Morning:
8°c
Politics of academia is so vicious because the stakes are so low
Sebastian Shakespeare and Olivia Cole26 May 2009
The scandal surrounding the Oxford Professorship of Poetry is reminiscent of Labour spin doctor Damian McBride at his worst.
This may come as a surprise to those unfamiliar with the seemingly genteel world of poetry but its reputation as being insular, bitchy and backbiting has often been deserved. As one wag observed, academic politics is so vicious and bitter because the stakes are so low.
We were alerted on 8 April to the existence of a book by two American academics documenting alleged sexual harassment against Nobel laureate Derek Walcott when he was teaching at Harvard in 1982.
The Londoner's Diary is used to mischief-making of all kinds in all walks of life but even we were slightly surprised by the source of the information. It was an email from Ruth Padel, a fellow contender for the professorship.
Unaware that others had been guided to the book, which can be read online at Amazon, the Standard deliberated long and hard about publishing an apparent smear based on a 27-year-old story.
A few weeks later Padel's old friend John Walsh broke cover and went to print in the Independent to document Walcott's “creepy” past.
Shortly after, 200 Oxford academics received an anonymous letter containing six pages from The Lecherous Professor about the sexual harassment allegations against Walcott, forcing him to withdraw to the dismay of his supporters.
What began as a naive and foolhardy campaign has backfired spectacularly with Padel's reputation besmirched. One of her friends speculated that being blinded by ambition prompted a woman who was popular and well-liked in poetry to cross the line.
Before Walcott's late entry into the race she was considered the favourite candidate for the post. She even had the backing of future poet laureate Carol Ann Duffy and Mayor Boris Johnson.
In the past few weeks Padel denied any involvement in the “character assassination” that led to Walcott's exit, which we found odd given that a handful of journalists like ourselves knew otherwise. However, since her emails were sent to us in confidence we still chose to protect her identity.
In a Sunday newspaper Padel was forced to come clean and admit she tipped off some journalists about the sexual harassment allegations. It now seems only fair to everyone to tell the whole story.
There is no proof whatsoever that Padel is behind the dodgy dossier sent to the Oxford academics. Perhaps for everyone's sake the culprit should now come forward and own up, if only to salvage Padel's reputation — and that of Oxford University.
Reader views (1)
She went behind someone's back for gain. She should lose the position. Can you imagine if the roles were reversed that one feminist in Oxford would have gone anywhere near the place? It's true what they say some people are intelligent but lack the commonsense to be able to see the obvious such as saying no-one should benefit from being underhand. And it doesn't show much intelligence to think no-one would tell the truth of what you have been up to either so either way they should get rid of her because she is underhand AND stupid.
- John, Aberdeen, UK, 26/05/2009 13:12
Report abuse
