Okay, let's not debate Peich vs. Bridgford. Gail's right that only sorrow lies that way. For that matter, defenders of both have not made any accusations that weren't hastily withdrawn speculations, or, for that matter, inadvertent possible innuendoes quickly withdrawn. Why doesn't Anna reveal her sources? I imagine that the answer is that her sources wish to remain anonymous, and that in the absence of subpoenas, one can't actually talk numbers. I am curious to see what the Inquirer turns up, though.
As for Mike Peich, I wasn't there in the early years, but I think it fair to say that if Peich had a fair number of women on the platform, Bridgford didn't freeze out the men, either. There is a lot that could be said about the evolved culture of a twenty-year-old conference, good and bad, but this does not seem the time, especially if no one is seriously impugning either director. (My comment about the gender dynamics of this thread was directed at Tim in particular, who was pretty blatant about blowing off the women until he'd checked in with a bunch of dudes who, with the possible exception of Gioia, are probably getting the same dribs and drabs and off-the-record revelations the rest of us are.)
So, why make a stink with the documentation unavailable? Because lots of things, some UNjust, can happen in a court of law, sure, but also because it has attracted attention. Something happened--I'm not quite sure what--and Kim Bridgford took the fall for it, apparently as a direct result of trying to clear the air. I, too, want to know more, even while understanding that, based on current information, all that can be said has been said.
|