Mike Quinn

[_Jason Bourne]

10. In conclusion, I am trying to be fair, but I just don’t think Dr. Quinn can carry the water of a Fawn Brodie.

rc, I understand Brodie was taken to task in the 90s by many of her peers for her sloppy historical work on Thomas Jefferson, and that she's never been regarded as a historian of any great weight.

In that case, the claim that she is, in general, Quinn's superior, is quite interesting (and no wonder it drives the anti-Mormons to fits.

Yes it is interesting. Do you agree with Crocket's position?

[_beastie]

Knowlton's specialization is Latin American Studies and he has published some articles about the church in Latin America. He was denied tenure at BYU when he published an article explaining the church's image problem in Latin America (specifically in Bolivia, where two missionaries were murdered).

Interesting. Any idea why that resulted in him being denied tenure?


Here's what I was able to find about his writings. I don't know if it's comprehensive, but it's what I could find.

http://mormonlit.lib.BYU.edu/lit_author.php?a_id=1675

Belief, Metaphor, and Rhetoric: The Mormon Practice of Testimony Bearing 1991 Criticism
Of Things In The Heavens, On The Earth, And In The Church 1991 Personal Essay
Susurro Del Sausal 1993 Poetry
[Bring me a guitar] 1993 Poetry
[The night is soft] 1993 Poetry
[Where is there a singing bird] 1993 Poetry
[Waiting] 1992 Poetry

Of course, he's not in the history dep't, so perhaps he wasn't hired in lieu of Quinn. The history dep't lists one individual, William Hartley, is listed as specializing in Family, LDS, Utah. and another, Underwood, Grant, Mormon, U.S. Religion. Maybe it's one of those two. Too bad I can't find hire dates.

[_beastie]

I did find the hire date for Underwood, and it can't be him because he was hired in 2000.

It must be David Knowlton, as he was mentioned on this thread as a candidate for the Mormon studies chair at Claremont, as well, on this blog:

http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=3668

Blake should definitely throw his hat in. I know that T. Givens and K. Flake have both done preliminary interviews and I think Phil Barlow probably did as well (although rumor is that he’ll be the chair of the new MS program at Utah State if they can ever get it off the ground). I agree that Mike Quinn has some pretty unique qualifications–he is probably the best researcher we’ve ever had in the Church–and I suspect that part of the reason he went the direction he did in his most recent project (on Methodist revivals and the First Vision) was to position himself as a more viable (read: less controversial) candidate for the chair. All in all, I’d say that there are, unfortunately, few if any scholars that are both qualified for and willing to take the chair. I know several people (Blake and Nate certainly come to mind) that are more than qualified in terms of knowledge and sheer intellectual horsepower, but I doubt they’ll ever hire someone without a PhD. Richard or Terryl would be perfect, but one’s retired and the other would need an offer he couldn’t refuse to leave his current position. I actually think that the best person for the job would be David Knowlton, but he’s probably too controversial as well. Such, alas, are the politics of Mormon Studies.

But other links say that Knowlton was actually fired by BYU. So I have no idea who got the downgraded position, but I'd like to know to compare their body of work, in order to evaluate the validity of the dean's justification for not hiring Quinn.

Knowlton is still listed as faculty, and the article that says he was fired states it happened in the nineties:

This book particularly interests me because several chapters focus on controversies that took place while I attended BYU, during the 1990-91 school year and again from 1994 through 1997. These include the firings of feminist English professors Cecelia Konchar Farr and Gail Turley Houston and anthropology professor David Knowlton, as well as the investigation and subsequent resignation of English teacher Brian Evenson.

http://www.shrubwalkers.com/prose/eric/ivorytower.html

So what happened? He was fired and rehired?

[_rcrocket]

Fawn Brodie:

First tenured female professor at UCLA.

Wrote five best-selling biographies.

rcrocket

[_DonBradley]

I largely exited this discussion yesterday, since there is little being presented in criticism of Quinn that has not been refuted above, and the few things that are new result from the same disingenuous tactics identified earlier in the discussion.

But the little gem above from Crocket about Brodie is just too good to pass up. Brodie's books were published by popular presses. When Quinn publishes through these, they are "vanity" presses and don't count in establishing academic credibility. But when Crocket wants to further demean Quinn by placing Brodie above him, selling popular books through such presses becomes the standard of academic credibility.

To continue to present evidence of Crocket's disingenuousness would be pointless. He does such a good job of it himself.

Don

[_rcrocket]

I largely exited this discussion yesterday, since there is little being presented in criticism of Quinn that has not been refuted above, and the few things that are new result from the same disingenuous tactics identified earlier in the discussion.

But the little gem above from Crocket about Brodie is just too good to pass up. Brodie's books were published by popular presses. When Quinn publishes through these, they are "vanity" presses and don't count in establishing academic credibility. But when Crocket wants to further demean Quinn by placing Brodie above him, selling popular books through such presses becomes the standard of academic credibility.

To continue to present evidence of Crocket's disingenuousness would be pointless. He does such a good job of it himself.

Don

As I'm sure you know, biographies published by popular presses (at least the larger more reputable publishing companies) go through rigorous editorial review, and the publishing houses employ experts to critique and check footnotes. At academic publishers, reviewers do the work for free (or they may already be on staff).

Brodie published most of her major works at W. W. Norton & Co., a publisher of professional books and textbooks. Her book on Joseph Smith was published by A.A. Knopf. These larger houses typically have much deeper technical editors on staff, and hire outside experts to review conclusions. Now, it is quite possible that these outside experts may not be as good as experts on the faculties of BYU or UoU, but it is equally possible that such faculty members would be employed.

History professors would actually prefer to publish in these larger houses, as is apparent from the activities of Jared K. Diamond (whom I know) who won the Pulitzer Prize for his piece on anthropology published at a popular press -- he too is a UCLA prof. A resume which displays popular reception of publications is more impressive in academic circles than a resume which displays vanity press publications, like Dr. Quinn's.

So, your comment is just a rather naïve one-off. You must live in the Wasatch Front.

I really relish having you point out to me where, in this thread on Quinn, I have relied upon a deliberate falsehood to make my argument. How can you get away with saying such malicious things? Really, now. I expect more from you.

Look: Don is one of our favored scholars around here. Knock it off. FMODS.

Bob

[_Sethbag]

Seth

I heard it from the man's mouth on podcast. Now as noted, I believe the talk was give shortly after he was ex'd. But he gave as plain of a fast and testimony meeting testimony as you have ever heard. And he made sure he pointed out that he was not playing word games and he meant exactly what he said. Now that was what, 15 years ago? Maybe things have changed since then.

Yeah, I'm not doubting that you heard him say that. I just doubt that it's really true that he still believes it. I find it very, very difficult to conceive how someone could so clearly demonstrate the man-made nature of the organization and then still insist that, underneath it all, it's really God's one true church anyway.

He was still trying to operate in an intellectual environment where being "anti-mormon" essentially closed off all opportunities, and closed off all minds, and basically would exclude one from any kind of serious attention by the overwhelming majority of church members. Of course he had to defuse the notion that he was now an anti-mormon. I don't know whether this was a cynical ploy on his part, or if he somehow really did pull off a miracle of compartmentalized thinking and really did still believe it. I just don't know. I just find it hard to believe is all.

[_rcrocket]

I don't get it. I'm made a pretty good point about Quinn not being adequately published, citing the UofU Humanities Dept. You all just want to divert my point to hooey and irrelevancy. Afraid of my point?

I don't get it, either. You still haven't discussed the long list I posted above of the many Quinn publications by esteemed publishers. Afraid of my point?

Not at all. I just simply side with Dr. Newman's conclusions, and I don't think the sheer number of Quinn's publications -- books and otherwise, independent or otherwise -- matches the typical output of a tenured professor at the U of U or USU or ASU or UofA in a sociology department.

I have repeatedly asked folks on this little board of anti-Mormon hatred whether they agree with Dr. Newman (the UofU sociology dean who says that Quinn lacks sufficient credentials to teach at the UofU), or not. With one exception, nobody can bring him/herself to agree or disagree. You, among others, are guilty.

And, I certainly don't deny Quinn's power and abilities. I think he is a capable scholar, but not up to the snuff of secular universities. I don't think he really ever intended to be able to teach at a secular institution, if you read his Pillars of my Faith article in Sunstone. He trained himself to be, basically, an archivist and researcher for the Church (as well as wanting to be an Apostle). The career choices he made, the publication decisions he made, do not lend themselves to secular acclaim. His great production of Mormon [phrase edited out and replaced with "homosexuality"] sort of sealed his fate -- queer studies really has limited appeal. He's your hero? A queer studies success?


rcrocket

[_Coggins7]

Don is a respected critic. He's been around for a very long time. That you insult him is proof positive of the effectiveness of his argument. That you've never encountered him is proof of your ethnocentrism.

Respected by who? I haven't actually seen him, as of yet argue of debate as a respected intellectual (nor does Dartagnon, for that matter) would be expected to debate other scholars such as rc.

He calls names and questions motives, at least, that has been what he has been doing here, for all intents, exclusively. Rc has been, really, the only civil individual in the interaction.

That you've never encountered him is proof of your ethnocentrism.

[/quote]

What, in all hell, this may mean, I will leave to your shrink...

[_Coggins7]

You continue to deteriorate mentally, Harmony, with every post.

Sad, but up to expectations.