Why does the Guardian hate Ruth Padel so much?
Ruth Padel: Still getting hammered by The Guardian
Days after the conclusion of the race for Professor of Poetry at Oxford University, during which The Guardian ran numerous articles by reporter Alison Flood calling discussion of candidate Derek Walcott’s history of sexually harassing his students a “smear campaign” and quoting Oxford professors implying eventual winner Ruth Padel was behind it all (see the earlier MobyLives reports here, here, here and here), The Guardian has decided it can’t abide by the public refutation of their stance.
On its blog yesterday, the paper posted this audio tribute to Derek Walcott by Clive James. In the audio, James speaks of his great admiration for Walcott, offers a poem he’s written in honor of Walcott, and laments the “smear campaign” once more time. Meanwhile, in the unattributed text introducing the audio, The Guardian once again neglects to mention the severity of the charges against Walcott — such as that they went on for years, even to the point of legal action, and saw him drummed out of two universities in a row ….
Meanwhile, The Guardian’s fascination with the poet who was disgraced in the US but apparently can’t be disgraced in the UK has not allowed for any similarly triumphant consideration of the person who actually won the race, the first woman to do so in 301 years, Ruth Padel. It’s a white space that speaks as loudly as any of the text around it.
Hi there, yes I did notice that Clive James piece too, and thought it was extraordinary.
I’ve written a piece for the Guardian - I was commissioned to write it - on the bizarre fact that women seem to be among Walcott’s chief defenders. Libby Purves had written something in the Times talking about the undercurrent of misogyny in this story, and I have gone a little deeper into that - but only a little. So the Guardian IS aware of the other side of the story, and I’m hoping my piece will be live on their site today.
The other thing that strikes me quite forcibly is the marked divide - the yawning gulf, in fact the ocean (specifically, Atlantic-sized) between the US and the UK responses to this fracas. American poets, writers, academics seem a bit weary, like they’ve known Walcott’s reputation all this time; many more testimonials have come out of the woodwork. Harvard has said it would be wary of employing him again. Over here though what you have is a scenario where people are maybe willing to admit that Walcott did hit on students, but they’re very quick to excuse it: it was a long time ago, it was only twice (”proved”), and anyway it’s nothing to do with his poetry.
I quioted Hermione Lee on my blog and I quote her again in my CiF piece, saying: “We are purveyors of poetry, not chastity.” As if it were just a sexual peccadillo.
Funnily enough, to the girl who was told that, unless she slept with him he would prevent her play (written for his course) from being produced, it probably didn’t seem like it was just about sex. It was more like being directly about her academic record. And if I’m not mistaken she only went public with it in the end because she heard about two other girls who had had the same treatment; one of them became depressed and the other had left the course entirely.
I’m sure Professor Lee, the great feminist biographer, would have expected to be taken more seriously than that when she was a student.
A culture that can’t even distinguish “sex” from the adjective “sexual” that modifies, in this case, the noun “harassment” isn’t anywhere near being ready even to debate the vexed question of whether this should debarr Walcott from what is essentially a guest lectureship, not a pedagogic role. Tere may have been ways of navigating that, but it’s too late for any sensible discussion now.
And yes! We have our first woman Oxford Professor of Poetry! In the same fortnight as our first woman Laureate! It’s amazing days. Except it isn’t. But Ruth Padel can be proud of herself because it is a big achievement. This is a good tie maybe to bring up again the small point that, whereas Walcott’s campaign was being waged on his prestige, Nobel, towering greatness etc, Padel’s was about how she planned to use her time at Oxford to improve the quality of engagement with poetry.
I have no more than superficial knowledge of this story, but by “even to the point of legal action” do you mean no legal action was taken? Why was that then, lack of evidence perhaps?
I’m quite disappointed in the Guardian. I’m glad you covered this in such a succinct way — you’ve made their reaction seem exactly what it is: both silly and sinister at once.
Steve: As mentioned in an earlier post, one of Walcott’s students at Boston University sued him and the school — i.e., actually filed charges against them — and eventually settled out of court (i.e., Walcott and BU offered sufficient funds to prompt the accuser to drop the charges).
“Oxford’s newly appointed professor of poetry, Ruth Padel, is facing demands for her resignation after it emerged she tipped off journalists about allegations of sexual harassment against her main rival.
“Padel had maintained she had ‘nothing to do with any behind-doors operation’ against Derek Walcott, who withdrew from the race for election to the 300-year-old post after the allegations appeared in the press.
“But she had in fact sent emails to at least two newspapers, The Sunday Times claimed, causing one-time backers, including the arts broadcaster and Labour peer Lord Bragg, and Channel 4’s chief executive, Sir Jeremy Isaacs, to call for her to step down.”
– Sadie Gray, The Independent
http://preview.tinyurl.com/sadiegrayonruthpadel
Now, I suppose you will suggest that The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent and, even, The Daily Mirror all have a hate-on for Ruth Padel?
Good luck with that. Misogyny’s not the issue (nor was it ever); perhaps it’s time to examine an individual’s integrity, one willing to stoop so low and risk so very much for what, in comparison, is a paltry post lasting five years (when condemnation, derision, and alienation last forever).
Derek Walcott made restitution and paid for what many consider his “crimes” over a decade ago; now, will the shameless and slippery Ruth Padel practise what she preaches and do the time by standing down and disappearing forever? One can only hope (for poetry’s sake, the art and craft of it, the thing that’s really at stake).
–
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/in-other-words/
Ruth Padel was responsible for at least two journalists getting hold of the story, then blatantly lied, claiming she had nothing to do with it. She has to withdraw.
Well, now Padel has resigned you have the answer to your question. She lied and schemed to get this post at Oxford. That’s why the Guardian is not too keen. Padel double-crossed Walcott and used dirty tricks instead of having confidence in her talent. She set the feminist cause back several centuries, and used her one-time swain journalist John Walsh to do her dirty work for her in the Independent newspaper, when Walsh wrote the original article on 28th April running down Walcott. Is that enough?
Well, and she has withdrawn, apologising at Hay for her “silly” mistake.
Actually Polly this post - and question - predates the revelation of Padel’s silly emails, though not - of course - John Walsh’s truly shocking column. (Boy oh boy.)
Judith, when I first began talking about misogyny it was in connection with the fact that so many prominent women, along with the entire UK media, seemed to be making out that Walcott’s history of sexual harassment was no big deal. And it is a long history, anecdotally. I have had numerous emails from men, women, well-known writers, people who have been molested by Walcott - or sidelined in class because they weren’t attractive enough to be molested, and a professor emeritus at Oxford who expressed outrage and cited Oxford’s pages-long policy against harassment.
The whole point was that whether this history should debar him from the professorship was something that merited discussion. And the tutting and derision at one stage, followed by the Case of the Anonymous Dossiers at another, has made a proper discussion impossible to have.
The dossiers, by the way, have been mooted as the work of a “well-known poetry nutter” in Oxford, nothing to do with either candidate.
Well, and now Padel resigns. She is in disgrace, having cheated and lied. Don’t ask me why some people think going to the media was an okay thing for her to do. At least now she’s confessed it.
So there you are. Two poets, both have behaved reprehensibly, and both poetry and Oxford have a cloud over them. Walcott remains by far the greater poet, of course. But the whole business is disheartening.
I don’t even understand the charges against Padel - - why on earth would going to the media be NOT okay? The facts are the facts, are they not? Who cares if true facts are cited on blogs, in conversation, or in the mainstream press?
Why would someone be wrong (or, um, what was it? derisively condemned to alienation forever?) for passing on true, public, verified facts?
Even if, heaven forbid, she tried to be discreet about it.
If facts are a smear, hell: smear away.