Iowa State University responds

It's fascinating to listen to those who would otherwise oppose the very concept of tenure whine when one of their own is denied it. That's especially ironic, because Gonzalez would have has no problem getting tenure anywhere if his specialty were primate origins.

The chair will inform each candidate in writing before the department's recommendations are submitted to the college, whether a recommendation will be forwarded and, if so, the nature of the recommendation or recommendations. Persons who are not being recommended by either the promotion and tenure review committee or the chair, or both, will be informed by the chair in writing of the reasons. This information should be presented in a constructive manner and, where appropriate, should include guidance for improving performance in terms of the department's criteria for promotion and tenure.

he should have known the reasons why

Hey, Clarissa: Don't judge us all by PZ Myers. Plenty of atheists are "live and let live". I just object when we're FORCED to listen to religious stuff in a non-religious environment, such as work. By the way, I was denied tenure too, and nobody knew I was an atheist, my research was cutting edge, and I was bringing in nearly a quarter of a million dollars to the department yearly.
Science Goddess

My information is that it does NOT.

— the clarissa-bot

1) Whoever said it wasn't OK for granting him tenure? Did anyone actually try, or was the out-of-department response overwhelmingly against him?

2) So he was not alone in being denied tenure.

3) Of the 68, most were published (or is that simply submitted?) prior to him coming to ISU - and therefore, they don't count towards tenure. He claims to have submitted 25 during his time at ISU, but the requirements are for published peer-reviewed papers. Near as anyone can tell, he had at best 17 peer-reviewed publications, and a couple of those are a stretch. So he appears to have barely met the benchmark (one of many) for publication, if at all. The handbook also talks about citations - many of his articles received few if any citations - most of the ones that did were ones that he was not the primary author. And there are a number of other criteria that he didn't talk about, such as teaching.

Anonymous at #175610:

The petition signed by the more than 120 Iowa State faculty does not urge denial of tenure to Gonzalez. It does not even mention him by name.

In addition to that criteria, Gonzalez's department of astronomy and physics sets a benchmark for tenure candidates to author at least 15 peer-reviewed journal articles of quality. Gonzalez said he submitted 68, of which 25 have been written since he arrived at ISU in 2001.

We, the undersigned faculty members at Iowa State University, reject all attempts to represent Intelligent Design as a scientific endeavor. Advocates of Intelligent Design claim that the position of our planet and the complexity of particular life forms and processes are such that they may only be explained by the existence of a creator or designer of the universe. However, such claims are premised on (1) the arbitrary selection of features claimed to be engineered by a designer; (2) unverifiable conclusions about the wishes and desires of that designer; and (3) an abandonment by science of methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism, the view that natural phenomena can be explained without reference to supernatural beings or events, is the foundation of the natural sciences. The history of science contains many instances where complex natural phenomena were eventually understood only by adherence to methodological naturalism. Whether one believes in a creator or not, views regarding a supernatural creator are, by their very nature, claims of religious faith, and so not within the scope or abilities of science. We, therefore, urge all faculty members to uphold the integrity of our university of "science and technology," convey to students and the general public the importance of methodological naturalism in science, and reject efforts to portray Intelligent Design as science.

Anonymous #175610:

You should, perhaps, acquaint yourself with what tenure means and how it works.

Tenure does not work like a gumball machine: insert 15 papers in the slot, and tenure pops out. It doesn't work that way.

Tenure is a form of endorsement by the university as a whole. Your publication record is one part of it, but far from the only one. It also includes things like personal relations, community activity, teaching, grants, quality of ongoing agenda, etc.

Plenty of extraordinary people get denied tenure. A very good professor of mine was denied tenure a while back, despite a publication record far beyond what was required, grant support, etc. Why was it denied? In part, because he didn't come to department luncheons. And that was a legitimate reason to deny him tenure! To get tenure, you need to demonstrate not just that you can publish papers, but that you'll be valuable member of the University community. Because he was someone who kept himself in extreme isolation - he taught his classes, kept office hours and and met with his graduate students, but aside from those, no one ever saw him. He didn't interact with other faculty, didn't participate in any of the faculty committees, etc. So despite an outstanding publication record, advising a half-dozen PhD students who had successfully defended, and bringing in enough money in grants to more than cover his entire salary plus several students, he was denied tenure for being antisocial.

That's the way things go.

I know of two other people who were faculty at an Ivy League University. A group of faculty in the department wanted to hire people who did work in a particular specialty. But the department chair thought that work in that specialty was garbage. So one of the two guys I know was hired, stayed for 6 years, published out the wazoo, and was denied tenure because the department chair didn't like his research area. So the faculty hired *another* person in that area, who stayed for 4 years, published like crazy, and left because he'd been told in no uncertain terms that no matter what he did, he wasn't going to get tenure, because the chair didn't like his area.

Unfair? Yes. Legitimate? Yes. That's the way it goes: you can be denied tenure if someone thinks your research area isn't good, even though you publish and bring in money. The people who were wrong in the story above are the ones who keep hiring people that they *know* haven't got a chance of getting tenure.

Tenure isn't solely a decision of the department. It's perfectly legit to deny someone tenure even though their department recommends them. Tenure makes you a permanent member of the university community, and so the community has a voice in whether or not you get it.

For example, I knew another professor as an undergrad who ended up not getting tenure. He *did* have the endorsement of his department. The guy was a genius, had tons of students, obscene number of publications, etc. But he was an obnoxious SOB. He was in a CS department, but had an old grudge against math students from bad experiences when we were undergrads. So he used to go to the PhD defenses of math students, and ask the most obnoxiously difficult questions he could, in order to throw them off their stride. So the math department intervened with a letter to the university president asking the tenure recommendation of the CS department to be overridden. It was, and he was denied tenure.

I don't know why Gonzalez didn't get tenure. But this endless conspiracy ranting is nonsense. Tenure is a crap-shoot - to get tenure, you need to have the right publications, the right funding, the right research area, the right relations with other members of the university community, etc. Gonzalez clearly didn't have the right relations with the university community, and if the paranoid rantings of his supporters are any reflection of his own attitude, I wouldn't be surprised if he
had a serious problem getting along with the other members of his department.

As I said, I was denied tenure even though I met all the requirements (and then some!) for my department and university. Afterwards, one of the committee told me privately that "we have enough useless PhDs". They were looking for more MDs.

It's often a crap shoot, not a conspiracy.

Science Goddess
And, yes, I still stayed there and retired last year.

Just going to repeat and expand my comment from Ed Brayton's thread.

This whole discussion doesn't have enough facts to really figure out why he was denied tenure, although they are slowly coming out. Astronomy isn't my field and I wouldn't be able to tell if his work was good, bad, or indifferent. Other posters have looked at his work and the pattern seems to be steadily declining quantity and quality.

My best guess is that the university had reason to believe that his pseudoscience was going to contaminate his science or it may have already done so. The risk here is that you end up with a wingnut babbling incoherently.....who has tenure. Much harder to fix later on and a black eye for the university. Tenure is not where one wants to take such a risk.

This happens a lot in universities and I've seen it many times. Sometimes tenured faculty go inert. Sometimes they turn into wingnuts of various sorts. Sometimes they do both. One recently tenured prof had a major breakdown and ended up joining some esoteric Eastern cult. By itself that would have been no big deal. But he literally never once touched a test tube again. He did spend a lot of time sitting at the feet of his guru and meditating.

If Gonzalez wants to mix pseudoscience and science and promote and work with the reality denying, science attackers at the DI, no one will stop him. But who can blame ISU for not wanting to be unwillingly associated with such activities. It would be like the DI hiring a real biologist to head their evolutionary biology program. Gonzalez will certainly find a place that fits his agenda and beliefs much better.

What Mark Chu-Carroll said.
I am another victim of the tenure-decision crapshoot...in my case the department personnel committee decided that grant money trumped all other criteria (the ones actually spelled out in the handbook). I was pissed off--still am--but moved on. No conspiracy.
In the Gonzalez case, as in mine, his own department didn't want him! There are few Deans, Provosts, or Presidents that would overrule a negative decision by the home department.

I looked up the Iowa State info on tenure. In fact 38 were granted tenure this year and 66 were either granted tenure or promoted (not 63 with 3 either denied tenure or promotion as the various articles have been stating). I could find no listing of who was denied tenure. Given that Iowa State has about 60% of its faculty tenured and is concerned that that rate is too high, I find only 3 denials a bit low.

Another source is Regents meeting info on tenure

Mark is absolutely right. However, I think that Gonzalez didn't deserve tenure based solely on his research record. Tenure is awarded based on an individual's performance while an assistant professor. Publications prior to taking up a position don't count directly towards tenure. After all, those papers were what got you the job in the first place - it's double dipping to use them twice. Why not just give the guy tenure on day 1 if that's how it works? What is looked for is a continuation and expansion of one's research and, in particular, that the researcher can carve out a new area of his or her own. Gonzalez had 17 papers while at ISU - some of these were with his previous collaborators/mentors at Univ. of Washington, collaborators at UT Austin etc. So, those papers don't really count, or count less than output from his own research group at ISU (if any - did he have PhD students?). Other papers were reviews - while writing reviews is fine, it is critical to advance new directions as an assistant professor. Gonzalez didn't do that; writing popular articles, textbooks, etc., also does not count towards getting tenure. Typically his role statement would be 45% research and writing textbooks doesn't fall under that rubric. If one is a productive researcher then these things are icing on the cake but they are only icing - you need cake to.

I also checked his funding - now, funding is hard to get but it is a requirement if one is to get tenure. In Gonzalez's 2005 paper: The Astrophysical Journal, 627:432-445, 2005 July 1 this is the acknowledgment:

"We thank the referee for a most thorough and constructive review of the paper. This research has been supported in part by the Robert A. Welch Foundation of Houston, Texas."

So the funding was obtained by his co-authors at Texas - presumably David Lambert. Researchers always acknowledge their grant support in papers. I looked at his review in PASP and there is no acknowledgment of any grant support. In fact the only funding I can find that he acknowledges is an NSF travel grant. I haven't looked at all of his papers but his 2005 Ap article would reasonably have listed any grants that he had obtained while at ISU. The reason one lists funding sources is so that you can use those articles to get new grants - i.e., the articles are evidence of productivity from existing grants and provide a case for grant renewal..

If Gonzalez were not actively pro-ID he would almost certainly have been denied tenure for these reasons anyway - and that's without considering any other areas of performance. It looks to me that he was hired in with high expectations and failed to meet these expectations either because he was distracted by his other activities or because once the training wheels were pulled from under him he collapsed. I suspect the latter.

In any event, why would one want to remain in a Department or University when your colleagues at every level don't want you?

This really is a straightforward case - Gonzalez doesn't have a leg to stand on. It is dishonest of the DI to say that he outperformed by 350% ISU expectations. It is also dishonest to try to make the case that he was denied tenure based primarily on his beliefs. While the latter is possible it only matters when the case for tenure is otherwise watertight. I would support Gonzalez getting tenure no matter what his personal religious beliefs were, provided that he actually met the high standards necessary to get tenure. Otherwise he is blocking a position that a productive researcher could hold.

(1) There was a big campaign outside his department to deny him tenure. A petition urging denial of tenure was submitted with about 120 faculty signatures. If his record was that bad, why didn't his adversaries just let his record speak for itself? What is the value of such a petition that includes signatures of people who are unfamiliar with his qualifications? Was not the petition a meddling in the tenure-candidate review process? And why is it OK to campaign against granting him tenure while it is not OK to campaign in favor of granting him tenure?

(2) Tenure was denied to only 3 of the last academic year's 66 candidates for tenure at Iowa State, so the denial of tenure is not routine at that university.

(3) He published 68 peer-reviewed papers, vastly exceeding his university's benchmark of 15 peer-reviewed papers for tenure candidates.

I know of an ID supporter who recently got tenure in a University. He was very outspoken, even went so far as to claim in a public seminar that "there is no evidence for macroevolution". He even invited Dembski to campus for a job interview. He even published a paper entitled "Intelligent Design and the End of Science" in a "well respected" journal. Everyone in the BIology Department was well aware of his views. However, apparently no one in his department (Philosophy) would speak out against him. So what could we do? It would have been hard to make a case, especially considering the fact that he really is a very good teacher. Obviously we are uncomfortable that such a person is teaching our Philosophy of Science classes. We have a lot of trouble with students who take that class before taking Intro Bio. I guess the evil Darwinist conspiracy failed in this case. Oh well, at least Hovind is behind bars.

Those who claim persesution must realize that they asked for it. It goes with the territory. If you don't want to be discriminated against, wait until after you get tenure to open your big fat mouth. If you choose to do otherwise, about this or almost any other cententious issue, you have to realize that there will be consequences. It is great to have the courage of your convictions, but that is what tenure is all about. Getting tenure on the other hand is an entirely different matter.

Gonzalez is not the first ISU professor to be turned down for tenure, which essentially gives a faculty member a lifetime job at the university. About 12 people have applied for tenure in the past 10 years in the physics and astronomy department, and four of those were denied, said Eli Rosenberg, the chairman of the ISU department of physics and astronomy.

Whether Gonzales was inappropriately denied tenure or not is question I have no way of knowing at present.

As I said on the other forum, there seems to be a willingness to excuse bad tenure processes and political retaliation in the tenure process.

To the extent that we can consider AAUP (www.aaup.org) standards as normative or definitive for academia, much of what is being stated about tenure here goes against established norms and conventions. Of course one could argue that the AAUP guidelines are a bit of a wishlist since University administrators more often than not try to find ways not to follow them. The only time they have any teeth is when they are contractually enforced.

That said, AAUP regulations on tenure do not allow for denying tenure because people in the "community" dislike something you say. AAUP regulations do not allow for denying tenure because in the future or the present someone allies with unpopular causes.

At the time of appointment the University is supposed to provide you with a letter clearly stating the criteria for tenure. If you meet those criteria, you should be granted tenure.

Again, I don't know what did or did not happen in Gonzales' case and I doubt this is "persecution". But if, and I see this as a big if that is yet unestablished, Gonzales was denied tenure **because** of his pro-ID views, **and he was otherwise qualified for tenure** then that is a violation of the principles of academic freedom.

I agree with Chip. And I have to say most of the anecdotal stuff about arbitrary tenure denials runs contrary to my experience, and my experience is quite extensive. The tenure denials I've seen were a result of negligible funding and/or inadequate publication, period. There may be some room for quixotic decision making at the very top, but mid-ranked Universities simply can't afford to turn down prolific, well-funded faculty.

Of coruse, it appears now that Gonzalez was neither funded nor particularly prolific.

David,

Surely you don't think it would have been appropriate to turn down a philosophy professor because you don't like the stance he takes in a philosophy of science class?

I trust you will think through the implications of that.

I face a similar situation at my University. I have a colleague in philosophy who is pro-ID and very anti-"Darwinian". I certainly think people in philosophy have a right to discuss philosophical and metaphysical arguments for and against the existence of God (or any other supernatural force).

Now, I don't think you should turn a molecular biology class into a metaphysics class. There is a responsibility to teach the subject matter.

Personally, I think the ID arguments belong in the philosophy departments and if the ID crowd would just own up to the fact that they want to make a philosophical/metaphysical critique of the philosophical/metaphysical underpinnings of science (and please don't tell me there are none), then as far as I am concerned, the dispute would be mostly over, save for those who enjoy arguing about metaphysics.

So what is wrong with co-authoring papers with one's previous collaborators/mentors?

It's regarded as a sign you haven't developed your own independent line of research.

Not having independent funding is, of course, the killer.

This is going to backfire on Darwinists by exposing the hypocrisy of their claims that they don't persecute critics of Darwinism. The denial of tenure to Gonzalez is rapidly becoming a cause celebre.

Yeah, yeah. The guy was turned down at every level. Little or no funding, publication record that's only adequate - you guys need to find a better victim.

Just a passerby here. I'm not a biologist, a scientist, nor college professor. Just a man on the street and a college graduate with a technical degree. I have no vested interest here.

Anonymous says: "This is going to backfire on Darwinists by exposing the hypocrisy of their claims that they don't persecute critics of Darwinism."

Maybe I'm dense or naive, but I cannot figure out why the DI or anyone else who supports ID is making a big spectacle of this issue. Seems to me they would be smarter to downplay it.

From my vantage point, it makes a lot of sense why ISU would not grant this guy tenure. I wouldn't want my alma mater to. Why would ANY science related department want someone on their staff with tenure who clearly supports pseudoscience and is a Fellow of the DI??? Duh!!! This is not a "persecution of a critic of Darwinism". It's an a clensing of an embarassment.

I think this noise is gonna backfire on the DI - the man on the street response will be, "Hello? Why are you surprised? Doesn't this tell you something about your scam?"

Dave

Clarissa and Anonymous -

As a non-atheist who strongly opposes ID, I object very strongly to Clarissa's foot-stomping. Her logic is that some guy on the internet is "against all religion" (even though he probably says he isn't), and therefore denial of tenure to an astronomer is an atheist plot.

Why are so many Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan, etc, professor granted tenure? Including monks, nuns, priests, etc? The Jesuit astronomer who serves as science advisor to the Vatican could get tenure at any number of secular US universities tomorrow. Grow up.

Anonymous at least tries to make a case.

The issue of denying a science professor tenure for being a vocal advocate of something like ID/creationism, which does not appear to be what happened here, is a complex one.

I do not think that anyone's religious beliefs should bias tenure decisions, except in rare cases where a sincere religious belief might create a conflict of interest, if even then. But this isn't an issue, because a sincere religious person wouldn't create such a situation in the first place.

ID is claimed, by its followers, to not be a religious belief. That's what they claim over and over again. Some find it comical when they slip up and claim that the "designer" is God, but I actually think their first claim is true - ID isn't religious. It's a con game that targets the religious.

It's a clearly fraudulent pseudoscience, and it's a lot worse than, say, astrology or the like. Astrology has no scientific basis, but it doesn't contradict what is known about science - it merely makes additional claims which cannot be supported by science. ID makes illogical claims that are directly in conflict with science.

I wouldn't care if a competent productive scientist had an eccentric belief in astrology, ghosts, leperachauns, or the like, but claiming to advocate ID shows either intense dishonesty, or a belief system that is fundamentally incompatible with scientific inquiry or teaching, or both. You can believe that leperachauns exist but science hasn't documented them yet, but to "believe" in ID you have to reject established science in favor of pseudo-philosophical claptrap.

I think overt advocacy of ID is worthy of consideration in a tenure case, as a negative. But that isn't what happened here.

So what is wrong with co-authoring papers with one's previous collaborators/mentors? And where did you get this information? You people are just pulling unsubstantiated "facts" out of thin air.

— Anonymous

Why shouldn't writing textbooks, reviews, and popular articles in one's field count towards getting tenure?

— Anonymous

Oh, and Anonymous, I forgot to say - I got the information by going and reading some of his papers. The list of authors and their affiliations is clearly noted. Go and have a look.

Chip,

You are correct. I don't think it would be appropriate for a faculty member in the Philosophy Department to be denied tenure due to his philosophical position on anything. I also agree that philosophy is the appropriate place for ID material to be presented. I am fine with discussing ID in philosophy class. In fact, my point was that no matter what the feelings in the Biology Department, there is virtually no way in which we could have affected the tenure decision in another department without the support of members in that department. I know that members of the Philosophy Department are aware of this person's beliefs and publications. If they have no problem giving him tenure then who are we to argue? We don't have to work directly with the guy anyway. Unfortunately, we do suffer the consequences of his handiwork. Still, as far as I know, he keeps all classroom discussions professional and does not advocate for any particular religion in class. And besides, in the immortal words of our President: "We should be intolerant of intolerance."

Such issues are usually not a problem in trying to decide on tenure for biologists. Apparently the same cannot be said for engineers, philosophers and astronomers. Wonder why that is?

"Anonymous" is beginning to sound like Larry Farfromsane.

PZ Myers jumps all over, viciously, even fellow scientists when they speak undeerstandingly of religous views.

I didn't say they didn't count - but they don't count in the research category which is typically 45% of a candidate's predefined - and agreed to - role statement - with a further 45% being allocated for teaching and 10% for service. Of course role statements vary a bit but I'd be shocked if Gonzalez's wasn't somewhere in this region.

For all those ignorants out there, the tenure process is a well established one with a long tradition. It involves lots of steps and opportunities to receive feedback. The person seeking tenure have the opportunity to see what are his/hers deficiencies and work on correct them. The main thrust is on academically relevant activities (research, teaching, mentoring, etc) within the context of the department/university/institute mission.
Not all get tenure and sometimes you are a better fit at another university. Many people have been denied tenure a couple of times and eventually find a niche where they are tenured. But again all revolves around the area of expertise relevant to where you are not other irrelevant issues like some fundies are whining about.

I don't want to get sidetracked here into an argument over the scientific merits of ID

As for ID lacking mechanisms, what good are the mechanisms of Darwinism if those mechanisms are implausible and unproven?

The new rules for getting tenure --- You can't co-author peer-viewed articles with former collaborators/mentors.

You can't write textbooks, reviews, or popular articles. OK, you can do those things if you can also find time to write what you are supposed to write.

Also, the emphasis on "publish or perish" has caused a decline in the quality of education in our colleges. Many college courses are taught by teaching assistants because the professors are too busy doing research and writing papers.

As for independent funding, getting that is often a crapshoot and getting it in some fields is harder than getting it in others. Furthermore, considering independent funding in tenure decisions would cause tenure-track faculty to tend to avoid areas where independent funding is hard to get.

The new rules for getting tenure --- You can't co-author peer-viewed articles with former collaborators/mentors. You can't write textbooks, reviews, or popular articles. OK, you can do those things if you can also find time to write what you are supposed to write.

Also, the emphasis on "publish or perish" has caused a decline in the quality of education in our colleges. Many college courses are taught by teaching assistants because the professors are too busy doing research and writing papers.

Yo, Larry, wassup?

but mid-ranked Universities simply can't afford to turn down prolific, well-funded faculty.

I don't want to get sidetracked here into an argument over the scientific merits of ID, but I will just say a few words. ID is not in conflict with the ideas of changes through time and common descent. As for ID lacking mechanisms, what good are the mechanisms of Darwinism if those mechanisms are implausible and unproven?

As for ID lacking mechanisms, what good are the mechanisms of Darwinism if those mechanisms are implausible and unproven?

The new rules for getting tenure --- You can't co-author peer-viewed articles with former collaborators/mentors.

Many college courses are taught by teaching assistants because the professors are too busy doing research and writing papers.

Furthermore, considering independent funding in tenure decisions would cause tenure-track faculty to tend to avoid areas where independent funding is hard to get.

There is no question in my mind that intolerance of Gonzalez's pro-ID views was the deciding factor in the decision to deny him tenure.

though that statement did not mention Gonzalez by name, one of the statement's authors admitted that Gonzalez was a principal target.

Clearly the people who worked in the same field and near Gonzalez for 5 years or so thought he was not an asset. So who would know more, the department or internet posters who have studied a situation missing most of the relevant facts for a whole 5 minutes or so? I never heard of him before and have no idea what his ID writings said or whether they were totally wingnutty or just run of mill pseudoscience.

But not to worry about him. I'm sure there are any number of christian fundie colleges who would like to have an ID astronomer. I doubt there are very many. Sort of like trying to find an MD who believes in faith healing.

The IDers are part of an antiscience movement. They shouldn't be surprised when their victims refuse to cooperate with their efforts to abolish church and state, overthrow the US government, and head on back to the dark ages.

This actually doesn't apply to the hard sciences, where almost all lectures are still taught by faculty.

What baffles me is why Gonzales even made the effort, after all the rejections he'd received in the past.

What baffles me is why Gonzales even made the effort, after all the rejections he'd received in the past.

Tenure isn't solely a decision of the department. It's perfectly legit to deny someone tenure even though their department recommends them. Tenure makes you a permanent member of the university community, and so the community has a voice in whether or not you get it.

So what is wrong with co-authoring papers with one's previous collaborators/mentors? It's regarded as a sign you haven't developed your own independent line of research. Not having independent funding is, of course, the killer. This is going to backfire on Darwinists by exposing the hypocrisy of their claims that they don't persecute critics of Darwinism. The denial of tenure to Gonzalez is rapidly becoming a cause celebre. Yeah, yeah. The guy was turned down at every level. Little or no funding, publication record that's only adequate - you guys need to find a better victim.

The IDers are part of an antiscience movement. They shouldn't be surprised when their victims refuse to cooperate with their efforts to abolish church and state, overthrow the US government, and head on back to the dark ages.

Anonymous wrote:

"As for ID lacking mechanisms, what good are the mechanisms of Darwinism if those mechanisms are implausible and unproven?"

Do tell, which mechanisms of modern evolutionary theory exactly do you feel are unproven? Which mechanism of ID are proven? In fact, what mechanisms of ID are hypothesized?

When I read the press release, to me, it says "Everyone thinks you suck." So much for persecution. Unless it's a conspiracy of Darwinists who've managed to take over the department... :tinfoil hat:

Tin-foil hat time!

Dave Scott does a breathless rant over at UD on how Scientific American may be conspiring against Gonzales and his article. As far as I can see it's available online but not for free.

http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=D58C8F02-6ED0-4FEE-B12C-BE6BC261B6C

But it's not as if Gonzalez was the only author on this paper. Here is a link to his co-authors.

http://www.astro.washington.edu/rareearth/abouttheauthors.html

It is beyond belief how the UD and DI people behave. Shameless!

Comment #175602 Posted by Clarissa on May 15, 2007 6:26 AM (e) What makes you think that document exists? My information is that it does NOT.

Jeffrey,

Good to know that in your world of Ohio State the tenure process always works perfectly.

For the rest of us I suppose we have to muddle on with the protections of our union contract.

But since tenure is always such a smoothe, perfect process, why should I bother with a union at all?

Tenure may not be a "right", but one is certainly entitled to a right to be treated fairly in the tenure process.

Perhaps the AAUP, NEA and AFT should just dissolve themselves since in your la la land, all tenure decisions are by definition "fair".

Anonymous: "Considering the number of citations is unfair --- those working in major fields are likely to get more citations than those working in minor fields."

News to me. Different fields of science have different publishing rates but the alleged difference in minor/major field publishing rates doesn't ring true to me.

But since tenure is always such a smoothe, perfect process, why should I bother with a union at all?

Tin-foil hat time!

wikipedia wedge document: Wedge strategy proponents are dogmatically opposed to materialism,[5][6][7] naturalism,[6][8] and evolution,[9][10][11][12] and have made the removal of each from how science is conducted and taught an explicit goal.[13][14]

Chip:

My tenure decision went smoothly, but I heard later the only person who raised the issue of my politics was the department's union rep. I think your faith in faculty unions may be a bit misplaced.

Sir Toejam,

Where did I say that the case of Gonzales was going to help me in my "crusade" for fair tenure practices? Where have I said one single scintilla of an iota of a sentence in support of Gonzales? Come to think of it, where did I say i was on a "crusade"?

Academics, as far as I can see, taken as a collective whole are perfectly content to sit back and allow the corporate raiders to take over the University. Why in the world should I waste my time trying to convince them that soilent green is indeed, people?

I have as much faith in faculty unions as I have in democracy. Neither more nor less.

Never heard of the Privileged Planet by Gonzalez before. So I did a net search and 5 minutes worth of reading. It looked like typical creo wingnut stuff.

Supposedly the atmosphere is transparent to visible light so our eyes can function. HUH!!! More likely our eyes evolved to use the radiation wavelengths that are available. It wouldn't make much sense to have eyes that see in the far UV if there isn't any ambient far UV rays around.

A small sample to be sure but it doesn't seem like this book made much of an impression on the scientific community. Or at least a good impression.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, he was denied tenure because of his ID beliefs. So what? How would that be wrong? His beliefs are inherently antithetical to basis and structure of science. I see nothing wrong with it. Hiring a "scientist" that promotes a pseudo-science that directly attacks methodological naturalism, the very basis of science, in a public forum should have consequences.

And my thinking along these lines doesn't stop there. I see no reason to license people as doctors that don't believe in medicine, like Cristian Scientists. Even if they went to some Christian Science college and got some phony, unaccredited MD-esque degree. I see no reason for a church to not fire a priest who declares himself to be an atheist. Even if he's a "fine priest" within the context of doing his duties in a professional manner. For example, the Anglican priest (Freeman) that was fired by the Anglican Church a decade ago. Ironically, despite, in this case, 60+ fellow priests petitioning that he keep his job. I would see no reason for the Army to deny a Chain-of-Command promotion to a Quaker. Though I would question the same denial if were in a support role, like a Doctor or a a Chaplin.

And, BTW, what's all this "religious discrimination" garbage I'm reading in this thread. We all know (wink, wink) that ID is a science and NOT a religious doctrine (nudge, nudge) and has atheist proponents.

Chip --- 0 = 0 ?

Let's say, for the sake of argument, he was denied tenure because of his ID beliefs. So what? How would that be wrong? His beliefs are inherently antithetical to basis and structure of science.

No, I think the IDer tinfoil hat time has come and gone. The only way they can abolish church and state separation is to overthrow the US government. This is a constitutional right and they violate it every time they try to sneak their cultist pseudoscience religion into our childrens science classes.

There is no reason why continued research cannot be good, original research. Under the rule you describe, untenured faculty are simply going to avoid co-authoring papers with previous collaborators/mentors and may stop co-authoring papers altogether.

— Anonymous

Do not write text books Do not spend much time writing reviews Book chapters are dicey because they are usually not reviewed as critically as other works ... Publish your PhD and postdoc papers quickly, preferably in your first summer. Completion of graduate or postdoc work forges your identity and reputation professionally, which helps for letters and grants, but this work will not get you tenure. You need to establish an active and demonstrably productive research program at FIU. You must achieve independence and your own identity. Once your PhD and postdoc papers are out, DO NOT continue to publish with your advisor.

I think that in the sciences and engineering, co-authored papers are more common than single-author ones. And what should a faculty member do when switching from one university to another --- just forget all previous work in order to "blaze a new trail"?

— Anonymous

I think that you are really clutching at straws here.

There is no reason why continued research cannot be good, original research. Under the rule you describe, untenured faculty are simply going to avoid co-authoring papers with previous collaborators/mentors and may stop co-authoring papers altogether. I think that in the sciences and engineering, co-authored papers are more common than single-author ones. And what should a faculty member do when switching from one university to another --- just forget all previous work in order to "blaze a new trail"? I think that you are really clutching at straws here.

— Anonymous

Scholarship often requires teamwork and other collaborative relationships, particularly because of the growth of interdisciplinary and collaborative programs. When work that is a result of joint effort is presented as evidence of scholarship, clarification of the candidate's role in the joint effort must be provided.

— ISU handbook

Supposedly the atmosphere is transparent to visible light so our eyes can function. HUH!!!

I wasn't talking about publishing rates --- I was talking about citations by other papers, books, etc..

Academics, as far as I can see, taken as a collective whole are perfectly content to sit back and allow the corporate raiders to take over the University. Why in the world should I waste my time trying to convince them that soilent green is indeed, people?

To me it is pointless to speculate now on whether he might have been granted tenure in the absence of that intolerance.

First ou speculate (with no evidence), then you say it's pointless to spceulate. Sounds like a typical pointless Larry post to me...

Calm down "Clarissa." Citing two individuals and a mysterious "they" fails to recognize the diversity of those who accept evolution as the best explanation for the origins of life.

As for PZ Meyers, you bet he attacks fellow scientists for statements showing an understanding view toward religion. It infuriates me, but he makes it entirely clear whether he is attacking their religious views or their science. In fairness I don't think I have ever seen him discredit someone's science merely because the person shows sympathy toward a belief in God. He evaluates science against scientific criteria, and religious belief also against scientific criteria. This probably means no religion will ever meet with his acceptance. As he's a passionate, outspoken person, it's no surprise that his views on religion and atheism are part of his shtick. While I often disagree, I support his freedom to promote atheist views. He does not and can not speak for all who find evolutionary explanations valid, but he is always interesting.

Personally, I have never encountered the alleged massive conspiracy to push atheism using evolutionary biology. Recalling my days in academia, instructors made no mention of God, pro- or anti-. I was never informed that I must drop all spiritual belief in order to embrace evolution. If my experience is representative, scientists don't particularly care, with the caveat that they will vigorously unmask non-science trying to pass itself off as science. Even in social situations I can't think of one scientist who would bring up religion unless I did.

As for denial of tenure to Gonzalez, service to the community has always been a legitimate criterion for tenure, so disserve must be as well. Perhaps some felt he did a disservice to the community to advocate a pseudo-scientific philosophy, dressing it up as science. If so, I believe they would be perfectly entitled to vote their conscience and deny tenure.

It would be astounding to see this much support, or not, over every professor who is denyed tenure.

The bottom line fact is that we can speculate and grumble and rant over what we would do or not do, or what the ISU committee should have done or not done but in the end it was their decision, not ours.

The fact that Gonzalez had no support up and down the line should be telling.

If Gonzalez is all that brilliant and all that wonderful and all that, then he will surface at another university and show ISU that it was wrong.

Over to you, GG, the ball's in your court.

My prediction is that GG will sink into the primordial ooze with his pal WD and never be heard from again.

Sir Toejam and David B. Benson.

Please stop addressing me and I will return the favor.

Thank you.

Sir Toejam and David B. Benson. Please stop addressing me and I will return the favor. Thank you.

I think that those rules are stupid.

That link you gave gives stupid advice like, "Editing work of others is considered professional service, not original research." If one does enough editing of a particular work, then one deserves to be listed as a co-author.

Anonymous@#175644

No, I'm not defending the denial of tenure to Gonzalez by comparing it to other unfair denials of tenure.

My point was that all of the cases I mentioned were legitimate denials of tenure. Granting tenure is giving someone a lifetime position at a university. It's a big deal, and there are numerous factors that go into the decision.

It can seem unfair - as in the case of the department chair who didn't like a particular research area. But the point is that to get tenure, you need to convince the community: both your department, and the larger university community, that you'll be a valuable part of that community for the entirety of your career. If your research doesn't show promise of growing into something of long-term value to the research community, then you shouldn't get tenure. The department chair in my example legitimately and honestly believed that the research area of those candidates simply did not have any hope becoming a long-term valuable area of research, and that the candidates did not show the potential as researchers to grow into other areas should their focus area collapse as a research topic. Believing that, he was absolutely correct in advocating that they be denied tenure.

The candidate who was denied tenure for not going to lunch sounds like a silly story, and an unreasonable reason for denying someone tenure. But the truth of the matter is, as I explained, the candidate was completely withdrawn, not interacting with anyone but his own students. No contact with other members of the department, no involvement with the university community, no activity on faculty committees. Someone who refuses to participate in the community of the department and the university should not be granted a lifetime position as a part of that community.

Or the guy who used to try to trash math students defenses. It didn't detract from the quality of his own research or the number of publications he had, or the amount of grant money he brought in. But it was a very clear demonstration that he did not have the temperament to be a good professor.

Like I said in my original comment: tenure isn't about "put 15 papers into the tenure machine, and tenure certificate pops out". There's a lot that goes into the decision besides just some magic number of required publications. Getting tenure is about judging what kind of professor you'll be. Your publication history is definitely a very important factor in making that judgement. But so is your social behavior, your teaching, the way you interact with your coworkers, the way you interact with graduate students and undergraduate students, the role you play in faculty committees and department decision making, and numerous other factors.

*Just* pointing out that Gonzalez had the magic number of publications doesn't mean he deserved tenure. And yet, that's pretty much the entire response from the IDists: But he had enough publications! So clearly there must be something dishonest about not giving him tenure!

That's just not how it works.

And papers cite papers that cite papers that cite papers and so forth and so the original paper may never get full credit for its contribution.

That link you gave gives stupid advice like, "Editing work of others is considered professional service, not original research." If one does enough editing of a particular work, then one deserves to be listed as a co-author.

— Anonymous

Of course he can't take 100% credit --- he can't take 100% credit regardless of who the co-author was. Also, because different co-authors often make completely different kinds of contributions to a paper, it is generally impossible to exactly divvy up their contributions by percentages.

— Anonymous

Mark C,

Purely atrocious. This has got to be the worst apologetics for politicized tenure processes I have ever heard.

No, no, no and a thousand times no. Tenure processes should not be driven by vague, subjective inarticulable prejudices or wild guesses about the future. Tenure is not supposed to be a mystical decision made by a college of cardinals sending colored smoke out of a chimney.

I don't know about Gonzales' case enough to even begin to make a reasoned judgement. And contrary to the outright distorted (I think deliberate) implications by some, I am not using Gonzales as any kind of poster child for a campaign.

What you wrote is a perfect example of the type of cynical, go along to get along corruption of the tenure process that leads to politicized decisions, academic norming, endless churning out of short, trivial articles, lack of reflective scholarship, and is alas, reflective of the creeping corporate ethos that has invaded academia.

I think that those rules are stupid. They put people in strait-jackets and prevent them from using their own judgment in choosing the kinds of work that are most productive and that make the best contributions to their fields.

There are some serious drawbacks...Woodmorappe resorts to lots of name calling when he does not like an adversary's argument...is called Moore's "parrot" (p. 21), echo (p. 37)...is called "naive"; is accused of having "fantasies" and displaying "ignorance." Opponents "imagine" their arguments. All this name calling is a distraction from Woodmorappe's point

I don't know about Gonzales' case enough to even begin to make a reasoned judgement. And contrary to the outright distorted (I think deliberate) implications by some, I am not using Gonzales as any kind of poster child for a campaign.

Sir Toejam,

I have not once said that I thought Gonzales was inappropriately denied tenure.

Please stop addressing me.

I find it surprising that nobody's mentioned one little fact: there's intense competition to get into a tenure-track position. I got my Ph.D. at a solid 2nd-tier university. My advisor was in the physics department. He told me that there were 200-300 applicants per tenure-track position. If Gonzales (as mentioned by others above) has problems with a) finding grant money, b) getting grad students, and c) getting a good number of publications in good journals without sucking from the teat of his postdoctoral advisor, well, fuck him. There's another 200 applicants who will gladly sell their own mothers for a chance at his job. ISU's a good school--it's where I got my B.S. in biochemistry--they can do much better.

I think that those rules are stupid. They put people in strait-jackets and prevent them from using their own judgment in choosing the kinds of work that are most productive and that make the best contributions to their fields.

There is no reason why continued research cannot be good, original research. Under the rule you describe, untenured faculty are simply going to avoid co-authoring papers with previous collaborators/mentors and may stop co-authoring papers altogether. I think that in the sciences and engineering, co-authored papers are more common than single-author ones. And what should a faculty member do when switching from one university to another --- just forget all previous work in order to "blaze a new trail"?

Evidently there were things that became obvious to department members that made them recognize that Gonzalez could not be a productive researcher and long term contributor to the department.

It seems evident that many of the ID/Creationists who have acquired PhDs got through their programs with grotesque misconceptions about science still in place. Given the time pressures on faculty members and the fact that many PhD dissertations deal with rather mundane matters that don't really probe the depth of a person's understanding of science, it is not surprising that this can happen. Perhaps some of these fundamentalists have learned to exploit these kinds of situations. The scientific evidence simply doesn't support the doctrines of the ID/Creationists, so in order to avoid debilitating cognitive dissonance, most of these ID/Creationists have managed to put in place a pile of misconceptions that fit with their religious preconceptions but that never get challenged during their training.

However, when one finally has to submit research proposals in a peer-reviewed funding process, it quickly becomes evident that the person with such misconceptions can't even formulate a research proposal that has any chance of adding to the knowledge in a field. The ID/Creationists may not realize it, but it is extremely difficult to do scientific research if one's fundamental understanding of the established science is wrong. You become a liability and an embarrassment to the department in which you serve.

When the ID/Creationists complain that they are being excluded by a closed-minded scientific cabal, it is very likely due to the fact that they really don't know what is wrong with their own understanding of the science. It may make a good political ploy to gain the sympathy of their followers, but it doesn't fool people who know.

I have had the impression that many of these ID/Creationists got their PhDs in order to appear to have some authority in a debate or in some other venue where they can't be challenged effectively. What they don't seem to understand is that the process of science doesn't take place in op-ed columns, choreographed debates, or kangaroo courts. Part of their whiney dismay about being rejected probably can be traced to their misconceptions about science and how it works. This is what comes from being sheltered by fairy tales all one's life.

Chip Poirot wrote: Please stop addressing me.

Bad news. Once you put a comment out there anybody can address you. Even me.

anonymous "I wasn't talking about publishing rates --- I was talking about citations by other papers, books, etc.."

I still have a problem with that. 'Major' fields have more papers and but also more people. 'Minor' fields have fewer papers but also fewer people. If you take the ratio of (papers published) to (people available to be cited), that may balance. In fact it's easier to be a bigger fish in a smaller pond as smaller fields tend to be more incestuous. It's also tougher to have a big impact in a large field because there are so many others doing similar work. The best you can do is normalize.

In any case, few outside of the review committee and certainly nobody I've read anywhere has firm idea why tenure was denied. So, all these discussions may all be big fun but they're not terribly illuminating.

Chip Poirot writes, regarding Mark C. Chu-Carroll's discussion of the issues behind tenure decisions...
"This has got to be the worst apologetics for politicized tenure processes I have ever heard."

It wasn't apologetics, it was a statement of fact. Tenure decisions are multidimensional and some of those 'dimensions' aren't necessarily tied to strict academic performance.

continuing...
What you wrote is a perfect example of the type of cynical, go along to get along corruption of the tenure process that leads to politicized decisions, academic norming, endless churning out of short, trivial articles, lack of reflective scholarship, and is alas, reflective of the creeping corporate ethos that has invaded academia.

It has always been there. The problem is that during non-boom and highly-competitive times the number of seats in this game of musical chairs can seem pretty small. You should consider Japan or Germany if you want to compare processes elsewhere...

That said, I have several friends and colleagues who sailed through the tenure process in extremely competitive fields and encountered no significant political issues at all.

Plenty of extraordinary people get denied tenure. A very good professor of mine was denied tenure a while back, despite a publication record far beyond what was required, grant support, etc. Why was it denied? In part, because he didn't come to department luncheons. And that was a legitimate reason to deny him tenure! To get tenure, you need to demonstrate not just that you can publish papers, but that you'll be valuable member of the University community. Because he was someone who kept himself in extreme isolation - he taught his classes, kept office hours and and met with his graduate students, but aside from those, no one ever saw him. He didn't interact with other faculty, didn't participate in any of the faculty committees, etc. So despite an outstanding publication record, advising a half-dozen PhD students who had successfully defended, and bringing in enough money in grants to more than cover his entire salary plus several students, he was denied tenure for being antisocial.

Hey, Clarissa: Don't judge us all by PZ Myers. Plenty of atheists are "live and let live". I just object when we're FORCED to listen to religious stuff in a non-religious environment, such as work.

Hi there, Pumpkinhead!

Back again for another childish, content free rant, I see.

Tom h.

Sir Toejam has a habit of either misunderstanding what I say or of deliberately misrepresenting them. Either way, it amounts to someone constantly mischaracterizing my position rather than addressing my arguments. In addition, Sir Toejam deliberately engages in things that are designed to be rude and insulting-such as calling me "chippy" instead of "chip".

While making fun of people's names may make some feel clever or smart, it is IMO simply a way to try and start a flamewar.

Anybody who cares to can look over the history of my posts at PT over the last several years and very quickly conclude the following:

1. I am not an advocate of ID:
2. I am not an advocate of teaching ID.
3. I am not an advocate of "teaching the controversy" as a scientific controversy. I think "the controversy" should be taught in University philosophy classes since it does raise some potentially interesting metaphysical arguments. But I certainly do not advocate teaching it as "controversy in science" or as a controversy in a science classroom.
4. I do admittedly hold to an absolutist view of the First Amendment and to academic freedom and I think it should be applied wherever possible to high schools and not just to Universities. I recognize this may lead to the presentation of some bad and junk ideas in classrooms. I can live with that (I don't celebrate it) provided that the course material is being covered in a rigorous way. I am against any kind of "orthodoxy sniffers" in any size, shape or form patrolling classrooms at any level.
5. I have made no defense of Gonzales whatsoever.
6. I have said repeatedly that I doubt his claim of "persecution" and the claim of the ID movement to be persecuted.
7. I find the willingness of several people on this board who are obviously academics to justify, in the abstract, practices such as not granting tenure to otherwise well qualified people because:
a. they didnt' come to enough luncheons;
b. something they said or did was "embarassing" to the University (I am sure many, for example, would like to get rid of Noam Chomsky for being embarassing. Or maybe some would like to fire Lewontin for his well known Marxist views). The case of Lewontin brings up an interesting parallel. Here is one of the top ranked geneticists in the world who significantly misrepresents entire fields such as sociobiology on the basis of his Marxist ideology. Should he be fired as an embarassment?
c. Denying tenure despite the fact that someone clearly met the conditions of their appointment letter, the union contract, the faculty handbook because they think tenure is some mystical right to be conferred by a college of cardinals if "they just feel right about it."

I have never said that any of the above happened to Gonzales. I have no way of knowing either way and even if it did that does not add up to a campaign of persecution against ID.

However, if, and I say if Gonzales was otherwise qualified for tenure and if (again if) he was denied tenure for his ID views, then that was wrong.

I refuse to celebrate or advocate actions that weaken the concept of academic freedom in general just as a means of getting pro-ID people.

O'Brien -

Raven's comments are quite accurate. They may be exaggerated for effect, but if you want to stamp out science and replace it with "non-materialistic" study of nature - and that's what the extremely well-known "Wedge Document" says ID is all about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_document, those are precisely the things you'd have to do. Case in point - Bush-appointed Republican Judge Jones ruled very strongly against ID in Dover public schools, and the creationists were subsequently voted off the school board. How are you going to reverse that, while respecting the rule of law and maintaining seperation of church and state. No flip, content-free, sarcastic answers please - answer the question if you reply.

Anonymous -

"I don't want to get sidetracked here into an argument over the scientific merits of ID, but I will just say a few words."

BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!!! You're here to screech that Gonzalez was denied tenure because of his support of ID, but the scientific merits of ID are a "sidetrack"! Of course, it looks as if he was denied tenure for other reasons, but since your claim is that it was because of ID...

"ID is not in conflict with the ideas of changes through time and common descent."

Then what's the point of it? We have natural explanations of life's diversity if you allow changes through time and common descent.

"As for ID lacking mechanisms, what good are the mechanisms of Darwinism if those mechanisms are implausible and unproven?"

This suggests that you don't have a clue what the mechanisms of biological evolution actually are.

That's a straw man argument. "Editing" doesn't necessarily mean just spell-checking and correcting grammatical errors. Editing can also mean searching for erroneous or flawed reasoning and suggesting additions, deletions, or changes.

— Anonymous

(quoting me) "The difference is that if your co-authors are your own PhD students it is clear who is guiding the work." No, it is not clear at all. As an engineering grad student (not even a Ph.D), I once was a co-author of a paper presented at a conference. My contribution to the paper was my own independent work. In fact, my work was the main subject of the paper and without my work there would have been no paper at all.

— Anonymous

Chip Poirot:

I think you raise an interesting point. In one corner, we have the notion of tenure as a means of protecting the academic freedoms (which means peculiarities, NOT me-too-ism) of a noted researcher from petty political dismissal. Presumably, before tenure was developed, nobody with any sense would do research into any area the Powers That Be at the university were uncomfortable with. That was the fast track out the door, at the end of a boot. And from this perspective, it's those who don't "go along to get along" who are in most need of tenure, and make the best use of the protections it provides.

But in the other corner, tenure presents a clear and present danger to the organization. Behe's case is classic - once he received tenure, his research slammed to a stop permanently, and he became a preacher for anti-science religion. He has without question shamed his entire institution, and continues to do so with impunity, while contributing absolutely nothing in his field. And I have no doubt that academia is quite populated with tenured do-nothings who attend luncheons, serve on committees, and are friendly and non-threatening to everyone.

I think there is some substance to Mark's position that intangibles should play an important role in the tenure decision. Tenure should require more than simply being able to put checkmarks in boxes; a strictly mechanical process. Whether he has stretched this to the point where tenure is almost entirely a matter of how well the candidate has played office politics, is a good question. The goal is to protect someone whose research will continue to be a credit to the institution, and ALSO who won't unduly disturb or embarrass it.

So there would seem to be a tradeoff. If you're going to have some eccentricity, you'd damn well better be outstanding in your area of expertise. And the more potentially embarrassing your peculiarity, the more spectacular your accomplishments need to be.

Ultimately, the perceived self-interest of the university is paramount. Go-along ciphers may make your life tranquil, but it also means your university is second-rate (or worse), and won't attract the sort of students to correct this. You surely need a few really outstanding researchers, even if they're jerks.

Unorthodoxy in science is perfectly tolerable, if it's backed by solid research. You WANT people who are willing to drink the ulcer bacteria to prove their point. But you also need some grounds on which people might be rejected, or why bother with the exercise? So far, I've seen you reject what you consider inappropriate reasons for rejection, but I don't get any clear picture of what you'd prefer instead. SOME people are simply mediocre. On the face of it, Gonzalez meets this description. Given his, uh, hobbies, mediocrity isn't nearly good enough.

Flint,

Thanks for that thoughtful reply. The following are what I think are appropriate reasons for not granting tenure, weighted by the tenure requirements/purpose of the institution.

1. Their teaching is not up to par of what is reasonably expected of people being granted tenure. The evidence that supports the rejection of tenure is supported by appropriately weighted factors such as poor student evaluations, poor peer/chair in class evaluations, lack of appropriate rigor in courses or failure to cover the subject matter of the course.

2. Failure to meet the relevant standards of that university for research. Evidence for this is lack of peer reviewed publications, failure to publish in appropriate journals (at the top ranked research institutions), research that is trivial, etc. how much research and what kind of research weighs in depends of course on the University.

3. An unwillingness to do one's part on committees, etc.

4. Documented instances of misconduct.

What the criteria are and how they are weighted should be clearly specified in the appointment letter and the handbook or contract. Simply put, the appropriate reasons for denying tenure are those that relate to the University's specified tenure requirements.

A decision to grant/not grant tenure IMO is a bit like a professor grading a student paper or a jury weighing guilt or innocence. You can probably never have 100% objectivity and there will always be some subjective weighing and evaluating and sifting. Maybe the candidate was an unusally strong teacher and served on a lot of committees but his or her research was very weak. In some institutions that would qualify for tenure, in other institutions it might legitimately preclude tenure.

Long before you get to the tenure review process there should have first been a mid-term review where you were advised to start looking for another job, upgrade your efforts towards tenure, or informed you were sailing along. People should go into the tenure process with a pretty good idea of their prospects.

Granting or not granting tenure is not a matter of checking boxes per se, but if the faculty handbook says "tenure will be granted if you have five peer reviewed articles in relevant journals" then it is unfair and innapropriate to turn around and say well we really meant six. how you weight coauthored papers, conference papers, books, chapters in books again is to some degree subjective and varies by institution.

In short, the only valid reasons for denying tenure are that the person has not met the academic standards of the institution where they are. If that person has met the standards then tenure should be granted, unless there is some clearly documented other problem-such as a **Valid and well warranted** sexual harassment complaint, for example.

Granting tenure, as I said, is a bit like grading. A student getting an "A" isn't like checking a box. But if I say in my class syllabus an A paper has characteristics x, y and z, then I don't have the right to make up b and c as additional requirements, or grade the paper down because the student said bad things behind my back.

I am against any kind of "collegiality" test or any "test" for "institutional fitness". That is just a way for adminstrators to weed out people who they think will challenge administrative abuses, or for colleagues to attack people whose political ideas they don't like. Notably, the AAUP opposes this practice.

Hello, everyone. I'm a half-educated non-academic who has been reading this thread with tourist-y interest. (I've always wondered what went into a tenure decision, and I find academic culture fascinating, even if I wouldn't want to live there.)

Speaking simply as someone who might be going back to school and as someone who is in a position to influence which schools my sibling's kids go to, I'm thrilled at the high-profile to-do over Gonzales. We non-insiders so seldom get a chance to evaluate a school based on the conspicuousness of its standards-upholding. You must know that's what this all looks like to us out here--some goof with no idea how to do science is trying to crash his lazy, deluded musclehead into a field dominated by clear thinking and facts. Quality control.

If Gonzales had got tenure, and the creationists had, as is inevitable, used him as a celebrity advocate, and I was going to school where he taught, I would quit. It's not that hard to switch schools as an undergraduate. But I'd make sure I did it before the new school asked me uncomfortable questions about the quality of my education at the old school.

Chip Poirot --- A suggestion:

Just don't respond to posts addressed to Chippy.

That must be somebody else and I, at least, do not bother to read the posts that begin that way...

PvM: Anonymous bears a strong similarity to Larry Fafarman: engineer, inability to construct a coherent argument, "one can use X without believing it", overconfidence in his understanding of the legal system, and the format of his posts, among others.

Can you check the IP address and block him, if it is Larry? We don't need to return to last year, when he hijacked all the threads with his inane ramblings. Thanks.

In short, the only valid reasons for denying tenure are that the person has not met the academic standards of the institution where they are. If that person has met the standards then tenure should be granted, unless there is some clearly documented other problem-such as a **Valid and well warranted** sexual harassment complaint, for example. Granting tenure, as I said, is a bit like grading. A student getting an "A" isn't like checking a box. But if I say in my class syllabus an A paper has characteristics x, y and z, then I don't have the right to make up b and c as additional requirements, or grade the paper down because the student said bad things behind my back.

Flint,

What I am saying is that at the time of appointment in the initial letter of appointment, in the handbook or contract, the University should specify what it considers as "excellent", or sufficient to earn tenure.

That criterion can be "you have to walk on water" or it can be "you just need to be an effective teacher". If a University only tenures potential Nobel prize winners-fine.

What I object to is defining the tenure standards as x,y and z, and then at the end saying it is something else.

But let's look at it this way. Two candidates go up for tenure: one is male, one is female. Both have fully met the stated requirements for tenure. Both are equal in all respects. But the University says to one, you cannot have tenure because of things we just made up on the spot.

That is prima facie evidence of discrimination.

David Benson,

But you see nothing wrong with gratuituous personal insults, right? As evidenced by your previous post:

Chip -0=0 thus implying, Chip = 0.

I'd call that rude and insulting and also somewhat irrelevant.

What would you call it?

ISU's a good school---it's where I got my B.S. in biochemistry---they can do much better.

Comment #176001 Posted by Robert O'Brien on May 16, 2007 7:04 PM (e) | kill DMA wrote: ISU's a good school---it's where I got my B.S. in biochemistry---they can do much better.

Chip Poirot --- It was a joke. I should have put a smiley face on it.

In particular, you said you trusted two different institutions equally, without specifying how much.

It was certainly not intended as an insult, or even to hint at one. My apologies.

What I am saying is that at the time of appointment in the initial letter of appointment, in the handbook or contract, the University should specify what it considers as "excellent", or sufficient to earn tenure.

David,

Sorry for not getting the joke. I actually normally have a pretty decent sense of humor. Toejam sets me off.

Flint,

I don't think we are that far apart. What I am advocating is simply consistent with the AAUP recommended standards on academic freedom.

I agree-there will always be some weighing of relevant qualifications and that is why you can never get it precisely.

I think what is achievable is that tenure processes be above board, fair and that rules not be made up at the last minute. For example, if you are a mid level teaching/research university and someone has five peer reviewed articles and excellent teaching evaluations, don't suddenly make up the requirement that you have to publish in the top journals instead of the mid level journals. Especially if no one else at the University publishes in the top journals. On the other hand, if you are a top tier university and everyone knows you have to publish in the top ranked journals and you don't do it, then fair's fair.

But what I am really saying is that the role of a tenure committee, Dean, Provost and President is to weigh facts like a jury and to apply facts to the rules. That's a lot different from checking a box. It's also a lot different from pretending that tenure is some mystical process.

I can do without the "good of the institution" stuff. That sounds like a good way for corporate minded Presidents to just get rid of people who they think don't fit with their corporate agenda.

If in the end, protection of diversity of thought, open debate, etc. lead to the preservation of a few screwballs, I would rather live with that than the alternative.

If Gonzales has a case then he can make it to the appeals committee, to the AAUP, or to the courts. Or he can do what a lot of people do who are denied tenure and move on. I'm frankly not too worried about him.

Hey, has my old pal Larry been hanging around lately? Hey, Larry, if you're here, Robo says hi!

:-P

I am against tenure, but I feel that it should be fair while we have it. My attitude towards people who are in favor of tenure is, "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

— Anonymous

Wrong again, Pumpkinhead: Children are actually brainwashed into a religion from the day they're born. We don't give them evolution in school until at least the 7th grade. Look at how many years they've become inculcated with EVILUTION as opposed to EVOLUTION. For some of them, their minds are completely closed to fact after they've heard at home and at church that there's no evidence. Evolution is real science, with actual data. There ARE transitional fossils, lots of them. The genetic, embryologic (evo-devo) and fossil evidence is all there for those who will open their eyes. It's religion that demands faith without evidence, not evolution. Besides, this isn't a thread about evolution, and I'm not trying to start one.

SG

I point out that Behe, a tenured professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, has completely stopped doing any original biochemistry research, and Anonymous responds that Kansas and Georgia have good aerospace industries! Now THERE is a rebuttal!

I point out that Behe, a tenured professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, has completely stopped doing any original biochemistry research, and Anonymous responds that Kansas and Georgia have good aerospace industries! Now THERE is a rebuttal!

Laser, you lousy scumbag, Larry and I have as much right to comment here as you do.

But Kansas and Georgia now have healthy aerospace industries whereas Southern California's once fabulous aerospace industry has gone down the tubes. So who are the dumb ones?

Anyway, the answer is no. Larry has LESS right to post here.

My, we have got an agressive little anonymous. It such a shame ID Creationism has no evidence to back it up.

If you'd like to pop over to
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SF;f=14

the forum for this place, you can vent your anger in more congenial company.

What I was rebutting was this notion that critics of evolution are "embarrassments" that drive away people and businesses.

Willard is right

So instead of doing something positive to try to improve the reputation of ISU, the 120 faculty members who signed the anti-ID letter that implicitly targeted Gonzalez were attracting negative attention to the university.

What I was rebutting was this notion that critics of evolution are "embarrassments" that drive away people and businesses.

It is my understanding that GG has:

1. No major funding,
2. No graduated students, and few to none students at all, and
3. A middling and boring publication history.

It's just Iowa State, but it's still a significant research university. It's the kind of place people go when they can't make it at a top tier university.

GG has the makings for tenure at some place none of us have ever heard of, but Iowa State would be wasting time and resources on him.

GG might be the best ID has so far, but that is not a compliment.

Yes, I am Larry. I deserve to post here just like anywhere else.

Yes, I am Larry. I deserve to post here just like anywhere else.

Panda's Thumb Comment Integrity Policy [snip] 6. Posting under multiple identities or falsely posting as someone else may lead to removal of affected comments and blocking of the IP address from which those comments were posted, at the discretion of the management.

"PvM, you have no shame. You have been deleting my comments here, even though those comments have been on-topic, serious, and polite (unless I am provoked). You are just a big phony with no credibility."

Ah, Larry. Still referring back to the good old fundie martyr complex. Oh, the pain.

"Your unethical action is also very inconsiderate, as I spent a lot of time researching and writing the comments."

Hey, Larry did research! (giggle)

If it makes you feel better, I miss ya, Larry!

dear sir
I am interested in the history, may I have a list of names of great modern scientist that where also known cristias?
Begining from Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, Benjamin Franklin...till the Francis Shaeffer

dear sir
I am interested in the history, may I have a list of names of great modern scientist that where also known cristias?
Begining from Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, Benjamin Franklin...till the Francis Shaeffer