I’m adding a brief addendum to my previous article about Steven Galloway. The information below is new.
In September of 2016, I received a comment on my site from someone purporting to be close to the MC (the main complainant). The comment, which went into moderation, was submitted to “The Curious Case of Steven Galloway” and included a name and a B.C. phone number that I was asked to call. Before doing so, I ran the information past a journalist who had written about Galloway. She confirmed it was legitimate.
I’m going to refer to this person as “the informant” and use the pronoun “they.”
The journalist was surprised I’d been contacted since the informant had been approached by the media, several times, and had refused to talk. The informant said they contacted me because the article above was critical of the Creative Writing department at UBC and didn’t target any one individual. They also said they felt more comfortable contacting a blogger rather than a well-known journalist; they were concerned about seeing their words repeated on national media.
The call lasted 90 minutes and consisted mostly of anecdotes told by the informant. Their position was that MC was a victim, but a perpetrator too. I did share these anecdotes with other writers, but none of us went public because they were difficult to verify. There were two issues: on the one hand there were too many voluble witnesses and forming a coherent narrative seemed impossible; on the other, some of these darker anecdotes, probably because they didn’t support the MC, only became corroborated after several months, when sympathy for the MC began to wane. Most corroborators that I heard about or spoke to did not want to come forward publicly.
So here’s a related fact that should be known but isn’t: some of the witnesses have since changed their stories. If Galloway’s ordeal were unfolding in criminal court–its proper venue–it’s likely we would have heard about this. As it is, the frenzy that accompanied the beginning of this scandal has now given way to more balanced reflection on the part of some of the people involved. I know I’m probably wasting my breath here, but those still accusing Galloway should bear this in mind.
What’s been corroborated? Anecdotes about MC’s mental fragility and illicit drug-taking, her association with criminals (of the late-night party variety), her intention to buy a firearm (and making threats), and her own sexual aggression (with men and women).
There is also evidence that this is the third time the MC has been involved in the attempted (and in this event successful) ousting of a colleague. In at least two of these cases, she solicited covert help from other colleagues, creating a faction that worked to expel her target. As anyone with a graduate degree knows, academics work hard and put years of their lives into qualifying. That one erratic individual can assail this process so easily speaks to that confounding paradox: the utter credulousness of some otherwise very smart people.
The ban on the MC’s name and on information that would decisively exonerate Galloway has been in place for years and should be lifted. By now we all know that Galloway blundered–he dated a student–but so what? He was hardly masterminding a reign of terror at UBC.
This art exhibit is pertinent to the discussion. http://www.highnoongallery.com/illuminated-manuscript