...Then Ritner jumps into the Book of Abraham debate, partly because of what he perceives to be the errant nonsense of someone who was his former student. Remember, American Egyptology has long had a hand in this question. Ritner is not acting out or doing something unjust. Egyptologists were always going to say that Joseph Smith could not translate Egyptian because that is what the evidence clearly points to. Gee is incensed that his former professor would insert himself against Gee's work. In anger, he lashes out at Ritner and takes whatever perceptions of being wronged public in various veiled accusations and insinuations delivered by associates. Ritner, it is claimed, was a bad guy. Ritner was "removed from Gee's committee" for being a bad guy.
I do not know that this is what happened. But this is my read based on my experience of a number of other, similar situations I have personally observed as a student, a graduate student, and as an academic. I see nothing in anything I have been told that suggests to me that Ritner did something unprofessional or wrong in Gee's case. I think it is very likely that Ritner was impatient with Gee and was not really thrilled to deal with the oddball wearing the "Hugh Nibley fan" t-shirts. I have run into more than one ancient historian who was similarly not enthused about dealing with Nibley fans.
Here's the deal: If you make such an accusation against a former professor, you'd better have good cause. It was a very bad idea to trot out the weak accusations and insinuations we have seen from Gee's associates. They have only hurt Gee and his associates. They have only hurt BYU and the Church. Mostly they have hurt Gee. I have also seen the student whose wounded pride led him to lash out repeatedly at a senior scholar at the top of his field on the basis of allegedly unfair treatment in graduate school. Grad school is rough. Professors are not always great guys. I can see all of this. But I can tell you that it usually takes something pretty severe to result in any official reprimand of a tenured faculty member.
If you don't have that kind of issue, the best thing to do is get over it, especially if you have your degree in hand and your dream job. The people I have seen hang on to these things were the ones who were left without secure, permanent employment. Sure, the cases like Gee's might moan to you about Professor X late at night after a rough day at the conference, but they sure as hell don't bring these moans to a scholarly disagreement over the interpretation of ancient evidence.
Imagine the following scenario. You're at a conference. Prof. R gets up and delivers a talk that corrects the errors a former student made in a series of articles that the student published over the years. Dr. G, the former student, gets up at the same conference and says, "Oh yeah? Well, you left my dissertation committee! What right have you to correct my work in accordance with the standards of our field? You're only doing this because you hate me!" I think everyone would look on in silent disbelief, feeling very sorry for Dr. G.
"You're a big meanie!" is beside the point. What about the evidence, Dr. G? What about the standards of the field? Dr G, you started a conversation on the basis of bringing a certain expertise to the table, aren't you the one who invited others with the same expertise to comment on your conclusions? If you don't want this to be about our discipline, then keep our discipline out of it? If you can't do that, then be prepared to defend your interpretations and conclusions. "My old professor is a mean guy" is not cutting it.
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... =1&t=53732 