Bill Hamblin Has Passed Away

[Bob Crockett]

43 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Other than Dan, can you cite any direct participant in this drama who has made a public statement contradicting him? Or are you alluding to Bob Crockett, who by his own statement is relying on “gossip and storytelling”?

As I pointed out years ago, BYU was prohibited from talking about a personnel issue. But it is very easy to put 2 and 2 together by reading the emails and understanding that the decision was never reversed by BYU, meaning, it approved it.  I would venture to say that the only persons who think that Dr. Peterson was treated unfairly are those unwilling to see.  He is not the Church.  You can view things objectively.  I do.  I support Dr. Peterson's work and continue to support him, but the Review in its format was completely inappropriate for BYU. 

And it was very mean-spirited.  BYU and Dr. Peterson were sued over one of the reviews.  I know.  I was a lawyer on the case.

Mean spirits tend to be part of apologia.  (I would further comment that FAIR tends to avoid being mean-spirited.) I've read Martin Luther's apologia and am rather shocked at his vulgar efforts at being mean-spirited.   I point specifically to comments made by Dr. John Sorenson about his fellow geography theorists in a 1976 BYU Studies article; he declared them to be threats to the Church. 

Edited December 14, 2019 by Bob Crockett

[Bob Crockett]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

No, meaning the four other editors who had requested clarification from Bradford and not received it according to my information.

I guess I feel compelled continually to defend my alma mater against critics, as I believe that BYU is almost the Church.  BYU did nothing wrong by the way it terminated Dr. Peterson as an editor, nor the way it notified other contributing editors.  Likely, BYU didn't even know that there were contributing editors.   It is unbelievable that folks would think that Dr. Peterson was abused in the way his editorship was removed.  It wasn't his employment.  It had nothing to do with his profession as a Arabic scholar.  BYU obviously wanted to move in a different direction and as a result the editor had to go.  If BYU decided it was not going to support football anymore the coach has to go.  It is isn't a condemnation of the coach; it is a condemnation of football.  BYU didn't replace Dr. Peterson.  The spot was eliminated.  Is that so hard to see?   

Edited December 14, 2019 by Bob Crockett

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I guess I feel compelled continually to defend my alma mater against critics, as I believe that BYU is almost the Church.  BYU did nothing wrong by the way it terminated Dr. Peterson as an editor, nor the way it notified other contributing editors.  Likely, BYU didn't even know that there were contributing editors.  

I am not criticizing BYU so if that is why you are posting, you no longer need to do so...I hope I made that clear by my comment that it was not BYU as a global entity that was involved in this.

The terminations were done by Bradford and he is the one deserving criticism for how they were done

And I do not think of BYU as "almost the Church" and thank goodness based on what I know about academic politics.

Sorry, strap...though obviously if I was really sorry, I wouldn't do it...but I am somewhat sorry.

Edited December 14, 2019 by Calm

[Bob Crockett]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not criticizing BYU so if that is why you are posting, you no longer need to do so...I hope I made that clear by my comment that it was not BYU as a global entity that was involved in this.

The terminations were done by Bradford and he is the one deserving criticism for how they were done

And I do not think of BYU as "almost the Church" and thank goodness based on what I know about academic politics.

Sorry, strap...though obviously if I was really sorry, I wouldn't do it...but I am somewhat sorry.

You see, therein lies a major difference of opinion about this whole episode.  I and many others maintain that Dr. Bradford is, indeed, BYU.  Had he not been BYU the action would not have been taken or, at a minimum, reversed by BYU.  It seems disingenuous to me to entertain the argument that Dr. Bradford was a rogue.  Everything I've seen about the reinvention of the Maxwell Institute appears to indicate that this was a deliberate move by BYU.  I spent several hours at dinner once with Spencer Fluhman talking about the Institute's reinvention and the support the Brethren and the Administration have given the Institute.  

Edited December 14, 2019 by Bob Crockett

[Scott Lloyd]

38 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

As I pointed out years ago, BYU was prohibited from talking about a personnel issue. But it is very easy to put 2 and 2 together by reading the emails and understanding that the decision was never reversed by BYU, meaning, it approved it.  I would venture to say that the only persons who think that Dr. Peterson was treated unfairly are those unwilling to see.  He is not the Church.  You can view things objectively.  I do.  I support Dr. Peterson's work and continue to support him, but the Review in its format was completely inappropriate for BYU. 

And it was very mean-spirited.  BYU and Dr. Peterson were sued over one of the reviews.  I know.  I was a lawyer on the case.

Mean spirits tend to be part of apologia.  (I would further comment that FAIR tends to avoid being mean-spirited.) I've read Martin Luther's apologia and am rather shocked at his vulgar efforts at being mean-spirited.   I point specifically to comments made by Dr. John Sorenson about his fellow geography theorists in a 1976 BYU Studies article; he declared them to be threats to the Church. 

So because “BYU is prohibited from talking about personnel issues,” a man and his reputation fall prey to purveyors of “gossip and storytelling.” 
 

Something is wrong with this picture. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

You see, therein lies a major difference of opinion about this whole episode.  I and many others maintain that Dr. Bradford is, indeed, BYU.  Had he not been BYU the action would not have been taken or, at a minimum, reversed by BYU.  It seems disingenuous to me to entertain the argument that Dr. Bradford was a rogue.  Everything I've seen about the reinvention of the Maxwell Institute appears to indicate that this was a deliberate move by BYU.  I spent several hours at dinner once with Spencer Fluhman talking about the Institute's reinvention and the support the Brethren and the Administration have given the Institute.  

Including requiring the divestiture of what became of Mormon Studies Review after Dan was removed as editor? 
 

Apparently it didn’t live up to Jerry Bradford’s vision. That, or his vision was not quite what the Brethren or the university wanted. 

Edited December 14, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

31 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

You see, therein lies a major difference of opinion about this whole episode.  I and many others maintain that Dr. Bradford is, indeed, BYU.  Had he not been BYU the action would not have been taken or, at a minimum, reversed by BYU.  It seems disingenuous to me to entertain the argument that Dr. Bradford was a rouge.  Everything I've seen about the reinvention of the Maxwell Institute appears to indicate that this was a deliberate move by BYU.  I spent several hours at dinner once with Spencer Fluhman talking about the Institute's reinvention.   

I have no doubt that there were powers involved with BYU that approved of the action, either before or after.  I know there were powers involved with BYU who did not.  The result is, imo, due to the fact that the ones who approved were the more aggressive.

I find it ridiculous from my long observation of professors and administrations to claim that a department head or a director of an institute is somehow the university itself.  Maybe there is some justification in claiming that for a university president, but even there knowing of struggles that a few presidents have gone through trying to implement their vision of the university they head it seems to me a stretch to see them as the personification of the university as a whole.

That says nothing though as to the appropriateness and professionalism of Bradford demonstrated by his firing of Dan when he was out of the country to fire him (I am not debating here whether Bradford should have fired Dan though I have an opinion on that), and his refusal to respond to requests for info by other editors concerned if they were fired or not.

That is the one issue I am dealing with in this thread because you stated it as a fact that Bradford had tried to meet with Dan contrary to what Dan has said from practically day 1 (it was actually dated day 3 in my archive) and now since Dan has again stated there was no contacting of him for any such meeting, you are apparently presenting him as a liar or delusional or incompetent himself if he missed requests for meetings from his boss since you continue to assert Bradford meant to fire Dan prior to his leaving.

Edited December 14, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So because “BYU is prohibited from talking about personnel issues,” a man and his reputation fall prey to purveyors of “gossip and storytelling.” 
 

Something is wrong with this picture. 

Bradford's reputation hasn't been helped either.

 Imo, it is a reasonable position not to talk about personnel issues.  Unfortunately in this case one involved allowed for leaks to do the talking, which led to a needed defense.  And also unfortunately this hasn't stopped some pretty twisted narratives from becoming "common knowledge".

[Calm]

Can we start another thread if anyone feels the need to continue this subtopic? 

[Bob Crockett]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

Bradford's reputation hasn't been helped either.

 Imo, it is a reasonable position not to talk about personnel issues.  Unfortunately in this case one involved allowed for leaks to do the talking, which led to a needed defense.  And also unfortunately this hasn't stopped some pretty twisted narratives from becoming "common knowledge".

I have a lot of respect for you, really.  But your view of this tale defies reason.  If your view were correct, then at some point in time BYU would have stepped in to right the wrong.  Instead, it created this entirely new Maxwell Institute superstructure, a completely different approach to academics relating to Neal Maxwell's vision.  That wasn't the work of some rogue professors.  That was BYU"s vision.  It passed the review and approval of many people; it hired an administrator.  It created a new website.  It has made it difficult to locate old Review articles.  All that is deliberate, planned and and institutionalized, from the change of the editor to today.  There were many opportunities for BYU to say -- hey, we did wrong here.  I imagine Dr. Peterson appealed his cause to the Administration and they turned him down.  Or else he didn't because he knew he would be turned down.  Somehow I don't see Dr. Peterson going down without a fight.  What may have been the work of rogue professors was now institutionalized. 

Again, I think that this is what God really intended for Dan.  He is doing far better now, and I very much prefer the style and approach of the Interpreter.  He may decry my interpretation of events, but he knows that I support him, I consider him a friend and colleague, I have his back and I back up my views with my money.

Edited December 14, 2019 by Bob Crockett

[Calm]

Quote

But your view of this tale defies reason.  If your view were correct, then at some point in time BYU would have stepped in to right the wrong

You obviously don't understand my view if that is what you see as it implying.  I never claimed Bradford was rogue.  I don't view BYU as monolithic.  I am not going to keep clarifying what are misrepresentations of my positions.

Edited December 14, 2019 by Calm

[Bob Crockett]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

You obviously don't understand my view if that is what you see as it implying.  I never claimed Bradford was rogue.  I don't view BYU as monolithic.

I understand your view entirely.  Under the law (I'm sorry to be a lawyer now), an institution becomes "monolithic" if it ratifies something.  BYU has done that.  It matters not there were dissenting professors, although I've never heard of any.  What matters is the institutional decision.  The institution has spoken.  Classic ratification occurs when an institution fails to make a change after having been provided notice of a claimed wrong, if the institution had the power to change.  BYU did much more than remain silent.  It erected an entire superstructure of the Institute antithetical to Dan's vision.  It committed a website, money and new employees.

Pretend it's General Motors.   Two out of seven board members oppose the building of the Corvair, arguing that it can't make money and is a waste of effort.  A vote is taken, the Corvair is built.  When somebody later sues over the Corvair's deficiencies, GM can't argue that the Corvair was unauthorized by GM and that GM is not monolithic.   Or pretend it's the University of Utah.  Four out of nine board members oppose the opening of a dental school.  The vote is taken, the dental school is opened.  Board members who opposed resign in protest or are invited to leave.  The University has spoken, monolithically. 

Edited December 14, 2019 by Bob Crockett

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I understand your view entirely.  

And yet you continue to ignore the only thing I am dwelling on.

A mind reader you are not.

Guess what...I don't disagree with anything in your last post.

But there are other ways to discuss events besides the legal paradigm.

And Bradford being the legal representative or whatever for the MI does not magically create requests from him for meetings or returned phone calls and emails or turn unprofessional behaviour into professional.

Edited December 14, 2019 by Calm

[Bob Crockett]

"Unprofessonal?"  Really.  Comparing the two emails you conclude Dr. Bradford is unprofessional?

I don't pretend to mindread.  I go off of your posts and I also post with my own reputation and name at stake.

Edited December 14, 2019 by Bob Crockett

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

"Unprofessonal?"  Really.  Comparing the two emails you conclude Dr. Bradford is unprofessional?

I don't pretend to mindread.  I go off of your posts and I also post with my own reputation and name at stake.

When you tell me what my view is rather than allowing me to state it, that is mindreading.

Unprofessionalism is not determined on a curve.

Firing through an email when someone is on vacation and not returning calls or emails from employees asking if they were fired is unprofessional in my view.  If Bradford had fired Dan by email, but contacted the other editors or at least answered their request for info, I would be open to the possibility there was an issue that required that particular timing and that he may have tried to call Dan, but could not get through...though there is no indication in Bradford's email that he did so.  However, his unprofessional treatment of the other editors is in line with unprofessional treatment of Dan.

Dan's email was a personal response from someone pissed at being treated unprofessionally imo.  I have no problem saying it was unprofessional.  His however is understandable to me at least.  Doesn't mean if he had asked me if he should send it I would have said yes.  I have stopped my husband and a friend from sending something similar and wish someone had stopped me from sending off my own version awhile back.

However, I haven't been addressing the letters themselves, but your claim Bradford attempted to meet with Dan prior to him leaving.  Any reference to documentation is to support Dan's statement this did not happen.

edited to avoid getting even further off track...I am hopeless, strap.  Someone insisting I think something I don't pushes my buttons.

Edited December 14, 2019 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

On 12/13/2019 at 1:31 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

According to Dan, there were only three days between his lengthy meeting with Bradford and his departure on the tour. At what point during those three days did Bradford attempt a meeting only to be rebuffed by Peterson, and can you document that?

Still waiting for a response to this. A response from Bob Crockett

Edited to add: I think I got the number of days wrong. I think Dan said it was a couple of days. 

Edited December 15, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s not a reason all by itself for disregarding your thoughts, but you do tend to get names and individuals confused. You once contacted me by personal mail on this board thinking I was Scott Gordon, the president of FairMormon (then called FAIR). I was obliged to respond and tell you you had the wrong man. 

 

2 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Then you are free to disregard anything I say!!  

Not what I said.

[Bob Crockett]

I think in the balance the story that Dr. Peterson was fired unprofessionally overshadows and unreasonably derogates the following:

1.  He wasn't fired from a job. 

2.  He was asked to stay on and help and he refused. 

3.  BYU did not appreciate his work and wanted to distance itself and did. 

4.  His work was not suitable for a university. 

5.  His work deviated from the original plans for FARMS.  Uncertain as to the Institute. 

6.  The firing was a blessing in disguise. 

I think the only persons outraged are those who think that apologia is blood sport.  It shouldn't be. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I think in the balance the story that Dr. Peterson was fired unprofessionally overshadows and unreasonably derogates the following:

1.  He wasn't fired from a job. 

2.  He was asked to stay on and help and he refused. 

3.  BYU did not appreciate his work and wanted to distance itself and did. 

4.  His work was not suitable for a university. 

5.  His work deviated from the original plans for FARMS.  Uncertain as to the Institute. 

6.  The firing was a blessing in disguise. 

I think the only persons outraged are those who think that apologia is blood sport.  It shouldn't be. 

Apologia is what is denoted by the definition of the word: defense. Any position worth holding is worth defending, and defending vigorously if necessary. 
 

By the way, are you going to respond to my question reiterated a few posts above?

Edited December 14, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[sunstoned]

This is an interesting conversation, but it has drifted from the intent of the OP.  Perhaps we should start a new thread for this?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

This is an interesting conversation, but it has drifted from the intent of the OP.  Perhaps we should start a new thread for this?

As I understand it, the intent of this thread is to pay homage to the memory of Bill Hamblin. I’m fairly confident Bill, were he still with us, would be more than a little annoyed at the weird rendition here regarding the hostile takeover of the Maxwell Institute, which he repeatedly referred to as a “junta.”  I think it does honor to his memory to keep the record straight on that matter as he would have done. 

[InCognitus]

I will miss brother Hamblin.  When I heard this news, I read through some of the old files on my computer dated to the early 90's from morm-ant, since some of my earliest memories of him are from that mailing list.  Some of them were quite fun to read again.  I will miss him.

[Bob Crockett]

On 12/13/2019 at 9:54 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

As I understand it, the intent of this thread is to pay homage to the memory of Bill Hamblin. I’m fairly confident Bill, were he still with us, would be more than a little annoyed at the weird rendition here regarding the hostile takeover of the Maxwell Institute, which he repeatedly referred to as a “junta.”  I think it does honor to his memory to keep the record straight on that matter as he would have done. 

Yes I recall him making that comment?  Do you believe it to have been a junta?  Wouldn't that have been against BYU?

Bill was a much better man that I am.  I think we were the same age.  I would have loved to have had his brains and learning and job.  It would have been quite satisfying. But I certainly grant him the right to object to the manner in which the Review came to an end.  I can see how it would have been contrary to Elder Maxwell's desires and how it could have deviated from the fundraising promises made.  Certainly all that should have been considered by BYU, but in the end the Review and the Journal weren't consistent with university objectives.  They had to come to an end somehow. Somebody would have been offended.  The Review should not have been permitted its direction in the first place, had BYU been paying attention. 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Yes I recall him making that comment?  Do you believe it to have been a junta?  Wouldn't that have been against BYU?

Bill was a much better man that I am.  I think we were the same age.  I would have loved to have had his brains and learning and job.  It would have been quite satisfying. But I certainly grant him the right to object to the manner in which the Review came to an end.  I can see how it would have been contrary to Elder Maxwell's desires and how it could have deviated from the fundraising promises made.  Certainly all that should have been considered by BYU, but in the end the Review and the Journal weren't consistent with university objectives.  They had to come to an end somehow. Somebody would have been offended.  The Review should not have been permitted its direction in the first place, had BYU been paying attention. 

If “BYU” wasn’t paying attention in the first place, what makes you think it was paying all that much attention when the junta transpired? 
 

The sense I get as an outside observer is that it was an instance of internecine politics run amok. 

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If “BYU” wasn’t paying attention in the first place, what makes you think it was paying all that much attention when the junta transpired? 
 

The sense I get as an outside observer is that it was an instance of internecine politics run amok. 

There are internal politics everywhere.  But when the issue reaches the level of notoriety this one has, and BYU has hardened with funds, hiring, webside and new programming, it is more than internal politics.  Whether or not the President of the University authorized the action in advance is now meaningless.  That is the point that many Peterson defenders completely miss.