Letter from Granville Sewell, Mathematics Dept.,University of Texas El Paso to the President of Iowa State University re: denial of tenure:
Gregory Geoffroy
President
Iowa State University
Dear Dr. Geoffroy,
Anyone familiar with the case of Astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez suspects that he was not denied tenure at Iowa State for lack of academic excellence—he has nearly 70 peer-reviewed publications, including an article in Scientific American, and Nature and Science have run articles about his work—but because of his expressed view (expressed only OUTSIDE the classroom) that certain features of the universe can be considered as evidence of design. This is in fact a widely held view among scientists: for example, it is a well-established fact—established through many peer-reviewed scientific articles—that most of the basic physical constants of our universe, such as Planck’s constant, the speed of light, the charge and mass of the electron, and so on, had to have nearly the values that they do have or intelligent life would not have been possible anywhere in the universe. There are only two widely-held interpretations for this so-called “fine tuning.” One is that the fortuitous values of these constants are the result of design, the other is that there are many universes, with varying values for these constants, and that life arose in ours because the values here were favorable to the development of life. Neither view is strictly scientific, because both the alleged designer and the alleged other universes are in principle unobservable. There are quite a number of scientists who prefer the design explanation. Dr. Gonzalez may be in the minority, but it is a very sizable minority, and most members of this minority are free to express this point of view at their respective institutions without fear of academic punishment.
Dr. Gonzalez has in fact, through peer-reviewed publications, added significantly to the list of features in our universe which may suggest design. He has rarely, if ever, spoken publicly in support of the less widely-held view that certain features of biological evolution also suggest design, but apparently his association with the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, which does hold this view, was more than could be tolerated by some faculty members at ISU. He was criticized for his views in a letter drafted by a professor of religion, Hector Avalos, and signed by 120 ISU professors, and we suspect that this letter played an important role in the tenure decision.
Your decision to deny tenure to Guillermo Gonzalez, unless reversed, sends a clear message to the rest of the academic world that only some philosophical points of view are welcome at Iowa State University. Academic freedom is meaningless if it is limited to certain philosophies. Please reconsider your decision.
Sincerely,
Granville Sewell, Mathematics Dept.,University of Texas El Paso
http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/isu.html
That certainly strengthens the case a great deal. Scientific American is not an academic publication but it is highly respected, and unlikely to publish the work of anyone who has not published a good deal in the profession journals and built a strong reputation.
The same with Nature and Science. Neither is a professional journal, but both are highly reputable, and certainly would not run articles about his work if it were some sort of kooky nonsense.
I don't know why they don't actually post his bibliography on-line, because I'm pretty sure that would make the case. Dry as dust, no doubt, to the unprofessional eye, but if those three science magazines all take an interest in him, then it can't be too dusty or kooky!
Note, too, that he does not proselytize for intelligent design in class. That puts him a step above his leftist peers, who I am sure proselytize all the time about Wicca, Gaia, gay rights, Darwin, or whatever their interests happen to be.
Very strong case for an academic injustice--as usual committed by the leftist establishment against someone more conservative who privately parts from their view of things.