Peterson and Gee's libel against Ritner?

[_Doctor Scratch]

you generally pick the members of your doctoral committee yourself

That certainly wasn't true where I went to school.

No? So they changed the policy since you graduated?:

Following successful completion of the course and language requirements and the written qualifying examinations, students are required to form a doctoral committee and take the University Oral Qualifying Examination.

(emphasis added)

http://www.gdnet.ucla.edu/gasaa/pgmrq/neareast.asp

I've never heard of a Ph.D. program that simply "assigns" people to a candidate's doctoral committee. I'm sure it's possible that such a thing exists, but I've never heard of it.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I didn't choose my dissertation committee.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Oh really? Then why did you make a big deal of it, saying it was highly unusual as if there were pressing circumstances related to Ritner's anti-Mormonism? According to Morely it isn't a big thing at all for doctoral committees to change at all. Pretty much what Ritner said too. But now you say that's a voice of reason.

I've never heard of a case where a Ph.D. candidate, well into the process, petitioned to have his or her chairman removed. It may happen all the time where you earned your doctorate. I've just never heard of it happening.

And, once more, I don't believe that I've ever said that this happened because of "Ritner's anti-Mormonism," as you call it.

[_stemelbow]

No-one can speak for Ritner except himself, and I take it that you accept that his account was truthful.

But you would certainly be wrong in claiming that there is no possible way that a professor might withdraw from a committee when he had doubts about a PhD candidate.

I didn't claim anything, I asked a question and offered my opinion that the claims made just didn't seem to add up.

It can be a way of saying "I want out of this. I have already had enough hassle with <name of candidate> to last me for a long while, and if you people are prepared to take up the responsibility for awarding this degree, you can go ahead so long as it is without me." I am not saying this happened in this particular case - merely pointing out that there is a possible scenario that would make unnecessary your puzzlement on this issue.

I suppose many things are possible but it simply seems unreasonable to go with that excuse. I don't imagine too many in the position to determine the PhD capabilities of a candidate will just out of frustration leave the position while knowing full well that the candidate doesn't deserve the PhD. On top of that, at least one reason he left was because of the candidates own failures that he showed, apparently, to the committee. It just doesn't quite fit, no?

If you are not familiar with the world in which this kind of thing happens, then why not simply say that each trade has its own customs and practices, which may seem odd to outsiders, and leave it at that?

I'd be happy too, but the problem is critics of Gee aren't willing to just leave it alone--they are actually trying to discredit Gee on some weird basis here.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I didn't choose my dissertation committee.

No? That would seem to contradict what it says on the Web site of your degree-granting institution. And even if you were "assigned" a committee, I doubt very much that you had zero influence or control over who was on the committee.

I've never heard of a case where a Ph.D. candidate, well into the process, petitioned to have his or her chairman removed.

Where's the evidence that this is what happened with Gee and Ritner? Based on what Kevin has presented, it seems that it was Ritner who resigned. If you want to insinuate that Gee had legitimate grounds to go through the formal process of filing a grievance per Yale's policies, then you ought to put up better evidence.

[_stemelbow]

Stemelbow:

How much do you know about the processes involved in earning a doctoral degree? Frankly, your questions seem awfully naïve and tendentious. Based on what we know, it seems that Dr. Ritner had serious objections to Gee's doctoral work, and that he abandoned the doctoral committee as a result. You seem to be baffled that this would happen, and that Gee would nonetheless go on to get his Ph.D. anyhow. It's not that hard to understand, though. Gee would have found a new committee chair (you generally pick the members of your doctoral committee yourself), and it seems likely that Gee would have edited his dissertation such that the "errors" (or whatever) were gone.

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 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. Why? As I said, this makes very little sense.

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. So Ritner didn’t share his opinion? Is that enough o say Gee did not deserve a PhD? That wouldn’t make sense.

[_Doctor Scratch]

It can be a way of saying "I want out of this. I have already had enough hassle with <name of candidate> to last me for a long while, and if you people are prepared to take up the responsibility for awarding this degree, you can go ahead so long as it is without me." I am not saying this happened in this particular case - merely pointing out that there is a possible scenario that would make unnecessary your puzzlement on this issue.

I suppose many things are possible but it simply seems unreasonable to go with that excuse. I don't imagine too many in the position to determine the PhD capabilities of a candidate will just out of frustration leave the position while knowing full well that the candidate doesn't deserve the PhD. On top of that, at least one reason he left was because of the candidates own failures that he showed, apparently, to the committee. It just doesn't quite fit, no?

Stem:

Who said that Ritner knew "full well that [Gee] doesn't deserve the PhD"? Are you pulling this out of thin air? We don't know the specific reason that Ritner resigned, though the items Kevin has posted seem to suggest that he objected to being associated with Gee's Mormon apologetics.

[_stemelbow]

Stem:

Who said that Ritner knew "full well that [Gee] doesn't deserve the PhD"? Are you pulling this out of thin air? We don't know the specific reason that Ritner resigned, though the items Kevin has posted seem to suggest that he objected to being associated with Gee's Mormon apologetics.

Kevin said:

According to Ritner, Gee didn't produce the kind of scholarship Ritner demanded from his students.

Ritner said:

but I am the one who rejected further participation in Gee's work, and I signaled many errors in his work as a reason.

I’m not sure but that pretty much expresses in my eyes that Ritner didn’t think Gee did the work well enough, did not produce quality scholarship, to warrant a PhD. I suppose you can spin that to mean that Ritner was on board with the notion that Gee deserved a PhD according to his work, but that Ritner merely disagreed with his opinion on some things. I personally don’t think that which sounds like spin is all that reasonable an interpretation.

But it is weird to see you be concerned about me pulling something out of thin air—you the guy who pulls things out of thin air all the time and tried mightily to make those things that come out of thin air into some sort of fact you use to attack LDS folks for.

As for your last point, Ritner did not say he didn’t want to be associated with Gee’s apologetics but that Ritner thought Gee’s work was bad, non-PhD material. Kevin seems to, in speaking for Ritner, say as much too.

The next question I have is, why would approving of granting Gee a PhD, as deserved, somehow associate the PhD granter with the apologetic material Gee would put out? This all just does not make sense.

[_Morley]

....

I've never heard of a Ph.D. program that simply "assigns" people to a candidate's doctoral committee. I'm sure it's possible that such a thing exists, but I've never heard of it.

I sure that it varies by locale. A candidate usually has some (sometimes significant) input into the process, but factors such as course load, comp time policies, area of expertise, size of faculty, imminent retirements, and committee balance certainly play into the decision. As does politics. The person I wanted for my committee chair was thought to be out of the question because I had co-authored a book with her. But there are many here who could speak to the process better than I.

[_Daniel Peterson]

the problem is critics of Gee aren't willing to just leave it alone--they are actually trying to discredit Gee on some weird basis here.

Precisely.

And even if you were "assigned" a committee, I doubt very much that you had zero influence or control over who was on the committee.

I suppose that I could have. I didn't. And it would have been a very big deal if, into the dissertation-writing process, I had asked to have my chair removed, or if, barring health or similar problems, he had asked to be relieved of his responsibility for supervising my dissertation. (As a matter of fact, my dissertation adviser did suffer a massive coronary while doing research in a small manuscript collection in a village outside of Bombay. He was incapacitated for two or three months, and I was, on several levels, very concerned. But, even under those circumstances, he didn't ask to be relieved of his duties as my dissertation adviser.)

Where's the evidence that this is what happened with Gee and Ritner? Based on what Kevin has presented, it seems that it was Ritner who resigned. If you want to insinuate that Gee had legitimate grounds to go through the formal process of filing a grievance per Yale's policies, then you ought to put up better evidence.

LOL. I know that you would be delighted to see me sued. But my wife wouldn't. And I wouldn't particularly enjoy it, myself.

Nice try.