From My Informant: Was Bokovoy Blackballed at BYU?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Thinking about all this reminded me of this old thread:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8820

And in particular this remark from Dr. Peterson:

I don't know precisely what the then-chairman of Ancient Scripture had in mind when he asserted his suzerainty over the Hebraists in Asian and Near Eastern Languages. The response (not only from me but from others, including his dean) was so immediately negative that we never got into the details.

This was said in the context of a discussion on the history of the mysterious "1995 Protocol" that officially incorporated FARMS into BYU. One of the arguments, apparently, was who would have "suzerainty" over various kinds of research and writing.

I wonder if a conflict of this kind had any bearing on what happened with Bokovoy? Perhaps there are hardcore conservatives in the Religion Dept. who really hate the "liberal" Mopologists like DCP and Hamblin, and so they took out their hatred on Bokovoy. Then again, as I've already noted, there seems to be some crossover between Religion Dept. people and the M.I.--e.g., Hoskisson and a few others.

[_Kishkumen]

Perhaps there are hardcore conservatives in the Religion Dept. who really hate the "liberal" Mopologists like DCP and Hamblin, and so they took out their hatred on Bokovoy. Then again, as I've already noted, there seems to be some crossover between Religion Dept. people and the M.I.--e.g., Hoskisson and a few others.

I think the relationships are complicated and it would be difficult to see how these factors applied in this particular instance. I don't know the history of the relationships between these units in the university in sufficient detail to offer any really constructive suggestion.

I will share what little I do know:

1) Nibley half-jokingly referred to the Religious Education professors as the "College of Cardinals," indicating to me very clearly that he didn't have the highest opinion of the group.

2) During my time at BYU there was clearly some tension between those in Religion who had Ed degrees and so forth, compared with those who had credentials in the ancient languages and religious traditions. How serious this was I don't know.

3) In the late 90s there was an abortive effort to create an ancient studies graduate program. I don't think it got very far because the professor who was trying to take control of it was in Classics, and the people in other areas did not want him to make it his thing.

4) There have also been conflicts over the Nibley succession. Griggs was the apparent heir and he was given a big roll out, but my perception was that Nibley was in fact not all that happy with Griggs. He may have been more hopeful about Gee. Instead it seems Nibley's position became a rotating one for a while. After Griggs, S. Kent Brown filled the post. I used to visit both in Nibley's old office on occasion.

5) I recall that Daniel Peterson was concerned when FARMS got pulled into BYU because of issues of independence. I think he sought to correct my understanding of the degree of that concern a while back on MDB. My feeling is that the real downside of bringing in FARMS has become all too apparent in these and similar events.

You can see that I have very patchy information about things that may or may not be related in some way. It is not a solid basis for drawing any reliable conclusions on anything. An actual history based on eyewitness accounts of those who saw would be a real help. My overall impression, however, is that BYU can be a very difficult place to work. The best part about it can be the quality of student that one gets to teach. The worst part can be dealing with the administration, and, depending on circumstances, dealing with colleagues.

Religion is one of the most difficult areas, I would guess. One of the real plusses, for those who are interested in such things, is that one has the opportunity to be a positive spiritual influence on a lot of young people. More crassly, one can become a minor celebrity in the LDS world. Religious Education professors are ironically better paid at BYU than professors in other Humanities areas (I say ironic because their scholarship requirements are so much less demanding). Their book contracts with Deseret Book are pretty nice, so that you can produce a nice little book for the LDS masses; it will get marketed to the saints; and you will get decent royalties to supplement your paycheck.

These are some of the reasons why people want to do this. I am sure a lot of them go into it with the idea of being spiritual beacons and master teachers to young LDS students. But behind it there is an amazing amount of ego that gets focused on displays of holiness and concerns about orthodoxy. It all can get pretty vicious. An Iranian LDS friend of mine told me that his Religion professor friends used to joke to him about BYU being the kind of place where your colleagues could smile, say, "I love you brother," and twist a knife in your back all at the same time. I think this is true.

Bokovoy was extremely well qualified in all areas except satisfying the smell test of perfect loyalty and obedience to the party line. It is not that he would have ever actually betrayed anyone's trust. It is the fact that someone or someones were able to use what they had on him to disqualify him and move other candidates ahead. I admit that I was not there and do not know how these things weighed in the decision, but I can't imagine that it helped in the "College of Cardinals."

[_Yoda]

I received an email from Dan last night. He mentioned, among other things we were discussing, this thread.

He told me that MI did NOT gather or prepare any type of dossier on David. And, if MI had prepared anything like that, Dan would have personally known about it.

Dan had absolutely no final say in the hiring of David. As a matter of fact, Dan had given David a very positive recommendation for the job, and was surprised and saddened to learn that the decision had already been made in the negative. Dan would have loved to have worked with David in a collegiate capacity. He was very disappointed that David was passed over.

What Dan did manage to find out is that there was, apparently, only one spot available in the Ancient Scripture department, and he has no idea how qualifications compared between the candidate that they hired and David.

As Kish mentioned, and, as I also know from dealing with HR decisions in the higher education field, some of the reasons for hiring one candidate over another are based on miniscule differences, particularly when both candidates are highly competitive for the position.

As I stated earlier, it sounds to me that if David has more of a passion for writing and research, then another university may truly be a better option for him in the long run.

Whomever does hire David will definitely be gaining a jewel.

[_Kishkumen]

He told me that MI did NOT gather or prepare any type of dossier on David. And, if MI had prepared anything like that, Dan would have personally known about it.

I received the same email. I decided not to make direct reference to it, but it is the reason I said I had strong evidence that MI was not behind David not being hired. I think it is true that Daniel and Bill were not involved in preparing any kind of dossier about David. The thing is, it seems someone did. Who knows the who, what, when, where, and why? I don't.

Daniel probably doesn't either. Maybe Will Schryver does, since he accused David, among others, of conspiring against him. I have no knowledge of Will's involvement in anything, so I am only offering idle speculation.

What Dan did manage to find out is that there was, apparently, only one spot available in the Ancient Scripture department, and he has no idea how qualifications compared between the candidate that they hired and David.

I have a feeling that this is the line Religion fed Daniel. I doubt it means much more than a polite, "none of your beeswax" from one area of the university to another. I have good reason to believe it was more complicated than that.

[_RockSlider]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSjE2Ks38uE

[_Chap]

I am uncomfortable about Daniel Peterson posting here through surrogates. I don't know if that was his intention, but if it is I think those who facilitate this should consider what they are at.

Effectively they give him the chance of posting without here his having to commit his message to actual words over his signature. No-one can effectively answer back or question.

May I ask that if he sends any further messages to people who post here, those who receive them should consider simply saying "Why don't you post that on MDB yourself, Daniel?", while making no reference to the message in public? Obviously if they want to respond to his email in private, that is their privilege.

[_Yoda]

He told me that MI did NOT gather or prepare any type of dossier on David. And, if MI had prepared anything like that, Dan would have personally known about it.

I received the same email. I decided not to make direct reference to it, but it is the reason I said I had strong evidence that MI was not behind David not being hired. I think it is true that Daniel and Bill were not involved in preparing any kind of dossier about David. The thing is, it seems someone did. Who knows the who, what, when, where, and why? I don't.

Daniel probably doesn't either. Maybe Will Schryver does, since he accused David, among others, of conspiring against him. I have no knowledge of Will's involvement in anything, so I am only offering idle speculation.

What Dan did manage to find out is that there was, apparently, only one spot available in the Ancient Scripture department, and he has no idea how qualifications compared between the candidate that they hired and David.

I have a feeling that this is the line Religion fed Daniel. I doubt it means much more than a polite, "none of your beeswax" from one area of the university to another. I have good reason to believe it was more complicated than that.

I seriously doubt that Will knows diddly squat about anything. He strikes me as a blow hard who tries to make people think that he knows a lot more than he really does.

Who really knows about any of these things? This past year, I was passed over for two jobs at my university that looked like they were tailor-made for me. I still don't understand the decision process. And, one of my colleagues who went to bat for me, and put in a recommendation for me, was really upset when I didn't get hired into his department. However, a couple of months later, I was actually ASKED to post for the Computer Lab Director position I have now, so things do tend to happen for a reason. I am sure that the economy being what it is right now, and budgets being cut everywhere didn't help things, either.

[Guest]

not mine to say

[_Chap]

I am uncomfortable about Daniel Peterson posting here through surrogates. I don't know if that was his intention, but if it is I think those who facilitate this should consider what they are at.

Effectively they give him the chance of posting without here his having to commit his message to actual words over his signature. No-one can effectively answer back or question.

May I ask that if he sends any further messages to people who post here, those who receive them should consider simply saying "Why don't you post that on MDB yourself, Daniel?", while making no reference to the message in public? Obviously if they want to respond to his email in private, that is their privilege.

strategic friends are always good.

Please provide a decrypt ...

[_Yoda]

I am uncomfortable about Daniel Peterson posting here through surrogates. I don't know if that was his intention, but if it is I think those who facilitate this should consider what they are at.

Effectively they give him the chance of posting without here his having to commit his message to actual words over his signature. No-one can effectively answer back or question.

May I ask that if he sends any further messages to people who post here, those who receive them should consider simply saying "Why don't you post that on MDB yourself, Daniel?", while making no reference to the message in public? Obviously if they want to respond to his email in private, that is their privilege.

I actually have made it a practice to tell Dan exactly that. The only reason I mentioned anything here was because there was so much speculation on what Dan did and didn't know. Since he had been accused of putting the squash on David's hiring, or there was speculation in that direction, and I knew for a fact that that wasn't the case, I chose to say something. If that was wrong for me to do, so be it.