Quote:
Originally Posted by Quincy Lehr
While I understand and to a degree share the trepidation about saying too much publicly, particularly where the subjective motivations of others are concerned in the absence of documentation, but to the degree that statements of support might potentially matter, it's likely to be in the immediate wake of the event in question, while it is on one's mind and before decisions have been made, as it were, behind closed doors.
|
Alas, Quincy! Would that this were true. But you and I are both familiar with the decision making process at Universities. There's an issue, the group meets, options are weighed. A consensus emerges. By the time the doors open, the decision is in the past. From that point forward, a University just tries to ride out the storm, and wait for calmer waters. In that kind of case, at least, Fitzgerald was right:
“The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.”
Sturm und Drang and implications and letters of support? Once the decision reaches the public, their effect is limited. Everyone can cite the UVa. case, but also a hundred counter-examples. We've all heard that dread phrase, some of us have even used it: "For better or for worse, the University has decided..."
And perhaps our real concern here should not be the University (it'll survive just fine), nor even the conference. My real concern, at least, is Kim's career, her reputation, and her future. We need to be careful that our statements of support don't unintentionally harm her. You're right, a delicate balance is called for, but that primary concern should weigh heaviest on the scale.
Yours, in sadness,
Bill