Unhireable in Mormon Studies
There’s an interesting article in today’s Wall Street Journal. It’s about the relationship between religious groups and studies on these groups. The featured interview is with Michael Quinn who says he can’t get a job in Mormon Studies because most of the Mormon Studies programs at various colleges are sponsored by Mormons. The story is for subscribers only. But I’ll include a few snippets.
Although Mormon studies is a fast-growing academic discipline, Mr. Quinn — a former professor at Mormon-run Brigham Young University and the author of six books on Mormon history — can’t find a job. In 2004, he was the leading candidate for openings at two state universities. Both rejected him.
At least three other secular schools plan new professorships in Mormon studies, but he appears to be a long shot for these posts, too — not because he lacks qualifications, but because almost all the funding for the jobs is coming from Mormon donors.
“At this point, I’m unhireable,” says the 62-year-old scholar, who lives with his mother to save money in this town east of Los Angeles.
Mr. Quinn’s struggles reflect the rising influence of religious groups over the teaching of their faiths at secular colleges, despite concerns about academic freedom. U.S. universities have usually hired religious-studies professors regardless of whether they practiced or admired the faiths they researched. But some universities are bending to the views of private donors and state legislators by hiring the faithful.
“If you want to succeed in Mormon studies you have to make compromises and you have to tread gently,” says Colleen McDannell, a professor of American religions at the University of Utah. “Michael would not do that.”
Later they talk with Rolfe Kerr the commissioner of education for the Church who says that Quinn is highly regarded and that the Church’s wouldn’t “campaign against him” for any academic post. (Can I admit that I didn’t even know we had a commissioner of education nor do I have a clue what it does?) Kerr suggests that it is more a general perception problem. Whether that’s because of some of his writings or just the excommunication isn’t clear. But I suspect that’s correct. Although one can’t help but wonder about the State colleges like the University of Utah. Until recently they wouldn’t give Mormon Studies the time of day. But I just have a hard time seeing non-Mormon colleges being that concerned about Quinn’s issues with the Church. Unless the only reason these colleges even do Mormon Studies is because of large donations by Mormons who don’t like Quinn.
The story goes on to say that this trend of hiring chairs on faiths underwritten by members of that faith goes back to the rise of Judaic Studies in the 70′s. Now they are fairly common for many religions. But is it a problem? Should Universities be hiring on topics that narrow?
Interestingly the problems may even affect places like Claremont.
The school of religion at Claremont Graduate University, a private institution in Claremont, Calif., has raised $2.5 million, pledged primarily by California Muslims, for a new endowed professorship in Islamic studies. It hired a Muslim last year to fill it. Claremont has plans to raise funds for at least seven more religious chairs — in Mormonism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism and Coptic Orthodoxy.
For each position, Claremont has established an advisory council composed mainly of believers. Councils are expected to raise funds and have a voice in hiring via a representative on the search committee. “We don’t want any bomb-throwers” in the chairs, says Karen Torjesen, dean of Claremont’s religion school.
Emory’s Prof. DeConcini, who is also executive director of the American Academy of Religion, the main association of professors in the field, says Claremont’s approach “is potentially fraught with difficulties for academic freedom.” Claremont officials say they are preserving academic freedom because the university, not the search committee, makes the final hiring decision.
Harvard University’s divinity school is close to filling a professorship in evangelical theological studies funded by Alonzo L. McDonald, an evangelical Christian and former White House staff director who runs a Michigan investment group. Mr. McDonald says the scholar should be “understanding and empathetic” toward evangelical traditions. Harvard’s general counsel advised the school that it cannot legally ask job applicants about their religious beliefs. The 1964 Civil Rights Act bans religious discrimination in hiring at secular schools.
The school’s faculty recently recommended hiring a specialist in evangelical history whose work is unlikely to ruffle the faithful, say faculty members.
Going back to Quinn, despite the statements by the person from the Church, the WSJ does note in 2003 that the Church thratened to withdraw funding for a Conference it was sponsoring if Quinn spoke at it. Noel Reynolds, interviewed in the article, said this was so “the conference not be used to promote personalities or personal complaints about the church.” Yale demanded Quinn speak. The conflict was resolved when Quinn introduced a speaker rather than present a paper.
Which brings us back to the UoU and its Mormon Studies Program.
The following year, Mr. Quinn was the only finalist for a tenured professorship in Utah and Mormon history at the University of Utah. At Mr. Quinn’s request, Thomas Alexander, a BYU historian, wrote a recommendation for him. But while Prof. Alexander praised him as a scholar and teacher in his recommendation, he advised against hiring Mr. Quinn, warning that the Mormon-dominated state legislature might cut the public university’s funding.
When Mr. Quinn came to the school’s Salt Lake City campus for a job interview, history professor James Clayton hosted a reception for him. Prof. Clayton had been Mr. Quinn’s friend for years, and joined him in criticizing church censorship. He describes Mr. Quinn as the second-best historian of Mormonism, behind retired Columbia University professor Richard Bushman.
Nevertheless, when Utah’s faculty voted on whether to offer Mr. Quinn the job, Prof. Clayton opposed him. Now retired, he says: “There was a concern by several of us in the department that Mike was not the right person to head up any kind of Mormon history or Mormon studies program given the fact he’s very publicly excommunicated. There would be quite a number of people in the Mormon community who would look unfavorably on that. That gave me pause.”
Robert Newman, dean of humanities at Utah, says the history department decided against hiring Mr. Quinn because his research presentation wasn’t strong enough and most of his books weren’t published by university presses. Utah eventually downgraded the opening to an assistant professorship and filled it with an active Mormon church member.
Soon another school beckoned. Arizona State University’s department of religious studies recommended to the university administration that Mr. Quinn be offered a one-year appointment for 2004-05. It was starting a doctoral-degree program with a focus on religion in the Americas. Aware that Mr. Quinn was controversial, the faculty took pains to stress to administrators that his scholarship was first-rate, says Tracy Fessenden, a professor of American religions.
. . .
ASU’s administration vetoed Mr. Quinn’s hiring. Simon Peacock, then associate dean for personnel, says Mr. Quinn lacked expertise to teach Christianity and Judaism courses left uncovered by a professor’s departure. Mr. Peacock says Mr. Quinn’s excommunication was discussed but had no effect on the decision.
However, the chairman of the religious-studies department, Joel Gereboff, wrote in an email to faculty that Dean Peacock and another dean asked him to review the “risks and benefits” of the hire and “thought that it is probably not wise to undertake such risks” for a one-year appointment. Prof. Gereboff says the deans were referring to the risk of alienating the Mormon community.
Several professors criticized the decision. “What the administration is doing is as wrong as racial or sexual discrimination,” James Foard, a religious-studies professor, emailed colleagues. The administrators stood their ground.
My own view? Well, I’m conflicted. I think that ultimately to have academic respect to Mormon Studies we have to compete in the arena of ideas and that includes voices we may not like. However at the same time, if I were donating millions of dollars to an University, I’d definitely like a say in how that money was spent. Your thoughts?
Whoops. Justin wrote a similar post the same time I wrote mine.
Comment by Clark Goble — April 6, 2006 @ 12:03 pm
Whoops again – sorry Justin runs Mormon Wasp. And they deleted their link for some reason. [Edit: It's working again]
Comment by Clark Goble — April 6, 2006 @ 12:14 pm
I think the commissioner of education is over all of CES including BYU(s). Elder Eyring, Maxwell, and (I think) Holland have held that position (pre-Apostle).
Comment by Jared — April 6, 2006 @ 12:29 pm
I had posted a comment on Justin’s post but since his post has been taken down, I will post it here:
So true is the old adage “You reap what you sow.”
Comment by Michael — April 6, 2006 @ 12:46 pm
Michael – I’m not sure if you’re saying that Quinn deserves to be jobless because he’s been excommunicated. If you are, I disagree. I think what Jim Clayton said is both accurate and unfortunate.
Comment by Matt Bowman — April 6, 2006 @ 1:09 pm
I guess I would be conflicted on this matter as well. I’m glad it’s not my problem to deal with.
One thought that is off topic. This guy lives with his mother? Doesn’t he get some kind of pension?
Comment by Ian M. Cook — April 6, 2006 @ 1:15 pm
Matt,
I was not thinking just of the excommunication part. I was thinking of the divisiveness that so many religious “scholars” pursue in the name of vanity. It is totally beyond my comprehension how someone who wishes to teach about a religion does not accept and understand how faith is the primary motivation behind the history of the religion.
Yes, you can go ahead and teach the earthly actions and consequences but without faith you approach your studies from a purely secular standpoint which provides no eternal perspective in which to analyse those actions. So why would any university hire a religious studies professor who does not know how to use faith to understand the religion they study?
If I was being considered for a position as a scientist but did not accept, understand or use the scientific method, would you still hire me?
If I was being considered for a position as a computer programmer but did not accept, understand or use the programming languages, should I be a viable candidate?
The position is for a religious studies professor, not a history professor. Therefore, the candidate should accept, understand and use faith. Why would Mr. Quinn be surprised at the reaction he is receiving?
NOTE: The same would apply to all those “so-called” religious scholars at every instituion of higher learning (whether secular or religious-owned). You are not a religious scholar unless you understand how to use the tools of your area of expertise. They are merely historians trying to understand and interpret religion using the wrong tools.
Comment by Michael — April 6, 2006 @ 1:42 pm
Regarding the issue of whether or not we should care about hiring professors to teach Mormon Studies who are themselves Mormon: Who would you prefer to hire to teach French? The lettered non-native speaker or the lettered native speaker? All things being equal, I’d rather hire the native speaker. The non-native speaker had better have absolutely stellar qualifications be hired over a native speaker. Some of you may disagree with me but I think excommunication makes too big a black mark. By getting himself excommunicated, he’s proven that there is a vital disconnect between himself and Mormonism. I wouldn’t want him teaching Mormon Studies because I’d worry about the tone he brought to the discussions.
Comment by Proud Daughter of Eve — April 6, 2006 @ 1:46 pm
Michael, it’s a little more complicated than that. How would you hire for a position in Latin American studies, for example? Or for American Government? You are right to stress method, but “scientific method” is not subject to much dispute, whereas “the proper method for approaching professional research and publishing on religious studies” is a concept about which there are differing views.
I do find the extent to which Quinn’s excommunication seems to have been an issue even for avowedly secular campuses to be troubling.
Comment by Dave — April 6, 2006 @ 1:48 pm
One thing to keep in mind when feeling sorry for Quinn’s job prospects is that very, very few people who pursue an esoteric subject can find jobs. Heavens, even in much broader fields like physics the opportunity to get a job in that field is extremely limited.
So one can feel for Quinn, but at the same time he pursued a field that at the time of his earlier years really had almost no job hope. I mean in the 70′s, where could you do Mormon Studies but BYU? It’s much more akin to being an Institute teacher and not wanting to do things the CES way.
The very opportunities for employment in Mormon Studies are both very recent and (it appears) largely funded by charitable donations with people who want some control over how their money is spent. It’s somewhat understandable.
I think the problem is that people want their cake and eat it too. They want research and funding for these esoteric fields but then want to do it their way.
I’m certainly not opposed in the least for Quinn to get a job. But shouldn’t people who want that avenue of research perhaps ante up some of the money? It seems these esoteric aspects of history are best done by “amateurs” (meaning they have an other job, not that they aren’t technically proficient) or else be able to justify somewhat the value to the public. Heavens, if we’re talking about spending public money I think it would be better spent increasing general science research and not research into Mormon Studies.
Comment by Clark Goble — April 6, 2006 @ 1:58 pm
I’m certainly not opposed in the least for Quinn to get a job.
I am
I find it hilarious to see Quinn presented in this way, because most certainly I find his scholarship wanting. I guess most people don’t look at all the footnotes in his books, but I have, and I’ve been burned, more than once. References to talks that don’t exist or that do, three pages later, and have nothing to do with the subject referenced, etc. The way I see it, really, is that the sad part about Quinn’s legacy is that somebody is going to have to go back and re-do all of his work.
Let me respond to one concern about this, that I’m certain might be raised: “Nonny, you’re an active, believing member, of course his work is suspect! He’s been exed!” The articles I found in which I found gunked up references appeared in BYU studies back in the day when Quinn was, presumably, a believing, active member of the church.
I would hesitate to hire Quinn on academic grounds, plain and simple, if I were on a hiring committee.
Comment by A. Nonny Mouse — April 6, 2006 @ 2:38 pm
Nonny’s got a good point. Note that one of the reasons he was turned down at Utah was “most of his books weren’t published by university presses.” In fact, most of his books have been published through Signature Books, which has a (well deserved) reputation for being the place where axe-grinders will find a sympathetic editorial process. (For all the complaints about peer review at FARMS, it’s simply non-existent at Signature.)
Most universities in the United States welcome socially liberal professors. A [Edited for unsubstantiated claim] excommunicated Mormon would be welcomed at many schools. The problem here is not Quinn’s lifestyle or beliefs, it’s his narrow range of scholarship based on unsupported accusations. (I’m thinking of Mormonism and the Magic World View in particular.)
Comment by Mike Parker — April 6, 2006 @ 2:58 pm
PDOE,
I have to disagree with you. It has been my experience that native speakers of a language are typically lazy and biased in their usage.
Someone who has had to start learning a language from the ground up is likely to have more empathy for the students and be more likely to teach the appropriate usage according to grammatical rules, instead of the native speaker teaching “Well, I always say….”
We could learn a little from Richard Bushman on this topic as well, whom, despite having time to edit, rewrite and draw upon his years as a seasoned professor of history, still admitted to being susceptible to some whitewashing due to his faith
Any thoughts?.
Comment by Ryan — April 6, 2006 @ 3:05 pm
It has been my experience that native speakers of a language are typically lazy and biased in their usage….
Any thoughts?
Wilfried Decoo probably has a few
My best grammar teachers in any language were the native speakers who were grammar nazi’s. Not only do they know the correct usage, but they know the rules, and when to break them. Nothin’ beats an educated native speaker when trying to learn a language. But, that’s the key: you have to have somebody who understands the grammar principles of their own language to get that kind of informed criticism.
While the analogy to teaching history might be strained, I’d have to agree with PDOE… a native university professor who’s equally qualified with a non-native for any teaching position would be preferrable.
Comment by A. Nonny Mouse — April 6, 2006 @ 3:12 pm
“the proper method for approaching professional research and publishing on religious studies is a concept about which there are differing views.”
Dave,
Could this be due to the refusal of the “professionals” to accept faith as a valid analytical method? I do acknowledge that, unfortunately, faith-based studies do not stand up to peer-review unless the peers agree to employ the same method as the researcher. That is why a testimony is so precious. It can only be obtained and nourished by personal diligence. It cannot be given.
But, really, isn’t that also true of all research? We can be told many scientific facts, but unless we are willing to verify the research ourselves using the same method employed by the original researcher, then we are merely believing what is told us.
Why do we place more credence upon scientific knowledge that we have not proven ourselves and less on spiritual knowledge that we have not proven? Isn’t it the exact same? Hasn’t the destruction of religious credibility become the main issue? And hasn’t that destruction been due to people realizing that the tests fail when they try them? And why do they fail? Because the test is not built upon eternal truths. Satan has been very effective at destroying religious credibility by mixing in the philosophies of men. That is why so many people refuse to test the real eternal truths as revealed by the prophets.
Comment by Michael — April 6, 2006 @ 3:48 pm
I think some of the comparisons proposed in some of the comments here are a little sloppy. I could learn a lot from a cow in large-animal-vetrinary school, but it probably wouldn’t be a good idea to put him in a lab coat and include him in faculty meetings. (I’m not making a direct comparison here, just trying to show a weakness in the formula.) In many fields, “membership” in the group that comprises the subject matter brings its own set of challenges, because there’s an inherent difficulty in stepping outside of one’s lifelong perspective. The “science” comparisons really don’t apply.
One of the best courses I took in grad school was on religion and culture in South India. One of the instructors was a Harvard-trained white guy who is one of the world’s foremost experts on esoteric branches of yoga. Did he “believe” in the stuff he was teaching? I have no idea–but I’m pretty sure that if he did, it was in a manner and/or to an extent quite different than the average adherent. Could he step inside the mind of the average adherent? After years of study and firsthand observation, yes, he could. But, crucially, as a scholar he could also step outside of the mind of the adherent.
We have an example of this in Mormon studies, don’t we? Jan Shipps?
In academia, both the insider and the outsider have to learn to switch perspectives. It’s frankly impossible to say, as some have proposed here, that one is inherently better than the other. If I’m on a faculty search committee (which, in fact, I’m currently on), and we’re looking for a French teacher (which, alas, I’m not), and we’ve got an American candidate whose knowledge of grammatical mechanics, idioms, dialects, matches that of a native French candidate, but the American happens to be more engaging or pedagogically aware in the classroom, the non-native scholar gets my vote. The fact is, its frankly impossible to predict those sorts of things based solely on nativity.
In Quinn’s particular case, I do think it’s unfortunate that he hasn’t found a position. He’s done some very important (if imperfect) scholarship. However, I do think it’s a little precious for him to be surprised at his predicament. I’m glad for the work he’s done, but I’ve also found his strident tone offputting. For example, like Quinn, I’d like to see a greater compassion towards homosexuals within the culture and institution of the church. Unlike Quinn, however, I don’t think the way to acheive that is for Quinn to examine (as he did recently) the racial history of the church and superimpose it upon the homosexuality issue. His conclusion, basically, was “You Mormons are a bunch of ignorant, bigoted, lugheads. You have always been ignorant, bigoted lugheads. And by all indications you will continue to be ignorant, bigoted lugheads. That said, why won’t you be nicer to us?”
It’s not just that it’s offputting to Mormons, it’s that it’s a tone of scholarship that’s offputting, period.
Comment by Jeremy — April 6, 2006 @ 4:08 pm
I think half the problem might be that Mormon Studies is so new . . . if you are only hiring one person, and that person will be setting the tone for the entire program, hiring someone who is exed seems like a bad idea. On the other hand, in 30 years when these programs have 3-4 profs and an established reputation, there will be room for someone like Quinn. I imagine programs are being extremely careful with the very first hire.
Comment by Julie M. Smith — April 6, 2006 @ 4:11 pm
Michael, to some degree I agree that rationality and verifiable research is not the only way of knowing. However, it is a way that is universally and easily understandable. How would you suggest scholars of different faiths communicate if not via the current system?
“It is totally beyond my comprehension how someone who wishes to teach about a religion does not accept and understand how faith is the primary motivation behind the history of the religion.”
It’s not necesary to have faith in a religion to recognize and respect that its adherents have it. I currently am doing research on the Puritans; I don’t share their beliefs, but I admire the intricacies and fervency of their faith. I believe that there’s value and understanding – even about my own religion – to be gained from such study. Say Jan Shipps, a Methodist, expressed interest in the Utah State Mormon Studies chair. Would you support her?
Given that, I don’t know that I share your assumption that the methods of history as they currently stand are incompatible with faith. I know that they have not been in my own experience; this is, I know, a position that such Mormon scholars as Richard Bushman agree with.
And for what it’s worth, within the last couple of years, I have personally heard Mike Quinn express his faith in the Restoration.
Comment by Matt Bowman — April 6, 2006 @ 4:17 pm
I tend to agree Julie, that this is partially due to the field being new.
I also tend to agree that some of Quinn’s work has been sloppy. Lots of footnotes that don’t hold up upon examination. Some point out that this is true of Nibley. But I think most of Nibley’s apologetics are taken on their own terms. I’d not hold them up as the kind of writing to get one academic tenure. Of course Nibley’s much earlier work did.
So the question then becomes, for a Mormon Studies program, what kind of scholarship do you want? Further, I think the issue of politics is important. Both in terms of funding but also respect. And that issue will vary from University to University. I suspect that if, for instance, George Smith had funded a Mormon Studies program rather than Signature that he’d want a few figures more in harmony with his own perspective on Mormon History.
The ultimate issue is, I think, to what degree people can write important papers on Mormon Studies. I remain convinced that ideally people should be more broadly educated and perhaps get a position in a broader field and then do some work in Mormon Studies.
Others might disagree.
Comment by Clark Goble — April 6, 2006 @ 4:28 pm
” I remain convinced that ideally people should be more broadly educated and perhaps get a position in a broader field and then do some work in Mormon Studies.”
Ditto. A deep sense of context is the great strength of Bushman’s biography. One of the great weaknesses of Mormon studies is its insularity and the closed loop that it encourages. Unfortunately, this is among Quinn’s flaws – he tends to try to establish context, as in _Magic World View_, by citing reams of anecdotes rather than demonstrating a strong sense of broader patterns.
Comment by Matt Bowman — April 6, 2006 @ 4:35 pm
I was in the History program at the University of Utah during the period in question. The history dept faculty gossiped about the selection process, especially after C. McDannell broke the traditional “vow of silence” over the inside workings of the hiring process.
Most of the professors I heard talk about the selection process, criticized Quinn because he didnt have any notable publications – and by notable, they meant notable in academia – no articles published by elite journals, no books by the elite publishers, etc. No offense to Dialogue and BYU Studies, but the History staff there just doesnt look at publications in those journals as These were NOT LDS history professors who opposed Quinn’s selection.
I think Quinn’s problem at the U reveals a lot more about problems with ACADEMIA than it reveals about Mormon influence on the selection process.
Comment by S — April 6, 2006 @ 5:37 pm
Julie –
That was the OTHER sentiment by many of the professors, especially Jim Clayton (I had his class that semester). He said that to NOT have a Mormon Studies program at the U was as ridiculous as if a University in Rome refused to recognize that Catholicism existed. I think that he felt that, if the Mormon Studies program were to get off on the right foot, it a) couldnt have a lightning rod for its sole, first professor, or few would sign up for his class, and b) the professor had to be of the highest calibre.
The history faculty decided that both those criteria were not met with D. Michael Quinn. But Jim Clayton also used to always say that “the university should be the disturber of the mind’s peace” – in other words, if the second criterion weighed HEAVILY IN FAVOR of Quinn, I think that the vote would have gone the other way, even if Quinn were a lightning rod.
Comment by S — April 6, 2006 @ 5:44 pm
I think that the vote would have gone the other way, even if Quinn were a lightning rod.
And here, I would posit that Quinn’s position as a lightning rod is his sole qualification… Somebody before brought up Jan Shipps. I don’t think anybody would disagree with the notion that if Jan Shipps were up for these same positions, she probably would have been hired in a heartbeat, even though she’s not LDS in any way, shape or form. Quinn’s only real traction in the Mormon Studies world comes from his being such a lightning rod. Because he’s not in the maintstream, it seems like some people think it’s “hip” to read Quinn and not take issue with what he says, or something. And that’s really all I see coming out of Quinn in the long view: a non-traditional, mostly hypothetical view of Mormon history. Which is okay, it just seems like it’s not that academic, or scholarly.
Comment by A. Nonny Mouse — April 6, 2006 @ 6:05 pm
Nonny Mouse, you are really mouthing off about Quinn’s scholarship with no particular credibility on the issue. Note this quote from the article: “Aware that Mr. Quinn was controversial, the [ASU dept. of religious studies] faculty took pains to stress to administrators that his scholarship was first-rate, says Tracy Fessenden, a professor of American religions.”
The article also quotes a U of U history professor as stating that Quinn was “the second-best historian of Mormonism, behind retired Columbia University professor Richard Bushman.” So are these academics just out in left field? Are they lying? Do they just not have your marvelous insight into the true measure of scholarship in this field?
I really think you are missing the point of the article and this whole discussion, which is why Quinn can’t get a position despite being one of the more qualified academics for the position. If he was just a poor scholar, there wouldn’t really be a story here, would there?
Comment by Dave — April 6, 2006 @ 6:23 pm
So are these academics just out in left field? Are they lying? Do they just not have your marvelous insight into the true measure of scholarship in this field?
I don’t have a marvelous measure of insight, I’ve just gone in search for his footnotes before, looking for the totally awesome documents he references and found them totally wrong.
If he was just a poor scholar, there wouldn’t really be a story here, would there?
And that, basically, is my point. He is kind of a poor scholar. If he were a better scholar don’t you think more of his books would be coming out of the Oxford or Illinois University presses rather than Signature books?
Comment by A. Nonny Mouse — April 6, 2006 @ 6:43 pm
To be fair though Nonny, while I fully agree Quinn’s been sloppy at times, I think that true of many, many highly respected figures. I often defend Nibley (who is, if anything sloppier) by appealing to Eliadi, Campbell and others. But I suspect the same could be said of Quinn. Yes he has had some bad books. But even those bad books, like Magic World View, were simultaneously tremendously important. And he has had several papers that within the LDS history community are amazingly respected.
While I think it completely fair to criticize particular claims or footnotes of Quinn, I think one has to acknowledge that he’s among the most respected figures in the Mormon Studies community. For better or worse. Pretending otherwise isn’t helpful.
As for why he publishes in Signature rather than Oxford or Illinois, I think that’s a fair point. I think many of his books could use an editor and would have been superior had they avoided one or two controversial points and been checked a bit better. But I think one has to focus both on the good he’s written along with some of the sloppier points. I’ll fully agree though that Quinn would have been better off in the long run had he been a little more careful.
Having said that even among professional historians many of his books are very, very accepted.
Comment by Clark Goble — April 6, 2006 @ 6:57 pm
Just a correction that I totally missed. Quinn’s Same-Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans was published by University of Illinois Press. So those arguing Quinn only publishes in Signature are just wrong. And doing a brief search academic reviews of the book were extremely positive.
We’re all familiar with the books flaws (and some would argue intentional misrepresentations) But misrepresenting the book as not being very respected academically is incorrect.
My apologies for not catching this earlier.
Comment by Clark Goble — April 6, 2006 @ 7:02 pm
I took several classes from Quinn when I was a student at BYU. I did not care for him all that much personally; he was aloof and curtly dismissive of political opinions different from his own. He was, however, a dynamic a charismatic teacher who was astonishingly thorough and deep with his material. I believe I learned more from him than any other teacher I had at that university. I have not encountered him personally since his excommunication, but he has publically expressed his belief in the gospel many times in print and in speeches. He would be an excellent resource for some university’s Mormon Studies program as long as the baggage he carries with him is acknowledged.
Comment by R.W. Rasband — April 6, 2006 @ 8:51 pm
Just a note. I edited by request Mike’s comment (#12). Mike said Quinn was a practicing homosexual which I don’t think is supportable. I admit many (myself included) assumed that from Quinn’s essay on homosexuality in Dialogue. However one should note that one can be gay in terms of intents and yet live the law of chastity. Indeed that’s what the Church asks of those with homosexual feelings. It seems deeply uncharitable to assume someone is fornicating. We don’t do that to heterosexuals and we shouldn’t do that to homosexuals.
Please let’s not turn this into a homosexual thread. There was plenty of discussion on that over at LDSLF last month. It’s just that people did ask that I remove the offending comment so I did.
Comment by Clark Goble — April 6, 2006 @ 10:03 pm
I don’t think being a non-member or being an excommunicated member has anything to do with it. It’s a matter of being notorious for producing numerous books that focus almost solely on matters apparently pre-selected to make the LDS Church or its leaders look bad.
Comment by Mark Butler — April 7, 2006 @ 1:27 am
One other point, Quinn is 62. If he had been 42 and if his footnotes had been more of the modern type of cites than the citation that passed in the classic era (and I’ve compared Nibley to Eliade myself, many scholars of that generation cited broadly for general inductive themes, rather deductively for selected points) I think he would have fared much better.
It is easy to start as a candidate who looks very good on paper, and who is well regarded in an area, yet have your work not really withstand scholarly substance tests. I think Quinn’s work fits in that area, flaws and merits both.
I have a nice, international reputation in my favorite area (just got called yesterday about going to Poland for a conference next year), but my work is all popular style work — and intentionally so. I’m gentle, but I make an effort to poin out that there are people with more “heft” to their writing. I’m mailing out a book to the Polish contact I made yesterday, and it isn’t one I wrote, to introduce him to the speaker he really wants (and would find, in time). In many ways I would not doubt that I’m as hireable as Quinn — with better footnotes and no axes to grind.
I’m 50 (which isn’t as bad as 62), and my publications may look good, and lots of people have read me (you can drop over to adrr.com to see what I’m referring to), but if I were going to move into academia I’d really need to write some more formal work.
Anyway, all of that said, it wasn’t the kindest cut to make Quinn the focus of a front page WSJ story on the general theme of the trials and issues of having private donors fund chairs in religious studies. And the story does not reach the two real problems Quinn has (other than in passing, and only by inference) — his age and what happens when his work gets a close look rather than general accolades.
Not to mention, I’m assuming that many of you have read the younger Quinn as he references what he treats as prophecies and an entitlement to a call to be the president of the Church as he uses that as authority for some of his positions. I found that off-putting.
However, it is sad to think he ended up living with his mother at age 62, not able to find employment, and wedded to ideas that reduce to charactures (not necessarily fairly), a symbol to many of what is wrong with homosexuals and scholars. Quinn, by himself, is responsible for many attitudes toward access to papers and other materials, the belief that scholars will find an axe to grind and will misrepresent their citations and the material to harm the Church and create attention for themselves.
Is that fair or correct? I’m not saying it is, but it is the way many feel from the way things went with Quinn. They had hoped for a second Nibley and they got an LDS Brokeback Mountain history, so to speak.
Anyway, I’m rambling, but the issue isn’t tidy.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — April 7, 2006 @ 6:09 am
I think the claim that Quinn is a sub-standard scholar aren’t supportable. He has done some very important research. On the other hand, like any other scholar he has some serious problems. Ultimately, he is a researcher, good at collecting a huge amount of detail. Unfortunately, he is not very good at synthesis at all, and frequently falls back on various versions of soft-leftist critique as a substitute (his Mormon Hierarchy books do this, I think). Lots of scholars do this, however. All this means, however, is that he shouldn’t be treated as the final word on anything (who should in academia, anyway!?!). Scholars with greater talents for synthesis should use his research as a spring board. In many ways, I think that this is what Richard Bushman has done at a rather general level. RSR does not contain any documentary surprises the way that Quinn’s work does, but Bushman can sythesize in a way that Quinn simply cannot.
Quinn is also sometimes sloppy with his footnotes. I don’t know of anyone who has spent substantial time trying to track down his sources who does not think that this is the case. (The same is true for much of Nibley’s stuff.) There are, I think, a couple of reasons for this. First, my understanding is that he writes his books from his notes, which have been compiled over a period of decades without necessarily returning to the orignal sources. Second, some of the documents that he references are no longer accessible to him, either because the Church archives have restricted access or simply because they are far distant. Third, he often offers very, very strained interpretations of particular sources.
Finally, he very badly ghettoized himself intellectually, first by never developing a specialty beyond Mormon studies, and second by publishing so much with Signature. In part, I think that he publishes with Signature because they are his friends and treat him well. One does what is comfortable. In fairness, beyond Illinois UP, academic presses have only recently been interested in Mormon studies. Also, at least some of his research has been funded by the Smith-Pettit Foundation, which is basically an arm of Signature Books (or rather both the Foundation and the Signature are projects of George Smith). I don’t see this as sinister. Just bad academic politics.
This is just my way of saying that both the academic demonization and deification of Quinn are misplaced. He is a solid and important scholar with some real problems.
For myself, I have heard several of his post-excommunication speeches, and I think that he continues to have a testimony of the Restoration, Joseph Smith’s prophetic calling, and the Book of Mormon.
Comment by Nate Oman — April 7, 2006 @ 9:52 am
All this looks way overanalyzed, but then, so seems nearly everything Quinn has been involved in for the last 20 years. Too bad so many prominent liberal figures transform themselves into self-destructing rock-star caricatures.
Perhaps Quinn lives with his aging mother because, as many old folks, she needs some full time live-in help, which would seem like a compassionate thing for a devoted son to give.
Regrettably, much of the rest of this comes across as unsubstantiated speculation, edging into puerile gossip.
Comment by Jim Cobabe — April 7, 2006 @ 11:31 am
Jim, unfortunately I think that true of conservative scholars at times as well. I’m hoping that we’re entering a new era of Mormon studies where the politics that plagued the field – especially in the 90′s – are behind us.
There has been on all sides a fair bit of insecurity regarding people writing in Mormon Studies. Even those who’ve done an outstanding job. When we reach the point where we don’t care that not everyone agrees with us and are more concerned with supportable claims than hype I think we’ll all be better off.
Comment by Clark Goble — April 7, 2006 @ 12:38 pm
Nate: First, my understanding is that he writes his books from his notes, which have been compiled over a period of decades without necessarily returning to the orignal sources. Second, some of the documents that he references are no longer accessible to him, either because the Church archives have restricted access or simply because they are far distant. Third, he often offers very, very strained interpretations of particular sources.
…
This is just my way of saying that both the academic demonization and deification of Quinn are misplaced. He is a solid and important scholar with some real problems.
I know I’m beating a dead horse. I know I shouldn’t be posting this comment because I look like an idiot saying I don’t think Quinn is a good academic so repeatedly, but I really, really want to understand this point, so I’m going to ask for it. Somebody hit me over the head with it because, I’m just apparently missing something really key here.
In the paragraphs I quoted from Nate, he says that 1. The underlying data on which Quinn bases his scholarship is often not reliable, and 2. that the conclusions which he draws from that data are often not reliable. I don’t understand how those two facts lead to the conclusion that Quinn “has done important research” or that “he is an important scholar.” If both the underlying data on which he makes his interpretation are flawed and the interpretation itself is flawed, even if the data were correct, how does that make his scholarship even worth reading? Isn’t that the definition of bad scholarship? Drawing bad conclusions from bad data?
Getting back to the originaly topic, doesn’t that fact alone (Quinn’s drawing bad conclusions from bad data) make the point of the article kind of moot? If there are real academic concerns about his work, do the “wealthy and powerful Mormon Donors” really have to pull strings to get him out of the running for a university chair?
Comment by A. Nonny Mouse — April 7, 2006 @ 2:53 pm
ANM: It doesn’t invalidate Quinn’s work because to a greater or lesser degree all scholarship consists of drawing bad conclusions from bad data. There is a sense in which you are allowed to be wrong, so long as you are wrong in interesting and useful ways.
Quinn’s work is not so sloppy as to suggest that he is intentionally fabricating things. Furthermore, much of the sloppyness comes from his penchant for wanting to cite every possible bit of supporting evidence for his claims. Suppose that he makes claim X supported by evidence A, B, C, and D. As it happens, I think that claim X is out to lunch. I think his interpretation is wrong. This doesn’t mean he isn’t a good scholar. Claim X is perhaps plausible in light of A, B, and C, even if I think utlimately the claim is mistaken. The question now arises as to D, which turns out to be misquoted. Does the presence of D mean that Quinn’s work is intellectually bankrupt? Of course not. It means that he is (1) wrong; and, (2) sloppy at the edges.
The dirty little secret is that everyone is (1) wrong; and, (2) sloppy at the edges. Quinn may be more sloppy at the edges than some, on the other hand he has more stuff in his footnotes. This is dangerous if you take the footnotes as being rhetorical devices — look at all this stuff; I must be right. On the other hand, if you look at the footnotes as resources — look here are some sources that I might want to take a look at — it is very useful. One of the reasons that Quinn is important is because he has forced others to think about issues even when his own interpretations have been overblown or wrong.
As for Quinn, I would not be surprised if his other academic faults — especially the self-ghettoization within Mormon studies — were sufficient to sink his chances of an academic job sans the ideological problems.
Comment by Nate Oman — April 7, 2006 @ 6:38 pm
Another sad chapter in academia…
Quinn is an award winning Ivy league trained academic that brought to light through his work disturbing historical LDS realities. Realities which in my opinion had his work and dedication not surfaced we all would be none the wiser. Unfortunately, church loyalty and seeking academic truth arent ALWAYS synonomous. They (LDS Leadership) get to decide what constitutes supreme loyalty and we all know what gets rewarded.
The problem with Quinn is that they could not contain him and keep his scholarship within the confines of LDS interpretations. Why would they now not use their influential overreach and help quash any appointment he might seek? Its their money, right? They want the last word on what really is historical, right?
We can debate citings and footnotes and how he arrived at his conclusions, but we’re also talking about a past that has been tightly controlled and stored in vaults throughout the Wasatch. What academic wants to do battle with that type of control? In light of those realities and the fear he probably felt knowing excommunication a possiblitiy its amazing he published what he did.
As a side note directed toward the 50 year old gentlemen using age as a possible reason for denial ( I’m 50 (which isn’t as bad as 62), Id ask if he’d like the same criticisms turned toward the LDS leadership and really question do we want a system in place that allows for a 95 year old President to oversee a multi-billion dollar empire? You get the point…
Comment by David — April 7, 2006 @ 7:52 pm
know I’m beating a dead horse. I know I shouldn’t be posting this comment because I look like an idiot saying I don’t think Quinn is a good academic so repeatedly, but I really, really want to understand this point, so I’m going to ask for it. Somebody hit me over the head with it because, I’m just apparently missing something really key here.
Nope, the guy from the UoU that posted here agreed with you.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — April 7, 2006 @ 9:48 pm
As a side note directed toward the 50 year old gentlemen using age as a possible reason for denial ( I’m 50 (which isn’t as bad as 62), Id ask if he’d like the same criticisms turned toward the LDS leadership and really question do we want a system in place that allows for a 95 year old President to oversee a multi-billion dollar empire? You get the point
No, the point is that in academics, there is some bias against older people. It makes a difference in getting a job.
I’m not using that as a criticism of Quinn, just pointing out that it is a factor — much like he would have had problems in a different age if he were Black.
Since I’m only discussing bias, it is, of course, ironic that you perpetuate age based bias in the follow-up conclusion you draw.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — April 7, 2006 @ 9:54 pm
Id like to know how many current LDS historical scholars currently teaching have this kind of resume. I would also like to know how many exist outside the state of Utah. Its amazing that a man with this kind of background and achievements is denied employment in this day and age. UNBELIEVABLE….
D. Michael Quinn is a former professor of history at Brigham Young University. His accolades include the Samuel F. Bemis, the George W. Egleston, and the Frederick W. Beinecke prizes; Best Book and Best Article awards from the Mormon History Association; “Outstanding Teacher” by vote of graduating BYU seniors; and invitations to lecture at the University of Paris’s Fondation de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme and other similar venues. He is the author of J. Reuben Clark: The Church Years; Early Mormonism and the Magic World View; The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power; The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power; and Same-Sex Dynamics Among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example. He is the editor of The New Mormon History: Revisionist Essays on the Past and a contributing author to American National Biography; Faithful History: Essays on Writing Mormon History; Fundamentalisms and Society: Reclaiming the Sciences, the Family, and Education; Reader’s Encyclopedia of the American West; Under an Open Sky: Rethinking America’s Western Past; and Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism. His research honorariums include grants from the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Council of Learned Societies, the Henry E. Huntington Library, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Mrs. Giles Whiting Foundation, Yale University, and others.
Comment by David — April 8, 2006 @ 4:21 am
David: The problem is that it doesn’t seem to be the case just that Quinn cannot get a job at institutions that care about Mormon donors. He can’t seem to get a job at an institution that doesn’t care about them either. This, I think, has much much less to do with the insidious influence of The Brethren, than it does with the generally tight state of the academic job market and the extreme ghettoization of Mormon studies, a ghettoization that for better or for worse, Quinn seems to partake of. I do think that it would be great if he could get an academic job.
Comment by Nate Oman — April 8, 2006 @ 8:38 pm
“Its amazing that a man with this kind of background and achievements is denied employment in this day and age. UNBELIEVABLE.”
Not really. Do you have any idea how tiny the universe of academic positions for exclusive specialists in Mormon history is? At present, the answer is that outside of BYU, not a single such position exists on the face of the planet. (Unless one counts the vague view among some of the U. of U. history faculty that they ought to have someone who does Mormon history.)
Quinn’s situation is sad, but let’s not romaticize the size of the academic Mormon studies universe.
Comment by Nate Oman — April 8, 2006 @ 8:43 pm
David — we are talking about a job universe of three or four jobs, and he is one of about forty people competing for them.
Go and browse http://invisibleadjunct.com/ for other people who couldn’t get jobs.
Even worse, in this area, almost all the jobs are funded by donors who are unwilling to fund Quinn.
But, Quinn’s credits are similar to those of lots of academics who can’t currently find jobs or who couldn’t get tenure, and, as others have noted he has two problems:
1. He is in a very small universe
2. When looked at closely, he has flaws (as do we all, mind you).
A laundry list isn’t enough — it isn’t enough for anyone.
Heck, I’ve got over forty publications, teaching accolades, and just got a call this week to ask if I’d consider headlining a conference in Poland next year. I’m not employable, not really, in academia (though I am very employable as a litigator — last month I won seven cases through summary disposition — so I’m not doing so badly as one either).
I feel badly for Quinn, to be over sixty, living with your mother, and to not president of the quorum of the twelve as he predicted — that has to be hard.
But he is not unique, nor is what happened to him untoward in terms of the general universe.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — April 9, 2006 @ 10:36 am
If Quinn is qualified, he is qualified. Would it be honest scholarship if all Mormon studies were headed by active Mormons? The critical views Mr. Quinn may have are valuable if they are qualified or backed up with scholarship. His lack of faith in the religion does not preclude him from understanding the faith required for the sacrifices made inside Mormonism.
The cost of censoring qualified, critical scholarship of the Church is that educated and truly curious persons outside of the church may view it as a red light and insecurity inside our own faith regarding the legitamacy of its history.
The success of Jewish public relations in the US (Jewish endowments, studies, on-campus supports, donations and other manipulations of soft power) however, may provide a convincing argument that critical views can and should be squashed. Jewish groups have successfully made it academically perilous to do any open and publicized criticism of Jewish institutions in the US and in US-Israeli politics abroad.
So in the end, it comes down to a balancing of the credibility of Mormon Studies among scholars vs the harm posed by critical and credible veiws.
I think that it is a difficult question. I don’t know if I wouldn’t do exactly the same as those donors and push for friendly hirings.
Comment by Sam Goble — April 9, 2006 @ 12:13 pm
Sam, well …
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/srlabrat.htm
Is the guy discussed there qualified or not? Qualified for what? Qualified in comparison to whom?
It is not as if Mormon Studies is a large academic area. It is about as hard to get a spot in Mormon Studies as it is to get a place on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Qualified in that context means a lot of things.
Reprising a prior post:
I was in the History program at the University of Utah during the period in question. The history dept faculty gossiped about the selection process, especially after C. McDannell broke the traditional “vow of silence†over the inside workings of the hiring process.
Most of the professors I heard talk about the selection process, criticized Quinn because he didnt have any notable publications – and by notable, they meant notable in academia – no articles published by elite journals, no books by the elite publishers, etc. No offense to Dialogue and BYU Studies, but the History staff there just doesnt look at publications in those journals as These were NOT LDS history professors who opposed Quinn’s selection.
I think Quinn’s problem at the U reveals a lot more about problems with ACADEMIA than it reveals about Mormon influence on the selection process.
and
This is just my way of saying that both the academic demonization and deification of Quinn are misplaced. He is a solid and important scholar with some real problems.
Finally
a balancing of the credibility of Mormon Studies won’t be hurt at all by at least thirty of the forty or so people competing for those 3-4 possible jobs. That is the important point. Take a deep breath and look at the people who end up with the jobs.
The general quality of those who get tenure track positions these days is incredibly high. I don’t see any problem with endowed chairs in Mormon Studies having trouble because the person they finally take is a younger scholar with “legs” (meaning you expect them to still be teaching twenty years from now and still expect their publications to bear up).
Bottom line: Quinn’s problems are not contiguous with any real issues in the nascent field of Mormon Studies.
They are a matter of personal tragedy, not general dismay.
Sad (very sad).
As I said:
But to say “If Quinn is qualified, then he is qualified” is meaningless in the context of a universe with many, many, many qualified scholars, all hoping for employment.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — April 9, 2006 @ 6:29 pm
I appreciate all the points on this matter. Accolades, training and awards aside, Quin is a man who had his nose buried in LDS archives and vaults for 15 years of his adult life. Hes unravelled and seen a prodigious amount of information and then produced some towering publications on what he found out. Im not sure if Quinn’s competition can make similar claims.
If his souces and info are suspect lets open up the books and the vaults and challenge what he wrote. Mormon history has a complex and storied past in its relation to America and the formation of the West. Theres more to the story outside the documentation of courageous pioneers and the directives and influence of Brigham Young.
Maybe if Quinn had some training in political science and knew how to navigate the political landscape he might have been able to merge his scholarly expertise with the agenda of the LDS Church.
Comment by David — April 9, 2006 @ 10:11 pm
I’ll tell you how I see this: A sixty year old man with a college education who has to live with his mother has a problem. Put all the religion aside for a moment. He has a college education, he could work at Wal-Mart and pay his rent.
There is something highly suspect in my mind about a man who lives with his mom. Very dysfunctional.
So somewhere in all the rhetoric about what he does and does not believe and what he’s written or not, I wouldn’t hire him to teach on the basis that he appears slightly screwy.
Also, I’m prone to agreeing with those who made the point that a person should believe in the religion he’s teaching. Why bother to teach something theologically that one doesn’t believe? CS Lewis, my particular hero, would so lack credibility if he disagreed with Christian faith.
Rather, he interpreted it for everyone, without challenging faith. That’s with my limited education.
Comment by annegb — April 10, 2006 @ 9:36 am
Anne, it seems somewhat uncharitable to interpret it like that. This seems a bit different from the 30 year old Star Trek addict who lives in his Mom’s house and never goes on dates. If Quinn is 60 his mother is probably in her 80′s and probably needs a lot of care. I’d expect that Quinn is doing this out of love and charity and not out of dysfunction. One would hope that each of us would be so caring. . .
I’ve seen far too many older people more or less abandoned by their family and simply put in nursing homes only rarely to be visited. That Quinn didn’t do this is something praiseworthy, not something to condemn.
Comment by Clark Goble — April 10, 2006 @ 1:05 pm
Excellent comments Clark. Moreover, assisting ones ailing mother and Quinns personal life arent aspects of his professional credentials that can be evaluated. Most would be so fortunate to be able to be there with our aging parents versus finding ways to wharehouse them in a bad old folks home.
Why this area of his personal life has been focused on is disturbing in my opinion. Cheap shot his scholarship not the love a mother has for her son or the love a son has for his mother. Trying to read more into his private situation is mean spirited and unfair, particularly amongst the membership of a religion that preaches love and loyalty towards family above all else.
Comment by David — April 10, 2006 @ 2:01 pm
I agree that ones personal life and academic life aren’t necessarily related. After all there are plenty of people suffering from Asperger’s syndrome who are excellent academics precisely because of that. Heaven knows one meets a lot of them in science and engineering. (I suspect the humanities have a different set of social “specialness” they select for)
Having said all that, I agree with those who say this is simply Academia. While we can all wish for the ideal situation where politics doesn’t enter into jobs in academics, the reality is that especially in the humanities it does. At many universities Quinn is actually probably better because of this, as Mike earlier pointed out. The problem is that none of those departments are likely to want to create a Mormon Studies chair precisely because of those issues. So Quinn would have to get a job in general history alone and not because of the Mormon specialism. But there, as Nate points out, Quinn is competing against a very, very large number of other excellent choices. And while I wish age didn’t have a lot to do with it, unfortuantely the reality is that when you are 50 or over you’ll have a pretty hard time finding a job in academics unless you bring a lot of grant money or prestige with you.
Comment by Clark Goble — April 10, 2006 @ 2:53 pm
“Jewish groups have successfully made it academically perilous to do any open and publicized criticism of Jewish institutions in the US and in US-Israeli politics abroad.”
Anti-semetic nonsense.
Comment by Nate Oman — April 10, 2006 @ 3:07 pm
…Anti-semitic…
Comment by Nate Oman — April 10, 2006 @ 3:07 pm
Same (#44), I agree with Nate that is nonsense. I’ve seen too many blatantly anti-Israel classes at many prominent US universities to believe that. Further there is a fairly broad anti-Zionist bias at many universities.
I think there are good grounds to criticize Israel and I’ve simply read far too many of these to believe there is some secret pressure to avoid criticism of Israel. I can’t imagine why anyone would say such things.
Comment by Clark Goble — April 10, 2006 @ 3:48 pm
One need only read “The Fateful Triangle”, Updated Edition : The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians (South End Press Classics Series) (Paperback). by world renowned MIT linguist and public intellectual Noam Chomsky.
Chomsky (of Jewish descent) is vehemently opposed to the Zionist/U.S. agenda and has sided with Amnesty Int’l and other human rights groups in denouncing the heavy handed treatment toward the Palestinians. He is probably the most cited academic intellectual on this very issue. The point is there are many secular Jewish academics who publish and speak out against the US/Israeli alliance and the atrocities that have been leveled toward the Palestinians.
Comment by David — April 10, 2006 @ 5:19 pm
Well, Clark, it is cold, but I speak as a woman and a mother. That’s the first thing I ask my girls, “does he have a job?” If he has a job, then I ask, does he have a car? Then I ask, “does he pay when he takes you out and open the door?” Guys who live with their moms, not good marriage prospects. No offense.
I suppose it’s reverse mysogyny (sorry about the spelling) on my part because it’s just easier to allow women weakness than men. That’s sad.
But heck, he’s 60, he has a degree, with a little ambition he could have a job. I don’t know about the scholarship issue, but a man with a degree and ambition can have a life. I guess it sounds like he’s sitting home watching TV with his mother.
Comment by annegb — April 10, 2006 @ 7:36 pm
Regardless, like many academic careers, it is a tragedy.
In the end, I end up feeling sorry for him and wish him reconcilliation and peace.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — April 10, 2006 @ 10:17 pm
I think Anne, it more reflects certain unfortunate social stigmas and assumptions regarding care for parents. At one time it was expected that the old would be included in decision making and be cared for by their children. No longer. Further we assume the worse when we see people who make those choices. It is a sad commentary on our culture that this is our gut instinct.
Comment by Clark Goble — April 10, 2006 @ 10:19 pm
Anne this isnt a 21 year old young man trying to find his way in the world who is short on social graces. Quinn holds more than a lowly bachelors. He holds a Doctorate from one of the world’s foremost Universities. Your daughter would be so lucky to date a man with that kind of academic pedigree.
I also hate to think what the Church has done to would be BYU graduates of their humanities and social science dept’s who would like an opportunity to study and learn at the elite graduate programs around the nation. Are these institutions going to risk giving these students an opportunity only to worry and wonder that they may end up like Quinn? The knife cuts both ways with this issue. BYU cant afford to be an academic island and shun the perceptions and opinions of powerful instituions like Yale and Harvard without doing harm to their own graduates who have to eventually leave BYU and face the real world.
Comment by David — April 11, 2006 @ 1:33 am
You guys, there are homeless people with phd’s. My daughter would be lucky to date a steady man with good judgement, and a job, be it ever so humble.
I can see how middle aged men with degrees could relate to this man, and I realize my opinions do not reflect the empathy that perhaps they should. However, what little I know says that in this case, this man’s degree does him very little good in living a productive, effective, happy life.
What does he have to show for it beyond academia? Has he learned to live fully and abundantly, where are his children and his joys?
Comment by annegb — April 11, 2006 @ 9:20 am
David, no offense, but that’s one of the silliest comments I’ve ever heard. Are you honestly saying that colleges would reject Mormon applicants to grad school simply because Quinn at 60 can’t get a job in his field?
Comment by Clark Goble — April 11, 2006 @ 12:39 pm
“He holds a Doctorate from one of the world’s foremost Universities.”
David. Let’s not get carried away. He has a degree from Yale. ;->
Incidentally, my acquaintance with LDS grad students in the social sciences suggests that your concerns about their prospects are sweet but misplaced. Of course, they were at relatively lowly institutions like MIT, Stanford, and Harvard. It may be harder for the Yalies…
BTW, I have heard from one person contact by the WSJ reporter who did this article. It sounds as though there are a couple of pretty major inaccuracies in it.
Comment by Nate Oman — April 11, 2006 @ 3:44 pm
Maybe I didnt elaborate thoroughly enough. Its not about Quinn not being able to get a job, although, Im sure historians at Yale are incensed by the treatment Quinn has received and that is bad PR for BYU as a whole. You can search far and wide and not find an Ivy League historian who lost so much over so little.
The point here is that when you undermine the goals of academic freedom and then fire and purge your school of top free thinkers and writers because they dont comport with the pary line you do your students a massive disservice. You deny them of exposure and an environment that is cherished throughout academia and leave many vulnerable to the criticisms of faculty of other Universities who cant respect what BYU has done or created.
Elite graduate programs run the risk of admitting the very people who think it ok to fire people like Quinn and others. Again, Im establishing my points within the context of the humanities and the social sciences.
We all know BYU has several powerhouse programs within the areas of law, business, accounting and engineering. The return on investment for these areas Im sure is astounding and creates little controversy.
Comment by David — April 11, 2006 @ 4:05 pm
By the way Nate, Yale was rated the top Doctoral program in history. Followed by Princeton and Cal. This is not a light weight doctoral program. If you attend this graduate program you write your ticket…
Average assessment
score (5.0 = highest)
1. Yale University (CT) 4.9
2. Princeton University (NJ) 4.8
University of California–Berkeley 4.8
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/phdhum/brief/hisrank_brief.php
Comment by David — April 11, 2006 @ 4:23 pm
David, let’s leave why Quinn was released from BYU out of it. That was (a) a very long time ago and (b) more complex than it appears. To argue that Quinn’s treatment is just about academic freedom is a bit ludicrous. This sort of politics is ubiquitous in academics. I wish it wasn’t. But it is. Conferences sometimes get very political and have heated rhetoric. There have been plenty of things written about academic “bloodsport” the past few years. In the areas I study this has unfortunately happened far too much.
To portray this as something unique to Quinn is just not terribly fair.
Now maybe you think every excellent academic ought get a job. That’s a fair position. But then your problem is with academics and funding in general.
Comment by Clark Goble — April 11, 2006 @ 4:28 pm
Actually there have been other casualties at BYU besides Quinn. I agree academic employment is difficult to obtain at any age. When our priorities are oil wars and massive tax cuts for the rich our institutions will only continue to suffer.
I know the Quinn debacle occured a long time ago, however, I believe the possibility of another casualty like Quinn happening again at BYU are quite high. Do you agree? When will an academic at BYU ever feel safe that his job is secure and not possibly become a political football for the Admin. or Trustees? Thats what I believe we should be focusing on now.
Comment by David — April 11, 2006 @ 5:24 pm
As I said I think these more typical of academia in general. Admittedly the issues at BYU are different than say University of Chicago. But politics always plays a role.
So let me turn the question around. Do you think BYU could ever have a Mormon character and be an university? Or do you think academics and religion are fundamentally at odds? Should a place like BYU be able to make religious requirements part of ones continuing employment? If not, then isn’t one really saying that religious institutions of learning (the origin of the university after all) ought be disallowed?
I’ll stick to the claim that I think you’re criticizing real situations in terms of an ideal that could never be obtained.
But we’re probably getting a tad too afield from the question at hand, which is Quinn and not peoples idealized notions of education.
Comment by Clark Goble — April 11, 2006 @ 6:14 pm
The character of a religious university is of necessity more like a patronage system than the modern liberal ideal of a university as a publicly subsidized intellectual free for all. The latter makes some degree of sense for public institutions, but certainly not for private, religious ones.
The situation of those whose research does not further the aims of the institution they are employed by is unfortunate, but they are hardly victims, any more than an employee who wanted to call his own tune in any other organization would be a victim if he and they did not come to terms.
Comment by Mark Butler — April 12, 2006 @ 3:07 am
BYU is either a University which is committed to fully abiding by the tenets and policies of academic freedom or its basically a Corporation, wherein the trustees want total control and micromanage the institution.
The latter approach dishonors the tenets and mission of higer education and calls into question whether BYU wants to fully honor the honor code it agreed to abide by in seeking membership and accreditation.
Here is a clip on how BYU professors countered the changing environemt: http://www.lds-mormon.com/aaupfree.shtml
BYU CHAPTER OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS
REPORT ON ISSUES OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM AT BYU
While the details are numerous and complicated, our argument is simple. BYU has, in recent years, not adhered to the following principles stated in the Accreditation Handbook (1994 Edition) of the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges:
1. p. 7, item 3: “An institution owned by or related to an outside agency, such as a church . . . should ensure that it maintains an atmosphere in which intellectual freedom and independence exist.”
2. p. 8, item 13 and p. 133, item 2: which require that “reasonable limitations on freedom of inquiry or expression which are dictated by institutional purpose” be “published candidly.”
3. p. 67, top: “Faculty security should also be implemented through faculty tenure provisions and safeguards for academic freedom.”
4. p. 126, Institutional Integrity: “A college or university is an institution of higher learning. Those within it have as a first concern evidence and truth rather than particular judgments of institutional benefactors, concerns of churchmen, public opinion, social pressure, or political proscription.
“Relating to this general concern corresponding to intellectual and academic freedom are correlative responsibilities. On the part of trustees and administrators there is the obligation to protect faculty and students from inappropriate pressures or destructive harassments.”
The following brief examples indicate that for approximately the last six years BYU has become increasingly less open to differences of opinion and more inclined to control faculty and student expression and behavior.
Comment by David — April 12, 2006 @ 1:33 pm
Which begs the question David. All you appear to be saying is that there is a single vision of an university and thus there is no place for a third option.
Comment by Clark Goble — April 12, 2006 @ 1:51 pm
Just to add, to bring up the obvious example, say a church university wants to make membership in the faith a requirement. Now say someone decides to become an atheist. Can that be reconciled with academic freedom? I don’t see how.
Comment by Clark Goble — April 12, 2006 @ 2:59 pm
I just pointed out the failings of the Administration and Trustees and how card carrying Prof/members addressed those failings. Im just an observer from the outside. What the BYU administration needs to do then is renounce any affiliation it might now have that it pays lip service to and then tell the world they are an entity unto themselves beholden to their own policies and procedures.
Id have more respect for BYU and the Church if they would just disclose what they’re really about instead of hiding behind a facade of something else and then punishing people when they do what academics do. Its basic…
Comment by David — April 12, 2006 @ 4:20 pm
Which begs the question David. All you appear to be saying is that there is a single vision of an university and thus there is no place for a third option.
That does appear to me the same way. Not to mention, David appears to have no real grasp of academia (e.g. his feeling that since Quinn can’t get a job, things are grossly wrong, but only in BYU’s end, his belief that Quinn’s current status has much effect on BYU students getting into graduate school, etc.).
What I get from reading David is someone marshalling arguments rather than someone understanding.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — April 12, 2006 @ 6:13 pm
Not all institutions of higher learning are perfect or problem free. Quite the contratry. Quinn is gone now, but the climate in which he was discharged over whether or not he beleived a celestial kingdom exists or whether or not Joseph Smith liked salamanders and other mystical characters, still exists.
This is where the world of mythology and the world of evidence collide in my opinion and you cant have believers in mythology holding sway over the minds of academics. Its oil and water. We had our Dark Ages. It didnt work. We got no where when thought and progress were controlled by mythological organizations.
Its bad enough we have a tsunami of evangelicalism trying to run rough shod over the policies distiguishing between church and state.
I have plenty of understanding and what I understand as do others is we’re heading for perilous times as a Nation. One only need read the recent publication, “American Theocracy” by conservative thinker Kevin Phillips to corroborate what is happening and where we’re headed…
http://www.americantheocracy.net/
Comment by David — April 12, 2006 @ 7:23 pm
Yup. That pretty well states where you’re coming from David. And with that I’ll bow out since I tend to agree with Stephen. You see religion as a threat and want it out of the Academy entirely.
Comment by Clark Goble — April 12, 2006 @ 7:42 pm