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.
Instead, the official tenure standards emphasized the candidate’s publication record.
Which, as I have proven, showed a steep downward trend. Would you promote anyone with a steep downard trend in his work? Even it it were high (only two publications is high?), it's still a downward trend with years of no first authorship.
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.
What was the requirement? 350% more (100% + 350% = 4.5 times) to result in a whole number means a minimum of two for the requirement and nine for his publishing rate. During what period does this requirement apply? Can't be one year. He didn't have nine publications in any year at ISU since his rate had dropped from a high of ten before ISU. For the whole six years? He met that, but a requirement of two publications in six years sounds absurdly low to demonstrate "excellence." He had just over 18 through 2006 so we can say rounding of the numbers and four was the requirement, but four publications in six years also does not exactly show excellence. I call BS.
You give me spin, I give you numbers. I expect numbers back.
The book has the endorsements of top scientists
It also had some seriously harsh criticisms from a scientific point of view. Note that those endorsements were generally not from a scientific standpoint, usually more a philosophical and metaphysical one.
Also Gonzalez’s ideas about intelligent design were NOT, in any event, part of his teaching of students.
Which is why it wasn't a factor.
I know there are those out there who would like to railroad someone for believing in ID even when it does not affect their work. But the fact is that there has not been ONE case to show that was the cause for adverse action. EVERY case has shown the complaintant to be a whiner pulling the religion card. Remember that Sternberg at the Smithsonian who complained he was forced to move offices? Yeah, he forgot to mention that he was one person in a larger shuffle, and was even given a different replacement office he requested instead of the one that had been assigned to him. Horrors! Poor treatment! Remember him being ordered to turn in his keys? That sounds bad! Oops, he forgot to mention that as part of a security overhaul all research associates had to turn in their keys -- to be replaced with access badges (keys don't work well in badge reader doors). Through it all he wants you to forget he was an unpaid guest researcher, not even an employee, and was never actually subject to any adverse administrative action.
Lying whiners. I have no tolerance for card pullers.
But do note that I don't discount the possibility that it could happen in the future. It could even be happening with this thread's case. I just take such claims with a grain of salt given all the past religion card pullers like Gonzalez and Sternberg.