I wouldn't want to condone any misbehaviour on Walcott's part. Absolutely not. And the fact that he withdrew might imply that he didn't want to defend himself in the court of public opinion.
I think that this kind of behaviour regrettably has been indulged in the past, but is increasingly frowned upon. Academia can obviously still be a closed shop, though, I agree.
However, to run a smear campaign, or (at best) to be perceived to do so (as I said, she was either silly or malicious), implies that she felt a "fair" contest was impossible.
And that's clearly not the case: the Chair is not just about the quality of the poet's verse, but about other aspects the holder brings to the role. She might have been able to win it fair and square. That's what I mean about disappointing, I suppose.
As I said, one would've hoped that the academics voting on the post would've taken these things (the allegations against Walcott, etc.) into account (though, granted, they might've overlooked his behaviour - we'll never know).
To say that, "Well, Walcott was a lech, so it doesn't matter if she smeared him" isn't terribly edifying!