Bill Hamblin: Angry Over New Bushman Chair?

[_Fence Sitter]

Can a doner(s) place restrictions on who holds a chair?

[_Darth J]

Can a doner(s) place restrictions on who holds a chair?

I don't know, Fence Sitter. That seems awfully unethical to me. I find it difficult to believe that people would threaten to withhold donations to a university if that university hired a professor who failed to affirm the truth value of their religious convictions.

[_lulu]

Can a doner(s) place restrictions on who holds a chair?

I don't know, Fence Sitter. That seems awfully unethical to me. I find it difficult to believe that people would threaten to withhold donations to a university if that university hired a professor who failed to affirm the truth value of their religious convictions.

A university is not going to put up with that.

[_sock puppet]

DCP and Hambone are yet licking their wounds.

Can you imagine how disgusted they must be that JSJr included non-Mormons in his Council of 50?

DCP and Hambone have hit the Peter Principle. They rose to their level of incompetence--unbridled, they could not contain themselves, each indulging the other's ego, the indiscretion of decisions that exceeded their judgment and ability to self-regulate and self-temper has been evident for years, to-wit: Metcalfe is a Butthead).

BYU (with or without COB) sent in a regulator, a governor. Bradford suffered their sophomoric hi-jinx, and at last, had to take action.

Like COB, DCP and Hambone have long enjoyed writing the dialogue without serious challenge. They have controlled the message. The COB is adjusting to the accelerant that the internet has been to the information age, and trying to deal with the fact that the COB is loosing its grip (I'd say it has lost the grip) on controlling the message. For example, the thinly veiled assault on the internet by the speakers at last weekend's GC.

So too have DCP and Hambone been throttled, not only the hyper-info age but also by their disenfranchisement from NAMIRS.

Hambone is consistent in one regard. He thinks a non-Mormon (or to him, by definition an anti-Mormon) cannot explain Mormonism as well as a believing Mormon. (Does he not get that such an assertion is itself an indictment against the efficacy of Mormonism? I guess not.) And Hambone thinks that only a Ph.D. can understand peer review and spot articles that do not have the badges of having survived vigorous peer review. Hambone rests on his laurels: he's an expert on Mormonism because he's a Mormon; he's an expert on peer review because he holds a Ph.D. Well, in his own mind, on both accounts.

[_sock puppet]

Can a doner(s) place restrictions on who holds a chair?

Unless caught ethically and legally flat-footed, no state university would accept donations that included strings that required the university to violate the law.

Usually, they negotiate down the strings to the point their use of the money would be legal. If the donor will not relent to that degree, then the well-advised university returns the donation.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Someone is jealous that it isn't being named the Hamblin chair of Mormon Studies.

Petty men with petty beliefs.

[_Kishkumen]

I think we have to be careful and not disqualify a Mopologist out of hand. I think candidates from all religions and walks of life should be considered, including Mopologists, Chapel Mormons, evangelical ministers, non-theists, former/fringe members etc., and that the university should pick the most qualified candidate. If TBM donations are primarily paying for this, then I imagine these TBMs are aware that by donating to a state school they are investing in the non-partisan judgement of the school to call the shots. I hope they realize just how immoral it would be to expect the school to set up a Mopologetic think tank for the indoctrination of Virginia students who are supposed to be receiving a state-subsidized liberal arts education.

No, a Mopologist should not be automatically disqualified from consideration for the position, unless his scholarship is so dreadful that he effectively disqualifies himself. And, given all of the dreadful pseudo-reviews many of these gentlemen have published through BYU, I would be very surprised if a great many of them have not essentially excluded themselves from possible consideration.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I think we have to be careful and not disqualify a Mopologist out of hand. I think candidates from all religions and walks of life should be considered, including Mopologists, Chapel Mormons, evangelical ministers, non-theists, former/fringe members etc., and that the university should pick the most qualified candidate. If TBM donations are primarily paying for this, then I imagine these TBMs are aware that by donating to a state school they are investing in the non-partisan judgement of the school to call the shots. I hope they realize just how immoral it would be to expect the school to set up a Mopologetic think tank for the indoctrination of Virginia students who are supposed to be receiving a state-subsidized liberal arts education.

No, a Mopologist should not be automatically disqualified from consideration for the position, unless his scholarship is so dreadful that he effectively disqualifies himself. And, given all of the dreadful pseudo-reviews many of these gentlemen have published through BYU, I would be very surprised if a great many of them have not essentially excluded themselves from possible consideration.

Perhaps the ideal situation would be for UVA to list a half-dozen or so candidates--including Chapel Mormons, EVs, ex-Mormons, and, for good measure, a Mopologist. Then they can post each candidate's credentials, and go through with their private vetting process. Wouldn't it be very interesting to see who they wind up choosing, given such a pool of candidates?

[_Kishkumen]

Perhaps the ideal situation would be for UVA to list a half-dozen or so candidates--including Chapel Mormons, EVs, ex-Mormons, and, for good measure, a Mopologist. Then they can post each candidate's credentials, and go through with their private vetting process. Wouldn't it be very interesting to see who they wind up choosing, given such a pool of candidates?

Interesting indeed. I would venture a guess and say that it would not be the apologist, at least were s/he the classic-FARMS variety.

[_Cicero]

I don't know, Fence Sitter. That seems awfully unethical to me. I find it difficult to believe that people would threaten to withhold donations to a university if that university hired a professor who failed to affirm the truth value of their religious convictions.

Good point Darth . . . so Bill is Mike Quinn qualified to hold this post? He is a believer and has the credentials you so desperately wave in the face of anyone who disagrees with you these days . . . or does someone need a TR to be a "believer" in your book (so no gays allowed unless celibate)?