Lessons for the Road
VITAL OBITER®
The Diary of a Roving Counsel
Be quick to hear. Slow to speak. Slow to anger.
That counsel belongs beside the “Post” button.
Zimbabwean writer Simbarashe Steyn Kundizeza’s Caine Prize-winning story, The Blue Fighter, became the subject of an AI-authorship allegation published in The Atlantic. On 11 November, the prize organisers concluded their review: no evidence that the story was produced using generative AI. His award stands.
The question is what we do between an allegation and a finding.
I remember being a university student, student union leader and activist writing against military government. THISDAY published some of my articles. When others stopped appearing, I visited its office in Ikeja, Lagos.
Professor Bola Akinterinwa explained that he had withheld some for my own preservation. My statements, he told me, were too inflammatory.
Between my anger and publication stood another person’s judgment.
Traditional publishing had checkpoints: editors, verification, opportunities to seek another party’s response. These were imperfect safeguards. The allegation against Kundizeza itself appeared in an established publication.
Social media allows us to bypass those checkpoints altogether. A phone, data and an opinion can carry our thoughts directly to an audience.
Access has expanded. Responsibility must expand with it.
I also think of Professor Jason Arday, the Cambridge academic who died in August after intense public scrutiny. Subsequent publisher findings did not substantiate particular plagiarism allegations; they did not resolve every question about his record. His case cannot honestly be reduced to either total vindication or established guilt. (reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk)
We must resist turning a disputed action into a verdict on an entire human being.
Judge the action on the evidence. Do not reduce the person to the action.
Even where wrongdoing is established, accountability must remain humane. Establish what happened. Identify responsibility. Require consequences and repair. None of that requires humiliation or the destruction of someone’s dignity.
We all live in glass houses because we are human. Imperfection is our shared condition. Escaping public scrutiny is no certificate of perfection.
At fifty-six, I remain committed to probity, honour and dignity. Those commitments guide my conduct; they do not make me infallible.
Human dignity is sufficient reason for restraint. We need no personal stake in someone’s predicament before treating them fairly.
Kundizeza’s clearance has received coverage from The Guardian and Associated Press. The Atlantic updated its article to acknowledge the outcome. We should recognise that.
But will everyone who circulated the suspicion give the finding equal attention?
Before posting, ask: What is established? What remains alleged? Have I heard the person concerned? Am I examining conduct or unloading frustration?
Children hear how we discuss absent people. We teach fairness through those conversations.
My no-judgment advocacy leaves room for scrutiny, truth and consequences. It also leaves room for the person.
Be quick to hear. Slow to condemn. And when the evidence changes, have the integrity to change your words.
Follower of Christ. Husband. Father.Egalitarian. No-Judgment Zone Advocate. Goodwill Investor.
Rebel with a Cause. Thriver. Culture-Led Family Strengthening, Education and Child Safeguarding Attorney, Pioneer and Innovator. Value-Based Parenting Ideologue.Three Decades in the Saddle.
