stemelbow wrote:Somehow I don’t think you’re any more familiar with it than I am. If Gee would have fixed the errors found by Ritner than why would Ritner recuse himself because he didn’t approve of the errors? As I said, without answer this just makes no sense.
I don't know, Stem. Clearly, the "errors"--whatever they were--were such that Ritner felt he couldn't continue on in support of Gee's doctoral work.
I don't think we know for sure what it was that Ritner objected to, exactly, though Kevin provided this snippet: "these non-Egyptological writings had the stamp of scholarly accuracy and my own personal approval as his teacher." Does this mean that Gee had published material for FARMS, and that Ritner had seen it, and objected to the notion of mentoring someone who planned to become a Mopologist? Or were there apologetic writings in the early drafts of Gee's dissertation?
Ritner should be just as concerned about granting a PhD to a candidate who supposedly didn’t deserve it. But apparently he wasn’t.
Ritner didn't grant Gee the Ph.D. He didn't sign off on the doctoral work. (He resigned, remember?) His "concern," as you put it, was made manifest in the resignation itself.
I get, stemelbow, that you'll object again and say, "But...but...Yale still gave him the Ph.D.! Why would they do that if Ritner was right?" The thing is: at that point, Ritner would have been out of the picture. While he could have continued to raise objections if he wanted to, the fact is that he really had no further power to deny the Ph.D. to Gee. It may be that Gee's new committee chair didn't share Ritner's opinion, or that Gee had edited out the problem material before he submitted it to the new chair, or that the new chair didn't object to giving a "stamp of approval" to a budding Mopologist. What I'm saying is: the granting of the Ph.D. really doesn't mean anything in terms of Ritner's abandonment of Gee's work.
Well, and in the end, what you’re saying is, you can’t be sure Ritner’s objections are anything more than bias either.[/quote]
I guess that's technically true, though Ritner himself has explained some of his reasons, and they don't match with your description. DCP has been hinting/insinuating that Gee filed a formal grievance with the Yale Graduate School, but there's no actual evidence that this happened. The best evidence we've got is Ritner's own first-hand testimony, and this states that he had serious, professional and scholarly objections to Gee's work, such that he didn't feel he could sign off on the dissertation.
So Ritner didn’t share his opinion? Is that enough o say Gee did not deserve a PhD?
Potentially---yes, it is enough. It really depends on the nature of the "opinion" in question.