In 2015, Professor Steven Galloway from the University of British Columbia had his life turned upside down. The famed author was accused of violently raping an unnamed student four years earlier. Galloway was head of the University's Creative Writing Department and had the accusation levelled against him by Chelsea Rooney, formerly a student in UBC’s Creative Writing Department. Rooney also claimed that 19 other students had suffered abuse by Galloway and were willing to step forward against the professor.
It turns out the "student" who had been raped was in fact an ex-professor in her mid 40's. Rooney claimed to have a voicemail detailing Galloway apologising to the victim for raping her, but when investigated it was Galloway apologising to the victim for his part in an affair they had been engaged in together.
Soon after, the victim began changing her story several times, which included moving the date of the rape back from 2012 to 2011. Chelsea Rooney also was caught in a lie, as the 19 other victims of abuse were unable to be presented and may have, in fact, never existed.
Chelsea Rooney
Professor Galloway's reputation was destroyed, he was put on suspension and the media released many articles on Galloway, all before an investigation had even begun.
One faculty member made a statement on the situation which can be found in a Quillette article:
' “What I’ve always been mystified by,” says Andreas Schroeder, who taught in UBC’s Creative Writing program from 1994 to 2017, “was that faculty were assured [that] nineteen other women were coming forward with allegations—but it never happened.”
Schroeder remembers that during these events in November, 2015, no concrete information was presented to departmental staff. Instead, he says, the flow of information was conducted through gossip and second-hand claims that seemed to evaporate when you tried to track down the alleged source.'
The evidence surrounding the events was suspicious at best and lies at its worst. This didn't stop the angry mob from stringing Galloway up and condemning him without the proper due process. The Creative Writing Department called an emergency meeting where the professor was referred to as a "rapist" and many other terrible names. The decision was made to suspend the professor and remove him as chair of the department. All this occurred within a day after the original allegations broke.
Speeding through most of the events, a n internal investigation was launched by Former Supreme Court justice Mary Ellen Boyd that dismissed the assault complaint and concluded there was no evidence of sexual assault but Galloway was fired anyway and he suffered from depression, suicidal thoughts and constant public attacks on his character. This situation caused several well known public figures, such as author Margaret Atwood, Madeleine Thien and Michael Ondaatje, to sign a letter stating that Galloway deserves his right to due process. Atwood was chastised on social media (by feminists and others despite the fact she is an old school feminist) and even Andreas Schroeder who was a teacher at UBC that then saw his career cut short.
This week an Arbitration of the events found that Steven Galloway had had his rights violated by the UBC and that he had suffered unnecessary damages. He was awarded $167,000 as compensation. Despite this, the money cannot undo the damage to professor Galloway.
That brings me to an article by the Globe and Mail released on June 18th by Alicia Elliott a self described feminist.
Alicia Elliott
The article was titled After Galloway: We must value a woman’s pain above a man’s reputation. The first paragraph of the article sets the tone of the rest of the opinion piece:
"A little more than a week ago, the results of writer Steven Galloway’s arbitration with the University of British Columbia were announced: The arbitrator found that UBC had violated Mr. Galloway’s privacy rights and damaged his reputation – a trespass that cost the university $167,000. At the time, all I could think about was how much more highly Canada values men’s reputations, emotions and even legal rights than those of women."
While it is true that the Arbitration's decision does not mean that Galloway was exonerated, it only means that the University didn't act appropriately, the author setting the precedent that Galloway isn't the victim of a vicious character assassination and that his story doesn't deserve the attention it has received. The defence of Galloway has to do with the fact that he was condemned before he had a chance to defend himself and that the allegations surrounding him have fallen apart, between the victim's story changing several times, to the fact that the date was changed to the fact that the 19 students claiming abuse willing to step forward could not be found and even possibly made up.
The article continues:
"This message was only reinforced a few days later when two journalists in two major news outlets – including this one (Globe and Mail)– interviewed Mr. Galloway. One described him as a “broken man,” and the other quoted him as experiencing “a painful, wrenching shock,” in the aftermath. Neither interview quoted any of the complainants to ask about the state of their lives."
Elliott is refusing to acknowledge that there has been two and a half years of consideration for the victim and that until recently, Galloway has not received any consideration for what he has gone through. This is the first time the media has given him his say publicly after they were involved in his downfall by writing hit pieces on the man without waiting for a proper investigation. That is not even mentioning the abuse he faced on social media.
Continuing on:
"Neither interview addressed why Mr. Galloway, despite his claims of financial ruin and near bankruptcy, decided to drop the part of his union-provided arbitration that would have both reinstated him to his former position as head of Creative Writing and awarded him two years’ worth of back pay – a move that would have restored his reputation and financial standing – as long as the arbitrator ruled his firing unjustified."
It is difficult to say what the truth is without Galloway's input, but it seems to me that Galloway would not want to return to the University after everything he faced from both student and faculty. The Quillette article goes into great detail about how he was treated by his colleagues, I know I would not want to return to that. The Arbitration can not repair his reputation, only restore his position. As for the financial reasons, I am not sure but i feel as though he cannot have one without the other, the pay without the restoration of his position. (Although I am just guessing, so don't take my word for it). The allegations has also meant that many people don't want to associate with Galloway. In an earlier article from the Globe and Mail, Galloway stated: "I haven’t got so much as an e-mail about writing in two years. I have no publishing prospects. I will never teach again." Reinstating him will not mean he is given these opportunities again, regardless of his guilt or innocence. Well, it will give him the chance to teach again, but in a hostile work environment.
Moving on:
"To anyone who’s been paying attention to this case from the beginning, such empathy should not come as a surprise. Almost as soon as UBC first announced it was investigating “serious allegations” against Mr. Galloway two years ago, the author had a slew of influential friends ready to defend his every claim."
Most of the people who came to his defence were not his friends. Margaret Atwood has stated she doesn't know who Galloway is. The letter they signed was to give Galloway the right to proper due process. He has received more than his fair share of hate.
"Last week, Mr. Galloway disclosed to Globe columnist Gary Mason the precise details of the main complainant’s allegations against him – details that she has not even revealed to her close friends and family. He can do this without facing any legal repercussions. And yet, because of Canada’s libel laws, if the main complainant were to reveal the same allegations to a reporter, she could be sued. Free speech in Canada, it would appear, is only free for alleged abusers and not alleged victims."
This article Elliott is referencing was released on June 8th, 2018:
"For the first time, Mr. Galloway detailed the three separate incidents of sexual assault that MC levelled against him. He said she accused him of choking and trying to rape her aboard a sailboat he co-owned and doing the same thing in his office after an end-of-term party. In a third charge, MC said she woke up naked on the floor of his office in the late afternoon one day in a disoriented state, leaving the door open to the suggestion he drugged and raped her. Mr. Galloway was allegedly watching a hockey game on his computer when she opened her eyes."
It is true that Galloway gave details of the case but I believe I know why he is allowed when the complainant is not. According to the Canadian Bar Association of British Columbia Libel is described as: "Libel is the type of defamation with a permanent record, like social media and other online posts, newspapers, letters, emails, pictures, and radio and TV broadcasts." Slander is described as: "Slander is the type of defamation with no permanent record. Normally it's a spoken statement." The crime is the same, it depends on whether there is a record or not.
As you can see, it involves accusing of someone of a crime unless the accusation is made by the police. Since no official charges have been laid, then Galloway is not actually restricted to discuss it, but the complainant would then be accusing Galloway of a crime without the police charges against the man, hence she would be in violation of these Libel/Slander laws.
It is also worth mentioning that (to my great disdain) that free speech does not exist in Canada. It is covered under free expression, a much more vague term, but as it states the law protects an individuals reputation. So that is why free speech does not apply here. Also, this really only applies when charges are laid and so far no charges have been laid against Galloway, meaning that these restrictions on speech are not in place.
This opinion piece from the Globe and Mail was piss poorly done. Coming from the winner of the RBC Taylor Emerging Writer Award. If there is one thing I have learned, it's that the journalists these days are bad at their jobs and facts no longer matter, just a narrative.
It is unclear what happens from here, whether Galloway will have charges laid against him and be taken to court, but I believe that if it hasn't happened yet, then it probably will not happen. Galloway has been through a lot and it appears that the story surrounding his situation has fallen apart, yet there are some, such as Alicia Elliott, who will stop at nothing to ruin this man's life. Since a criminal court case means that the charges must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, if it did go to court Galloway would most likely win the case. But the damage is done. Galloway's life has been ruined. And it was people like Elliott, willing to condemn him regardless of the facts brought up, who have helped ruin his life. Journalistic hit pieces and fake charges at its finest.
