The British take their poetry seriously. So on one level, the scandal that has emerged from Oxford University over two poets competing for an Oxford poetry professorship may seem quaint to American ears. When was the last time American poets competed for anything? Quick! Who's the American poet laureate?
But on another level, the scandal is entirely predictable.
Quick background: Ruth Padel and Derek Walcott were nominees for the Oxford professorship of poetry. Then in an apparent attempt to damage the chances of one of the two, someone sent emails reminding journalists of twenty year-old allegations of sexual harassment against Derek Walcott. That someone turned out to be Ruth Padel. The campaign was effective in that it forced Derek Walcott to withdraw his candidacy; in due course Padel was awarded the professorship. She was the first woman to hold the 300-year-old post but was only in position for nine days before what she described as "divided opinion" in the university forced her to resign.
Padel tried to put the best face on her action. "I passed on in good faith the concerns of students. They felt the concerns had been brushed under the carpet by Walcott's supporters," she said. "The details were not news - they were in the public domain and as such were subject of concern to the students."
To very few people did Padel's actions pass the smell test.
Padel apologized to Walcott. Here's a video of the apology and here's the text of the salient parts:
I apologise to Derek Walcott for doing something which could be misconstrued in the context of a large campaign that had nothing to do with me and which I didn't know about. I don't want to be against him. He is my revered colleague and I do not want him to be humiliated. It was naive and silly of me - a bad error of judgment. I can, of course, see that people can misconstrue these two isolated emails of mine as part of a larger campaign I had nothing to do with. I do think I was very silly to send those emails but I was trying in a misguided way to address student concerns.
Padel's apology is very weak. As long as she maintains the fiction that her conduct was merely "misguided," and her offense was only an offense because it was
"misconstrued," she is distancing herself from her actions and denying her responsibility. The tone of the apology is that of a passive victim. Padel fails to specify what she is apologizing for. She minimizes and rationalizes. Her resignation is a form of restitution, but she doesn't link her sacrifice to the offense. She fails to indicate what she learned and she doesn't promise not to repeat the behavior.
If she had come to me for help in drafting an apology, I'd have suggested something like:
I apologize for attempting to undermine to Derek Walcott. Derek, I am ashamed that I treated a colleague whose work I so respect in such an unrespectful manner. I accept responsibility for sending out the emails and then initially denying it. It was wrong of me on every level. I regret that my actions prompted you to withdraw from an honor you deserve far more than me. I cannot accept the professorship under the dishonest circumstances my actions have caused. Therefore I am relinquishing the professorship. I value the collegiality that I have so offended and promise not to do anything so underhanded again.
Evaluation
Recognition: F
Responsibility: D
Remorse: B
Restitution: D
Repletion: F
Overall Grade: D
Leave a comment