However brilliant a poet Derek Walcott is, as a teacher he saw his female students in terms of their sex, not their brains
- https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/may/23/derek-walcott?CMP=share_btn_fb
oetry, the shy sister, has hit the front pages twice in recent weeks: first, Carol Ann Duffy was appointed Britain's first female (and lesbian) poet laureate. Second, Ruth Padel is now Britain's first female Oxford Professor of Poetry. Hurrah! Clearly that's great news for poetry, for the public and the Oxford students who will benefit from their work, and for gender equality – isn't it?
But not so fast. Padel's professorship comes amid a scandal that does nothing for women, or poets, or indeed academics. The Caribbean Nobel laureate Derek Walcott was bookies' favourite for the post until an anonymous "smear" campaign alerted between 50 and 200 academics to his history of sexual harassment, as recounted in a 1984 book called The Lecherous Professor. John Walsh (an "old friend" of Padel's) tore strips off Walcott in the Independent. Accusations and recriminations flew and Walcott withdrew, saying he had never commented on the matter and wasn't about to. Padel was voted in with her detractors' boots in her back.
But what are the facts? Walcott was disciplined by Harvard University in 1982 (after which the university updated its sexual harassment policy) and settled out of court with another student, Nicole Niemi (now Kelby), at Boston University in 1996. He justified himself on the first occasion saying his teaching style was "deliberately personal and intense". In fact, it was so intense, according to the student who complained, that after she refused his advances, he refused to discuss her work and gave her a C, which the university later raised to a pass.
In 1996 Walcott allegedly threatened to prevent Niemi's play from being produced unless she slept with him.
Whether or not you think this should bar Walcott from the Oxford professorship, the lack of clarity around the terms of the debate is disturbing. The press refers to "smears" against Walcott. "Smears" means slanderous untruths; Walcott has admitted making some of the comments attributed to him, been disciplined, had his grade reviewed, and settled out of court.
Hermione Lee, president of Wolfson College and Walcott's chief supporter at Oxford, missed the point when she said: "We are acting as purveyors of poetry not of chastity."
Chastity? Even in 1982 people knew that sexual harassment is – like rape – not about sex. "Sexual" is just the adjective. It only describes the type of harassment.
This is not some kind of Carry On randiness, where perky coeds squeal appealingly as the professor knocks pipe ash down their tops. It's bullying. Bullying is when someone is put under pressure to do something to avoid reprisal.
Walcott, however brilliant a poet, was a teacher – Oxford being, in fact, a purveyor of education – who saw his female students in terms of their sex, not their brains. And may have refused to teach them properly without sexual favours granted. For some reason, a lot of people are ignoring the real issue.
The blogosphere has thrown up various accounts of sexual advances by Walcott to students. A former student of Walcott, James Marcus, wrote: "One acquaintance, who apparently declined his physical advances but still fraternised with the future Nobelist during the off hours, conceded that he had a certain 'integrity' even when he was chasing you around the coffee table."
Nicole Kelby herself made a stir last week, publishing a weirdly unreasoned piece in the Times. She says, quite rightly: "sexual harassment is not about lust, it is about asserting power over the powerless." But she also says: "While I believe that it is not appropriate to be sexual towards students, I also realise that it happens. Writers, by nature, have reckless hearts. Poetry is a passionate art."
But teaching isn't poetry. She also says that, "like any great man, he is retrospect and understands that his flaws are universal". This just makes no sense at all.
In 2007 the eminent critic Helen Vendler, who was at Harvard in 1982, told the Harvard Crimson it was "Some little grade dispute – who knows about it? It was recognised that there was something askew about the grade that was given."
When I blogged this story the comments box fizzed with replies from women of Oxford saying they could take care of themselves, thank you very much. This is laudable, and they are quite inspiring, but you wonder why they should have to.
Libby Purves talked yesterday in the Times about the misogyny that lurks everywhere in this story. She's right. It's a shame it comes from the women.
Since you’re here …
… we’ve got a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever, but far fewer are paying for it. Advertising revenues across the media are falling fast. And unlike many news organisations, we haven’t put up a paywall – we want to keep our journalism as open as we can. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our perspective matters – because it might well be your perspective, too.
If everyone who reads our reporting, who likes it, helps to support it, our future would be much more secure.
- https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/may/23/derek-walcott?CMP=share_btn_fb
No comments:
Post a Comment