Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 09:31:22 -0500 (EST)
From: David Hayes 
To: Bronwyn Drainie 
Subject: What else?


I read your column in today's Globe, Bronwyn, & appreciated your analysis.
One intriguing side aspect of this whole business has been how the texture
of the relationship between a bunch of colleagues here at Ryerson has
fared. Although I've been around the department part-time for 7 years,
this is only the 2nd time I've had multiple office hours & spent nearly as
much time here as many of the full-time faculty. At the moment, Suanne & I
seem to be on opposite sides of this issue. Yet just as under crisis some
families knit together despite differences & others tear apart, I have an
even greater respect for her now than I did before (& I had plenty
before). I've seen her agonize over her feelings on this issue; I know she
sought out Hannon's original articles to read them for herself (more than
the majority of the daily news media writing about the subject for large
audiences bothered doing) & thought long & hard before reaching her
position. I respect her & her position 100 per cent, & can see how she
reached it. Much of this affair is uncomfortable stuff &, like so many of
us, I find Gerald's thesis on adult-child sex wrong-headed. 

That said, I know Gerald personally & I'm convinced that his thesis has an
intellectual underpinning that at its core comes from an honest impulse -
the belief that child sexual abuse takes place in a dark, private recess
of our society surrounded by much secrecy & shame & discomfort, & that
that perpetuates the number of incidents & the duration that they go
unnoticed & unchallenged. And that only by forcing the discussion into the
open is there any chance of reducing that sorry state-of-affairs. I think 
that message, though -- which is present in his writing -- is oblique, & 
overshadowed by other explosive points. It is, for eg, nonsense to me 
to argue that legalizing adult-child sex is a solution. But I agree that 
slamming a lid on unorthodox & extreme ideas like Gerald's does nothing 
to stimulate open and frank discussions of this issue. (To me it's a 
little like the anti-abortionists I've met whose idea of discussion is to 
shout: "So, you *approve* of murdering babies?!")

I thought your column today was thoughtful & honest, & I respect your
views no less than I do Suanne's. A number of people have said to me that
they didn't understand -- and lost sympathy for -- Gerald after reading
his statements in the Sun article last Saturday. I know that Gerald saw it
as a calculated risk. To say, "My private life is my business" or "No
comment" would have, in the dynamic of the tabloid press, appeared
defensive, as though he was hiding something. By responding, he was
forcing the reporter to rely on his subject's quotes rather than innuendo &
2nd-hand observations. But his voluble responses struck many people I know
as at least intemperate, if not stupidly egotistical. Being a friend of
Gerald's I know that he is not ashamed of his lifestyle, which he
acknowledges is unorthodox. He feels it's his private life, but does not
feel, as so many of us do, that he must disguise it or apologize for it. 

Those of us who know Gerald well know beyond a shadow of a doubt that this
principled man did not "play all of us as suckers," nor "demonstrate utter
contempt for those who had gone to bat for him." I speak as one of his
strongest supporters -- speaking out in his defense to reporters,
students, Ryerson faculty and the many friends and colleagues who have
been calling me to ask about this affair. Nor did he treat
his supporters (especially his students) with "contempt and amoral
insouciance." Your portrayal of him as "probably at this moment sketching
out the oh-so-witty article or book he plans to write...about his Wildean
adventures among the Philistines" struck me as a cheap shot. First, it was
pure speculation, quite unlike the tone & substance of the rest of your
column. Secondly, those who know Gerald well know how patently false that
picture is. You're entitled to your opinion, Bronwyn, but I trust you
contacted Hannon to speak to the man himself & gauge your reaction to 
him. Surely you didn't base that character-damning passage on media 
reports & second-hand opinions from those who barely know him.

I also take serious issue with another statement. The assumption that 
before the "Prof-as-hooker" revelation it looked as though the whole 
thing was going to die down and "Hannon would work out his contract and 
then never be rehired." Excuse me? If the administration had established that
he had done nothing wrong in his classroom, you're arguing that an excellent 
teacher and writer supported by his students who holds highly unorthodox, to 
some troubling, views would "never be rehired?" On what grounds? Is this 
part of the "worried Canadian" way. He holds controversial, troubling 
views but he's done nothing wrong. So rather than take a stand on 
principle, rightly or wrongly, & fire him, we'll let it quietly die down 
& then never rehire him. Good Lord, Bronwyn, surely this part of your 
column was written under deadline pressures. I can't believe you believe 
that.

What troubles me about some of the reaction to the "Prof-as-hooker"
revelation is the implicit double standard: it might have been palatable
*if* Gerald had been properly contrite, rather than frank & unapologetic.
Just as a segment of the heterosexual community has come around to
supporting gays, so long as they're in conventional, monogamous
relationships, like same-sex copies of the Brady Bunch ideal. That support
diminishes when confronted with the unrepentant, randy reality of a large,
vocal core of the gay community.  

I guess this whole affair could take
care of your ethics curriculum for the entire year, if you let it,
Bronwyn. It's certainly been (whoa, that may be a premature use of past
tense) an education being so near the eye of a storm. 

respectfully,

David Hayes

[Return to Chronology / RB / 17/5/97]