RE: #4 is especially funny, since that information should have been part of his application for tenure if he thought it would help his chances.
What makes you think it was not part of his application for tenure? IT WAS. And it was not even made a major consideration. It was in effect, IGNORED.
RE: His output dropped considerably soon after he joined the faculty. When making a tenure decision, they look at the trend. What the trend clearly showed was a once-promising scientist who lost it.
NOPE. His work was ONGOING and parallel and simulataneous with is work on the Privileged Planet.
This denial of tenure had little to do with his ability as a researcher and teacher. Many of his students attested to his ability to teach and impart knowledge. Theire input were never taken into consideration at all.
Why try to get it introduced at appeal if it wasn't part of the original application? As far as it being ignored, was it peer-reviewed publication? When seeking tenure, it doesn't help to accomplish things you know aren't going to support an application of tenure.
His work was ONGOING and parallel and simulataneous with is work on the Privileged Planet.
His peer-reviewed publishing was on a steady climb and hit a peak of 10 before he went to ISU, 5 as first author. That was the promising scientist his supporters mention. But then there is 2000-2001, six publications per year, three and two as as first author respectively. Still decent, but his output cut in half, notice first authorship dropping precariously. Well, maybe this is just the transition to the new job. Let's see what he does in subsequent years once he gets comfortable with his new digs and has learned the ropes.
Oops, not good. In 2002 he was down to two publications, neither as first author. In fact, he published as many papers in 1999 alone as he did for 2003-2007 COMBINED. His first authorship was almost double in that one year what it was in those five years. From 2002-2004, prime book time, he had no first authorship at all. First authorship started up again after the book was published, but still far below his previous level (only three in two years).
Such a drop in academic output prior to a tenure decision does not do well for one's chances. His work may have been "ONGOING" as you say, but it was at a severely depressed level.
This denial of tenure had little to do with his ability as a researcher and teacher. Many of his students attested to his ability to teach and impart knowledge.
Yet he mentored only one of them to the completion of a dissertation. That is a checkbox for tenure, another one that he failed. In fact, here's the checklist they used. Note that all of these are cold, hard facts, measurable requirements with numbers behind them.
With all of these measurable failures documented, I figure that only severe, blinding bias can keep a person from seeing the religion card being played here.