Top Professor receives Stand Down Order from BYU

[Cyphermage]

Well, paid leave is usually shorthand for, we'll pay you not to work until we ccan find a cheep way of getting rid of you.
I'm not sure how I feel about this, obviously the university as a private business can hire and fire as they choose, but I think this is just going to make a martyr out of him. Anyone smart enough to make it to university should (not "do") have the thinking skills to see through his bull, I don't agree with limiting the ideas which undergrads are exposed to. However this doesn’t mean that the university should have to pay him to spread his lies. Like I say, I'm unsure where I stand.

This is clearly harrassment for his views. His personal opinions on 9/11 hardly affect how well he teaches his physics classes, and being employed at a University doesn't mean you have to shut your mouth everytime you contemplate saying something the University might disagree with.

As long as he teaches his courses competently, what he thinks of the government, or why the WTC pancaked, is his own personal business.

 

[Dog Town]

As long as he teaches his courses competently, what he thinks of the government, or why the WTC pancaked, is his own personal business.

Not when you parade BYU every chance you get! Not when you use their research facilities(private school , I will add)! He used them for cred, just like the water boy from UL! See ya.

Mormons don't like liers, so I've heard, morals and all that stuff....

 

[Gravy]

This is clearly harrassment for his views. His personal opinions on 9/11 hardly affect how well he teaches his physics classes, and being employed at a University doesn't mean you have to shut your mouth everytime you contemplate saying something the University might disagree with.

As long as he teaches his courses competently, what he thinks of the government, or why the WTC pancaked, is his own personal business.

Not when he makes a mockery of the scientific method by publishing deliberately skewed research about 9/11 in non-peer reviewed online journals. BYU has an academic reputation to uphold. In his 9/11 work he uses BYU's labs and he represents himself as Steven Jones, BYU physicist, not Steven Jones, layman.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

This is clearly harrassment for his views. His personal opinions on 9/11 hardly affect how well he teaches his physics classes, and being employed at a University doesn't mean you have to shut your mouth everytime you contemplate saying something the University might disagree with.

As long as he teaches his courses competently, what he thinks of the government, or why the WTC pancaked, is his own personal business.

I was going to write a response to this... until I saw James B. hit it out of the park with his latest over at Screw Loose Change:

The paper has undergone significant modifications following a third set of peer review organized by Journal of 9/11 Studies Editor Kevin Ryan.

OK, let me get this straight. His "peer review" was organized by the person he appointed to the position, at the journal he founded and runs, and who has also contributed to the very paper that he is arranging the peer review for.

Am I the only one who sees a potential problem here?

Again, the above was shamelessly stolen from James B.

I know of no university who will idly stand by while one of thier profs engages in such blatantly unethical conduct. It's conflict-of-interest-O-rama over there. Someone needs to bring both Jones AND his sycophants to heal before they cause critical damage to national security.

 

[Dog Town]

I know of no university who will idly stand by while one of thier profs engages in such blatantly unethical conduct. It's conflict-of-interest-O-rama over there. Someone needs to bring both Jones AND his sycophants to heal before they cause critical damage to national security.

Halla freaken luyah !" The Academic Beast Must Awaken", and here it comes!
Hope they enjoyed the ride. To quote Sam: " A change gonna come"!

 

[Cyphermage]

Not when he makes a mockery of the scientific method by publishing deliberately skewed research about 9/11 in non-peer reviewed online journals. BYU has an academic reputation to uphold. In his 9/11 work he uses BYU's labs and he represents himself as Steven Jones, BYU physicist, not Steven Jones, layman.

I looked at one of his papers. He just says he is a "physicist", not a "BYU physicist" and he states the views expressed are totally his own.

None of BYU's business.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You need to look further. He's listed BYU among his credentials in numerous places.

ETA: I just looked at his paper as posted on his self-reviewed "journal" site. BYU is mentioned no less than three times in the paper. Including specific mention of BYU facilities used to conduct experiments.

 

[brumsen]

And this is where the arrogance and self-importance of the denial movement comes in. They really think that Bushco losses sleep at night, knowing that the troofers are just one more smoking gun away from unraveling the whole nefarious plot.

No. Consider this scenario:
Bush visits Hinckley&co. In passing, Hinckley makes a remark about how Jones is spewing accusations. Bush amiably says, "yeah, I don't know where he gets it all from, but it's annoying to have such an idiot at BYU, innit".
Hinckley makes a call to BYU saying, "I spoke to the president, and he is displeased with this Jones stuff. Isn't it time something was done about him?"

No more is needed.

If BYU was a public university, I might agree that the public should know why a professor was being put on leave. BYU is private, however, so it's not really my business.

OK - the concept of a private university is alien to me. So I'll admit to being puzzled by that last statement here. Just keep running into things I frankly don't understand about how you guys do things across the big pond.

There are many professors put on leave for ethical violations, you know.

Equally puzzling, if not more so. But if you say so...

I'll even admit it's possible they did talk about it -- W strikes me as an amiable guy, given to light conversation. He may have an abominable civil rights record and inscrutable fiscal policy, but he can be personable... So what? If he wanted Jones gone, and BYU was prone to acquiesce to his request, he'd have just made a phone call.

Agree - see above.

What does W's physical presence change? The BYU staff was afraid he'd beat them up? No sir. I don't buy it.

Me neither. But in a face-to-face meeting, a powerful figure like GW could drop remarks that are acted on immediately, where over the phone this would have required explicit pressure. Call it a fact of life.
This is (one reason at least) why presidents travel, rather than just handling all business over the phone.

As far as wether talking to Pres. Hinckley would produce results? Probably not. BYU has a dean and chairs of it's various departments just like any other university and they, not the church leaders, run the school.

Again, I've no idea.... but would like to find out.

Given the blinding speed at wich most bureaucracys operate, wether ecclesiastical, educational or both, it's quite likely that Jones's suspension was in the works weeks if not months in advance of Bush's visit to Salt Lake City.

The point being, that the scenario I describe above is not a bureaucratic procedure.

I know of no university who will idly stand by while one of thier profs engages in such blatantly unethical conduct. It's conflict-of-interest-O-rama over there. Someone needs to bring both Jones AND his sycophants to heal before they cause critical damage to national security.

We agree that Jones is not spotless, but I'd like to remind you of what I wrote in this post.

Critical damage to national security... Oh I got it, that's...

And this is where the arrogance and self-importance of the denial movement comes in. They really think that Bushco losses sleep at night, knowing that the troofers are just one more smoking gun away from unraveling the whole nefarious plot.

Finally, could I just remind you people that no-one has seen fit to answer this:-

Suggest me a question, and a person to ask it to, the answer to which will settle whether Bush's meeting with Hinckley has anything at all to do with the operative reason in putting Jones on paid leave.
Then I'll ask it, and report back.

 

[R.Mackey]

OK - the concept of a private university is alien to me. So I'll admit to being puzzled by that last statement here. Just keep running into things I frankly don't understand about how you guys do things across the big pond.

Basically, it means that the university is a non-profit organization, but is governed by private entities and therefore does not answer to the public. Jones's alma mater Vanderbilt is one. So is mine, Caltech.

Private universities may impose their own particular codes of ethics upon their faculty. In most cases, it is more stringent than a public university. BYU, also being religious, may place restrictions on blasphemous speech, for instance, that would not be found at Caltech, which is secular. I don't know that they do, nor do I imply this is something Jones is guilty of, I'm just trying to illustrate.

You need to keep in mind that a professorship is a job. A university may decide to dismiss faculty for any number of reasons, including not just ethics but also performance, business, or public relations.

Should the Government force BYU to keep Jones on the staff? I would say no. It's not the Government's business.

Should the Government force BYU to explain to the world why they're firing him? Again, no. If Jones is being unfairly treated, he has recourse in the civil courts.

There's nothing sinister here.

Finally, could I just remind you people that no-one has seen fit to answer this:-

Well, I might remind you that Jones' case is probably still under review, and it would be unethical to give you any information. But I would start with the department office at BYU, ask them if they have any official statements to make regarding his case.

If I was a sneaky investigative reporter, I'd lurk around and talk to the secretaries and grad students. But I'm not. Frankly, I don't care. As much as I disagree with Jones, he deserves to be left alone. This is his career we're discussing, not some evil conspiracy.

 

[brumsen]

You need to keep in mind that a professorship is a job. A university may decide to dismiss faculty for any number of reasons, including not just ethics but also performance, business, or public relations.

I have sufficient academic experience to know that it's a job, thank you. In Europe however it's not just a job that you can be fairly simply dismissed from.

Should the Government force BYU to keep Jones on the staff? I would say no. It's not the Government's business.

Should the Government force BYU to explain to the world why they're firing him? Again, no. If Jones is being unfairly treated, he has recourse in the civil courts.

Agree. And I think he probably will, by the way.

As much as I disagree with Jones, he deserves to be left alone. This is his career we're discussing, not some evil conspiracy.

You're right. Surely he has a reason to ask the question I've been posing, but I nor others should stick their nose in before he has done so.
So until that time I should content myself having my worries go without answers. And so should others here.

ETA: thank you for being so reasonable, R Mackey. I recognise that I sometimes get carried away because of other people's postings.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Looks like the truthers have launched thier Jihad.

Should I be worried about the timing of this attack, Brummy? You know how angry many of the twoofers are. You've no doubt seen the death threats Marky and Abby have recieved ans the ones that JohndoeX has sent out.

It's very suspicious to see this coming so close on the heels of the Bush/Hinckley meeting and the Jones suspension.

 

[brumsen]

Looks like the truthers have launched thier Jihad.

Should I be worried about the timing of this attack, Brummy? You know how angry many of the twoofers are. You've no doubt seen the death threats Marky and Abby have recieved ans the ones that JohndoeX has sent out.

It's very suspicious to see this coming so close on the heels of the Bush/Hinckley meeting and the Jones suspension.

Although it would be puzzling that this happened in Hawai, I agree that it might be reason for concern, yes.
Could I just ask, for the record, why you address this to me though. You are well aware that I have left SfT some time ago exactly because they / Fetzer did not want to distance themselves from advocating violence.

Yes, yes, I know you're joking, truthy-swordy. But only in part, right?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Awwww... Brummy, you went and called my bluff early.

I'll get straight to the point then; I have as much evidence that truthers were behind this attack as you do that Bush leaned on Hinckley to fire Jones. Or that Bush or anyone but Osama Bin Laden was behind 9-11 for that matter. But the former is my main point.

If on the very unlikely chance that truthers were behind this though, I intend to take it VERY personally.

 

[brumsen]

If on the very unlikely chance that truthers were behind this though, I intend to take it VERY personally.

Would you care to elaborate on that?

ETA:

I have as much evidence that truthers were behind this attack as you do that Bush leaned on Hinckley to fire Jones.

Which is why I haven't made any assertion that he did. Only said that we should want to know whether.

 

[mrfreeze]

But there really is no way to actually know. Unless of course those involved pull a Larry Silverstein slip up and reveal the whole thing during a press conference. It seems rather unlikely though.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Would you care to elaborate on that?

ETA:

Which is why I haven't made any assertion that he did. Only said that we should want to know whether.

Dr. Steven Jone s's problems have nothing to do with GWB, it has more to do with unfounded false deformation against another member of the Mormon Church, and Alumni of BYU than with GWB.

 

[Bradk3]

No. Consider this scenario:
Bush visits Hinckley&co. In passing, Hinckley makes a remark about how Jones is spewing accusations. Bush amiably says, "yeah, I don't know where he gets it all from, but it's annoying to have such an idiot at BYU, innit".
Hinckley makes a call to BYU saying, "I spoke to the president, and he is displeased with this Jones stuff. Isn't it time something was done about him?"

No more is needed.

*snip*

Me neither. But in a face-to-face meeting, a powerful figure like GW could drop remarks that are acted on immediately, where over the phone this would have required explicit pressure. Call it a fact of life.
This is (one reason at least) why presidents travel, rather than just handling all business over the phone.

Again, I've no idea.... but would like to find out.

I think I'm understanding where you're coming from with these questions. You're not neccessarily insinuating that there was a conspiracy between President Bush and the Mormon church to axe Jones, but that President Bush could have (intentionally or not) influenced the decision.

First, as Sword_Of_Truth has said, the Mormon leadership doesn't often (I can't think of any specific examples, although there may be some) get directly involved in the affairs of BYU.

Second (and I have support for this other than my status as an active Mormon), I don't think that the Mormon leadership cares one way or t'other about what President Bush feels about the matter. President Hinckley has met with enough dignitaries (presidents, foreign leaders, etc) that he's probably not one to feel the need to placate President Bush.

Third, I really doubt President Bush is aware of who Jones is at all.

Unfortunately, I doubt you'll be able to get satisfactory answers to this at all. President Bush is unlikely to respond to any request about it. The Church has issued no official report of what was discussed during the 40 minute meeting between Mormon leaders and President Bush, so they're not likely to respond. BYU officials are equally unlikely to comment because it's an ongoing investigation.

About the only one involved who's likely to tell you anything would be Jones and he's hardly likely to provide any useful information.

Besides, I'm not completely familiar with your stance on 9/11. If you're convinced President Bush was behind it, a response from him saying that Jones was not discussed is unlikely to hold water for you. If you think the Mormon church is culpable, then a similar response from them would be meaningless. BYU would be equally unreliable in that situation. However, I may be misjudging you here unfairly. If so, I appologise.

Again, I think I see where you're coming from. I just think you're probably barking up the wrong tree on this.

Just my


Cheers!

 

[Bradk3]

But there really is no way to actually know. Unless of course those involved pull a Larry Silverstein slip up and reveal the whole thing during a press conference. It seems rather unlikely though.

A nice video tape of the correspondance would be nice. Unlikely, but nice.

 

[gumboot]

I just have to say...

Even entertaining the notion that the President of the USA might have discussed getting rid of Steven Jones from BYU for saying mean things about him...

Wait, scratch that.

Even thinking that GWB knows who Steven Jones is (let alone cares)...

...is the stupidest thing I have heard all week.

-Andrew

 

[Bradk3]

I just have to say...

Even entertaining the notion that the President of the USA might have discussed getting rid of Steven Jones from BYU for saying mean things about him...

Wait, scratch that.

Even thinking that GWB knows who Steven Jones is (let alone cares)...

...is the stupidest thing I have heard all week.

-Andrew

Agreed.