Dan Peterson Booted From His Meti Office

[Calm]

Of course we are dear. Have you downloaded your instructions from the mother tabernacle yet today?

I do that at bedtime to ensure even my dreams are in total compliance.

[Calm]

I guess I could cite law on that. Ordering it in the first place and ratification leads to the same outcome.

You are assuming public silence equates to ratification. Edited September 19, 2012 by calmoriah

[KevinG]

I do that at bedtime to ensure even my dreams are in total compliance.

As a BYU grad I have real time updates to my compliance nodes. It really is quite handy.

[Calm]

As a BYU grad I have real time updates to my compliance nodes. It really is quite handy.

Must be something offered to newer grads or perhaps my natural conformity aptitudes are high enough this is not necessary.

[KevinG]

You are assuming public silence equates to ratification.

Of course aren't the internals of hiring and firing decisions by every BYU manager and any performance evaluation related to them public knowledge?

[USU78]

You are assuming public silence equates to ratification.

He's been watching A Man for all Seasons again.

A pretty fiction, that.

[KevinG]

Must be something offered to newer grads or perhaps my natural conformity aptitudes are high enough this is not necessary.

It was the graduate business school. Go figure?

[Bob Crockett]

Silence does not always indicate approval. God is silent on many of the actions of his children, doesn't mean he approves (just to throw in some theological discussion for Walden's sake).

But in this case, and to also respond to Dr. Hamblin's call for a CFR, we don't quite have silence. The references are:

1. An administrator (Dr. Bradford) severed the relationship, as he claims, after deliberation and long efforts.

2. Dr. Peterson agrees that there had been discussions underway and disagreements about the pending issue.

3. Dr. Peterson's wife suspected that a severance was imminent.

4. When asked for a comment, BYU commented publicly, upholding Dr. Bradford's decision.

5. Some trusted person in the chain of decision leaked an email to demonstrate support for Dr. Bradford, we can suppose.

6. Dr. Peterson was thereafter later asked by BYU adminstration to vacate his office.

7. BYU administration has done nothing to rectify the wrong as it did in the case of the firings of Drs. Midgley, Wirthlin and Davies.

I agree that, under the law, complete silence is usually not ratification. But the above items, at least some of them, are affirmative acts.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Calm]

BYU administration does not equate to the Board of Trustees, does it?

[USU78]

I was about to congratulate him on a uniquely Mormon Godwin violation.

I am so very unworthy . . .

[Bob Crockett]

It is irresponsible of you to try to pull other administrators into the matter. It is early yet in any case, and the reverberations of such decisions can take time to have a blowback effect, if any. I counsel patience.

Wise counsel indeed. I do, however, feel a compelling need to condemn the condemnors.

[Bob Crockett]

BYU administration does not equate to the Board of Trustees, does it?

No. But this BoT, at least in my experience when my grandfather reported to it, was familiar with anything remotely constituting a controversy or matter of public embarrassment.

[Calm]

And does being familiar with but not speaking up publicly equate to "ratification" in your mind?

[TAO]

I assume Dan isn't the only one working on the Meti projects. If so, not having an office where the work is going on for ease of communication and cooperation is not going to be more effective, but I am sure Dan will adapt and make the best of it.

Yeah I though about that. And I was just thinking... that's probably going to generate some complaints. And complaints might make the MI reconsider it's decision, perhaps. After all, since Dan is the President at METI, don't people sort of have to come to him, right... and if he's not staying in the building, won't that make the other METI workers have to come over to where he is?

[Calm]

Yeah I though about that. And I was just thinking... that's probably going to generate some complaints. And complaints might make the MI reconsider it's decision, perhaps. After all, since Dan is the President at METI, don't people sort of have to come to him, right... and if he's not staying in the building, won't that make the other METI workers have to come over to where he is?

I think Dan is the type of man who would do what is most convenient for all involved and not insist on protocol. What it interferes with a great deal is just dropping in for a quick okay on something right when it comes up even if Dan is the one who comes in and visits everyone involved daily to answer questions, okay decisions, etc. Editing and publication of books is rather a hands on endeavour even in this day and age it would seem to me. Edited September 19, 2012 by calmoriah

[Bill Hamblin]

But in this case, and to also respond to Dr. Hamblin's call for a CFR, we don't quite have silence. The references are:

1. An administrator (Dr. Bradford) severed the relationship, as he claims, after deliberation and long efforts.

2. Dr. Peterson agrees that there had been discussions underway and disagreements about the pending issue.

3. Dr. Peterson's wife suspected that a severance was imminent.

4. When asked for a comment, BYU commented publicly, upholding Dr. Bradford's decision.

5. Some trusted person in the chain of decision leaked an email to demonstrate support for Dr. Bradford, we can suppose.

6. Dr. Peterson was thereafter later asked by BYU adminstration to vacate his office.

7. BYU administration has done nothing to rectify the wrong as it did in the case of the firings of Drs. Midgley, Wirthlin and Davies.

I agree that, under the law, complete silence is usually not ratification. But the above items, at least some of them, are affirmative acts.

You are full of crap.

I've talked with over a dozen people directly and indirectly who were involved in the situation. All of their stories agree. You are simply speculating, and speculating inaccurately. You have no direct or even indirect evidence.

4. BYU did not "comment." They simply said Dan had been dismissed as editor. That is not a comment. It is a mere statement of fact which everyone already knew.

5. The leaker was an underling of Bradford at MI. It had nothing to do with the administration. Samuelson is outraged about the leak.

6. Peterson was asked to vacate his office not by the administration, but by Jerry Bradford. Surprised?

7. What are you talking about?

[TAO]

I think Dan is the type of man who would do what is most convenient for all involved and not insist on protocol. What it interferes with a great deal is just dropping in for a quick okay on something right when it comes up even if Dan is the one who comes in and visits everyone involved daily to answer questions, okay decisions, etc. Editing and publication of books is rather a hands on endeavour even in this day and age it would seem to me.

Yeah, you are probably right.

[Analytics]

Everyone knows choral conductors are dictators. I'm sure the Mo Tab director is given some leeway for that.

Perhaps the Neal A. Maxwell Institute ought to start a choir?

[TAO]

No. But this BoT, at least in my experience when my grandfather reported to it, was familiar with anything remotely constituting a controversy or matter of public embarrassment.

Didn't Dan mention that they tend to be non-interventionistic? Even if they were unhappy with it... that doesn't mean they'd necessarily do something to reverse the decision.

[Calm]

Didn't Dan mention that they tend to be non-interventionistic? Even if they were unhappy with it... that doesn't mean they'd necessarily do something to reverse the decision.

Exactly.

[Bob Crockett]

You are full of crap.

Often.

I've talked with over a dozen people directly and indirectly who were involved in the situation. All of their stories agree. You are simply speculating, and speculating inaccurately. You have no direct or even indirect evidence.

I wouldn't be wasting my time on this topic if I didn't so strongly object to a certain BYU professor making this worse by airing dirty laundry as a means to hurt the institution.

4. BYU did not "comment." They simply said Dan had been dismissed as editor. That is not a comment. It is a mere statement of fact which everyone already knew.

It is a comment, at least under the law. It acknowledged what it acknowledged.

5. The leaker was an underling of Bradford at MI. It had nothing to do with the administration. Samuelson is outraged about the leak.

It was a leak by somebody in the institution, nonetheless. A small factoid, to be sure.

6. Peterson was asked to vacate his office not by the administration, but by Jerry Bradford. Surprised?

Which makes it all the more significant. An institution is likely to squelch or silence an agent who has done something of a provocatory nature in a pubilc manner inimical to the institution. Conversely, an institution is likely to keep an agent in power to continue with his duties if it approves. You've made my fact stronger, but again, I'm just relying on some evidentiary nottinos.

7. What are you talking about?

I think the story is fairly well known. Midgley, Wirthlin and Davies and I believe four others (I've only interviewed the first three, Midgley by a couple of emails) were fired in a publicly humiliating manner. My grandfather, who had been interim president of BYU previous to this incident, intervened with the BoT and they were all offered their jobs back. Wirthlin was the only one who declined.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

But in this case, and to also respond to Dr. Hamblin's call for a CFR, we don't quite have silence. The references are:

1. An administrator (Dr. Bradford) severed the relationship, as he claims, after deliberation and long efforts.

2. Dr. Peterson agrees that there had been discussions underway and disagreements about the pending issue.

3. Dr. Peterson's wife suspected that a severance was imminent.

4. When asked for a comment, BYU commented publicly, upholding Dr. Bradford's decision.

5. Some trusted person in the chain of decision leaked an email to demonstrate support for Dr. Bradford, we can suppose.

6. Dr. Peterson was thereafter later asked by BYU adminstration to vacate his office.

7. BYU administration has done nothing to rectify the wrong as it did in the case of the firings of Drs. Midgley, Wirthlin and Davies.

I agree that, under the law, complete silence is usually not ratification. But the above items, at least some of them, are affirmative acts.

This seems like to much speculation and unseemly to discuss in an open forum...I am beginning to wonder why many seem to be eating our own. Dr. Peterson and I have not always agreed, but he has always been a great defender of the faith and it is disturbing to kick a man when he is down...even if to others it only seems that he is down.

[Calm]

I wouldn't be wasting my time on this topic if I didn't so strongly object to a certain BYU professor making this worse by airing dirty laundry as a means to hurt the institution.

And you claim to be the one not jumping to conclusions before condemning someone.

Dan has not attacked BYU or the NAMI, he has been specific in his criticisms to those individuals, not institutions, involved. Bill has done the same thing.

Edited September 20, 2012 by calmoriah

[Bob Crockett]

This seems like to much speculation and unseemly to discuss in an open forum...I am beginning to wonder why many seem to be eating our own. Dr. Peterson and I have not always agreed, but he has always been a great defender of the faith and it is disturbing to kick a man when he is down...even if to others it only seems that he is down.

I'm sorry that it appears I am picking on Dr. Peterson. I have tried to make clear that I am not, but am simply trying to stick up for the institution and Dr. Bradford. If that means that I am picking on Dr. Peterson, than I apologize for that. But, in the weeks I have discussed this I have made it abundantly clear that I don't think that anonymous posters should be traducing Dr. Bradford. I see no justification for it whatsoever. Stick your real name on the insults, and we'll talk further. But you, and others perhaps, have interpreted me as taking sides against Dr. Peterson. Not so.

Having said that, I do have problems with some of Dr. Hamblin's posts. I really have none with Dr. Peterson's other than to say that he should have left things unsaid.

And you claim to be the one not jumping to conclusions before condemning someone.

Indeed that is correct.

In Petersonesque fashion, I must say that I have a flight to catch and cannot further engage in this delightful discourse for the time being, or perhaps never again.

Bob

Edited September 20, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Hestia]

It seems that everything has been said and we are in the area of speculation. Time to close.