Bill Hamblin: Angry Over New Bushman Chair?

[_sock puppet]

His apologetics are another matter. With those I have not been at all impressed. So, I see no reason why I should kowtow to him in that area.

My thoughts exactly. In my experience, Hamblin's approach seems to be like why me's, only with a few more citations: "No one can prove it isn't true, so it must be true."

Wow, Bob. That's kind of hitting Hambone below the belt, isn't it?

[_Doctor Scratch]

It's really not getting any better over there:

When I was a graduate student at Michigan, I was a TA for a course on the Monotheistic traditions--Judaism, Christianity and Islam--for which I taught small study sessions. The professor for the Islamic part was a believing Muslim. The professor for the Jewish part was a believing Jew. The professor for the Christian section, however, was a marginalize liberal Christian.

The students at Michigan ranged from atheists to Jews to Christians and Muslims. Most weren't very religious at all. In the breakout sessions they universally loved the Jewish and Muslims sections, even though the Muslim was the weakest of the three teachers. They felt they were actually coming to understand why a person would be, and what it means to be a Jew or a Muslim. But they were very unhappy with the Christianity section, even thought the teacher was very good and knowledgable. Their response was: if this is what Christianity is, why would anyone believe in it. And they were right.

I hate to break it to you, Prof. Hamblin, but teaching effectiveness isn't measured (or, at least, it ought not to be) on the basis of how much the students "like" their teachers. Further, I have a hard time seeing how the success of the sections should be evaluated on the extent to which the students "loved" one section more than the other. Finally, why is the question of "why anyone would believe in it relevant"? Are these academic courses, or proselytizing sessions?

Hamblin himself says that the "Muslim was the weakest teacher," apparently as a means of "proving" that the liberal Christian wasn't deserving of this teaching position--that it should have been somebody more hardcore and devout, but this in and of itself is incredibly revealing and disquieting for a simple reason: we should judge a teacher's merits on the basis of how well he or she teaches his/her students the subject in question. If the professor in question has a good persona, then great: the medicine will go down easier. But this other stuff that Hamblin is talking about is so fundamentally screwball and wrong-headed that I don't know where to begin.

Can you imagine a math course where the professor's effectiveness was considered to be a measure of how successfully he was able to convince his students how/why someone would want to study math?

[_moksha]

What happened to Quinn in AZ is shameful and a blot on the academy, and so is what happened at Clairmont and the UofU Quinn was in the running for a UofU history post and could have been under consideration for the Hunter Chair at Claremont.

Here's the Wall Street Journal article via the Post Gazette.

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/new ... rk-429428/

Has there been any situation concerning an endowed chair in Mormon Studies in which the donors wishes were not honored? As they would point out at MD&D, Mormonism is a private business and therefor any study of it should respect private interests. If Universities want donor's largess, they better accept whatever they are given. This is not a matter of ethics, but rather obedience to rules that are eternally the same.

[_Kishkumen]

I hate to break it to you, Prof. Hamblin, but teaching effectiveness isn't measured (or, at least, it ought not to be) on the basis of how much the students "like" their teachers. Further, I have a hard time seeing how the success of the sections should be evaluated on the extent to which the students "loved" one section more than the other. Finally, why is the question of "why anyone would believe in it relevant"? Are these academic courses, or proselytizing sessions?

Hamblin himself says that the "Muslim was the weakest teacher," apparently as a means of "proving" that the liberal Christian wasn't deserving of this teaching position--that it should have been somebody more hardcore and devout, but this in and of itself is incredibly revealing and disquieting for a simple reason: we should judge a teacher's merits on the basis of how well he or she teaches his/her students the subject in question. If the professor in question has a good persona, then great: the medicine will go down easier. But this other stuff that Hamblin is talking about is so fundamentally screwball and wrong-headed that I don't know where to begin.

Can you imagine a math course where the professor's effectiveness was considered to be a measure of how successfully he was able to convince his students how/why someone would want to study math?

I know I teach Roman history to convince young minds that mass slaughter of foreign peoples, slavery, civil war, and world conquest make for a compelling ethos in today's world. If I did not fervently believe these things to be true, why would anyone care to study what I was teaching? In order to understand Caesar, we must love Caesar and the deeds of Caesar, and not criticize Caesar in such a way that we fail to praise adequately his legacy, thereby instilling in young hearts a deep passion to emulate Caesar in every way.

Anything else is weak and unworthy of notice.

Hail, Caesar!

[_hans castorp]

I know I teach Roman history to convince young minds that mass slaughter of foreign peoples, slavery, civil war, and world conquest make for a compelling ethos in today's world. If I did not fervently believe these things to be true, why would anyone care to study what I was teaching? In order to understand Caesar, we must love Caesar and the deeds of Caesar, and not criticize Caesar in such a way that we fail to praise adequately his legacy, thereby instilling in young hearts a deep passion to emulate Caesar in every way.

Anything else is weak and unworthy of notice.

Hail, Caesar!

Your class retreats on the island of Capri must be really special.

By the way, under Dr. Hamblin's criteria, is Dr. Peterson unqualified to teach Islamic studies?

[_Drifting]

I know I teach Roman history to convince young minds that mass slaughter of foreign peoples, slavery, civil war, and world conquest make for a compelling ethos in today's world. If I did not fervently believe these things to be true, why would anyone care to study what I was teaching? In order to understand Caesar, we must love Caesar and the deeds of Caesar, and not criticize Caesar in such a way that we fail to praise adequately his legacy, thereby instilling in young hearts a deep passion to emulate Caesar in every way.

Anything else is weak and unworthy of notice.

Hail, Caesar!

Your class retreats on the island of Capri must be really special.

By the way, under Dr. Hamblin's criteria, is Dr. Peterson unqualified to teach Islamic studies?

Bill must also have question marks over his Sunday School teacher...

[_Kishkumen]

Your class retreats on the island of Capri must be really special.

By the way, under Dr. Hamblin's criteria, is Dr. Peterson unqualified to teach Islamic studies?

I think Peterson may get a pass from Hamblin because he believes in God, which is at least somewhere in the neighborhood of believing in Islam. If Peterson did not believe in God, then his grasp of Islam would be too flaccid to be appealing to students.

As for my class retreats at Capri, read Suetonius, Divus Augustus 98, and eat your heart out.

[_hans castorp]

As for my class retreats at Capri, read Suetonius, Divus Augustus 98, and eat your heart out.

Ah, Suetonius. I can still remember the purple-bordered cover of the Penguin edition (translated by Robert Graves, I believe) I pored over as a teenager. Oh, those bad, bad boys!

As to DCP, surely no Mormon finitist polytheist could truly appreciate the all-powerful, inscrutable, singularly single deity of Islam. It would take an imaginative leap. It's as outrageous as thinking some Methodist like Jan Shipps could really understand the Saints.

[_Kishkumen]

Ah, Suetonius. I can still remember the purple-bordered cover of the Penguin edition (translated by Robert Graves, I believe) I pored over as a teenager. Oh, those bad, bad boys!

This semester I am teaching a Suetonius course. I am having a ball.

As to DCP, surely no Mormon finitist polytheist could truly appreciate the all-powerful, inscrutable, singularly single deity of Islam. It would take an imaginative leap. It's as outrageous as thinking some Methodist like Jan Shipps could really understand the Saints.

Hey, close enough, at least when your agenda calls for it.

[_MrStakhanovite]

As to DCP, surely no Mormon finitist polytheist could truly appreciate the all-powerful, inscrutable, singularly single deity of Islam. It would take an imaginative leap. It's as outrageous as thinking some Methodist like Jan Shipps could really understand the Saints.

I'm sure Bill must be aware that in Sunni Islam, the notion of Tawheed is so strong that LDS beliefs would surely be seen shirk (polytheism/Idolatry), does he then avoid teaching Islamic beliefs and history at BYU then?