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.
Gonzalez has published more peer-reviewed journal articles than all but one of the faculty members granted tenure this year at ISU – across the university as a whole, not just his department.
In fact, Gonzalez has more peer-reviewed journal articles to his credit than all but five faculty members granted tenure at ISU since 2003.
In addition, he exceeded his department’s own tenure standards, which define “excellence” in terms of publications in refereed science journals, by more than 350%.
Yet ISU president Dr. Gregory Geoffroy has attributed his rejection of Gonzalez’s tenure appeal to matters having nothing to do with intelligent design. The astronomer simply “did not show the trajectory of excellence that we expect,” Geoffroy has said ( yeah right ).
His department chairman, Dr. Eli Rosenberg, claims in Gonzalez’s tenure dossier that the astronomer failed to show an “overall positive trend” in his research record of late.
Yet in 2006, the year he was up for tenure, Gonzalez published more total articles than all other tenured ISU astronomers.
Moreover, Dr. Gonzalez has more per-capita citations in science journals and per-capita scientific publications than any other tenured astronomer at ISU since 2001, the year he joined ISU.
In other words, Gonzalez OUTPERFORMED the very astronomers that voted against his tenure, negating any basis for their complaining about the “trend” of his research while at ISU.
Meanwhile, his work has been featured in the world’s most prestigious science journals, Nature in 2002 and Science in 2004. He co-authored the cover story for Scientific American in 2001, and he is also co-author of a 2006 peer-reviewed Cambridge University Press textbook, Observational Astronomy.
He was clearly impacting the next generation of scientists, as his ideas about the Galactic Habitable Zone have even been incorporated into two astronomy textbooks by other authors.
With all this going for him, and being well-liked personally by his colleagues, STUDENTS, getting tenure at ISU should have been nearly automatic.
The university has struggled to explain the reason for his rejection, offering explanations that fall far short of being convincing. The claim is advanced, for example, that Gonzalez failed to secure enough funding for his research.
But observational astronomers are not heavily dependent on sumptuous grants to support their research. They only need an already existing telescope, enough money to fly or drive to the facility, and an inexpensive computer to analyze the observational data they obtain.
In any event, Gonzalez received more grant funding than 35 percent of faculty members who were granted tenure at ISU in 2007 and who listed their research grants on their curriculum vitae.
The utmost importance is the fact that grants are not even listed in the tenure guidelines for his department. Of the nine review letters that gave recommendations regarding Dr. Gonzalez’s final tenure decision, six strongly supported his tenure promotion and gave glowing endorsements of his reputation and academic achievements. (Even Dr. Gonzalez’s tenure dossier admitted that “five of the external letter writers … including senior scientists at prestigious institutions recommend his promotion” and that only “[t]hree do not.”)
One reviewer observed that ISU’s Department of Physics and Astronomy does not consider grants as a criterion for gaining tenure, and stated that “Dr. Gonzalez is eminently qualified for the promotion according to your guidelines of excellence in scholarship and exhibiting a potential for national distinction.
MY CONCLUSION : His denial of tenure is NOT RELATED to his performance as a faculty member. You have already mentioned the reason -— HIS SYMPATHY TOWARDS INTELLIGENT DESIGN as PROVEN BY HIS WORK -— THE PRIVILEGED PLANET.