Further food for thought from today's Inquirer: "Troubled West Chester Poetry Conference Has a New Director"

Is there some public commitment to following the more inclusive trajectory into relevance that it sounds like Kim began as well as a promise to make right any wrongs done her? New formalism or whatever you wanna name the band has had problems getting gigs in the past because so many of the lyrics appealed only to the Whitebread Metal fans. The vague aftertaste from firing a female director under sketchy (sounding?) circumstances isn't exactly bait for youth.

Sam indicated to me that one of his explicit briefs is to increase the conference's diversity, which, [REDACTED] convinced me to say yes. Both conferences have a concomitant (and acknowledged) need to, for their own medium-term viability, to get their demographics a bit younger (that I'm still widely considered "young" despite being a month shy of turning forty, with the wrinkles on my forehead and aches in my joints to prove it, is a problem). In these days of declining enrollment, "jobless recovery," academic and general austerity, and a population that is going to get older in aggregate for the next twenty years or so, at least, this could be difficult.

I agree with you about New Formalism's race problem (while acknowledging Rafael Campo, Elizabeth Alexander, Marilyn Nelson, and others), and indeed I've written on it, but let's face it, minus scholarships, paying in the vicinity of $1,000 plus travel to go to a conference will skew the demographics, too. I say this not to criticize (I know for a fact that Poetry by the Sea isn't generating scads of wealth for Anna and Kim), but because it must play a role in the question of who goes and who doesn't.

http://www.facebook.com/poetryconfer...type=3&theater



Our workshop faculty so far:

Three-day Workshops

Melissa Balmain--Parody and Light Verse (team-taught)
Pat Myers
Frank Osen
Sarah Cortez--If the Form Fits...
Dick Davis--The Contemporary Sonnet
Mark Jarman--Poetic Narrative
Julie Kane--Forms of Repetition
Shirley Geok-lin Lim--Master Class
William Logan--The Iambic Line
Emily Moore--Teaching Poetry to the Young
John Whitworth--Rhyme and Reason
Caki Wilkinson--Voice & Character

One-day Workshops

Alfred Corn--Assembling Your Book
Dana Gioia--The Free Verse Line
Timothy Murphy--Short-line Verse

https://www.facebook.com/poetryconfe...rector?fref=nf

It looks like a great line-up, Sam. I definitely hope to be there.

Several panel topics have been proposed.


https://www.facebook.com/poetryconfe...rogramdirector

Quincy's post is somewhat misleading. There is a planned reorganization which would remove the conference from Dean Lori's remit, but it hasn't happened yet, so she's still in charge for now.

Similarly President Greg Weisenstein has announced his retirement effective March 31, but as most of the conference planning should have been done by then, it's hardly correct to say that a different president is presiding over it.

A more relevant question, perhaps, is what are the true motives for Dean Lori's disempowerment and the president's resignation?

On diversity, I don't see any recognizable African-American names on Sam's list, whereas Kim had started to get the big names to come to West Chester, and continues the work at Poetry by the Sea (Marilyn Nelson, Afaa Michael Weaver, Erica Dawson, Major Jackson, Rowan Ricardo Phillips, Patricia Smith, Allison Joseph. This isn't entirely Sam's fault, of course: he has asked a few that I know of, and they have refused. Again, the question to ask is why have they refused? I would suggest out of a sense of loyalty to the woman who was bringing diversity to West Chester.

As someone said to me wisely earlier today, "People find the narrative they need to support their desires."

And some people manage to trash the cake and eat it too. Such a prodigious appetite, of course, involves the requisite amount of boot-licking, even if the boot is one's own.

Nemo

In a scramble to repair the PR damage caused by the less than 100% positive Inquirer article, WCU have just sent out an email to former donors (of whom I am one, along with many of Kim's friends) which includes the following text:

On Behalf of Lori Vermeulen, Dean WCU College of Arts & Sciences

You and a Guest are Cordially Invited to Attend a Reception
Welcoming Sam Gwynn as Program Director for the WCU Poetry Center

Sunday, October 18, 2015
1 - 3 PM

So, I think it's clear which Dean is responsible for the resurrection of the conference at this point.

[redacted]

Quincy is right to express concern about demographic factors. That's one reason why Poetry on the Sea is such a great idea. Alternatives are what we need: ways to attract the interest & participation of a wide range of poets who care about narrative, received forms, or even just poetry in general.

On the other subject: it's not realistic to expect that WCU will ever make a public statement that places high-ranking administrators in a bad light. What universities do instead is exactly what's happening now: a president retires, or a dean's purview changes & the lame ducks retain title till their term or contract ends.

Last fall, beyond regret at the fate of the conference, my main concern was whether WCU's dismissal of Kim was a way to sabotage her case for tenure. Would my friend and colleague lose her job after uprooting her life and career to join WCU & pursue the initiatives so many of us admire?

Now, Kim is tenured; Poetry by the Sea is another gem to be cherished; and Sam is doing his best to bring back the WCU conference for the sake of the community so many of us are part of--a community that the conference, in many ways, helped bring to birth. The top brass around whose decisions financial questions swirl are on the way out.

In all these ways, the message has been sent: Kim was treated unjustly. If there are further remedies, legal or otherwise, I hope she wins.

There's no reason to set up a rivalry between conferences. When and if something new is reported and independently confirmed, we're all free to change our minds or reassess our choices.

I have more than a little personal experience in how important it is to separate our frustrations with persons in power at a given time from the impulse to condemn entire institutions--or poetry conferences.

Ned talks sense, as he usually does, but I confess that I am appalled by the low level of engagement with this topic, which equates with the generally low level of engagement with which Americans are typically prepared to involve themselves in political discourse.

A woman you respect (Kim Bridgford) was shafted by a rich and powerful institution (WCU) which is now trying to pretend this didn't happen, and you are all going along with this. (This is not about Sam Gwynn).

Oh and people say to me, "You're so brave!"

No, I'm not brave. I'm just a human being who actually cares.

Anna, you know I support you (and Kim) in this matter. But SSHE schools are not exactly rich and powerful institutions. They're third tier just in their own state, back-benched by both PSU and all the PSU satellites. And in this particular bush league, such situations are really par for the course. Don't ask me how I know! ;)

There *is* some good news here. University administrators who live by the sword tend to die by the sword. The people who did this likely treated others the same way. And that stuff just isn't sustainable. They're likely out or on their way out, even if they don't know it. University Karma is a harsh mistress.

The other bit of good news: Kim has deported herself splendidly in all this, with a kind of quiet dignity. Not only that, but she's taken positive steps for herself, and for the field. There's much to admire in her. But then, that's not news: she's been doing good work for a long time.

We all have friends of every side of the present issue. No-one knows how it's going to shake out. But I'd like to second Ned's call for harmony. As he's fond of saying, in the poetry wars, it's often poetry itself that loses.

Best,

Bill

But didn't so,eone say that Kim Bridgford who didn't have tenure now has it. So she is better off, is she not? She can't be sacked. I always understood that tenure was what it was all about. Explain this to me someone. I've probably got it wrong.

Good morning Bill!

1) Actually WCU is better off than most of the other PASSHE schools, which is why it was trying to leave the system. This (failed) effort may be behind the larger financial scandal currently facing the corrupt university.

2) If we have achieved any retribution against the parties responsible for Kim's mistreatment (Dean Lori's pending reassignment, President Weisenstein's resignation) it is because people like me made a fuss, and not because people like the rest of you stood around shaking your heads and saying how sad it all was.

3) The genuine villain(s) of our piece of the scandal remain unaccountable.

Anna,

I applaud what you and other activists have accomplished here.

Because many seem to feel that all desirable results have now been achieved, it might help, in the cause of rallying further action, to be clear about what is still to be accomplished. If that's been explicitly stated, I've missed it.

Is the goal to get the university to allow the audit Kim requested, the request that appears to be the reason for her demotion?

Yes, Max. The audit. And once the audit has been achieved the true villain(s) will be made accountable.

At the risk of walking into a minefield, I would like to suggest that one can both be against the wrongful treatment of Kim Bridgford and for the continuation of the conference. I suspect that's where a lot of people stand. It is not disloyalty to want to attend a merging of peers and luminaries from our relatively small field. Staying away on principle deprives the conference of a strong proponent of poetry in general, while not having much measurable impact on WCU itself. Taking the non-attendance stance to its logical conclusion, what will the big takeaway be for WCU administrators? Likely that it wasn't a successful conference, which simply adds to the possibility that there won't be another offering in 2017 or beyond. And what does that do for the formal poetry community? Sure, there are other conferences that can pick up the ball, but as others have said in this thread (and others), it is certainly better for the poetry community in general to have more of these gatherings, not fewer.

What I'm getting at is that most people don't attend a conference on the basis of its top administrators, but rather on the merits of its organizers, contributors, panelists, and participants. This is why Kim herself was so successful with running the event. The truth about Kim's situation will come out, and she will surely have justice. Staying away from the 2016 West Chester Poetry Conference will no more affect that outcome than will attending.


For what it's worth, I have no personal investment in the situation, as it is unlikely that I will be attending West Chester this year.

I respectfully disagree that "Staying away on principle deprives the conference of a strong proponent of poetry in general, while not having much measurable impact on WCU itself."

The Poetry Conference is/was one of the best things WCU has/had going for it. They used it as a tool to recruit undergrads and quality academics. The English department was outraged by the cancellation which is one of the reasons they supported Kim's tenure bid against Dean Lori's strong objections.

One final point: many people still erroneously believe in part that Kim was let go because she did something wrong--this was proven to me by Rick Mullin on Facebook recently. What if the 2016 Conference can only go ahead if Kim backs down on her request for an audit and accepts that assessment of her achievement? Would that be an acceptable sacrifice for the greater good?

Anna,

At the risk of asking a dumb question:

In your "what if," you pose a strange and terrible ultimatum, but it isn't clear to me whether it's an actual or only a hypothetical/symbolic one.

Claudia

PS: if you tell me I must "unask" this, I will do so....

Hi Anna,

You're truly loyal to Kim, which is a wonderful thing; I would wish for a friend like you if I ever found myself in unfortunate circumstances. But those of us who are intending to go to the West Chester conference are certainly not going out of any disloyalty to Kim; I really must emphasise that. I don't know Kim personally (I met her very briefly in 2012), and I'm only partially aware of what all the trouble is about...

However, John and I have been invited to participate in the conference, and I'm SO looking forward to seeing old friends again. Plus - we have nothing to compare with it over here so the opportunity is immensely appealing.

I find it no mean feat to hop across The Pond. I hate travelling, actually, and had more or less made up my mind that I wouldn't do much from now on... but the lure of the workshops, panels etc, was too much to resist.

I may even make Poetry By The Sea as well - what a bonus that would be, but it depends on the logistics.

I don't have the faintest clue what all the WCU financial skulduggery is about and, to be brutally frank, I don't care, but I do like you and I hope we may have the chance to meet again. Your loyalty to Kim mustn't cloud your judgement of everyone else though, Anna!

As Shaun so wisely said: most people don't attend a conference on the basis of its top administrators, but rather on the merits of its organizers, contributors, panelists, and participants

Jayne

Anna,

I resent the above.

When the sh*t hit the fan last fall I was one of the first to, yes, shake my head and, yes, say how sad it all was. I also was one of the first to write to the Dean, support Kim on FB and apply to Poetry by the Sea as soon as it was announced.

So have others on this forum.

I also resent your Not the Americans I know. And love.

As I said in a previous post, if I can somehow go to either or both conference(s) this year, I will, and not out of any loyalty to one "camp" or another.

Cool it, Anna. You've made your point.

I confess I am politically frustrated right now with this country, which I generally love, over the recent spate of school shootings (where else in the world would you even write that?) and the apparent impossibility of gun control.

But oh Cathy, if only you could access that level of self-righteous indignation on behalf of Kim Bridgford!

Well said, Cathy. Thank you for coming out against these broad slurs that do no one any good.

We happen to live in a capitalist system. It has its warts but we work with it and criticize it when it's blatantly unfair. Competition is, in most things, the way of life in the West, but you wouldn't know it from this attitude of "No competition is allowed in my world, and if I see any I will scream bloody murder! And this will not stop till my view is seen as the right view!"

I don't have any dogs in this fight. My dogs don't even like conferences, or deans for that matter. But if a conference works over one of your friends and then goes on and reestablishes itself without any public apologies or out loud acknowledgments that what was done was wrong and will be redressed it is odd to then support that same conference. Unless A) you really don't think what was done was wrong, B) you don't care enough to let it affect what is good for you or C) you believe the great good the conference will do outweighs the betrayal your friend may feel

The assumption here is that the conference leash holders wronged a friend of many posting here. I haven't seen anybody pony up and deny this. So onlookers can only assume that is without argument.

I have been involved in a fair amount of lost causes. There is usually an outpouring of involvement at first and then folks pretty much move on. If you can't move in because you looked too close it can feel like a betrayal as the rest of the world forgets and/or acclimates to the norm which is that capital/business/self interest trumps human decency pretty much always. Sometimes it sounds like that is what is happening here.

I think Ned's post above is what reminded me of the similarities here to much larger issues dealing with the State. He said that you couldn't expect the institution to own up to its crimes. I think Anna is agreeing with that and suggesting it can only be forced to do this by confrontation.

Others seem to feel that the conference is so separated and unimportant to the institution that any demands would only mean the loss of the conference and no help making things right. They just resent the implications that attending WC would be a sign of a lessening of their concern for a fellow human done wrongly. From the outside it is hard to imagine attendance without an open apology or something not hurting your friend. Kinda sucks since it sounds like the conference was a home place to so many of you. Tricky business. Seems unlikely that the tricky art of it is being manufactured by Anna. Maybe just the view of it.

People have been congratulating Sam on getting the job... and then there are all the marvellous people he's already lined up for the conference, like Rhina, John, Melissa, Frank and Pat Myers (I'm looking forward to meeting her).

None of us can do a thing about what's going on behind the scenes over there. Even Kim is forced into silence because of a pending lawsuit, so what difference would not attending WC make?

We all want to see justice for Kim - and I'm sure we will, ultimately - but we also want to be with our other friends whom we have precious few opportunities to see! Disloyalty doesn't enter into it.

John and I live thousands of miles away and we also have to consider how many more years we've got left where we're fit and able to travel... I hope it's lots, but in case it's not we're going to West Chester in June.

Jayne

I have to say that I side with Ned (and I highly recommend his poem "Leya's Ghostly Cats" in the latest issue of Measure, if you want to read about how institutions actually operate). Kim has been treated very badly, but she has tenure, so she has some protections now. I wish her well in her legal fight. I haven't decided yet which conference to attend, but coming from so far away, it is hard for me to attend both. As I have thought hard about why I attend poetry conferences, I have realized that the draw for me now is less about the faculty, panels, or invited speakers, and more about meeting my friends in the poetry world. I have loved the chance to talk with the poets I have met online and to meet other poets whose work I enjoy. Whatever I do, I do not want to cut myself off from my friends. This situation is pitting some friends against other friends. I don't wish to do anything that will make matters worse. I don't believe that most people have the ability to change much in ways that matter, so if you want to stay friends with them, you have to accept them as they are.

Susan

I understand the friend bit. I would rather hang out and laugh with folks around a fire (metaphorical or real) on the fringes of a buzzing conference than most other recreations I can think of. It may be among the best things in the world. And if the only way you can afford to see your people is at the conference you are offered a paying gig at, then it is even more complicated. No easy answers. I guess I just assumed that everyone could see each other at either of those places and dividing a minority subset (formalist) was a bad idea. No matter how much you may wish your scene had energy for multiple venues it seems unlikely for most. WC lost the ball with its bad behaviour. Why not all remain united in one gathering? The obvious one being the place that picked up the discarded ball. I am not asking rhetorical questions. Just actually curious. Is it that WC has the budget to bring in people all the way from UK and the new festival doesn't?
John is rather ancient. And I can honestly appreciate the issue of specific individuals with only one possible campfire to choose from.

Do they let people fly at that age or is a raft involved? Maybe he has already left and is just now leaving the Congo on his way to a rumored land bridge open only to those unsullied by free verse, liberal politics, and automobiles.

Kidding aside, I would like to hear John as a speaker as well. Honest. Too bad such poor administration made such a mess. Bad primates.

I am just thinking aloud here. What do I know? Maybe John is also speaking at Poetry by the Sea and I don't even know it. That would be great. I will go look at the two rosters.

You're a cheeky monkey, Andrew :p
John isn't ancient; he's coming up to 70, which is the new 60, in case you didn't know! ;)

In an ideal world one gathering would be good, but we don't live in an ideal world - and anyway, PBTS and WC are both definitely happening.

I don't understand this ''complicated/no easy answers'' stuff that you mentioned. It's quite simple: There is no reason on this earth why there should be any bad feeling surrounding either event or who goes to which one, ...or even both of them.

Jayne

Jayne, I do understand that you personally feel somewhat at a remove from the events of last fall, and I have no grudge against you at all for choosing to accept Sam's invitation to chair a panel at West Chester.

But surely you do see that for some of us there are plenty of reasons for bad feeling surrounding the WCU Conference? They mistreated Kim badly, canceled the 2015 conference to conceal possible financial wrongdoing, and are now trying to buy back everyone's goodwill while still refusing to audit the Poetry Center or admit any wrongdoing.

As Jayne says, I am not ancient. And if I actually get to West Chester on a fast jet that will prove it. On the other hand, if I die on the way you will be right.

Churchill became Prime Minister for the first time at the age of seventy.

65, actually. But close enough... ;)

Um..yeah...I have a few notes here in my inbox. I personally hope to still be doing wild and amazing things well past 100. I was only playing around and actually don't think of 70 as ancient or anything of the sort. I know a 70 year old mason that I would seriously not tangle with even armed. Just to be clear. If I had any real leanings about age I wouldn't have been so oblivious to how that might be perceived. Sorry for any unintended sleights.

Sorry Bill. But sixty five then was seventy five now. I gather my daughters can expect to live to a hundred if they lay of the drinking and smoking. However, I woud advise them notto follow that path. I attribute my own longevity to my mother's drinkig of Mackeson stout (on doctor's orders) throughout her pregnancy. That and the Indian climate.

In which I use a great poem to make a point.

It’s traitorous, I suppose, on several levels and in several directions, but I wish everyone well in this.

I cannot help wishing I was going to West Chester this year, just to hear whatever John Whitworth might have to say about the great love of my poetic life, light verse. At the same time I can’t help but feel disinclined to attend, because of the perceived wrong done to Kim Bridgford, a person I don’t know.

Poetry swallows almost everything, our pettiness, rancor, and loyalty misplaced or otherwise; and time swallows poetry. I strongly suspect that in a few years all this will seem very trivial to everyone but those who are intimately embroiled in it; but what happened was wrong, and I can’t see myself going. Yet those who can’t see what the fuss is about, let bygones be bygones, or take the long view and get on with it won’t get any grief from me.

Best,

Ed

Oh do come, Ed. I should so like to meet you.

I've never been to the WC Conference because I can't afford to fly out there and it is always at a time of year that is very busy for me. So it is easy for my to boycott. But I think if I had been many times and the means to return, I wouldn't.

I don't know Kim B., and I know little about all of the details of what happened last year. But if this conference was as important to us as a community (writers of formal poems) as we seem to agree it was, then the University's willingness to put the conference in peril, including canceling it last year, for unsavory reasons should piss us all off. And if there is a good alternative to switch to, as there now apparently is, we should thumb our collective nose at WCU and carry on without them.

But, as I said, this is easy for me to say. Maybe not so for others.

David. R.