A Literary Inquisition: How Novelist Steven Ga…

A Literary Inquisition: How Novelist Steven Galloway Was Smeared as a Rapist, Even as the Case Against Him Collapsed – Quillette:



Steven Galloway was once one of the shining stars of the University of British Columbia, whose only apparent or proven step into moral greyness was a consensual extramarital affair.

In my personal opinion, he was then subjected to an expertly-crafted powerplay revolving around no fewer than 19 false accusations of rape and sexual misconduct, which left him powerless, jobless, and friendless, while the people who accused him and handled his case directly profited from his fall from grace. 

The main complainant herself (we can assume it’s a she?) refused to speak to anyone directly, making claims only through the proxy of Chelsea Rooney, who not only spearheaded the mountains of accusations, but also ultimately spearheaded an investigation against Galloway directly. Here were the rules of the investigation set out by Rooney, starting from the time Galloway was suspended:

  1. I have 19 accounts from different people who have all experienced victimisation at the hands of Steven Galloway. You must believe that all 19 of these people exist despite me never telling you who they are, or giving you their accounts.
  2. The main complainant communicates only through me.*
  3. Steven Galloway is guilty. If you express doubt about this, that makes you guilty of rape apology and silencing women’s voices.
  4. Nobody needs to discuss the details of what Steven Galloway did. All you need to know is that he’s a monster. Specifics do not matter, and nobody should ask for any details.
  5. Despite having social media, regular media, and the university administration all supporting me to various degrees, and in spite of the fact that Galloway has already been suspended, I am but one lone woman spearheading a revolution against the corrupt patriarchal institutions at UBC.

Additional rules set out by other people:

  1. Steven Galloway is not allowed to know the nature of the allegations against him even after we’ve already suspended him. He must be kept in the dark at all times.
  2. The impact left by Galloway’s actions is so heinous that nobody can ever recover from it, even though nobody can truly say what those actions were.
  3. Faculty members who were instrumental in bringing the accusations against Galloway to light will jointly be assuming the role which Galloway himself just vacated after we had him suspended.

This last rule, above all others, is what screams out “conspiracy!!” to me. As though Galloway was an inconvenient obstacle in their career paths, and a swift enough response to main complainant’s accusations, coupled with nobody else quite knowing what was going on, provided the leverage they needed to oust him.

And the funny thing is, Galloway himself seems to have orchestrated one of these before on behalf of the main complainant in this case.

Two years after the alleged incident(s) with Galloway, main complainant went out for a drink with someone who just happened to be competing with main complainant’s teaching supervisor for a tenured position at the university. The following morning, main complainant texts Galloway about being sexually assaulted by this man, and asked Galloway to make sure he didn’t get the job.

Galloway did this. He didn’t get the position. Main complainant’s teaching supervisor did.

To me, the biggest reveal of this surprisingly lengthy debacle, which I’m only just catching up on now, is that it reveals not one but two instances of Why A Woman Would Lie About Rape. In both cases, it was to further their careers, and arguably, to install a clique around themselves by getting rid of inconvenient people.

I know people who would like to write for a living. Dear god, don’t let them become any of the kinds of people involved in this case.


*The best thing I can say about the main complainant is that there’s reasonable evidence to suggest she exists.