Helen Garner's The first stone - over 20 years later

I was living in England when the event in 1992 occurred and was not that interested in reading this book when it was published in 1995. Now, more than 20 years on, I was handed the book, as an interesting read, by a trusted book clubber. I was therefore quite naive about what I was reading! The First Stone opens to the police interview of the Master of Ormond College, in relation to sexual harassment charges made by two students during a fairly jovial party after their valedictory dinner. It seems there was a delay before the girls reported the incident to the college and then the police. Despite being acquitted on two occasions, the Master resigned in disgrace without future career options. It seems that Helen was a critical observer to a highly charged and divisive situation - and she wanted to find out more about the motives of the key players. She wrote to the Master of Ormond, named by her as Colin Shepherd, and received some insights into his family life and career. She tried to interview the two girls, without success, and many people have since accused her of writing an anti-feminist story, and 20 years later, are still doing so! I am quite bemused because the story to me was so much more about power and class then merely gender. Ormond was a replica Oxbridge college that had recently modernised as a co-ed college. Sometimes Australians are more critical of class than the English themselves, who seem to accept it as part of life. While in many ways Australia is a classless society and there are multiple opportunities for self-improvement, there are still bastions of the English class system that are even more entrenched than in the motherland. Perhaps the University of Melbourne is one of them! So, for me, it seemed that Colin had tried too hard to be the congenial, compassionate and egalitarian Master in a hierarchical and historical class system. Somehow, the girls and their secret supporters fought a nasty and public battle where they moved around the classic victim's triangle, from victim to persecutor and then to rescuer. Along the way they gathered support from feminists, lawyers and the academic establishment. At no time, was there any sense to question the Master's actions apart from assumptions of evil intent. This is what has scared me the most. In gender and politics, there are many grey areas, where with some patience and compassion, individual behaviours can be understood, rather than escalated. I think Helen tried to bring this out in her book, by describing stories where most women have managed advances from men, that while flattering may have been unwanted. In many ways, the success of women is built upon their ability to do this with some respect for themselves and for the other person. Further, there is always a decision to escalate and that concerns me the most. Normally, in escalation we are seeking a higher level of moral conscience. Perhaps we are looking for exoneration for ourselves and punishment or at least acknowledgment by others. Helen and myself, as her reader, seem ignorant of when and why the decision to escalate was made. I think in trying to understand this, she was accused of being anti-feminist. But it seems to me, that the feminists were selling themselves out to the establishment and expecting the law to enact gender equality in one of the most inequitable corners of Australian civilisation. Garner reflectively questioned why the girls delayed their accusations, why they joined forces and whether they really had taken responsibility for their own behaviours. To me this seemed appropriate but to the feminists it was proclaimed outrageous. I really wonder whether the girls innocence and naivety was played by the feminist card. I saw a similarity to whistleblowers in office politics, where they try and use anti-bullying policies. In both situations, playing the victim, even with a sense of moral rightness, does not pay. No matter how civilised our society, we cannot legislate for fairness between sexes, classes or even managerial behaviours. Reading this book has really emphasised to me, the need for all players in any situation of real or perceived conflict, to carefully review their own contribution to the situation and to decide to act with power and responsibility. I accept that in some situations this is very difficult to do, because of significant power imbalances and altered perceptions. However, I wonder what would have happened if the girls had been coached to reflect on what had happened, facilitated to question the intention of their Master and then decided to behave differently.