The administration responded by blaming the CCC, burying the "internal review" report (refusing to provide copies to students) and "urged" the CCC to comply with the EMTF's original demands by another deadline of June 4, 1993. When we refused again we were reviewed again, this time "externally."

The administration, in reality, rejected the internal review report and blamed the CCC for the "failure" of the review. This failure was publicized widely in the media, with no comment forthcoming from the internal reviewers nor any public mention by them of the EMTF threats to sue, nor any condemnation of the attacks on the CCC immediately following their review. If at any time the equity office and the internal reviewers had supported us publicly, how would events have differed? Obviously, they would have shared some of the hostility.

Outraged by the Pirie/Callahan review, two of the men circulated vicious, misogynist diatribes against a number of women. These attacks had a devastating effect, and served to alienate women from participation in departmental activities. As suggested by Janetta Ozard, UVic Students Society president, in a letter to University of Victoria president David Strong, "If students continue to be discredited, threatened and harassed by tenured faculty for the work done on the request of such faculty, there will be an impact on student participation not only in department committees, but also in any course work, graduate work, and performance review under faculty direction."

The EMTF continued their demand for a full inquiry into the report and the names of the students who spoke and wrote to us. There were strong indications that they were going to be given their inquiry and that the demands for disciplinary action against Somer Brodribb as chair of the CCC (revoking the approval of her tenure and promotion application) would be satisfied. However, it seems that the many letters and calls of support the committee received at this time (May/June, 1993) including from NAC, the Canadian Women's Studies Association, Canadian Sociology and Anthropology Association, as well as the Faculty Women's Caucus and especially the University of Victoria Students' Society, gave some pause to the administration in proceeding with a direct witch hunt and interrogatory investigation of the CCC and its report.

In our view, the administration considered the internal review a failure because it did not attack the credibility of the CCC or of feminists outside the equity office. Also, it suggested there needed to be some small changes in the "department's" behaviour, pointed to the equity office as a means for that change, and recommended that the threatening letter be withdrawn. The external review on the other hand affirmed the power of the EMTF, discredited the CCC and other feminists working to include systemic discrimination in the university equity policy, recommended civility and collegiality on the part of both "sides" and found that the EMTF had a right to go to court that could not be superseded (apparently not even by collegiality and civility).