty again, if that is what is necessary at this point. [Chair’s notes]

It is necessary, I am afraid, to cite these examples in the face of the script Jonathan created. Gossip and one-sidedness are the basic mechanisms; it is everywhere projective (as well as intensely rivalrous and even Oedipal). The explosive student crisis of 2019, creating a discursive space on Twitter and Facebook based on the most exaggerated and false claims, gave some of my colleagues an opportunity to upload their trivial gripes—there would be nothing to stop them. This was the situation I had to acknowledge and face in 2019, fighting back first against the formal procedures taken against me (grievances and arbitration), then to stop my being canceled at the Louisville Conference in 2020 (here) and more elsewhere, and finally to push back and restore my professional life at Wayne State, which I have done.

After the flawed arbitration procedure in 2020, I had the occasion to process what I had learned, leading to wider perspectives. It came to light that Wayne State had entirely bypassed its own Due Process protections, which were posted online but that even the union lawyer was unaware of. I also learned that the two students were expelled from graduate student union activity, for reasons still to be disclosed. That was known to both the university and the union, however, making it suspicious that they were never called to testify. Finally I took my concerns to the Office of Equal Opportunity on campus; in a remarkable meeting, I spread out my documents out on the table. I was advised I could complaint of bias and harassment and filed a claim—against two administrators, two legal counsel, and two faculty, including Flatley. An outside investigator was appointed at university expense, and six individuals were interviewed. The report did not conclude that there was a basis for harassment in a protected category (race, gender, or age) but it did uncover further evidence of malfeasance by several parties. The investigator also asked pointed questions about the uploaded document and how it was made available to the “blog”—or precisely to whom:

[Flatley] does not recall how he learned of the blog and social media campaign, and before that he did not know about any issues between [the students] and Watten. . . . He does not recall if he uploaded the letter, but if he didn’t, it was done with his permission to someone who put together the website. He does not know why he posted the letter or gave permission to post the letter. He does not know who put together the website. [Redacted OEO Report, obtained by FOIA]

On the last statement, the investigator wrote: “It is noted that Flatley’s statements about not knowing who put together the website, whether he posted the faculty letter online, or whether he gave permission for someone else to do it, are not credible.” Her summary continues: “Flatley acknowledges that he did organize the writing of a letter by faculty at the time. . . . He does not know if the letter was posted online, and if it was posted, whether he posted it or gave permission for it to be posted.” She also notes that, when asked about graduate students, “[Flatley] assumed direction of a number of Watten’s former students. He has taken over the primary courses in Watten’s area of the Department.” Finally in her conclusion, she singles Jonathan out for reprimand: “Flatley acted in poor judgment in releasing his letter regarding the Lindberg incident, or even sharing information with students regarding that incident.” As far as I know, there have been no consequences for Flatley’s actions.

I found this account to be disturbing, but confirming, and tried to discuss it at the university level—from Dean to Provost and above. I failed in each instance to have this university’s own investigation acknowledged or responded to (and there is more to it than just Flatley and the “blog”). As a result, I decided that it was time to begin a campaign to get all the material from the “blog” taken down, writing my combined responses here and contacting each participant individually. I wrote my concerns in a detailed letter to Jonathan Flatley, now at University of Chicago, on 16 May 2025. The time has come to act on this now, Jonathan: please take this material down.

Notes and links

[1] Some time after my arbitration, and a number of meetings with a faculty who had written on “mobbing” (here), the Provost’s Office put forward an advisory policy, without the force of statute, titled “Anti-bullying statement: University Statement of values to address bullying incidents” (here). Almost every category of that policy reflects some aspect of my case—no accident, as it was co-authored by the faculty with whom I discussed it several times. Two  bullet points in particular are addressed to “doxxing,” as with Jonathan Flatley’s upload of the Lindberg document:

What constitutes bullying? The following behaviors may, in certain circumstances, constitute bullying within the context of the university:
[. . .] Spreading false[hoods] or inappropriately sharing sensitive information about another;
[. . .] Using the Internet, interactive and digital technologies, mobile phones, e-mail, social media, or other electronic sources to spread false rumors, threaten, make offensive remarks, inappropriately share sensitive information, insult, or ridicule others [and so on].

[2] Dora A. Brantley, Esq., “OEO Complaint—Dr. Barrett Watten v Dr. Caroline Maun, et al.,” 19 September 2022; redacted copy obtained by Freedom of Information Act request from Wayne State University, February 2023.

Page 12: “The Tragedy is Farce”
Page 12.1, “Literary Contexts I”
Page 12.2, “Literary Contexts II”
Page 12.3, “Academic Contexts I”
Page 12.5, “Academic Contexts III”