But I have to say that I do not really understand what she is trying to say in this column in the Times:
As a mother, I can not tolerate the idea of a young woman being harassed. Sexual harassment is not about lust, it is about asserting power over the powerless.
However, while I believe that it is not appropriate to be sexual towards students, I also realize that it happens. Writers, by nature, have reckless hearts. Poetry is a passionate art. That is why it is crucial that institutions have strict policies against sexual harassment and are not too embarrassed to allow concerns to be heard. It is impossible to legislate behaviour, but to allow a student an opportunity to question behaviour in a safe and open forum is within our grasp. I believe that Oxford is capable of dealing with any situation of this nature.
There is more, if you want to read it. Basically, from what I can gather, she is saying the following:
1. Sexual Harassment of students is very bad.
2. Derek Walcott sexually harassed me. (Though she seems very careful not to come right out and say this.)
3. But it's all good, I mean, universities have rules for that. Because, you know, some teachers need to ride that edge in order to teach their subjects.
Anybody else get a different take from this?