The hounding of a Nobel poet has shamed Oxford

Target: old claims of sexual harassment were dredged up to be used against Derek Walcott
12 April 2012

Tomorrow, the election for Oxford Professor of Poetry will proceed without its most illustrious candidate.

Derek Walcott, Nobel prize-winner and recent recipient of an honorary degree from Oxford, withdrew after it became clear that there was a campaign to revive against him old allegations of sexual harassment.

Frankly, I don't blame him, even though the withdrawal has left his campaigners mortified and his chief rival for the post, Ruth Padel, in what looks like an unbeatable position.

I've run twice in the past in this election - I lost once, won once and held the post for the statutory five years - so I know something about the job. It is not for the faint-hearted.

It is daunting enough to stand before the university in the role of Professor of Poetry.

The thought of facing a potentially hostile audience or of being called upon to justify your behaviour of decades ago, before critics who probably know nothing but second-hand accounts of some crumby book - who would wish to face such unpleasantness and humiliation? Why be glared at in chilly Oxford when you are a hero on your native Caribbean island?

Walcott is 79 and has sometimes been in poor health. Yet only last year he came to Essex, where he was honoured with a degree, spoke to students, gave generously of his time and left everyone (as I was told by one of the organisers) radiant with excitement.

The idea had been to attract him to Oxford for this visiting lectureship (which is what the professorship is, it is not like a full-time teaching post).

Perhaps he would not wish to serve the full five years. Who knew? But at least students, who study his work, would get a chance to hear him read and speak.

The first public opposition on the grounds of Walcott's sexual morality came from a rather startling source, John Walsh of the Independent, a man not known as one of nature's Calvinists.

Walsh referred to the race as a "two-horse Parnassian gallop" (there are, in fact, three candidates, the last being Arvind Mehrotra) and to Ruth Padel as his old friend.

Since he then proceeded to ask whether Walcott's fans had forgotten "the shadows of sexual harassment that have swirled around their man over the years" and to revive a claim made in 1995 about alleged events in the Eighties, it takes no genius to construe his article as part of an election campaign.

Whether or not Padel knew he was going to write it, whether or not she approved, there it was, in the open.

The next development was underhand. About a hundred dossiers, postmarked from the London sorting office in Mount Pleasant, were sent, personally addressed by hand, to figures in Oxford University, repeating and developing some of the material Walsh had used, and including photocopies from the book Walsh had mentioned as "a study of priapic academics called The Lecherous Professor". It doesn't sound like a very sober tome, does it?

At this point it would have been easy for Padel to dissociate herself both from her old and close friend Walsh's article and from the anonymous dossier.

She could have said that none of these issues from Walcott's past had any bearing on the campaign, and she was appalled that they had been raised. But she did not say this.

She said something different. According to the Daily Mail of 11 May, she said that "while the dossier was 'horrible', its contents should not be ignored".

Of course, the Mail could have misquoted her but later developments make this unlikely. For it was around this time that Walcott was being informed about the nature of the campaign against him. As soon as he heard what was going on, he withdrew from the race.

As far as the old allegations were concerned, he had never told his side of the story and he did not propose to do so now. He did not want to cause embarrassment to his supporters.

He beat a dignified retreat from a contest which he had entered only at the invitation of Hermione Lee, the president of Wolfson College.

Last Tuesday, the Evening Standard printed Padel's reaction, in which she did indeed dissociate herself from the clandestine campaign but only because it was clandestine.

"It would have been far better," she said after a few crocodile tears, "if the issue had been mentioned and discussed openly much earlier. This would have prevented anything secret or anonymous."

She went on to deny that she knew who had sent the anonymous dossier but she felt she should point out "that what they did was not a smear. It was not even a revelation. As far as I can see, what they sent has been known for decades. The papers they sent out were published fact".

In other words, she's Professor Have Your Cake and Eat It, Too. She's mortified that Walcott, whose poetry she deeply admires, has been hurt by the campaign launched by her old friend Walsh, as well as by the anonymous dossier-mongers with their inscrutable motives.

But she thinks we should read the dossier, treat it as fact, and not ignore it. Really, after all that, one can't help wondering if she would have published the dossier herself, she has so roundly endorsed it.

Walsh's article was well timed. It appeared after the nominations for the professorship had closed, and when the campaign turned nasty in this way it was too late for any of the potential candidates who had stood aside for Walcott to allow their names to go forward, which is why the contest we are left with is between Ruth Padel and the Indian Arvind Mehrotra, whose works are not easily available.

It has been disgusting to watch as this hypocritical duo have kicked a 79-year-old poet in the slats, not because he represented some kind of threat to the weak-willed young women of Oxford (come on!) but because he stood in the way of Padel's ambitions.

Who, in their right minds, would have preferred Padel's poetry to Walcott's? Who but the most bigoted would think that professional issues settled a quarter of a century ago should debar a poet from standing up at a lectern three times a year to give a public lecture on poetry? Who thinks Oxford's reputation has been enhanced by this unscrupulousness?

Create a FREE account to continue reading

eros

Registration is a free and easy way to support our journalism.

Join our community where you can: comment on stories; sign up to newsletters; enter competitions and access content on our app.

Your email address

Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number

You must be at least 18 years old to create an account

* Required fields

Already have an account? SIGN IN

By clicking Create Account you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use , Cookie policy and Privacy policy .

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in