Skip to comments.Intelligent Design Scientist Denied Tenure at Iowa State (what you can do to help!)
Posted on 05/16/2007 11:02:33 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
I found the following form letter on a website, copied and pasted it, and sent it to the president of Iowa State University. The emailed me back (probably with a form letter). But the point is, they are responding (and therefore keeping track)!!! Below is the letter I sent and their response. See reply #2 for a link for background info. on Dr. Gonzalez--GGG
To: email@example.com Subject: Guillermo Gonzalez Tenure Ruling
President Gregory L. Geoffroy,
I am disappointed at the University's denial of Guillermo Gonzalez tenure application. Despite the fact that Dr. Gonzalez has 68 peer-reviewed publications, he seems to be denied tenure on the basis of viewpoint discrimination. Although the University's mission statement says, "In carrying out its mission, Iowa State will increase and support diversity in the University community. Diversity enlivens the exchange of ideas, broadens scholarship, and prepares students for lifelong, productive participation in society.", it seems that this diversity does not apply to those who promote intelligent design theory.
Please do the right thing and approve Guillermo Gonzalez tenure application.
Thank you for writing to President Geoffroy about the matter involving Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez. Pres. Geoffroy has asked me to respond on his behalf because he is in the process of considering Dr. Gonzalez's appeal of the tenure decision, and it is not appropriate to comment until the appeal decision is finalized. For your information, I have outlined below the facts related to this matter.
Like most research universities, Iowa State has an extensive process of evaluating faculty for tenure. The procedure is prescribed in the Faculty Handbook (http://www.provost.iastate.edu/faculty/handbook/faculty_handbook/) and in the college and department organizational documents. The evaluation is based on the candidate's record of teaching, service and scholarly research during the time of the candidate's appointment at Iowa State, using standards and expectations set by the candidate's tenured faculty colleagues in his/her academic department. The review begins in the candidate's academic department, where a recommendation on tenure and promotion is generated by a vote of the tenured faculty. The process includes consideration of recommendations of reputable persons in the same area of study, but who are not at Iowa State. That is progressively followed by reviews by the department chair, a college-level committee, the dean of the college, and the executive vice president and provost, all of whom generate recommendations for the next level of review. The candidate's dossier and all of the recommendations are then presented to the university president, who makes a final decision. In the case of a final negative decision, the candidate has the right of appeal, using a process that is prescribed in the Faculty Handbook.
The tenure decision is one of the most important decisions that a university makes, because it means a lifetime appointment for the individual being considered, and before granting tenure, faculty and university leaders must be convinced of the candidate's promise of excellence in his/her academic discipline that will last for the duration of his/her academic career. It is a very high standard of excellence and achievement, and there are many good researchers, and good people, who fail to satisfy the demands of earning tenure.
As an assistant professor of physics and astronomy, Dr. Gonzalez was evaluated for tenure and promotion to associate professor by the tenured faculty in the Department of Physics and Astronomy. That evaluation was based on an assessment of the excellence of his teaching, service, scholarly research publications and research funding in astronomy, using standards and expectations set by the faculty in the department. The consensus of the tenured department faculty, the department chair, the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the dean of Liberal Arts and Sciences and the executive vice president and provost was that tenure should not be granted. On the basis of those recommendations against granting tenure and promotion at every prior level of review and the president's own review of the record, President Geoffroy notified Dr. Gonzalez in April that he would not be granted tenure and promotion to associate professor.
On May 9, Dr. Gonzalez, following university procedure, submitted to the president an appeal of the final tenure decision, and that appeal is now being considered with a decision expected to be rendered by June 6, 2007.
For more information regarding this tenure case, please follow this link: http://www.iastate.edu/~nscentral/news/2007/may/tenureFAQ.shtml
Here is a link to his published, peer reviewed papers:
Here is some background info. on Dr. Gonzalez:
He has 68 peer reviewed articles? Evos would say “not” because they don’t believe anyone who believe in ID can have peer reviewed articles. They and only they hold the patent to peer reviewed articles. /s
Ummmmm....his peer reviewed publications were in the field of ASTROPHYSICS and/or ASTRONOMY......not evolution and/or intelligent design.
Thusly, his peer-reviewed articles are just as worthless in the debate of evo/ID as mine on emerging infectious diseases and immunology are.
....but they ARE one of the many reasons needed to get tenure. HOWEVER, there are plenty of great and knowledgeable Professors out there that don’t get the lifetime appointment.
Another “however”.....if he’s actually adding intelligent design into his science-based aastro-physics teachings, that’s a backable reason to deny him tenure.
Teach science in science class. Teach philosophy in philosophy or religion class.
WHO IS "me" ?
SHOW us proof that he is doing that.
It doesn’t sound like any help is needed, since the desired outcome was reached.
Sorry about that. The person who is writing on the President’s behalf is...
Office of University Relations
Dear President Geoffroy:
I am writing to you concerning the University of Iowa’s denial of Guillermo Gonzalez’s tenure application.
Despite the fact that Dr. Gonzalez has 68 peer-reviewed publications, he seems to have been denied tenure on the basis of viewpoint discrimination. His publications are in highly reputable journals, and they are all in the fields of astronomy and astrophysics, not intelligent design.
The University’s mission statement says, “In carrying out its mission, Iowa State will increase and support diversity in the University community. Diversity enlivens the exchange of ideas, broadens scholarship, and prepares students for lifelong, productive participation in society.” Yet evidently this diversity does not apply to those who promote intelligent design theory, in their own time. I have been informed that Professor Gonzalez does not proselytize his students in class or push ID on them in any way, so this is not unlike firing someone because he is a Christian or a Buddhist or a conservationist in his private life.
I should add that although I am a professor emeritus of English, not astronomy, I was a physics major at Harvard before changing my field, and I have retained an interest in current developments in physics and astronomy.
I know it is difficult for the president of a university to second guess the decision of a tenure committee in one of his academic departments. No doubt there will be further unfortunate fallout whichever way you decide this case. But having looked into it and looked over Professor Gonzalez’s list of publications, it seems clear to me that this is a case of political correctness run amok, something I have experienced first hand at various times during my academic career, including the years when I was chair of the department. I think if you let the current decision stand, it will be far more damaging to the university’s reputation in the long run than if you reverse it and award him the tenure he clearly deserves.
I hope, therefore, that you will do the right thing and approve Guillermo Gonzalez’s tenure application.
You mean I can do something to ensure he doesn’t get tenure? Where do I sign?
Great letter, Cicero.
“His publications are in highly reputable journals, and they are all in the fields of astronomy and astrophysics, not intelligent design.”
You admit you don’t have a clue when it comes to this subject.
Then why post your “ifs” on it?
SHOW us proof that he is doing that.
You can't.Show us proof that he was denied tenure because of his belief in Intelligent Design.
Your letter will get pitched because you called it the University of Iowa.
Despite the Harvard credentials, your letter would have had much greater impact if you had not called out the wrong school. As an Iowa State grad, I can tell you that there are few greater sins than calling our fine institution “the University of Iowa”.
This is on par with meeting George Bush and addressing him as Michael Moore.
I assume you think they are denying Gonzalez tenure because his 68 peer-reviewed publications in highly reputable journals, all in the fields of astronomy and astrophysics,
are not good enough by their standards.
Or maybe because he did not support the school foorball team enthusiastically enough?
Ditto...excellent letter. Thanks a bunch!
Why should I want to help - Intelligent design isn't science - it's religion, and if you believe then fine - religion is a good thing, but don't call it science.
==Why should I want to help - Intelligent design isn’t science - it’s religion, and if you believe then fine - religion is a good thing, but don’t call it science.
Then the same standard should apply to the Church of Darwin. Let’s deny the tenure and/or fire the Darwinist priesthood who currently exercise (on behalf of the Church of Darwin) an unscientific/religous stranglehold on the ideology of science. If you’re willing to apply the same standard across the board, then I’m game.
Uhoh. That was dumb, after working over everything else.
NOTICE TO ANYONE ELSE WHO WRITES—I GOT THE UNIVERSITY WRONG!
I admit that I don’t know anything other than what is in this thread about this particular case......and posted the “if” because “if” he’s teaching I.D. in an astro-physics setting....it would be backable grounds for denying tenure.
However, if you think I know nothing of “this subject” then you’re just plain ole probably misinformed by a disconnect between my brain, my words, and your brain. I know plenty on “this subject” but I’d be willing to bet you wouldn’t wanna hear it.....as I am a biologist with quite a few peer-reviewed research publications....some involving evolution pertaining to diseases.
You get the drift...
Dream on. Darwin/evolution is not religion it is scientific theory that best fits the evidence. "Here a miracle occurs" is not needed.
Given his outstanding record, its clearly preposterous to claim that Dr. Gonzalez is somehow deficient as a scientist. If anything, the problem is likely that he is too good. Darwinist professors cant stand the thought of allowing a gifted scientist who supports intelligent design into their ranks. This is despite the fact that Gonzalezs work focuses on design in cosmology, and does not even address biological evolution.
The scientific method is not a religion. The reason intelligent design has yet to be considered scienctific is because its proponents, in lieu of actual research or experimentation, choose to engage in demagoguery.
For those who know the case and know how tenure works, such worries are groundless. Lots of people with better qualifications and no political troubles are denied tenure.
Just as Darwinism makes the preposterous claim (with zero evidence) that life comes from non-life, so too Darwinism claims that morality comes from non-morality. Instead, he/they posit that morality is determined by natural selection. Thus, this mysterious god-like force—natural selection—is Darwinism’s god. In fact, as far as Darwinism’s worship of mysterious forces is concerned, it ranks right down there with paganism.
Like the Hindus, Darwinism tells us that the various manifestations of morality are all manifestations of the same force. According to Darwin, natural selection caused the murder of infants...on the largest scale throughout the world In other societies, natural selection ordained that suicide was not to be considered “a crime,” but rather “an honorable act” In fact, Darwin went so far as to say that if natural selection ordained that men were to be “reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering.” And don’t get me started on Darwinism’s nod to Eugenics. In short, natural selection is omnipotent, and we are but clay in the hands of this mysterious force.
And while Darwinism doesn’t tell us what happens after we die, world religions are all over the map on this subject. Some believe in an afterlife, while others do not. Having no position on where we go when we die doesn’t exempt Darwinism from being categorized as a religion.
Darwinism doesn’t offer comfort or support to those in emotional distress?
Darwinism also offers comfort or support to those in mental or emotional distress. For instance, I think it’s safe to say that Richard Dawkins spoke for millions when he said that Darwin “made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”
Darwinism’s community of believers can be found at every public funded university in the country. The bishops and the cardinals occupy the science buildings, and the priests and the monks occupy the humanities buildings...including the religious studies departments. They have even established a religious holiday. Ever hear of Darwin Day, where they combine Christian hymns with Darwinist lyrics?
Sorry pal, the Church of Darwin is just that...a religion.
You lost me here pal. You obviously don't understand it the same way I do.
==The scientific method is not a religion.
And the scientific method proves that the Church of Darwin is a religion, not science.
I hope you resent it! Every letter counts. I would imagine that are beginning to get so many that your first one will be lost in the count.
Ah, I think I understand the problem now. You don't know the meaning of the terms "science", "proof" or "religion". You do your ID cohorts a disservice in your advocacy.
Coming from a Church of Darwin devotee, I’ll take that as a compliment.
Seeing how the vast majority of Americans are on our side, I can’t wait until the pendulum swings in the other direction. Payback’s a....
And I'll take that as a concession. But if you occasion to mash a few words together to make an actual argument, please let me know. Rational people can get awfully curious.
Unless you’re a Darwinist, then you are dogmatic, intolerant, bigoted, and generally behave like Spanish Inquisitors.
OK, I’m going to try a reasoned argument, though it’s one you’ve likely heard before. I should mention here that I’m an evolutionist, and part of a large American branch of a conservative Christian church... Once upon a time, I was a hotshot scientist, too; but not these days. ‘nuff said.
ID is the new Phrenology, (study of human personality traits as determined by the presence of bumps on the head) and the ‘demand’ that ID be accepted as valid despite the inability of ID being tested by the Scientific Method, is the EXACT same uproar that proponents of Phrenology made to the medical community in the 17th and 18th century.
Regardless of how fashionable it may be in some landlocked square-state in the US, pretending that ID is a scientific theory is like measuring Love; we know that it’s out there, but pretending like it’s quantifiable is a mistake... AND, if something isn’t quantifiable, than it isn’t possible to analyze it scientifically.
None of your frothy diatribes are a good substitute for an actual argument. You are an exemplary ID advocate.
I sincerely hope you consider stumping for more pro-ID tenure candidates in the future.
I will. And when our side is once again on the ascendancy, I definitely won’t be one of the forgiving ones. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, job for a job.
==the demand that ID be accepted as valid despite the inability of ID being tested by the Scientific Method, is the EXACT same uproar that proponents of Phrenology made to the medical community in the 17th and 18th century.
Actually, the state sanctioned Church of Darwin has pulled out all the stops to prevent IDers from testing anything. Notice that Gonzalez refrained from teaching ID in the classroom or using university time to test ID...and they’re still going after him.
>>I admit that I dont know anything other than what is in this thread about this particular case......and posted the if because if hes teaching I.D. in an astro-physics setting....it would be backable grounds for denying tenure.<<
I think GodGunsGuts, I and others who have been discussing this are all in agreement on the key facts of this case: That Dr. Gonzales is at least as well published in mainstream publications as most other tenured professors at this type of college, that he is not alleged to have taught outside of accepted science and that he most likely would have received tenure had it not been for his position and work on behalf of the Discovery Institute.
There is disagreement about the appropriateness of the decision and about the role of the Discovery Institute but that makes this a good case for civil discussion since I believe the key facts are not in dispute.
GGG, please correct me if I have not characterized your position and the those of the last few threads on this topic correctly.
Just like I said, the evos would deny that an IDer could have legit peer reviewed articles. Thanks for proving me right.
Did you not notice my “/s” after my post?
“Teach philosophy in philosophy or religion class.”
He doesn’t teach philosophy.
His views on intelligent design are espoused totally out of the classroom.
There is a atheist posse at Iowa State out to get Mr. Gonzalez led by Hector Avalos. Avalos is an avowed atheist (former Christian) who is a “religious studies” professor at Iowa State.
Here is a Avalos quote that I found with a Google search:
“Similarly, the Bible has no intrinsic value or merit.”
Mr Gonzalez is brilliant scientist who dares to have different ideas than most of his peers in the field. For this the atheists are attempting to crucify him. It is the most disgraceful thing I have seen in the 25 years since I graduated from Iowa State.
We are LOSING the culture war, the anti-American liberals now have full control over our public universities. Anyone who doesn’t see that needs to wake up.
Yes, I did. Just wanted to make sure you were aware of his published, peer reviewed papers. Thanks for chiming in!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.