Walcott v. Padel: Media Coverage of the Oxford Poetry Professer Saga

By now most of our readers will have come across one or another story about the controversy surrounding this year’s election of the Oxford professor of poetry. One of the top picks for the prestigious award, Derek Walcott, withdrew his name from the running after Oxford academics were bombarded with e-mails about Walcott’s alleged sexual harassment of students. Walcott had been favored to win the award, but after he stepped out of the running, the honor was given to Ruth Padel, the first woman to ever receive it. Within a matter of days, though, news outlets were reporting that Padel herself had been involved in the campaign to spread the word about the allegations against Walcott; though she disavowed involvement in the campaign to notify Oxford academics, Padel admitted that she had tipped off two journalists to the matter over e-mail. She has since resigned as Oxford professor of poetry.

Most of the media coverage has focused on Padel’s actions, and on whether the two e-mails she sent to journalists notifying them of accusations against Walcott constituted reason for her to step down from the position. Reading articles in The New York Times, The Telegraph, The Guardian, and the Times Online, what sticks out to me is a question unasked by any of the major news outlets covering this story: should the allegations against Walcott have factored into the committee’s decision-making process, and, if so, was there reason for Padel to suspect that without her action the committee might not take those charges into account?

Bloggers have begun to take on these parts of the story. Evil Fizz, for example, points out the irony that in all the media back and forth, none of the defenses given for Walcott

actually argue that Walcott didn’t commit sexual harassment. Instead, these are efforts to either minimize his misconduct (so far in the past! no one is blameless and he writes great poetry!) or argue that giving him this post won’t give him an opportunity to behave badly (just lectures! no teaching!).

Natalia Tonova goes one step further, pointing out that while Padel was “being careless when she talked to the media,” it is a sad statement of

our priorities when Walcott only recently saw his inappropriate conduct affect his career, whereas women like Padel are automatically reduced to the status of evil trolls when they discuss information that’s already in the public domain.

I am suspicious of characterizations that describe the e-mails to Oxford professors as a “smear campaign,” and doubly so of the idea that Padel’s tips to journalists should be included in those characterizations. While Padel’s actions may have been in poor taste, one can imagine why she did them: though Walcott’s reputation for harassing students is public knowledge within his professional circles, it’s unclear whether the Oxford academics who decide the outcome of the contest would have acknowledged it in their discussions without a push from the media.

While there are and will continue to be discussions about how much of a role the accusations against Walcott should have played in the ultimate decision about who would be honored, the ability of an old-boy’s-club to minimize the importance of allegations of sexual harassment should not be overlooked.