For those who haven’t been following the latest Canlit scandal, I’ll see if I can summarize this in one paragraph. Steven Galloway, the former chair of UBC’s creative writing program, was suspended last November over “serious allegations”. UBC provided no further explanation, creating a climate of gossip, speculation, and rumours. The retired Supreme Court judge who was assigned to look into these allegations dismissed most of them, including the most serious ones. The only claim that stuck was the affair Galloway had with a middle-aged student. In June, the University fired him anyway.
If this looks like due process to you, imagine how you would feel if you were the subject of the following police statement:
John Doe is under investigation for doing something really terrible. We won’t tell you what it is, but don’t let your daughters go out at night in John Doe’s neighbourhood. Any of the dozens or hundreds of woman who may have been affected by Doe’s actions are encouraged to seek counselling.
In response to UBC’s actions, a number of prominent writers signed a letter criticizing UBC’s handling of the situation and posted it on the site UBC Accountable. That’s when the Twitterverse blew apart at the seams. The howling of all real and imagined victims of that letter was so strong that a few signatories asked to have their names removed. Someone sent Margaret Atwood 70 tweets. Seriously, you think the author of The Handmaid’s Tale is your enemy? You’re going to school Atwood on feminism and the oppression of women?
The change.org petition to counter UBC Accountable’s letter had a list of accusations:
1. The letter only dealt with one victim of the scandal (SG).
2. The letter showed “no concern for the women who came forward.”
3. The signatories “chose to close ranks around one of their own and to say nothing about what the women who came forward actually want and need.”
In conclusion, the author invited “those who signed the open letter to the University of British Columbia to withdraw their signatures and call for a fair and open process based on a recognition of the realities of rape culture.”
It’s true that the letter only focused on Steven Galloway. That’s because it was a letter about Steven Galloway. Can a letter be about one thing? Must it be inclusive, carefully listing every group that may or may not have been damaged or in any way affected by the scandal? The exclusive focus on Galloway did not in any way minimize the complainants.
The warring factions on Twitter and Facebook found a way to put the discussion in the context of victimhood. Famous writers responding to attacks from lessor-known writers were seen as using their power and influence to crush the future careers of promising upstarts. The number of victims this scandal can generate appears to be limitless. I’m sure all of this comes as a surprise to many in the writing community who started out trying to help a friend and somehow ended up in a basket of deplorables.
Leave A Comment