Colgan has foisted the blame back on to his accusers with his disingenuous ‘apology’
MICHAEL COLGAN broke his silence at the weekend to issue a statement that purported to apologise to the women he had “upset”, but actually carefully downplayed the behaviour that caused that distress.
Writing in the ‘Sunday Independent’ at the weekend, Mr Colgan painted a picture of a man who had been blindsided by accusations from at least seven former Gate Theatre employees of bullying and sexual harassment.
The former Gate director said that when he left his position in March he was “convinced [he] had done a good job, believed that [he] had been a good boss, and that [he] was liked by all the staff”.
Recent revelations, he said, had made it clear this was not the case and he conceded there were “moments where, through misjudged behaviour, I caused upset to some of my co-workers”.
“This realisation has been deeply distressing and I sincerely apologise to anyone who was ever made to feel upset,” he said.
Two lines into his muchanticipated response, and Mr Colgan was both conceding his behaviour had been objectionable while simultaneously categorising it as merely “misjudged” – implying the root of the controversy was mere crossed wires. To misjudge something is to misconstrue or misunderstand it. It implies an innocent mistake, for which no blame should attach. Crucially, it is a much more benign analysis than deeming behaviour inappropriate or bullying.
Having qualified his behaviour in those terms, Mr Colgan then sought to explain the reason that he so “misjudged” his interactions with so many of his female subordinates.
“I already knew that I was not politically correct, that I often sacrificed proper conduct for a punchline, and that, at times, could be too exacting as a boss. But realising that I have been responsible for causing distress to some of those with whom I worked so closely has shocked me, and I am truly sorry,” he said.
Here again, he attempts to apologise, but is unable to do so without trying to minimise his behaviour. The justification goes like this: political correctness has outlawed bawdy behaviour, good-natured ribbing, and lewd comments. Language is now policed much more carefully than our streets.
Framing his behaviour in this way – as a jocular boss who enjoyed irreverent jokes with his female colleagues while holding them to high standards – casts the women who worked with him as humourless, dour and ineffectual.
The implication is that the women who have come forward to complain about his behaviour can’t take a joke, that they are uptight and have simply misread his politically incorrect management style as deliberately offensive.
In rationalising his behaviour like this, Mr Colgan seeks to appeal to the large demographic out there who persistently rail against political correctness, and the snowflakes who endorse it, as poisoning innocent interactions and mutating them into something sordid. It, and not him, is the real culprit in this controversy.
Mr Colgan, a man who has always eschewed anything as constraining and boring as political correctness, is a victim of this new fanatical dogma. He is every middle-aged man who has found himself at the receiving end of criticism for infringements against this new feminist political order – commenting on a woman’s appearance, telling a sexist joke or slapping a woman on the ass.
Those who have some sympathy with this point of view should ask themselves what they mean by political correctness? Is it a suffocating new code of conduct in which playfulness and banter is mercilessly eradicated from every single social interaction, or is it merely an acknowledgement that people should be treated with dignity and respect?
If particular words or conduct are going to needlessly upset someone, then why engage in that kind of behaviour? Why not be sensitive to other people’s feelings?
Political correctness is not some new-aged nonsense. It’s just a synonym for polite. While Mr Colgan goes to great lengths to portray himself as consumed by his former role in the Gate, to the extent he inadvertently began to blur the distinction between his employees as his friends, he never specifically addresses any of the allegations levelled at him.
The only explicit reference to any of the stories that have been published in recent weeks is his confession that he was “shook” when he read that one woman said she thought she liked him but now realises she doesn’t.
Therefore, although he uses the phrase “apologise” a number of
times, we are none the wiser about what he is apologising for. Is he accepting that the accounts of the women who have come forward are truthful and accurate, or is he merely apologising for their hurt feelings?
What Mr Colgan is quite clear about, however, is the allegations against him should not be bandied about with those against other high-profile people who have been accused of serious sexual crimes. People like Harvey Weinstein and Steven Seagal.
This is true, and it is important to make the distinction between a crime like rape and bullying behaviour – although it should be noted the definition of sexual harassment, in civil cases, is defined in legislation as “unwanted verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature”.
It is also worth noting that the fact a perpetrator never had any intention of sexually harassing someone is no defence, if the behaviour can objectively be classed as sexual harassment.
It is regrettable that, having waited for two weeks to respond to the allegations that have been made against him, Mr Colgan adopted a contradictory position of contriteness and defensiveness – describing his behaviour as “ebullient” and “misjudged” instead of inappropriate and wrong.
Adopting the position of a politically incorrect maverick who meant no harm ultimately foists the blame back on his accusers, the women he says he wishes to apologise to, as highly-strung and hysterical.