Peterson and Gee's libel against Ritner?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: Peterson and Gee's libel against Ritner?

Post by _Kevin Graham »

Yale University granted John Gee a doctorate in Egyptology.


So? Liars and hypocrites get degres all the time. You don't get to dismiss dishonesty just because someone went through the motions and got a doctorate.

It's rather amusing to see at least one person here trying to explain that fact away as insignificant.


It is amusing to see you trying to make this significant when in fact it is irrelevant to the point. No one every said Gee didn't get a doctorate from Yale. The only people who ever throw up Gee's credentials are you and Gee.

John Gee's "scholarship," as he puts it, is and was a joke, according to the local expert here.


As it relates to his apologetics, yes, absolutely. He is an apologist first, a scholar last. And I have proven it on many occasions. You're not in a position to refute it either, or else you would have done so by now. Instead, we get the usual bravado and chest thumping from the ivory tower. I know you think you are putting us down because we don't have doctorates, but what is more embarrassing here. Not having a doctorate, or having one and being refuted by someone who doesn't need one? It proves John Gee wasted his life studying Egyptian, thinking he could save the Book of Abraham for rational thinkers. But all he has done is produce one deceptive apologetic piece of garbage after the next.

And the easily-manipulated fools at Yale -- some kind of east coast diploma mill, apparently -- simply went along with it, perhaps bought out by Mormon money or leaned upon by Guido "The Fist," who directs the LDS Institute in New Haven


The fact is Gee was guaranteed a job at BYU before he ever got his doctorate. Ritner never said he wouldn't give Gee a PhD, as you and Stem seem to think. What he said was that he required more work that Gee had not completed to his satisfaction, within his time frame. Meaning, Gee would have to go back and do the necessary work required of him. But it seems Gee was in a hurry because he had a job waiting on him and Ritner was not willing to abide by Gee's timeline. So Gee probably got the Church involved, and the necessary strings were pulled. This is hardly astonishing news. How the hell do you think George Bush got into Harvard?!? It isn't what you know, it is who you know.

Again, according to this board's resident expert on such matters. (Which certainly seems a casually slanderous depiction of the person who replaced Robert Ritner as John Gee's dissertation chairman!)


If you think rules cannot be bents, standards relaxed, even in academia, then you're just being dishonest again. You of all people should know this is true. And it is especially true in the Church where political connections mean everything. Funny how the upper tier of LDS leadership seems to get passed down through the same families, and the same friends, huh? When I was active, the bishop was always trying to make phone calls to "facilitate" things a bit, whether it be school or job related. There were always Mormons somewhere in a position to influence those who could make things happen. It is the Mormon way.

Incidentally, BYU, at least, has fairly commonly hired people who were still in the process of writing their dissertations. I was hired in that fashion, and so, I think, were at least two of the other three Arabists in my department.


Ah, so it is something unique to BYU. Color me surprised.

That is to say that there is nothing particularly unusual in John Gee's having been hired before he had quite finished his Ph.D.


Oh of course not. It is entirely reasonable to assume someone who has spent the past decade banging away at Egyptology, suddenly has the required training to be a teacher at the university level. Exactly how many books had he published by the time he was hired? He had tons of publications as an apologist we know, but then again FARMS standards for apologetic publication requires a testimony and a zeal to spin the facts. But that's what they were looking for. Someone who would tow the party line faithfully. Someone who could pump out some apologetic nonsense about the Book of Abraham and because he went to Yale, we're just supposed to take it for granted. Someone they knew would defend the Church no matter what amount of evidence comes his way. Someone who could throw the weight of his Yale credentials behind it so people like you can trick others into thinking that this is all that's needed.

Oh, and don't think your audience didn't notice you ignoring the specific examples I pointed out where Gee's doctorate degree didn't prevent him from lying.
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: Peterson and Gee's libel against Ritner?

Post by _Kevin Graham »

Recap for stem because he seems to misunderstand what has been said:

1 - Ritner "explicitly disowned" Gee because of his apologetics and pretended that "these non-Egyptological writings had the stamp of scholarly accuracy and my own personal approval as his teacher."

2- "There is no negative, personal 'history' between us, as his class grades would reveal."

3- "I probably shall post on-line mycorrespondence with him (which is my unrestricted intellectual
property) urging him to find a new advisor at Yale." [emphasis mine: If true, then this is huge, as it would prove that Ritner was the one who suggested Gee find another advisor!]

4- "Despite Mr. Peterson's remarks, such changes are not at all unusual or problematic, particularly as I initiated the suggestion and detailed many changes regarding the accuracy of his work that would be needed for him to continue writing under my direction."

5- "It is my understanding that the offer of a job at BYU spurred the need for a fast conclusion to the dissertation, which required an advisor more willing to accept what I noted as severely problematic." [Wow. This makes sense, because Gee did get a job at BYU almost instantly]

6- "Under the circumstances, it is not extraordinary that Gee followed my suggestion." [contra Peterson]

7- "I was not in any way faulted or reprimanded" ["removed" according to Peterson]

8- "I was fully in agreement with the change that I had urged." [It was Gee's idea, not Ritner's, according to Peterson]

9- "To be blunt, any insinuation that there was a forced removal because the Department accused me of improprieties is false, and the spread of such a lie is being done only to discredit my reputation, as you note."

10- "I am shocked that Peterson, as a professor, would improperly hint at supposed details of confidential reviews (which cannot be seen nor analyzed by non-committee members). This is disgraceful."

11- "It is my wish to let the matter rest after the publication of Brent's volume."
_stemelbow
_Emeritus
Posts: 5872
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: Peterson and Gee's libel against Ritner?

Post by _stemelbow »

So? Liars and hypocrites get degres all the time. You don't get to dismiss dishonesty just because someone went through the motions and got a doctorate.



Kevin, are you trying to say that Gee shouldn't have gotten a PhD from Yale because you think he's a liar and a hypocrite, or that he didn't earn it? I'm not even sure this has naything to do with anything anymore. We can just run around whimpering and whining about anyone on the grounds you give here.

Ritner "explicitly disowned" Gee because of his apologetics and pretended that "these non-Egyptological writings had the stamp of scholarly accuracy and my own personal approval as his teacher."


So? So Ritner now knew Gee would get PhD and he didn't' want his name to be associated with Gee's efforts regarding Mormonism? I'm still having hard time making sense of this. And you aren't answering my questions for some reason.

but he also said,

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


The errors should have been some sort of flag to support his claim that Gee didn't deserve a PhD right? Please answer my questioning. You keep getting distracted with things like calling people liars and such again. Why would Gee get a PhD from Yale if there are clear, known errors in his work? Why would Ritner recuse himself if he knew Gee didn't really earn a PhD? Somehow trying to blame Gee's interest in apologetics doesn't quite fit the story. This stuff simply doesn't make sense.
Love ya tons,
Stem


I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Peterson and Gee's libel against Ritner?

Post by _Chap »

stemelbow wrote: Why would Ritner recuse himself if he knew Gee didn't really earn a PhD? Somehow trying to blame Gee's interest in apologetics doesn't quite fit the story. This stuff simply doesn't make sense.


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.

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.

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?
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_Doctor Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:44 pm

Re: Peterson and Gee's libel against Ritner?

Post by _Doctor Scratch »

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.

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?

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.
"[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
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: Peterson and Gee's libel against Ritner?

Post by _Kevin Graham »

Kevin, are you trying to say that Gee shouldn't have gotten a PhD from Yale because you think he's a liar and a hypocrite, or that he didn't earn it?


Neither. I'm saying his doctorate is irrelevant. His doctorate does nothing to make his lies truths or his acts of deception, honorable. Dan is the one who wants to focus on teh doctorate. The whole Ritner debate started not because anyone questioned Gee's doctorate, but because Dan had been lying for four years about how RItner is a biased person, therefore his refutation of Gee should be taken with a grain of salt.

I'm not even sure this has naything to do with anything anymore. We can just run around whimpering and whining about anyone on the grounds you give here.


Uh, they're not my grounds. Again, Dan is the one trying to focus on Gee's degree from Yale. He seems to think this makes him immune to all criticism from trhe lesser folks. You know, anyone who didn't decide to dedicate their life and life savings towards a doctroate degree. By Dan's standard, Trevor is twice as smart since he earned his doctorate from a school ranked in the top five (Univ of Penn) whereas Dan went to that Ivy-wannabe school out at UCLA, ranked 25th. Sigh! Couldn't the Church find someone from a real school to teach their Arabic courses? Geez!

So Ritner now knew Gee would get PhD and he didn't' want his name to be associated with Gee's efforts regarding Mormonism? I'm still having hard time making sense of this. And you aren't answering my questions for some reason.


Because I'm not in a position to answer for Ritner. I can only tell you what he emailed me a few years ago. His explanation makes perfect sense to me. I don't know why you're having such a hard time with it.

The errors should have been some sort of flag to support his claim that Gee didn't deserve a PhD right? Please answer my questioning.


You're asking the wrong questions if you expect me to answer them. Nobody ever said he didn't deserve a PhD. He was on the path and I'm sure Ritner felt Gee was a good student who would achieve what he had set out to achieve, but it seems clear to me that Ritner changed the requirements during teh end and Gee didn't want to comply because that disrupted his upcoming plans at BYU. For this reason, and this reason alone, Ritner "urged" him to get someone else. Why? Because Ritner didn't want to sign off on his doctorate unless he had done the work required of him. It seems he wanted Gee to get his doctorate and move on to BYU as planned, but he didn't want his name associated with it. RItner never explained what it was he changed, but I suspect it was something that served the purpose of separating RItner from whatever future apologetic work Gee will come up with. I got the sense that RItner googled Gee at some point and came across his encyclopedic list of FARMS publications. Some of those publications cites Ritner as a source, and Ritner didn't like it because it gave the impression that he agreed with Gee's arguments. Nibley had a bad habit of this too. I strongly suspect is any number of Egyptologists who think highly of Gee, ever decided to read through his apologetic novels, that their view of him would change dramatically. He's a fruitcake. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't get his doctorate if he does the required work.

Why would Gee get a PhD from Yale if there are clear, known errors in his work?


It isn't about errors so much as it is his failure to meet Ritner's standards. So the best answer was for Gee to find someone else, which is what Ritner advised him to do. This turned into Dan Peterson's four year libel of Ritner, saying he was thrown off the committee for some unspecified reason which can only be related to his anti-Mormon rage against poor Mr. Gee.

Somehow trying to blame Gee's interest in apologetics doesn't quite fit the story. This stuff simply doesn't make sense.


It fits perfectly and it makes perfect sense. Ritner didn't want to be the guy who provided Gee his doctrorate because that would be interpreted in the future as him siging off on the type of "scholarship" with which Gee was infatuated. Namely, apologetic for the Mormon Church. He knew the distinction between legitimate scholarship and religious apologetics. Unfortunately Gee doesn't. He and Dan seem to think that anything you write after obtaining a doctorate, is "scholarship" by default. Hence, he can write up any apologetic for the Church and it automatically has authority. So, why do you need logic or evidence when you can just thrown your degree around. The fact that Dan condones and even fosters this kind of abuse of authority is a testament to the kind of contempt some Mormon scholars have for true scholarship.
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: Peterson and Gee's libel against Ritner?

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Morley wrote:I'm not sure why there's any big deal to any of this. Doctoral committees change composition for any number of reasons. There are personal, professional, and political animosities in many doctoral processes. (I think the procedure is set up to be a tiny bit of hell.) Candidates are hired ABD (all but dissertation) all the time.

Speculation about the “why,” is just that: groundless speculation.

The voice of sanity and reason.

Thank you.
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: Peterson and Gee's libel against Ritner?

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Doctor Scratch wrote:you generally pick the members of your doctoral committee yourself

That certainly wasn't true where I went to school.
_Doctor Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:44 pm

Re: Peterson and Gee's libel against Ritner?

Post by _Doctor Scratch »

Daniel Peterson wrote:In the school I went to, doctoral committees routinely flunked doctoral candidates and showed them the door.


Huh? I think you may be misrepresenting the process, Dan. Most graduate schools have rules in place to protect candidate from capricious or tyrannical faculty. In fact, your own degree-granting institution puts it this way:

University Policy

A student who fails to meet the above requirements may be recommended for termination of graduate study. A graduate student may be disqualified from continuing in the graduate program for a variety of reasons. The most common is failure to maintain the minimum cumulative grade point average (3.00) required by the Academic Senate to remain in good standing (some programs require a higher grade point average). Other examples include failure of examinations, lack of timely progress toward the degree and poor performance in core courses. Probationary students (those with cumulative grade point averages below 3.00) are subject to immediate dismissal upon the recommendation of their department. University guidelines governing termination of graduate students, including the appeal procedure, are outlined in Standards and Procedures for Graduate Study at UCLA.


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

It's rare that somebody would simply be "flunked" and shown the door, particularly that far along in the process. Incompetent students are generally weeded out way before they get to the point of being "C.Phil," as Gee apparently was.

You're also omitting the fact that Gee probably hand-picked Ritner as his doctoral advisor, and that the two of them had likely developed, over the course of years, a working student-mentor relationship. So Ritner's departure is significant.

I never heard of a committee chairman or dissertation adviser resigning in protest over a candidate's incompetence.


I haven't either, though I would add that it's unclear that Ritner resigned due to Gee's "incompetence." Based on what Kevin has quoted, it sounds more like Ritner objected to Gee using his training to lend a patina of legitimacy to his apologetics. In any event, the resignation is unusual, to say the least.

He or she would simply fail the candidate.


I don't think so. It would be odd for a diss. adviser to let things drag out to that extent, unless the faculty happens to be especially vindictive or sadistic. You don't "simply fail" someone who's that far into the process. (It begs the question: how did this "incompetent" person manage to get through years' worth of course work, plus quals, if s/he was such a horrendous screw-up as a student?) If someone has put in the work, time, effort, and money necessary to get to the stage of writing the dissertation, it's in everybody's interest to help the candidate succeed. The university, the student, and the faculty have already invested a lot of time and energy into the whole affair, and yet you're suggesting that "problem" candidates are simply booted out with no more than a casual shrug, and it just doesn't happen that way.

Incidentally, one of the critics here is suggesting (and has apparently suggested to others, elsewhere), that, as one of those with whom he has been in correspondence has summarized it, I have "hint[ed] at supposed details of confidential reviews (which cannot be seen nor analyzed by non-committee members)." For the record, I claim no such knowledge, and have never made any such hints.


You've "hinted" that there's more to the story, and that the real facts of the matter would vindicate Gee, thereby painting Ritner in a negative light.
"[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
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: Peterson and Gee's libel against Ritner?

Post by _Kevin Graham »

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Morley wrote:I'm not sure why there's any big deal to any of this. Doctoral committees change composition for any number of reasons. There are personal, professional, and political animosities in many doctoral processes. (I think the procedure is set up to be a tiny bit of hell.) Candidates are hired ABD (all but dissertation) all the time.

Speculation about the “why,” is just that: groundless speculation.

The voice of sanity and reason.

Thank you.


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.
Post Reply