#261 (Page 1)
THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Department of [Redacted]
Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6T 1Z1
Tel: [Redacted]
Fax: [Redacted]
E-mail: Department: [Redacted]
Graduate program: [Redacted]
Vancouver, February 28, 2002
[Redacted]
Faculty of Graduate Studies
Re: Ms Cynthia Maughan’s file
Dear [redacted],
I am writing to you to add my support to [Professor 1] in the matter of Cynthia Maughan and clarify some of the circumstances around which I became involved in this.
I have known [Professor 1] for probably over twenty years and it could not sadden me more to see that her integrity as a professor as well as her tolerance and open-mindedness could possibly be challenged in such a manner.
In all my dealings with [Professor 1], whether it be in the realm of academic discussion or post-graduate endeavors, I have always been most impressed by her unwavering adherence to the strictest principles of integrity and respect for truth and interpretations. I am therefore completely stunned, not to mention outraged, at the suggestion that she might have trampled upon anyone’s sensitivity. She may indeed have demanded more integrity, clarity of thought and tolerance of other points of view on the part of this student, but I cannot believe that she would not have allowed her the chance to express herself.
This being said in a manner of introduction, I will restrict myself to my particular encounter with Ms Cynthia Maughan.
Ms Maughan e-mailed me sometime in February 2001. I unfortunately did not keep copies of the e-mail correspondence between me and this student, feeling I had dealt with it to the best of my abilities.
As far as I can recall, Ms Maughan approached me to find out if Jacques Derrida had indeed, as she seemed to believe, misquoted, which I read as “misinterpreted”, the words attributed (perhaps Ms Maughan would question my choice of participle here) to Jesus during the Cène (Last Supper). Knowing full well the amount of literature written on the subject, I remember that I directed her to Professor [redacted] at [redacted] This point of meaning and translation: of the Bible by Derrida and in turn of Derrida by David Wood in On The Name (edited by Thomas Dutoit, Stanford, 1995, p. 19), seemed to be the
[Exhibit Page: 000830]
#267, p.2 (Page 2)
reason for her contacting me. I did not then, and do not know, see such evidence as I compare the English text, which would be a translation of Derrida’s quote from the text used in many churches in France, as I remember from my childhood and as evidenced from the version of the Gospels in my Jerusalem Bible. But as I said to Ms Maughan, I am no theologian and I refered her to Dr [redacted].
However, it seemed to transpire that, in Ms Maughan’s opinion, Derrida was guilty of heresy in interpreting the words of, as she terms it, “The Holy Eucharist”, as ritual cannibalism. On this point which has given rise to so much outpourings of ink already I would like to refer the student to a leading authority in the field of Theology, Bishop John Shelby-Spong, who, in his latest book, A New Christianity For A New World (San Francisco, Harper, 2001, p. 123), talks about “a fetish in Christianity connected with the saving blood of Jesus. In the evangelical Protestant segments of the church, hymns are addressed to the wondrous therapeutic character of Jesus’ blood. (…) I have always found these images to be repulsive.”
He then adds :
“The Catholic side of the Christian church is perhaps a bit more sophisticated, but no less grotesque in its imagery. In this tradition worshipers participate in Jesus’ sacrifice sacramentally by literally eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Thinly disguised liturgical cannibalism is not particularly appealing to this generation(…)” So, I would say that Derrida is indeed in good company.
However, the gist of my answer to Ms Maughan was that the words attributed to Jesus had probably been uttered in Aramean, then translated into Greek, then into modern languages and it would therefore be difficult to ascertain exactly what intention (to me much more symbolical than literal, which is why Jesus adds “keep this in remembrance of me”, in the sense of keeping a ritual) he might have had. In my own church, The United Church of Canada, I feel comforted by and comfortable with our own words to the service of communion, which talk about the “bread of life” and the “cup of blessing” or the “cup of covenant”. In the same way, when we finish the Scripture readings in church taken from the Old Testament, we say “This is the witness of the people of God” and of the New Testament, “This is the witness of the Church” and no longer “This is the word of God”. As I added in my last e-mail to her, I was quite sure that God would not be overly bothered by the remarks of M. Derrida and that the latter would not shake to foundations of Christianity. I quoted the French “Dieu a les épaules larges” (God has broad shoulders) and that He would withstand the onslaught.
Now, on to Derrida and Déconstruction. In the passage which seemed to cause Ms Maughan so much grief, Derrida is very much tongue in cheek and the choice of words and quotes very clearly influenced by circumstances (twelve people around a table) and the long time preoccupations of the author about “the rhetoric of cannibalism”. Now, as Derrida himself says (a few pages earlier) some people see in Deconstruction “a modern form of immorality, of amorality, or of irresponsibility”, while others see in it “a permanent, extreme, direct, or oblique, in any event, increasingly intense attention, to
[Exhibit Page: 000831]
#267, p.3 (end) (Page 3)
those things which one could identify under the fine names of “ethics”, “morality”, “responsibility”, “subject”, etc.” And this would be my position on the matter.
To conclude, I would say that one comes to University, not to have one’s preformed, entrenched ideas comforted and confirmed, but to be exposed to different points of view and I have seen too many students try to gain leverage by confusing the demands of integrity and honest exacting research with an attack on their personal convictions.
As academics it is our duty to demand the best of our students and we should not ever fall victim to this kind of threats and terrorism. I would indeed defend any student whom I felt to have been discriminated or disempowered by a professor but I have no doubt whatsoever in my mind that in this case Ms. Maughan was given every possible opportunity to defend her point of view with forcefulness and integrity.
I do hope [Professor 1] will be completely vindicated in this matter and I give her my wholehearted support.
Yours sincerely,
[Signature Redacted]
Dr [Name Redacted]
[Exhibit Page: 000832]