[Julie Steiner]

Any publicity should stick to the facts which are publicly available:

1.) The excellence of this conference, and its importance to the poetry community.

2.) The depth and breadth of our surprise over the departure of Kim Bridgford, whose contributions as director of the conference have been--in the opinion of so many--glowingly positive.

It's as unfair to impugn the character of others who can't speak up to defend themselves as it is to impugn the character of Kim. None of the parties involved is at liberty to fully present his or her side of the story.

Also, in general, I think it's counterproductive to assume ill will on the part of decision-makers who may simply be mistaken, or know relevant information they can't share. Treating people as enemies tends to turn them into such; it's far better to treat them as potential allies, with the common goal of uncovering the truth of a sticky situation.

[Cross-posted with a bunch of folks.]

[Catherine Chandler]

Still, there's no harm in sending letters of support, as outlined by Julie above, and to let Kim know we sympathize with her, as we did when we learned of Ned Balbo's recent non-renewal.

[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.

[Mary Meriam]

Originally Posted by Julie Stoner

None of the parties involved is at liberty to fully present his or her side of the story.

How do you know this, Julie? And also, based on information "leaks," I'm most interested in hearing Kim's side of the story. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, perhaps.

[Susan McLean]

I have written the president and dean of WCU to express my support for Kim Bridgford. I agree with Quincy that it is necessary to take action quickly if there is any chance that a decision can be reconsidered. We can't know all that is going on, but we can speak to what we do know.

Susan

[Catherine Chandler]

Amen, Susan.

[W.F. Lantry]

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

[Michael Cantor]

What Rhina said. It's one thing to support Kim, but quite another to drop unproven hints and whispers and mutter about a "scandal" or "something rotten in the State of Denmark." Slow down guys.

[Quincy Lehr]

[Never mind.]

[Wendy Sloan]

It's true we don't have the facts, and we likely won't for some time, if ever.

Still, I agree with Susan: we can express our support, based on what we do know. Letters of support can't hurt.