Drake Says Not Dead Yet Not Invited to Present in Albany
I mentioned in my initial post about the Albany bioethics conference that Glenn McGee told me a representative from NDY had been invited to present in Albany. Stephen Drake begs to disagree. Here is his comment:
"I have absolutely no idea what McGee is talking about when he said I was invited to present. During negotiations at the conference, he said he put out a call for proposals on the bioethics list. That's true, but that's not an invitation and it was a general call. He conceded both points during negotiation. The call for proposals was an 'invitation' to pay registration, and submit a proposal *they* get to decide on, which was dubious since the whole event was framed as 'conservatives' vs. 'liberals.'
"Philpott invited me to stay for the conference, but never invited me to present. I didn't come to schmooze and I definitely had no interest in breaking bread with the folks there or being a beneficiary of their 'generosity.'"
And there you have it: I report, you decide, to borrow a phrase.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 2:39 PM
3 Comments
3 Comments:
I actually not only invited NDY I mailed a letter on letterhead to NDY which I was able to identify to Drake at the conference, and his response, after he'd had a while to cool down from the intensity of the screaming, was that he just didn't remember whether or not he'd received such a letter. The letter not only said that they were invited to submit, it said the organization was missing from the program as it currently is constructed and that I'd like them to nominate some folks to be invited speakers. I have the letter. I defy NDY to call me a liar.
- Glenn McGee
McGee's response seems pretty definitive as to whether they were specifically invited ahead of time.
But aside from that, Drake's complaints sound awfully trivial. He seems to think that the perfectly ordinary process of submitting a paper to a conference is some sort of imposition or conspiracy against him. He also seems to think that he has an entitlement to privileged status that exempts him from review, or that staging a disruption was the only alternative to receiving a personal invitation to be a featured speaker (this while simultaneously claiming that he doesn't want to talk to anyone at the conference anyway and can't stand to be near them).
This is of a piece with Not Dead Yet's performance at the conference: halting other people's work by screaming "nothing about us" at a proceeding that was not, in fact, about them, demanding and being given a privileged forum to address a group that had not assembled to hear them, and then leaving the facility after they had been heard without bothering with any dialog or further discussion. (The fact that all of this apparently occurred after they had in fact received a direct invitation to appear on the panel without going through peer review, and had ignored or forgotten it, hardly makes them look less childish.)
I am sympathetic to the group's concerns, even if not in agreement with many of their claims or demands. But why, exactly, are we supposed to take their ideas seriously if they themselves do not (or do not, at least, to the extent of making a serious presentation of them)? Given that the group clearly exists largely for the purpose of self-absorbed political theater, and explicitly disavows coherent discussion - even in a setting where many were guaranteed to agree with them - what possible claim can they make upon those who think discussion is an important tool for truth-seeking, and prefer other forms of entertainment?
Glenn McGee said:
I actually not only invited NDY I mailed a letter on letterhead to NDY which I was able to identify to Drake at the conference, and his response, after he'd had a while to cool down from the intensity of the screaming, was that he just didn't remember whether or not he'd received such a letter. The letter not only said that they were invited to submit, it said the organization was missing from the program as it currently is constructed and that I'd like them to nominate some folks to be invited speakers. I have the letter. I defy NDY to call me a liar.
Just as I did then, I will not call you a liar, but to say that your memory of the exchange is faulty. I clearly said at the time that I never received the letter and I did not accuse you of lying about having sent it.
You also said that you would resend the letter. I have not received that, either. But maybe you forgot about the part of the conversation regarding your promise to resend the letter and engage in some sort of dialogue.
So I don't know what to think about what Glenn says about me or NDY. Maybe he has sent and resent the letter. And maybe there's a gaping black hole swallowing postal mail somewhere between Albany and the Chicago area.
Post a Comment
<< Home