Has John Gee Been "Booted" from the Maxwell Institute?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Symmachus
_Emeritus
Posts: 1520
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 10:32 pm

Re: Has John Gee Been "Booted" from the Maxwell Institute?

Post by _Symmachus »

Doctor Scratch wrote:
DCP wrote:None of the staff at the Maxwell Institute have CFS, strictly speaking.

Which is to say, in BYU terms, that nobody there has a BYU "faculty slot" -- i.e., a permanent stream of professorial funding. "Slots" exist in departments. For years now, there has been a set number of them, determined by the Board of Trustees and not subject to increase.

Professor Gee, though, has the Gay Professorship, which works out to pretty much the same thing (if not, indeed, much better). It effectively adds to the number of "slots" at BYU by bringing new monetary stream into the system.


It has not, to my knowledge, been definitively established that Gee still occupies the Gay Research Chair.


That is very strange. I don't know how you get an endowed professorship housed in one part of the school to another one like that. Maybe BYU isn't rigid on these things, but I have seen attempts to do that elsewhere, and it was contentious and legally complicated. One department I was in tried to snag an endowed chair that was housed in another department (how I wish to god there were actually real chairs involved); a successor hadn't been named for some time and the chair was a better fit in our department in many ways. The emeritus professor who had held that chair, who happened to be a mentor of mine and is now of blessed memory, opposed the move and that alone held everything up. It was one of oldest chairs in the country, so the drastically altered educational and legal environment was also an issue. At one point, the original department was looking into ways to sue my department (according to rumor, anyway), which finally just gave up. I don't know if that would have been possible, but it was an indication of how difficult it was to just move the thing around like that and the level of rancor that an attempt to do so could incur. As I say, though, maybe at BYU it's no big deal, and maybe it's significant that Gee has not been in any department. Maybe everyone is excessively collegial drink orange juice together in the Wilkinson Center every Thursday, and maybe no one at the Maxwell Institute, past or present, would ever fight over money and prestige.

Also, if he has not been in a department, how were his raises and promotions (e.g. potentially to "continuing status") advanced and approved (or not)? It would certainly be an usual for a fresh PhD to get an endowed chair as a full professor, so if he was awarded BYU's version of tenure, I wonder how that process worked. This doesn't really seemed like an endowed chair in the usual sense. That it was a "research" chair with outside funding housed in an institution at BYU but not in a department suggests that it was never a tenure-stream position in the first place. In other words, it might be more a long the lines of a fellowship, and those do tend to be revolving, nor are named-fellowships uncommon. I wonder whether, again, it is just something more pedantic at work here: perhaps this wasn't supposed to be a permanent position, or the current MI people want to be like other places that usually have revolving fellowships.

In any case, why not go to the College of Religion? Their standard seems to be only that you have to be as publicly and fervently traditional as John Gee. Seems like a good fit to me.
"As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."

—B. Redd McConkie
_Shulem
_Emeritus
Posts: 12072
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:48 am

Re: Has John Gee Been "Booted" from the Maxwell Institute?

Post by _Shulem »

Scott Lloyd wrote:Those who wonder, as I have done, about the genesis of this notion that Gee was “dismissed” from the Maxwell Institute might take a gander at the Mormon Discussions thread. I’ve noticed that a lot of the silly back-and-forth over there bleeds over onto this board in one form or another.


Take a gander over here, at Mormon Discussion? Yeah, take a gander, Scotty baby.

:lol:
_Doctor Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:44 pm

Re: Has John Gee Been "Booted" from the Maxwell Institute?

Post by _Doctor Scratch »

Symmachus wrote:
Doctor Scratch wrote:It has not, to my knowledge, been definitively established that Gee still occupies the Gay Research Chair.


That is very strange. I don't know how you get an endowed professorship housed in one part of the school to another one like that. Maybe BYU isn't rigid on these things, but I have seen attempts to do that elsewhere, and it was contentious and legally complicated. One department I was in tried to snag an endowed chair that was housed in another department (how I wish to god there were actually real chairs involved); a successor hadn't been named for some time and the chair was a better fit in our department in many ways. The emeritus professor who had held that chair, who happened to be a mentor of mine and is now of blessed memory, opposed the move and that alone held everything up. It was one of oldest chairs in the country, so the drastically altered educational and legal environment was also an issue. At one point, the original department was looking into ways to sue my department (according to rumor, anyway), which finally just gave up. I don't know if that would have been possible, but it was an indication of how difficult it was to just move the thing around like that and the level of rancor that an attempt to do so could incur. As I say, though, maybe at BYU it's no big deal, and maybe it's significant that Gee has not been in any department. Maybe everyone is excessively collegial drink orange juice together in the Wilkinson Center every Thursday, and maybe no one at the Maxwell Institute, past or present, would ever fight over money and prestige.

Also, if he has not been in a department, how were his raises and promotions (e.g. potentially to "continuing status") advanced and approved (or not)? It would certainly be an usual for a fresh PhD to get an endowed chair as a full professor, so if he was awarded BYU's version of tenure, I wonder how that process worked. This doesn't really seemed like an endowed chair in the usual sense. That it was a "research" chair with outside funding housed in an institution at BYU but not in a department suggests that it was never a tenure-stream position in the first place. In other words, it might be more a long the lines of a fellowship, and those do tend to be revolving, nor are named-fellowships uncommon. I wonder whether, again, it is just something more pedantic at work here: perhaps this wasn't supposed to be a permanent position, or the current MI people want to be like other places that usually have revolving fellowships.

In any case, why not go to the College of Religion? Their standard seems to be only that you have to be as publicly and fervently traditional as John Gee. Seems like a good fit to me.


Good points, Symmachus. My understanding has always been that Gee's position was something akin to a postdoc (he went straight into it out of grad school, didn't he?), but this was a postdoc that he was allowed to keep for years and years and years. So, no matter how you slice it, it is a *weird* position. As for your points about the difficulty in getting chairs shifted from one department (or institute) to some place else--yes, if it is something that's awfully difficult to accomplish, then it makes sense that the Mopologists would be crowing about this victory over the Maxwell Institute, whom they hate with a white-hot, boiling rage. But, no one to date has posted definitive evidence one way or another about the Gay Research Chair.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
_Doctor Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:44 pm

Re: Has John Gee Been "Booted" from the Maxwell Institute?

Post by _Doctor Scratch »

I can't help but wonder what it was--specifically--that prompted this latest missive from Dr. Peterson (whose pilgrimage to England and whose visit to Sir Isaac Newtons' tomb has apparently not been captivating enough to tear him away from two straight days of nearly non-stop blogging):

Sic et Non wrote:“Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.”

That quotation, often (but probably incorrectly) attributed to the former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, has been on my mind a bit over the past few days, since I posted my entry “John Gee’s good news.”

In response to that little post of mine, which was written fairly carefully to avoid reigniting any long-simmering controversy between those who founded the Maxwell Institute (formerly the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies) and led it for decades and those who have controlled it since 2012, several new commenters showed up on my blog seeking to rekindle the old conflict or, worse still, to demonize Dr. Gee and, quite irrelevantly, to demonize me. (I finally gave a couple of them the boot. They already have plenty of venues in which to post mendacious falsehoods and vent their spleens. They don’t need my blog to do it, and I won’t permit them to do it.)


Wait a second.... This seems to be saying that he thinks the "new commenters" *were* from the Maxwell Institute, right? And that he censored them and banned them from posting? Maybe I'm wrong, but that seems to be what this is saying. He's talking about a "long-simmering controversy" with the Maxwell Institute, and *not* with MormonDiscussions.com. Or is he instead saying that *we* have the power to "rekindle the old conflict"?

Whatever the case may be, I'm sure you're wondering (same as me) whether this post is discussing "ideas," "events," or "people"? The last paragraph of Peterson's post is a classic--someone ought to snap it up for a sig line:

Daniel Peterson wrote:In some ways, no form of discourse exists that is lower than malicious gossip. As someone who has been on the receiving end of anonymous but public malicious online gossip, virtually daily, for about a decade and a half, I’m particularly aware of the phenomenon, which I find essentially incomprehensible. I can’t imagine devoting a substantial portion of my life to such a pursuit.


Heh heh. Well, I guess the main takeaway is that "Sic et Non" is sufficiently upset about what is going down vis-a-vis Gee that the editorial crew felt that getting this out there was important.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
_Doctor Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:44 pm

Re: Has John Gee Been "Booted" from the Maxwell Institute?

Post by _Doctor Scratch »

Symmachus wrote:That is very strange. I don't know how you get an endowed professorship housed in one part of the school to another one like that.


You know, Symmachus, it occurs to me that this is really a lot more important than anyone has said so far. Let's face it: the people who've been publicly weighing in on this (or who have been making moves that are publicly visible--such as the MI's deletion of Gee's faculty page) are not the people in charge. *Those* people--administrators--are going to see this from a very different perspective than either the upstart "new" Maxwell Institute or the grudge-carrying, butt-hurt apologists. The admins are going to be asking: What's best for the institution? How can we keep our donors happy? To have DCP and Midgley braying about donors in a public space like that... Can you imagine? Honestly, I think the least "damaging" scenario here, from an admin perspective, is to just flush Gee down the loo. You can't really have the Gay Chair moved because that will mean that the donor got angry and ordered the change (or someone meddled with the donor and convinced him/them to move the chair, which, as you rightly point out, is the mother of all academic political debacles). This would be a terrible blow, politically, to the Maxwell Institute--and who would that benefit? The only people who would want to see that happen are the Mopologists. So, something or somebody has got to take a hit in this, and if you are Deans, Apostles, Institute Directors, or Department Chairs, which do you choose: a bad political blow for the MI? Or that goofball Book of Abraham Mopologist Gee gets sort of "demoted," but still gets to keep his job? Is it better for this to be a bummer for Gee and his pals, or for the MI?

When you look at it that way, it's a simple choice. But we really need to get some kind of definitive announcement from them. The anticipation is unbearable!
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
_Everybody Wang Chung
_Emeritus
Posts: 4056
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 2:53 am

Re: Has John Gee Been "Booted" from the Maxwell Institute?

Post by _Everybody Wang Chung »

Wow! The comments on the SeN thread are a fascinating study in the psychology of Mopologetics.

Kudos to MsJack for going toe-to-toe with Priestcraft Peter$on and Kiwi57, and soundly knocking both of them out.

I predict Peter$on will soon delete the comments. They shine a horrible light on Peter$on's anger, immaturity, bullying, insecurity, grudges and hate.
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."

Daniel C. Peterson, 2014
_Lemmie
_Emeritus
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:25 pm

Re: Has John Gee Been "Booted" from the Maxwell Institute?

Post by _Lemmie »

Doctor Scratch wrote:I can't help but wonder what it was--specifically--that prompted this latest missive from Dr. Peterson (whose pilgrimage to England and whose visit to Sir Isaac Newtons' tomb has apparently not been captivating enough to tear him away from two straight days of nearly non-stop blogging):

Sic et Non wrote:“Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.”

That quotation, often (but probably incorrectly) attributed to the former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, has been on my mind a bit over the past few days, since I posted my entry “John Gee’s good news.”

In response to that little post of mine, which was written fairly carefully to avoid reigniting any long-simmering controversy between those who founded the Maxwell Institute (formerly the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies) and led it for decades and those who have controlled it since 2012, several new commenters showed up on my blog seeking to rekindle the old conflict or, worse still, to demonize Dr. Gee and, quite irrelevantly, to demonize me. (I finally gave a couple of them the boot. They already have plenty of venues in which to post mendacious falsehoods and vent their spleens. They don’t need my blog to do it, and I won’t permit them to do it.)


Wait a second.... This seems to be saying that he thinks the "new commenters" *were* from the Maxwell Institute, right? And that he censored them and banned them from posting? Maybe I'm wrong, but that seems to be what this is saying. He's talking about a "long-simmering controversy" with the Maxwell Institute, and *not* with MormonDiscussions.com. Or is he instead saying that *we* have the power to "rekindle the old conflict"?

Whatever the case may be, I'm sure you're wondering (same as me) whether this post is discussing "ideas," "events," or "people"? The last paragraph of Peterson's post is a classic--someone ought to snap it up for a sig line:

Daniel Peterson wrote:In some ways, no form of discourse exists that is lower than malicious gossip. As someone who has been on the receiving end of anonymous but public malicious online gossip, virtually daily, for about a decade and a half, I’m particularly aware of the phenomenon, which I find essentially incomprehensible. I can’t imagine devoting a substantial portion of my life to such a pursuit.


Heh heh. Well, I guess the main takeaway is that "Sic et Non" is sufficiently upset about what is going down vis-a-vis Gee that the editorial crew felt that getting this out there was important.

Doctor Scratch, the links you added to the final quote from Peterson are killing me! Way to make your point. :lol:
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: Has John Gee Been "Booted" from the Maxwell Institute?

Post by _Gadianton »

For those like me low enough to still find amusement in the utterly predictable, here are a few comments from the "Great Minds Discuss Ideas; Average Minds Discuss Events; Small Minds Discuss People" post:

Ideeho: "The venom of some people astounds me. And the willingness to deceive, distort and dissemble..."
DCP responds: "It's really amazing, isn't it?"


baxter999: "I'm having a hard time with the downward spiral of the old FARMS/new MI. Recently an old friend told me of his descent into anti-mormon hell and it turns out a current member of the MI was one of the sources of doubt"

hey, at least he got an event in there.

B. Wilson: "The most vicious comments came from people who used a false identity and blocked people from reading past comments. Scratch has 19 comments to his/her credit. Starshine did not block people from reading comments, ...Bridget's comments were enlightening. She viewed past critics as trolls who pulled a fast one over on Dan, Kiwi and others"

This guy may be the next FARMS protege.

Jack: I very much appreciate Gee's book An Introduction to the Book of Abraham. Even so, what I really, really want from Gee is a Magnum Opus. I don't think there's anyone better qualified....
DCP: He's writing something like that, in a sense, in piecemeal fashion


Tom Cruise is my favorite actor, and then the Rock, and then Arnold who is totally the best except Tom Cruise is also really great.

Midgley: I suspect that John Gee, after the Purge, could and perhaps was the object of the same kind of disgusting stuff that was posted when Professor Peterson merely mentioned that he now has been relocated by the Brethren to a fine academic Department at Brigham Young University

hmmm, maybe Midgley is kind of an "event" guy? I'll have to keep that in mind.

B. Wilson: I have been impressed by the calm with which Brother Peterson moderates his blog

Tom Cruise always looks so cool in every movie he plays in. Especially when the camera kind of comes in at him at an angle, and everything is in slow motion and you can see how white his teeth are. I just can't believe it.

B. Wilson: I decided to create a graph attempting to describe the intent of the critics claiming to be bishops. The horizontal graph is the degree to which an individual likes Dan.

And he actually has a graph, probably the first graph ever in the comment section, in order to make his point about people he doesn't like. Talk about taking small-mindedness to the next level.

Michael Hoggan: There is a need to discuss all three things. I do think that having a willingness to look at things in a "big picture" perspective is one of the qualities that particularly distinguishes brainiacs.


The only comment on the thread so far about an idea, and without any references to events or people at all! And it wasn't even a bad point. The list of commenters in order of mind size, from largest to smallest.

Michael Hoggan, Midgley, baxter999, Jack, baxter999, Ideeho, DCP, B. Wilson

Michael Hoggan is the clear winner, and may even get some kind of award at the end of the year. Midgley didn't do too badly either. He and baxter beat the others categorically. B. Wilson, lol, buddy, we've got to talk...

And DCP takes a hit for lack of self-awareness in his own thread, and for only responding to posts about people only.

(this post is more of an intermission rather than a derail, as we await further intel on the topic of the thread)
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Re: Has John Gee Been "Booted" from the Maxwell Institute?

Post by _moksha »

I was following the link and one of the commenters posted a suggestion of googling Cherry-Picked Decontextualized List of Peterson's Many Crimes Against Humanity. Googling it draws a blank. My thinking is that the only crime Dr. Peterson may be guilty of is not eating meat or donuts sparingly. So knock off the ad hominem crime stuff. It is not like you have a leaked Kirton McConkie dossier at your disposal.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_Doctor Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:44 pm

Re: Has John Gee Been "Booted" from the Maxwell Institute?

Post by _Doctor Scratch »

Here's yet another possibility: What if they adopt "King Solomon's Wisdom" and "cleave" the Gay Chair in two? There are multiple ways they could do this: they could allow Gee to occupy the Chair for half the year, and an MI person to have it the other half. Or, just like a cell dividing, there could be *two* Gay Chairs! The Mopologists would be outraged if something like this happened. (Do you seriously think they would be OK with having to share with the Maxwell Institute?) But, hey: lacking any real clarification, you have to understand that people will speculate.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Post Reply