Anonymous Accusations, Changing Explanations
Based on the accounts of the various parties involved in this case, it is difficult to determine exactly who is responsible for what.
The ESAJ administration now denies that a complaint or accusation of transphobia was behind the decision. It acknowledges, however, the existence of anonymous reports and maintains that the decision not to renew the professor’s contract was based on pedagogical grounds. Le Dantec, for his part, asserts that his superiors did explicitly mention the term “transphobia” to him and made it clear that his behavior or teaching was likely to offend certain students.
This contradiction lies at the heart of the case. The students who allegedly made the accusations remain anonymous. The professor is therefore unable to know precisely what the allegations against him are or to respond to them publicly. In another message, he emphasized that the administration alone possesses the details of these accusations and is therefore in a position to change how they are interpreted without him being able to verify what he is actually being accused of.
This mechanism warrants scrutiny. Anonymity may obviously be necessary when a student reports genuinely problematic behavior, particularly when dealing with a professor on whom they depend. However, it also creates a considerable imbalance when the report becomes the starting point for a professional decision. The accused may then find themselves summoned to respond to allegations they are unaware of, particularly if the term “transphobia” was indeed used by the administration before being subsequently omitted from the official version.
A New Front in the Culture Wars
The unusual nature of this case also stems from its context. We are not in a sociology, philosophy or political science class focused on gender, where controversies of this kind have become commonplace. Le Dantec teaches ecology at an institution that trains gardeners and landscape architects. According to his account, his course focused on the reproduction of living beings.
Yet sexual reproduction is a fundamental biological phenomenon. In species that engage in it, it involves mechanisms linked to two distinct reproductive functions, with an extraordinary diversity of strategies depending on the species. In plants as well as in animals, sexuality in the biological sense is therefore a scientific fact, not a political stance.
Media discourse has accustomed the public to making complex distinctions between biological sex, gender identity and sexual orientation. Higher education should be free from controversies that could render certain terms or realities taboo simply because they might be associated with an ideological debate.
If a professor must avoid discussing biological sex because the subject might be perceived as offensive by some students, it is no longer just academic freedom that is at stake, but the very possibility of teaching certain scientific subjects without first having to subject them to a form of emotional validation.
Le Dantec has never been involved in controversies surrounding transgender identity. His career has been that of an ecologist specializing in landscape, the environment and urban greening. His professional profile notably includes teaching at the ESAJ and consulting in these fields.
He has, however, repeatedly criticized certain Parisian urban planning policies, particularly the choices made regarding greening and urban design by Anne Hidalgo’s Socialist city administration. His public activity therefore extends far beyond the classroom: he participates in the debate on the urban environment and does not hesitate to challenge certain political or administrative decisions. From there, it is an easy leap to view the controversy surrounding his courses as a backlash against his public stances.
Le Dantec also asserts that the current episode is part of a longer-standing climate of tension with his institution, particularly following his opposition to pro-Palestinian slogans displayed by students.
The Politics of Biological Sex
His profile has become controversial. That is a fact. Le Dantec has chosen to defend himself publicly. He told Le Figaro and CNews that he wanted to draw attention to what he sees as a growing climate of intellectual suspicion in higher education, including in fields that would appear to have little connection with the culture wars.
The institution remains free not to renew a lecturer’s contract but should be able to clearly explain its decision. When a lecturer claims to have been sidelined after teaching that flowers and rabbits reproduce sexually, the institutional response cannot consist of vague statements and accusations that are impossible to verify. If the issue is pedagogical, let them specify what it is. If specific remarks were made, let them be identified. And if the word “transphobia” was never used, let them explain why he claims to have heard it.
Le Dantec has attempted to defend himself in notably measured terms: “My personal position, however, remains simple: consenting adults are free to love one another as they wish and should not be harassed for it. But to no avail: in an applied ecology class, I dared to state that sex is a biological characteristic from which various reproductive strategies derive.”
Like J.K. Rowling before him, Le Dantec is discovering that statements some regard as biologically self-evident can, in the current climate, be treated as ideological provocations.
