While it's tempting to take at face value UBC's decision to reverse course and allow John Furlong to speak at the school in February, it's not that simple.
It wouldn't be serving the school's interests to simply accept that the entire matter was just a big misunderstanding (the generous interpretation of what occurred) or the result of jittery officials spooked by the threat of controversy who subsequently gave a new university president some horrible advice.
That certainly gets closer to the truth, but still doesn't burrow to the heart of this fiasco or detail just how badly this thing was botched. Included in the list of bewildering moves for which the school was responsible, is a call made by a UBC official on Dec. 27 to Andrea Shaw, chief executive of the firm that handles Mr. Furlong's speaking engagements.
Read more: UBC bows to backlash by re-inviting John Furlong to give speech
This was five days after the initial conversation between the two in which the official informed Ms. Shaw the school was disinviting the former Olympic CEO from giving a speech at a major fundraising breakfast on Feb. 28. The reason provided was that the planned talk had generated some internal hostilities, related to the accusations of sexual and physical abuse that were levelled against Mr. Furlong in 2012.
Of course, three charges of sexual abuse were either dropped or dismissed in court. None of the First Nation people accusing Mr. Furlong of physical abuse at an elementary school in British Columbia in the early 1970s ever pressed charges. Meantime, another judge ruled in Mr. Furlong's favour in a defamation suit, and in her judgment spared no words in denouncing the personal vendetta of which she felt he had become victim.
(Full disclosure: In 2010, I was hired to help write Mr. Furlong's Olympic memoir, Patriot Hearts.)
In the phone conversation that occurred on Dec. 27 between Ms. Shaw and Shantal Cashman, UBC director of development and engagement (athletics and recreation), a discussion ensued about how news of the cancellation would be presented publicly.
I'm informed that during this discussion it was suggested that the Furlong camp take responsibility for the change of plans by saying it was because of an unforeseen conflict on his schedule.
When I reached Ms. Shaw to ask if this was true, she was clearly uneasy discussing the matter.
Asked if there was ever a suggestion her team come up with an excuse for Mr. Furlong, Ms. Shaw told me: "Um, ah, yes there was, which obviously didn't make us comfortable at all so I asked them [UBC] to regroup and come back to us with something we were more comfortable with."
Asked if the school representative proposed using a scheduling conflict as an out for not doing the speech, Ms. Shaw said: "They alluded to that being one of the possible reasons why it couldn't happen, but we weren't comfortable doing that."
Asked if she ever contemplated agreeing to come up with a false story for why Mr. Furlong was not attending the speech, Ms. Shaw said: "Not at all, not at all."
Susan Danard, managing director, public affairs for UBC, said Ms. Cashman was not available for comment. Ms. Danard did say that Ms. Cashman was not the "decision maker" when it came to the Furlong matter. In earlier reports, Ms. Shaw also indicated that Ms. Cashman had told her in the course of their chats that she was only the "messenger."
Regardless, this is a serious matter. It appears that the university tried to encourage Mr. Furlong's team to front a bogus story to help the school save face. Instead, it blew up in the most stunning of fashions.
The only person who looks good in this entire mess is Mr. Furlong himself, who handled the entire affair with class and good grace. Given what's gone on, his speech should now be appointment viewing.
While new university president Dr. Santa Ono had earlier issued a public apology to Mr. Furlong and his family over the way this entire matter was handled, he said at the time the school would not change its mind about its decision not to have him speak.
It would seem something, or someone, changed Dr. Ono's mind for him.
It could have been Stuart Belkin, chair of the UBC board of governors. I understand he met with Mr. Furlong, who outlined his concerns over the way the entire matter was handled. And I also know Mr. Belkin was besieged with calls and e-mails from angry and influential donors who were threatening to withhold funds unless Dr. Ono's decision was overturned.
I know, too, that senior members of the B.C. government were also not happy with the publicity the issue was generating and wanted it fixed.
While a wrong may have been corrected, the entire process from start to finish was error-filled and needs to be reviewed. In fact, the path to good decision-making seems to be a wholly elusive one for many people at the university these days.
And it's a mystery why.
Gary Mason