Dear Greg:
I attended the 30th Anniversary Celebration. While many things were good about the conference, many were not. Since this was Harvard’s first “New Humanism” conference, first impressions were very important. Unfortunately the overall tone seemed pro-religious. The conference started with a benediction, followed closely by a panel with two Rabbis and a Reverend. Adding to that tone was the fact that the Rabbis and Reverend were among the few people listed with titles in the schedule and speakers’ bios.
The first definition of “benediction” in the Merriam-Webster dictionary is “the invocation of a blessing; especially: the short blessing with which public worship is concluded”. This is the definition most people think of first. Why not a “moment of bedlam” like many atheist conferences have? The benediction, combined with many references during the conference to “god” and “creation”, made me feel at times that I had wandered into the wrong conference. I once said to you that attitudes like Dawkins’ can get tiring after a while. I’ve found that I prefer their most vehement tirade to the atmosphere of the conference.
The conference encouraged students to attend, but then it made them feel like second-class citizens. They were made to stand for half an hour before the gala, and then were shunted off into a separate room. Yes, the divider was removed after the meals were served, but it had done its damage. One of the speakers even made a remark about the “children’s table”. I thought Humanists were inclusive? At other conferences, the interactions between people are extremely productive and enjoyable. There are ways that you and the hotel could have handled the different buffet menus without segregation.
At the gala the speakers ignored the schedule and you didn’t seem to care. You never signaled a speaker to cut their remarks short. Dar Williams performance was at least half of the reason why I went to the gala. Many of us had plans for after the gala—after when the gala was supposed to end that is. I had to leave without seeing Dar William’s performance. I also heard that Tom Ferrick made some witty remarks at the end. I missed those as well.
Why did you let the speakers ignore the schedule? By doing so you sent the message that our plans don’t mean anything to you, and speaker’s time is much, much more valuable than ours. If you had made even the slightest motion to curtail this, you would not have sent that message.
I will probably not attend another Harvard conference until you’ve demonstrated that the issues with this conference were flukes
