This year? He left in 2008. Looks like you made a mistake in your cut-and-paste from a supporter site.
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%.
You're giving me the spin. I gave you the numbers. Most of those publications were from before his time at ISU. I keep seeing this 350% figure from supporters, but I don't see any numbers behind it. Got any? I'm betting that like the disinformation of the rate of achieving tenure, it's for the university overall, not his department.
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.
That is 100% correct, although sugar-coated. It was clearly an overall very negative trend.
Yet in 2006, the year he was up for tenure, Gonzalez published more total articles than all other tenured ISU astronomers.
He isn't competing with tenured professors who often get lazy, he's competing with associate professors looking for tenure. But it sounds good, until you realize that means he published only two articles. Also note that 2006 was his most productive year as a first author since his sharp decline in output. Even then it is 1/5 of his highest output with less than 1/2 of the first authorship. That shows a very poor trend.
I have given you hard numbers. You have given me spin and how much of a great guy he is. Here is his publication record for original research starting from just prior to him going to ISU, total/first/other authorship:
Numbers don't lie, spin does. They are looking for a trend of excellence in original research in order to predict future academic output before granting a permanent position. 10-6-6-4-2-2-3-2-1, a steep drop in production. First authorship is very important, and that goes 5-3-2-0-0-1-2-0, another disturbing trend downards. He completely bottomed out on that for YEARS.
But observational astronomers are not heavily dependent on sumptuous grants to support their research.
For one seeking tenure in that department at ISU, the average in grant awards over their first six years was $1.3 million, and he was far below that. Gonzalez was counseled multiple times for his failure to bring in sufficient grant money. He failed this tenure criteria. No amount of spin can counter the numbers.
Gonzalez received more grant funding than 35 percent of faculty members who were granted tenure at ISU in 2007
There you go again, expanding and collapsing the scope as needed. That is all faculty members overall, not his department, the only one that matters. An acceptable grant rate for an English professor seeking tenure is far lower than that for an astronomer, who needs obscenely expensive equipment to do his job and thus needs to show an ability to bring in the cash to pay for it.
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.
There are three ways to get telescope time. 1) pay for it. 2) have your university build or buy it. 3) write a proposal and be granted highly competitive free time (like how it works on the Hubble). The first two take money, i.e., grants. BTW, in case you haven't noticed, he was cited for failure to secure much telescope time too.
And what's this about inexpensive computers? Very expensive supercomputers are common in the field of astrophysics, the bigger the better, thousands of cores better than hundreds.
His denial of tenure is NOT RELATED to his performance as a faculty member.
I don't see how you can say that with a straight face given the proven poor performance that would result in anyone being denied tenure. The numbers don't lie, spin does. He failed.
Actually, I can see. Al Sharpton and his ilk have a complete inability to perceive a use of the race card by someone who screwed up and is trying to get out of it. They have so much bias, so much invested in their victimhood, that they can't see past the card. They automatically believe anyone who uses it, and no logic, reason or hard evidence can get through that.
I'm seeing the same here. If you want a good test case, you need to find one with solid credentials, not one with a PROVEN downard trend in academic output, a PROVEN failure to mentor his doctoral candidates to completion, and a PROVEN failure to secure grants at even close to the level of his colleagues who are also seeking tenure.
You ought to get your facts straight.
Gonzalez’s department appointed outside reviewers to evaluate Dr. Gonzalez as a candidate.
Of those who gave clear recommendations, two-thirds strongly supported his tenure promotion. As one of his external reviewers (whose advice ISU ignored) stated, “Dr. Gonzalez is eminently qualified for the promotion according to your guidelines of excellence in scholarship and exhibiting a potential for national distinction.”
In other words, Dr. Gonzalez’s colleagues simply ignored the recommendations of the decisive majority of the outside reviewers they themselves had appointed!
AGAIN, ISU claims that it declined to offer Gonzalez tenure because of a disappointing record of publications and obtaining grants. Is there any truth in these claims?
Nope.
If you look through the record of emails among his colleagues, you won’t find them grousing about how Guillermo doesn’t publish enough or doesn’t get enough grants. On the contrary, key measures of productivity show that Gonzalez was MOR EPRODUCTIVE as a scholar during probationary period at ISU than any of the tenured faculty who voted against his tenure.
No other tenured ISU astronomer besides Gonzalez co-authored a textbook with Cambridge University Press during that time. Moreover, his department’s tenure requirements do not even list grants as one of the criteria evaluated for tenure applicants.
Instead, the official tenure standards emphasized the candidate’s publication record. On that score, Gonzalez published over 350 percent more peer-reviewed scientific articles than the number required by his department to “ordinarily” demonstrate excellence in research.
Even regarding his outside work, THE PRIVILEGED PLANET, ISU had previously approved and administered a grant to Gonzalez, to help write this very book from the entirely mainstream and prestigious Templeton Foundation.
The book has the endorsements of top scientists like Simon Conway Morris of Cambridge University, Owen Gingerich of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and U.S. National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell. Again. This is legitimate work that has earned protection under the rubric of academic freedom.
Also Gonzalez’s ideas about intelligent design were NOT, in any event, part of his teaching of students. He did not teach it in class, did not force anyone ( students or colleages ) to believe what he personally believes, nor did he coerce anyone towards his own point of view IN HIS CAPACITY AS COLLEGE PROFESSOR.
Still, Dr. Gonzalez’s department chair claimed that Dr. Gonzalez’s views on ID “disqualified” him from being a “science educator.” Moreover, Dr. Gonzalez’s writings clearly indicate that he understands that science should produce predictive, testable theories.
The ISU department chair’s litmus test is pure viewpoint discrimination.