Why Was DCP "Disinvited" from an Australian University?

[_Lemmie]

This is the kind of situation that really calls into question the wisdom of having an electronic free-for-all of human communication. Anyone can show up and say anything--and voila, they do--and then everyone else chimes in with whatever take they had, fact-based or not. I see a lot more pointless miscommunication than communication in these comments sections. I was listening to a Jungian enthusiast talk about her refusal to respond to people on social media. I think she had the right idea. Surely I have better uses of my time than worrying about what Dr. Midgley said on Sic et Non, and that list of better things to do would include reading the blog entries above those comments.

...I do understand that you hate this kind of historical shooting of the crap. [Some] chose to do it anyway, because, well, [they] enjoy it. Sorry.

Maybe that places [them] in a category with other irresponsible baddies, but so be it. [Their] attempts to follow [their] better angels (which [they probably] do not believe in, but it's still a useful metaphor that has a long history behind it) do prevent [them] from making a fool out of [themselves] in this particular way on a public blog, in journal articles, or in books published by university presses (smarter, more learned peers have succumbed to temptation!), but [they] just can't seem to restrain [themselves] from doing it here.

Maybe you can rhetorically beat the impulse out of [them].

viewtopic.php?p=1229965#p1229965

(Sorry, Kishkumen. I simply could not resist the siren call of your seductive words.)

[_Kishkumen]

...I do understand that you hate this kind of historical shooting of the ____. [Some] chose to do it anyway, because, well, [they] enjoy it. Sorry.

Maybe that places [them] in a category with other irresponsible baddies, but so be it. [Their] attempts to follow [their] better angels (which [they probably] do not believe in, but it's still a useful metaphor that has a long history behind it) do prevent [them] from making a fool out of [themselves] in this particular way on a public blog, in journal articles, or in books published by university presses (smarter, more learned peers have succumbed to temptation!), but [they] just can't seem to restrain [themselves] from doing it here.

Maybe you can rhetorically beat the impulse out of [them].

viewtopic.php?p=1229965#p1229965

(Sorry, Kishkumen. I simply could not resist the siren call of your seductive words.)

Nice catch, Lemmie!

Yes, everyone has to have their hobbies, right? I don't disagree. And, as I also said in that same thread just now, the attempt to convey our thoughts effectively is difficult business. Here I was not criticizing the group on this board but thinking more generally about MY involvement with comments sections. Is it really worth MY time to be concerned about what Dr. Midgley says over at Sic et Non? That is a very personal decision. Laura London's words, which I had just heard on a podcast, were very appealing to me. Maybe it is not such a good use of MY time to do so. Even in the case of a fellow like Dr. Midgley, I feel I get a lot more out of reading his published articles. I have read a few of them. I found myself enjoying what I read.

I also wondered about Dr. Peterson's involvement with his Comments Section at Sic et Non. He seems to like it, but I don't know. Anyone can show up and give him a hard time. People over here give him a hard time about his posts and comments. If that is what people want to do, then far be it from me to discourage them. But I do take it as instructive for myself. Sometimes I think of setting up a blog or a podcast. The world definitely needs my voice added to the mix (ahem). Do I want to field all of these hit-and-run comments? Probably not. My decision. And it is your decision if you want to follow Dr. Midgley. Please don't think I was aiming that at you. On my own I have sought out Midgley's comments at Sic et Non, even though I have less frequently addressed what I read over there in this forum. You and I can have different hobbies and a different sense of what is worthwhile for ourselves. I don't dispute that.

[_Lemmie]

You and I can have different hobbies and a different sense of what is worthwhile for ourselves.

You keep mentioning things like that, as though you are trying to hint something? No matter. I’ve had a lifetime of men disapproving of my choices (usually when I am kicking their butts at some intellectual pursuit) and subtly trying to hint their superior wisdom. You’re small potatoes, darling.

Please don't think I was aiming that at you.

No problem, I wasn’t thinking that! I was just appreciating what you said about this being an outlet for things we wouldn’t normally indulge, but from which we cannot always restrain ourselves. I admire you for being able to admit that.

[_Simon Southerton]

I also get an odd kick out of occasional suggestions that I’m an anti-Islamic bigot. I was, in fact, actually once disinvited from speaking at an Australian university on the grounds that my remarks would be divisive, hostile to Islam, and bigoted. That was a genuinely weird experience. I guess that my creation of the Islamic Translation Series, my book titled Abraham Divided, and my biography Muhammad: Prophet of God weren’t enough to overcome the completely nonexistent evidence that I’m a zealous anti-Muslim polemicist.

Whoa! Hold on a second here! Dr. Peterson was disinvited from an Australian university??? And notice how he puts it here: he says, quite specifically, that he was disinvited because his "remarks would be divisive, hostile to Islam, and bigoted." That's quite specific, isn't it? Except that it doesn't appear to be precisely true.

Indeed, down in the comments, Dr. Shades poses a question to him:

This befuddles me to no end, since all the available evidence is against such a conclusion. Did they at least give you some sort of justification for why they chose to believe what they did?

And he replies:

No. When I wrote to them, asking about their decision, they declined to elaborate. I suppose that, once I had been identified as a dyed-in-the-wool anti-Muslim propagandist, I was beneath their notice.

According to a source of mine (yes I have sources :biggrin: ) he was probably disinvited from one of our top 8 universities, all of which are more highly ranked academically than BYU, most likely the University of Melbourne.

If someone didn't want Daniel Peterson to speak it would have been very simple to find a reason. Just look at his CV. His academic output over four decades is extremely low, and certainly would not be sufficient for someone at our leading universities to achieve the rank of full professor.

A quick internet search would have revealed that the vast majority of DCP's "academic" output is Mormon apologetics defending the historicity of questionable LDS scripture. A quick read of his apologetics would have revealed the unprofessional nature of his writing and his personal attacks on critics.

I suggest the university in question "declined" to elaborate out of politeness.

[_Philo Sofee]

I can restrain myself anytime I want to......except right now......

[_Doctor Scratch]

I would put money down that at the very least, this part is contrived, "my association with Dr. Pipes — such as it was! — was enough to convince some quick-thinking administrator or other at that Australian school that I was likely to be a fire-breathing, offensive, and divisive anti-Muslim bigot."

That is the knee-jerk reaction of hurt feelings. A way to turn the tables and call them "bigots" for calling him a bigot. The textual mirror (with an appropriate magnification factor) is tool #1 of the Mopologist toolbox.

The vagueness is possibly in place for the same reason of the vagueness when referencing other perceived enemies. Direct quotes and proper citation will demonstrate his gross exaggerations of what actually happened.

If the story is essentially correct, then almost certainly, the administrator was avoiding a "red flag" and had not determined that the proposed speaker was a divisive anti-Muslim bigot.

This is absolutely right. Where is the evidence? Either the dis-invitation didn't happen, or he is lying about the details. Look at this:

Truth be told, alas, I don’t recall many of the details. I don’t even recall which university it was or in which Australian city it was located.

Remember: this is a guy who used to maintain an archive of insulting things people were saying about him on RfM! He remembers *every* slight, regardless of how pointless or petty. Right? The alternative, I guess, is that this sort of thing happens so frequently that's he's lost track. So take your pick.

* * * * *

I'd like to add that I'm really enjoying the Mopologists attempt to "tone things down." My, how they struggle! I wonder how aggressively DCP had to browbeat Kiwi and Midgley into knocking off their usual antics (with mixed results)? And did you read that new post about how bummed out DCP is (or was?) that he was forced to endure a Eurocentric education in history as a young lad? Actually: no, he never says that he's "bummed"--merely that he noticed that it was focused on Europe, and that, hey! there is more to the world than just Europe! Is there a Mopologist-friendly equivalent of being "woke"?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I mean, if you just look at what Prevaricatin’ Peterson says it’s basically BS. Come. Sit. Let’s take a look-see:

“Truth be told, alas, I don’t recall many of the details.”

So. In a previous life of mine this would’ve been a red flag during an interview. You see, it’s one thing to be asked about something, and you subsequently state you don’t remember many details about that thing. But, it’s another to create an entry on your public vanity blog about the very thing you claim you don’t recall much about. It’s clearly a call for attention, and it’s equally clear it’s being done for a reason. My guess there’s some professional fallout of some sort he’s attempting to spin doctor.

“I don’t even recall which university it was or in which Australian city it was located.”

This is a lie. No one forgets a slight like this, especially so because it’s within the realm of his profession. Additionally, when he says, “Some have asked me to tell more about my having been disinvited from speaking at an Australian university quite a number of years ago.”, that’s a simple set up to create a crafted narrative (no one from his linked blog entry asked him to elaborate). Anyway, he immediately begins to go into detail.

“It happened during the lead-up to a trip to Australia — I’ve made four or five such trips to lecture, and this was not the most recent nor even the second most recent of them — during which I was going to be lecturing at a number of schools there. I was still in the United States at the time. Suddenly, though, I was not welcome.“

So he let’s us know it didn’t happen during the last two trips, wonky wording aside, and he lets us know he would be lecturing at a number of schools. That’s called an itinerary, and if he was lecturing there would be coordination taking place between him, BYU, and these schools to work out travel and accommodations. He would absolutely know which school would’ve cancelled on him because it would’ve affected his itinerary. This is a rather major bump in the road, and it would’ve gotten back to a higher up at BYU regarding this disinvite.

“I was given some of the background of my disinvitation by whomever it was locally that had been setting up the lecture.“

More details emerge. He knows the background behind the disinvite. He knows the person. He would know who the person works for or represents. His lies are revealed by his own hand.

“It seems that somebody at the school discovered that I appeared on a list of “Recommended Professors” at Campus Watch, something affiliated with the Middle East Forum or MEF...”

This is where he provides the extensive cover story, or spin doctoring, with minutiae. This is where his set up affords him the chance to play the martyr.

We’re not getting the truth here, and he’s talking to someone, but it’s not really the general public he’s addressing. It’s anybody’s guess, really. Still, though. Curious.

- Doc

[_moksha]

I can restrain myself anytime I want to......except right now......

Excellent point! Dr. Scratch always asks the most intriguing questions and Dr. Peterson and Lou Midgley are always favorite topics for this board. It seems like a winning combination for those of us with one finger facing the earth and the other pointed skyward.


-----
Wonder what Doubting Thomas will make of Lemmie's "small potatoes" comment. Will he defend Kishkumen's potatoes?

[_moksha]

We’re not getting the truth here, and he’s talking to someone, but it’s not really the general public he’s addressing. It’s anybody’s guess, really. Still, though. Curious.

- Doc

Dr. Peterson could simply have been responding to this very thread. The blog article could be intended to fill in some missing details for readers of this board and his blog.

[_Gadianton]

Doctor Scratch,

I have a thought experiment I'd like you entertain. You know how we academics love a good thought experiment, especially when we're paid for doing them!

Suppose that "the author and proprietor" were to remember with absolute clarity the name of the institution, and even the name of the person who made the call to strike his presentation. Given that he's trading in extremes, "they said I was an anti-Muslim bigot and propagandist", what are the chances he would actually pony up the name of the institution and any details he was privy to about those who made the call?