OxPo Foes

Sickening. Vandals.

I am disappointed that such low tactics have been used in this election and I do not want to get into a race for a post where it causes embarrassment to those who have chosen to support me for the role, or to myself.

I already have a great many work commitments and, while I was happy to be put forward for the post, if it has degenerated into a low and degrading attempt at character assassination, I do not want to be part of it.

Derek Walcott has withdrawn from the race for Oxford Professor of Poetry - not for any poetic reasons, but because certain idiots have sent over 100 anonymous letters to voters repeating personal allegations at least 20 years old. (It's only from the Oxford Mail that I learn the recipients were all female.) Who could have sent them, and why? And why anonymous? Are they seeking to smear Walcott, or is it some Machiavellian swipe against Padel? There was nothing particularly secret about these allegations: as someone who is hardly at the centre of poetry gossip I first heard of them years ago. They were published and ignored. Even if they were true, they have nothing to do with his ability to deliver the lectures. They didn't stop him getting tenure at Boston.

Ah, but.

I don't really understand why he didn't face them down as he's always done in the past. He might have been elected; he might not. Either way, he would have come out of it looking as if he didn't give a stuff about the person who made the allegations. Whoever is elected now won't have the satisfaction of knowing they won in a fair fight.

Hermione Lee has called on Padel to dissociate herself from it, which she has done. She has just been on PM saying it's absolutely terrible. She deplores that it's been all over the press this way. She feels tainted. She has no idea who sent the letters or why. She's wondered whether to withdraw, but supporters have persuaded her she shouldn't be deflected.

Other dons are claiming that there would certainly have been other candidates if Walcott hadn't been standing. That's true, and the animosity against Padel is palpable and suggests that even if elected she would have to endure continual sniping from some quarters. Perhaps she should withdraw after all, leaving Mehrotra as a shoo-in.

The best solution would be to postpone the election, but that's been ruled out. Why in the name of all that's rational can't someone rush through an amending statute? This election should be about poetry. If art were judged only on the moral virtue of artists, there wouldn't be a lot left. And it's hardly as if the Professor of Poetry does one-to-one tutes, or exercises any power over grades.

Oxford has been deprived of a fair choice of candidates. It's a moot point whether the smear campaign did this, or whether it was Walcott himself in choosing to stand down. It is a huge shame he's removed himself from the race.

I bet John Walsh is feeling pretty sick too. (I wish I'd never mentioned his wretched article.) A snarky leader in today's Independent (the paper Walsh writes for) is almost actionable in its innuendo.

I don't really know Padel, I've never even had a drink with her - but I cannot for one moment credit that she would have had anything to do with this crapfest. I'd guess she was pretty embarrassed even by the Indy's totally un-anonymous Walshing. With friends like that, who needs enemies?

We are all tainted. We are humans, appetitive and fallible. Without those qualities, no-one could write poetry. And we are all the poorer for this sort of non-poetic battle about poetry jobs.

The row on Harriet continues here.