The Disco Institute has a press conference on Gonzalez's behalf

Mark my words, some DI person will in a fit of pique utter the words "religious persecution."

Professors who believe in ID should not get tenure, because ID is not science.

ID is not science because they have almost no publications in mainstream journals.

ID researchers have almost no publications in mainstream journals because they do not receive funding from mainstream scientific agencies.

ID researchers do not receive funding from mainstream scientific agencies because ID is not science.

Therefore:
Since ID is not science, Professors who believe in ID should not get tenure.

realpc: Professors who believe in ID should not get tenure, because ID is not science. ID is not science because they have almost no publications in mainstream journals. ID researchers have almost no publications in mainstream journals because they do not receive funding from mainstream scientific agencies. ID researchers do not receive funding from mainstream scientific agencies because ID is not science. Therefore: Since ID is not science, Professors who believe in ID should not get tenure.

I am most confused by the DI's approach to the whole Gonzalez situation. They are treating the tenure review guidelines as if they are a set of rules, a sort of hard-and-fast minimum requirement.

Flint: I'm just waiting for some Hispanic group to enter the suit on the grounds that Gonzalez wasn't granted tenure because of his ethnic background.

Flint:

I'm just waiting for some Hispanic group to enter the suit on the grounds that Gonzalez wasn't granted tenure because of his ethnic background.

What a pity that the "Discovery Institute" hangs its hat on this issue rather than "discovery" in science. I'm still eagerly awaiting their single testable hypothesis, and the discovery it leads to.

Regarding Gonzalez, once again, somebody cannot undermine the academic mission of an institution of higher learning and then claim the high privilege of tenure. It is that simple.

Professors who believe in ID should not get tenure, because ID is not science.

ID is not science because they have almost no publications in mainstream journals.

ID researchers have almost no publications in mainstream journals because they do not receive funding from mainstream scientific agencies.

ID researchers do not receive funding from mainstream scientific agencies because ID is not science.

Therefore: Since ID is not science, Professors who believe in ID should not get tenure.

This is another Waterloo moment for the DI.

The DI is capital Desperate for an academic to replace Behe. Think about it. Behe is retirement age. Behe screwed the ID pooch at Dover on three important points: experimental ID, astrology and failure as an expert witness. Behe tried, and failed, to make a comeback with his book, Edge of Evolution. Behe is old school.

Not only does the DI need a new academic, but they need to open a new front, too. Cosmology. Without Gonzalez the DI is sunk. They have no "credibility" with popular culture and the scientific un-literate. ID in biology is a dead end thanks to Kitzmiller. Just look at the roll-back in interest in ID by school boards post-Kitzmiller. Just this week New Mexico flipped and Kitzmiller was a major factor.

The DI will fight tooth and nail to get Gonzalez tenured. Notice how cagey the lawyer was today when pressed for what the DI would want out of a lawsuit. "Justice," he said. "Tenure," he thought. It doesn't matter to the DI if Gonzalez is the most loved or most hated professor at ISU so long as he has tenure so they can use the phrase "distinguished professor at the prestigious university, ISU..."

Look around. If Gonzalez falls who do they have?

Doc Bill: This is another Waterloo moment for the DI.

Professors who believe in ID should not get tenure, because ID is not science.

— Realpc

I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world.

ID is not science because they have almost no publications in mainstream journals.

Not only does the DI need a new academic, but they need to open a new front, too. Cosmology. Without Gonzalez the DI is sunk.

Yesterday the Discovery Institute held a press conference at the capitol building in Des Moines, to announce Guillermo Gonzalez’s plans to sue Iowa State University over their decision to deny him tenure.

You think they'll actually do it?

Also: On what grounds do they plan to sue? And who's paying for this lawsuit?

Everyone keep an eye out for the DI and their legal associates *demanding* that the judge rule on the issue of whether ID is science.

" the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme."

Oh, I see. No matter how bogus an idea seems to be, it's actually a scientific theory as long as it is "fully worked out." The Darwnian theory explains exactly how evolution happened, while ID is vague and uncertain. So the Darwinian theory has to be the most scientific theory of evolution.

I finally get what you guys have been saying all along.

Their 4,000 [year] mythology is contradicted by most of modern science, modern history, and modern archeology.

— raven

I think it would be very good to get a full-blown lawsuit, because that is the moment that the cards need to be played and put on the table.

Apparently DI has already claimed religious bias. From the Register article: "Gonzalez's backers have insisted that he lost out on tenure, and will lose his job at the end of the school year, because of his religious beliefs and his advocacy for intelligent design."

If I were Eric Rothschild or Nick Matzke or Barbara Forrest, I would be sharpening my claws in delighted anticipation. No matter what the DI comes up with, they are going to go down in hideously prominent flames, just like they did in Dover.

If I ran the world, I would make Iowa State University give as many loud critical call-the-dunces-and-liars-out news conferences as the DI. Take the gloves off.

I'll say it one more time-and probably a few more times. The following of course is not necessarily legally binding. The legal obligation of Universities to adhere to the following principles depends on the state, the University, whether faculty are unionized, etc. These principles are generally accpeted as normative in academia.

1. AAUP (American Association of University Professors)view of tenure requirements is that professors should be informed of the requirements for tenure at the time of appointment, and if those requirements are met, they should be granted tenure. A University may set any requirement for tenure that it wishes provided that requirement is non-discriminatory. What it may not do is add additional tenure requirements at the last minute.

2. Universities cannot have "secret" tenure proceedings. They have to follow the tenure procedures they have published.

3. Academic freedom applies even to unpopular and wacky opinions. Provided someone's publications are in the appropriate journals, the views expressed in those publiciations or the views expressed elsewhere cannot be held against someone in the tenure process.

4. In deciding tenure or any other similar case my best guess is that courts will apply a "but for" test. So the question in this case is if you removed Gonzalez' advocacy of ID, would he have been granted tenure?

5. Some of the issues mentioned such as failure to obtain grants, failure to mentor students, etc. would (or one would think) be included in multiple ways in the University's and Department's guidelines (e.g. advising students and supervising student research is normallhy listed as a requirement for professors in research Universities as is applying for and receiving grants). The other factors that need to be looked at is what has happened in other tenure cases in the same disciplines. Does the University normally tenure in the natural sciences in spite of the lack of grant money? Is Gonzalez' application for tenure in line with past decisions?

Getting tenure is not a "right", but on the other hand it is not up to the whim of faculty or administrators to grant tenure. The right is to due process and to equitable treatment in the tenure process.

AGain, I don't know that Gonzalez was treated unfairly. I suspect that he was not and that he will lose his case on its merits.

All that said, I don't think it helps the cause of science to advance concepts of tenure and academic freedom that will lead to abuse in other fields.

Coin:

If Gonzalez wins, ISU will have to pay his attorneys' fees and court costs. Who will pay his attorneys if he loses (or if they will be paid at all), we may never know.

” the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme.” Oh, I see. No matter how bogus an idea seems to be, it’s actually a scientific theory as long as it is “fully worked out.” The Darwnian theory explains exactly how evolution happened, while ID is vague and uncertain. So the Darwinian theory has to be the most scientific theory of evolution. I finally get what you guys have been saying all along."

professors should be informed of the requirements for tenure at the time of appointment, and if those requirements are met, they should be granted tenure. A University may set any requirement for tenure that it wishes provided that requirement is non-discriminatory. What it may not do is add additional tenure requirements at the last minute.

because of Gonzeles's complaints, I would suspect all universities would be leery to hire an "ID" scientist (non-scientist). so more than just him will be affected.(that's Leary as in careful, non Timothy Leary)

it seems pretty obvious to me that Gonzales has a plethora of deficiencies that led to him not getting tenure (no grad students, no grants, no publishing etc)
this case will be a joke

re real pc's seemingly vicious cycle

ID has no theory, no hypothesis that would lead to fruitful research, how would one evn write a grant proposal? "I need money to sit a think about...."

ID makes no preditctions that can be imperically tested/falsified (at least relative to biology, physics, astronomy (actually if someone could come up w/ a "complexity/ design" detector and apply it to artifacts - that would be neat - and scientific - and GRANTABLE in archaeology/ paleoanthropology- we know this is a spearpoint and not a naturally occuring shard because it has complexity quotient beyon the .32 threhhold or some such - )

"scientists" that "believe" is ID as presented by the DI will not get tenure for research based on ID because THERE IS NO RESEARCH!

the type of ID

I've seen a few tenure rejection cases go to court. Not getting tenure is common. They always end up losing. Tenure is a privilege not a right.

Since they always lose, the main value of a court case will be Propaganda and Lies, the DI specialty. I'm sure the DI will pay the bills for lawyers. Maybe Thomas Moore will kick in some pro bono time. At any rate, these cases will last for years counting appeals.

Claiming religious bias is going to be dumb. (I thought ID and AP weren't religious!!???) It wasn't religious bias. It was not being able to tell the difference between his religion and astronomy. Basic mistake for an astronomer.

This is a minor issue. The major one was his career trajectory which was headed for the dreaded and common inert rock crackpot stage of faculty development. What happened to Behe.

The court case will be interesting. There is sure to be a huge paper trail, most of it confidential now. Chances are Gonzalez was warned for years that he was off track and going in a direction not consistent with an astronomer at an active department on the upswing.

If Gonzalez was seriously interested in pursuing a career in astronomy he would have followed the standard astronomy career path, which is, mysteriously enough, doing astronomy research and publishing findings in peer reviewed journals. In this case, he would have been better off keeping his mouth shut and starting over at another institution. Most likely a religious bible type college will pick him up and it will be a match made in heaven. How many creo astronomers are there anyway?

After you sue the university, no one is going to want you. Universities want professors not litigious troublemakers.

realpc: " the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme." Oh, I see. No matter how bogus an idea seems to be, it's actually a scientific theory as long as it is "fully worked out." The Darwnian theory explains exactly how evolution happened, while ID is vague and uncertain. So the Darwinian theory has to be the most scientific theory of evolution. I finally get what you guys have been saying all along.

No telling what kind of unintended fall out this will cause. I can see universities coming out with written policies about educators who promote psuedoscience and do other things that harm science and the university's reputation.

Am I right?

Courts must be extremely wary of intruding into the world of university tenure decisions. These decisions necessarily hinge on subjective judgments regarding the applicant's academic excellence, teaching ability, creativity, contributions to the university community, rapport with students and colleagues, and other factors that are not susceptible of quantitative measurement. Absent discrimination, a university must be given a free hand in making such tenure decisions.

To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. He must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it. Id. at 577. Using this analysis, the Supreme Court held in Roth that an assistant professor at Wisconsin State University - Oshkosh who had been hired for only a one-year term was not entitled to a hearing prior to the nonrenewal of his contract. Whether a person has a legitimate expectancy of continued employment depends very much on the facts of each case. However, this circuit has generally declined to hold that a nontenured faculty member has a property interest in his continued employment unless the person was somehow "implicitly" tenured. See, e.g., Soni v. Board of Trustees, 513 F.2d 347 (6th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 919 (1976). In the context of nontenured grade school teachers, this court held [*14] that, A non-tenured teacher may acquire an "expectancy" of continued employment where "the policies and practices of the institution" rise to the level of implied tenure. We hold, however, that a non-tenured teacher has no "expectancy" of continued employment, whatever may be the policies of the institution, where there exists a statutory tenure system.

Like the plaintiff in the Fourth Circuit case of Siu v. Johnson, 748 F.2d 238 (4th Cir. 1984), Dr. Bergman presses as his main position that the process due is no less than that defined in detail by the institutional procedures. However, these institutional procedures are not identical to, but only a guideline for, what may be constitutionally required. Id. at 244. As the Fourth Circuit has held,

The district court also found that the tenure denial was based [*19] on concerns regarding the quality and relevance of plaintiff's work. Dr. Siefert, Dr. Yonker, Dr. Davidson, Dr. Rurke, and Dr. Wiersma, for example, all testified to their negative impressions of plaintiff's work. Although plaintiff may believe that their evaluations of his work were incorrect, this does not negate the fact that they based their tenure votes on their negative perceptions of his work.

PvM,

I'd have to look at the cases in more detail to say, and again, one would really need a lawyer's opinion, and even then, a lawyer's opinion in that state or circuit who has extensive experience in these kinds of cases.

That said, it reads to me like you are reading things into these cases.

My first point is that the principle of non-discrimination extends, at least in theory, to the exercise of academic freedom. Defining the limits of academic freedom is no easy task, and much will depend on the University's regulations, whether it is public or private, unionized or not. In principle, outside of a few religious universities and a few secular exceptions, all Universities commit to the concept that academic freedom is always protected just like race, ethnicity, gender.

Here again, apply the "but for" test to academic freedom. If someone can publish in the appropriate journals that is the test of academic appropriateness. If someone's views prevent them from publishing, then it is not protected.

As much as I may look with dismay on ID, I still believe that a belief in or advocacy of ID, in so far as it does not interfere with teaching or ability to publish or to get grant money, is not sufficient reason alone to deny someone tenure, even in the natural sciences. And yes, this does mean that people in history, or economics, or english literature who hold views that depart from the accepted boundaries of those fields, may hold those opinions and be tenured-even if I think their opinions are politically noxious.

Think here: do you want a situation where a bunch of cultural studies fanatics are able to deny tenure to someone because they hold to "racist" or "sexist" views? Do we want to deny tenure to the cultural studies crowd just because I don't like it? Even bad views, politically noxious views, dissident views etc. are protected academic freedom. I'd rather deal with the occasional screwball getting through the system than having tenure committees making politically charged decisions-which is what will happen.

The second point is that tenure law is evolving and changing. Courts have gotten more resistant to reviewing employment decisions in general, including those in academia. That's not necessarily IMO a good thing. Its a product of the right wing packing of the courts.

The third point is that even given the rightward shift, Universities still do have to abide by their stated tenure procedures. I don't think those court cases say what you think they say.

If they do-if they really are saying that granting tenure is at the whim of the University unless you can prove racial or sexual discrimination, then we are really in deep doo-doo in the social sciences. And you are not going to be able to have different legal standards for the natural and social sciences.

Whatever the legal merits of the Gonzalez case, and I think they are slim, I wish people on PT and elsewhere would quit celebrating the idea that tenure should be decided on whim. That is not a good precedent for science. Why it is not would seem obvious.

I wish people on PT and elsewhere would quit celebrating the idea that tenure should be decided on whim. That is not a good precedent for science. Why it is not would seem obvious.

As much as I may look with dismay on ID, I still believe that a belief in or advocacy of ID, in so far as it does not interfere with teaching or ability to publish or to get grant money, is not sufficient reason alone to deny someone tenure, even in the natural sciences. And yes, this does mean that people in history, or economics, or english literature who hold views that depart from the accepted boundaries of those

all Universities commit to the concept that academic freedom is always protected just like race, ethnicity, gender.

If Gonzalez hadn't written Privileged Planet and wasn't an IDist, would he have been granted tenure?

Not likely. This has already been beaten into a hash, but his output and scientific trajectory was heading in an all too familiar direction, the inert rock with a crackpot hobby. ISU has a strong astronomy department on the upswing and want to keep it that way.

We've all seen many examples of this and could list dozens of them.

Part of the problem is the vagueness of the standard you are proposing. You keep using this term "intangibles", and I don't think you are willing to say what it really means. While you may not mean "whim" in the sense of unreasoned, the reality is that you are opening decisions to "whim"-even if that is not what you mean.

What you appear to be advocating when you say "intangibles" is some kind of subjective collegiality test. Some of the examples you raise are not relevant to decisions to tenure. An irritating personality? That is irrelevant and inappropriate to bring into a tenure decision. That is in fact whim.

Showing up late for class-now that may be relevant under some circumstances, but as a lot of academics consistently run 5-10 minutes late, it comes down to "whim".

What you are opening the door for is for tenure committees, or worse yet, administrators to pile on excuse after excuse when they find someone's political views to be troublesome.

You seem to be so intent on finding a way to exclude ID that you ignore-apparently willfully-the fact that your advocacy of "intangibles" can, will and has been used to justify violations of academic freedom.

That is why the AAUP has specifically in its guidelines for tenure said that factors such as "collegiality" and those outside the stated requirements for tenure are not relevant.

Now, you could say that by intangibles you mean "academic quality" of publications or some subjective assessment of teachng effectiveness. Now that's valid-but only within reason. If you have someone whose publications are in second tier rather than top tier journals maybe 10 publications is required rather than just five. Or you have someone who has mediocre teaching evaluations and is a grade inflator. Those are the kinds of intangibles that are valid decision makers.

In fact, the vague use of intangibles you are advocating will simply open the University to discrimination law suits.

Do a simple test: you have two candidates for tenure-one male and one female. They have identical dossiers save for the fact the committee thinks the female is too "brassy" or "too pushy". Maybe she doesn't keep her door open enough or is not nurturing enough to students.

That is why you try to take the subjective judgements out of tenure decisions as much as possible. you will never get the subjective out of it 100% and you will never operate in a 100% sterile environment. That doesn't mean you open the doors to allow the cows spread dung.

Universities aren't supposed to be clones of corporations. That is why we operate under different rules. That said, its not like corporate rules are all that great. But that's another issue.

So before you accuse me of being dishonest, do some investigating of AAUP standards and define your "intangibles." I stand by what I say. You are opening the door to making decisions on whims.

I want to point out that academic freedom does not imply academic incompetence. When you have a scientist who teaches at a university claiming ToE is unscientific and he promotes psuedoscience on the side, you have an issue.

GG is scientifically clueless, he clearly does not understand what constitutes science and what does not. That counts (against you) for something.

Chip:

I guess I can't find words that will satisfy you. Despite occasional lip service to "subjective", your position has been consistent: That there should be a strict, published list of tenure requirements, every one of them precisely measurable in units everyone understands and agrees on. And if the candidate has met these requirements, then he gets tenure no matter what, and all elements of judgment, being whimsical, are eliminated. No need (in the ideal Chip Poirot world) for committees, or evaluations. The candidate was handed a ticket when he entered, he punched every item on that ticket, he's in.

So I take it you strongly disagree that "the applicant’s academic excellence, teaching ability, creativity, contributions to the university community, rapport with students and colleagues" really matter at all. He generated over $X in grants (not alone, but as part of a team), he authored at least Y refereed publications (again, not alone, and not about anything important that ever gets cited), he's in.

And what if you have two slots available, and the other candidate won a Nobel prize, brought in 10 times as much money, and was principal investigator (and designer) of a research program that made a major scientic breakthrough, BUT unfortunately he only had Y-1 refereed publications. Sorry, the first guy gets the spot, the world-famous brilliant scientist gets the boot. Uh huh.

Now, I'm not an academic. But as I understand it, there are generally more candidates for tenure than there are positions available. What if ALL the candidates meet the minimal guideline requirements? How do you decide? I simply cannot see ANY criteria to select among minimally-qualified candidates that you would not consider "whim". You imply that there simply is no such thing as the best candidate if all meet the minimum published criteria. There's only favoritism.

To respond to someone earlier in the comments, Gonzalez's attorneys are taking the case pro bono. It has also been brought to my attention (and I have not verified this) that his attorneys are also involved in Mike Huckabee's campaign.

Draw your own conclusions.

You are raising multiple issues Flynt, but above all, exhibiting gross misunderstanding of tenure procedures. You are also misunderstanding what I have said. Your misunderstanding is so severe, I would accuse you of twisting my words had I not had several exchanges with you previously and found you to be a good faithed fellow.

So one more time, from the top:

Judgement enters into the overall evaluation of a dossier. It enters in in several ways.

First, evaluating teaching effectiveness involves a lot of judgement. Just having high scores on student evaluations doesn't mean you are a good teacher, and having low scores doesn't automatically make you a bad teacher. So you also have to look at course materials, subjects taught, grade distributions, etc.

Second, evaluating research requires judgement. You have to evaluate whether the journals are really peer reviewed. You have to decide how to weigh a book at a major academic press compared to 5 articles in a second tier journal. How much weight is given to grants, publications, students mentored, research vs. teaching all involves judgement.

And then there is that elusive third category-committee work.

Only a very few Universities have tenure quotas, and the AAUP and most professors oppose tenure quotas. If you do have a tenure quota and only candidate out of three can get tenure, then in all likelihood the candidates knew that when they accepted the job.

So one more time I will say that in my ideal tenure system-which probably is never followed exactly-which doesn't mean its a bad idea, the University follows AAUP guidelines and the procedures specified in its contract or faculty handbook.

What does this mean in practice. It means, that if the requirement for tenure is that you have 10 articles published in the top tier journals, fund your own research, supervise doctoral dissertations and you publish 9 articles and don't get grants-you don't get tenure. If you publish 10 articles and you get grants and you have the students, you get tenure. The tenure committee, the University administration, etc. doesn't get to say to you: well the requirement was really 11 and we expected you to get twice as much grant money as anyone else.

Oh, and by the way, we are making this requirement up today to apply to you. The guy down the hall from you who has the exact same requirements gets tenure, but you don't-becuase you have a belief in X, Y or Z.

Your problem Flynt-and that of PvM is you both keep looking at the tenure process as if you were deciding by normal, corporate rules. Now, as I said, there is a lot that is actually socially destructive about corporate rules in the corporate world, but that's not what this discussion is about.

I'm applying the standards of the AAUP. The AAUP's standards while not definitive, are considered normative by most faculty and most Universities. AT least they pay lip service to them.

Again, as far as I know, Gonzalez did not meet the requirements for tenure. I am not supporting Gonzalez. I'm not specifically opposing him either. I'll leave his case to the courts.

What I am arguing against is the view of tenure and academic freedom that people keep advancing on here which is that tenure and academic freedom are some kind of privilege.

The model I have for granting tenure is the same model I use when I sit on the University's sexual harassment committee. I apply the policy as objectively as possible to objective behaviors or objective statements. I don't make up new rules or try to second guess the policy.

Awarding tenure is the same. You read the University's policy and you apply it as objectively and fairly as you can. Period-end of story.You don't get to make up new rules at the 11th hour because someone has a bad personality or espouses causes you dislike.

Nature's "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" Reviewer, Adam Rutherford, Calls Guillermo Gonzalez "crap scientist" Casey Luskin Nature recently carried a glowing review of "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design" which uses strong language to attack ID: "Judgment Day gracefully avoids ridiculing intelligent design for the pseudo-intellectual fundamentalist fig-leaf that it is." Rather than make any attacks against the reviewer, Adam Rutherford, I'll just let Mr. Rutherford speak for himself: "were I in a position to offer Guillermo Gonzalez tenure, I would deny it for the precise reason that his, yes, religious views about purpose in the universe explicitly mean he is a crap scientist." Rutherford continues:

Chip:

I'm trying to understand, I really am. I wouldn't be surprised if a candidate could meet all the nominal requirements, but STILL be a weak candidate, for many reasons - just barely enough grant money *combined* with just barely enough grad students *combined* with barely enough me-too publications that break no new ground and receive no citations, etc.

I would think these are guidelines, and not recipes, for this reason. I'm not talking about ringing in a rule-change or some additional criterion at the last minute to disqualify someone the committee doesn't like. But I guess where we disagree is in a case where the majority of the committee *strongly* feels that the candidate will reflect poorly on the reputation of the university, maybe muddy it seriously, even though he's met the nominal tenure requirements.

I suppose the committee could pull a Lehigh at that point and issue a statement saying "according to the rules, he earned tenure, so we have to give it to him despite our best judgment. We hereby disavow his cause, because it is diametrically opposed to what we hire science professors to advance." AND, perhaps, rewrite the science tenure "guidelines" to require that science candidates follow scientific principles.

Your approach continues to strike me as formulistic beyond what I'd be comfortable with. Too easy to "game", to focus on being a good ticket-puncher instead of a good researcher, teacher, and community member.

And in all of this, we seem to have overlooked any ongoing feedback process. Let's say that, several times in the preceding years, Gonzalez had been cautioned that his ID activities (combined with his lack of grant money, lack of students, and increasingly inadequate publication rate) were causing him to lose credibility, and he should shape up. My understanding is that ISU has such a feedback process in place, though it's private and we have no idea what was said. Certainly nothing changed for the better.

Now, what if Gonzalez had been told (and it comes out in court) that he'd been warned directly that he'd better drop the ID schtick if he hoped for tenure? Would that early warning constitute an 11th hour change in the rules? Gonzalez must have known he was heading off the rails; it couldn't have been sprung on him at the last minute.

First, I'm trying to separate this as much as possible from the Gonzalez case. To be frank, I could care less about Gonzalez and I rather doubt he has a case. If he does, then he can make it in court or in the University grievance process. I don't have enough details to even begin to judge his case.

I won't speculate about what was or was not said to Gonzales throughout the process.

One point you are correct about is that in most Universities there are at least two pre-tenure reviews: one at the end of your first year, one after three years-and then the final review. So yes, you should be told during the review process that your teaching evaluatoins need to be improved, that you need to publish more, get more grant money etc. Again, I won't speculate about what Gonzalez was or was not told-because I have no way of knowing and again, I don't care about Gonzalez.

I'm with you except for the "reflects poorly" being used as a criterion. Why? Because that's the kind of criterion that is used to go after people for their political views. That's the point about academic freedom. Universities have all kinds of people who might "reflect poorly" from someone's point of view: Republican legislators, local activists of various stripes, religious students, secular students, the local chamber of commerce. Maybe someone is an atheist, a Marxist, an Islamicist, an atheist or a conservative. People object to all of these. Imagine a cultural studies department having the power you want to give to Universities to deny tenure to someone who doesn't go along with post-modernism. Or imagine a sociology department denying tenure to a professor who things that genes play a role in behavior. It would be nice if I could tell you where to draw the line between accepted and unaccepted ideas-but i can't. And that means some bad ideas and some noxious ideas get protected. Plain and simple-even if they do "embarass" someone at the University.

btw: understanding the "but for" test is not hard. You simply ask the question. What would happen if you removed the characteristic that the person alleges was the basis for discrimination. So, for example, someone alleges he was denied tenure for being male. Apply the but for test and ask would a female in a similar situation be granted tenure. If the answer is yes, then it is discrimination.

So apply the same rule to academic freedom cases. Would the person be granted tenure "but for" their views. If the answer is yes, it is a violation of academic freedom.

btw: felony convictions are a sufficient reason to deny tenure. In fact, felony convictions are sufficent reason to lose tenure. For that matter, even having tenure does not preclude being dismissed for misconduct-or in theory, incompetence. I don't think any tenured professor has ever been dismissed for incompetence. But it is a valid reason.

Chip:

OK, I think I'm following this. We may or may not have some core disagreement, but it's good to toss it around. And I still need to meditate some on the "but for" criterion. Here's another hypothetical case: we have a historian up for tenure, who wrote a book saying the holocaust never happened, and tales of it are a Jewish hoax.

Now, this is two things. First, it's a political viewpoint. But second, it is not historically correct. If tenure would have been granted but for this book (and all the attending publicity), should it be granted, or can tenure be denied on the grounds of incompetence and professional irresponsibility? Even if this historian had met all of the nominal requirements for tenure?

I know you don't want to address the Gonzalez case specifically, but it is analogous. We're considering whether his Privileged Planet argument undermines his technical credentials, considering that it's astronomical nonsense and he's looking for tenure as an astronomer. So is that relevant? Do you think a tenure committee in either case (historian or astronomer) should regard "personal views" in direct conflict with their professional aspirations and claims of competence as protected aspects of academic freedom?

I happen to regard competence as something that can be evaluated beyond the bare bones of a set of guidelines. Lousy scientists who are good gamesmen can "beat" any reasonable list of nominal tenure requirements. Should tenure therefore be granted to lousy scientists? I'm agin' it.

This is how I would see it:

If, taking for example, the case of Gonzalez, we removed everything else but his book Privileged Planet (which btw I have not read) and he was otherwise qualified for tenure. The I would say that he has the academic freedom to write Privileged Planet, even if it goes against the disciplinary norms of his discipline. Now the fact that he submitted it as an example of research complicates matters. I'd have to read the book and talk to an astronmer to see what if anything he did that departed from disciplinary norms of astronomy in that book. At a minimum, if I were sitting on a tenure committee at a major research University, I would not count it for or against him because it is not published by an academic press.

Now lets take the case of a hypothetical holocaust denier. What he says is IMO untrue. But if he is able to get his articles published in accepted journals and it is simply a case he has noxious views, then yes, that is protected academic freedom.

What makes your examples unfair however is they are extreme cases. What about Marxists publishing in economics? Most economists work within a paradigm that views Marxism as unscientific. Yet I can name multiple MArxists who do valid academic work in economics.

What about a Scientist who writes articles that pro-post modernist? What about a cultural studies professor who violates the norms of cultural studies?

My point is academic freedom includes the right to challenge your discipline's norms and conventions-provided that challenge doesn't prevent you from publishing. You can't for example, confine your research to astrology, submit that for publication in peer reviewed journals, get it rejected, and then claim discrimination for academic freedom.

But if you publish in mainstream science, and then you publish outside of that in astrology, as much as I might be chagrined then you have a right to profess astrology.

As I have said: I'd rather live with the occasions nutcase or political extremist than have tenure committees or Universities trying to add any kind of politically correct test for tenure. The only test is can you get your work accepted for publication in peer reviewed journals appropriate to your discipline.

ID is not science because they have almost no publications in mainstream journals.

On what grounds do they plan to sue?

Oh, I see. No matter how bogus an idea seems to be, it’s actually a scientific theory as long as it is “fully worked out.” The Darwnian theory explains exactly how evolution happened, while ID is vague and uncertain. So the Darwinian theory has to be the most scientific theory of evolution. I finally get what you guys have been saying all along.

I wish people on PT and elsewhere would quit celebrating the idea that tenure should be decided on whim.

I agree with you here, while I strongly disagree with ID and its claims, I do not believe that they are sufficient reason to deny someone tenure.

Oh, I see. No matter how bogus an idea seems to be, it’s actually a scientific theory as long as it is “fully worked out.” The Darwnian theory explains exactly how evolution happened, while ID is vague and uncertain. So the Darwinian theory has to be the most scientific theory of evolution.

There was an opinion piece published today (6 December 2007) in the Iowa State Daily on the Gonzalez situation:

A Fair Target.

In my estimation, the author (Luci Van Scoy; a junior in Anthropology) captured the situation quite accurately.

"There wouldn’t be the slightest controversy here if he had been publishing books on astrology. Which happens to be exactly as “scientific” as ID."

Not really. Astrology is actually more scientific than ID. While ID and astrology share the trait of posing no plausible mechanisms, at least astrology can, in theory, be tested (and it has and has failed) while ID is immune to testing because no matter the outcome of any test the cdesign proponentsists can just say 'Well the Designer must have wanted it that way so that's why you got that result. The Designer works in mysterious ways his wonders to unfold. Oops, did I say that out loud?'

As much as I may look with dismay on ID, I still believe that a belief in or advocacy of ID, in so far as it does not interfere with teaching or ability to publish or to get grant money, is not sufficient reason alone to deny someone tenure

That's nice. I believe otherwise and so do a lot of other people who are smarter than you and less concerned about getting along with fundamentalist nutjobs.

My point is academic freedom includes the right to challenge your discipline’s norms and conventions-provided that challenge doesn’t prevent you from publishing

Guess what Chip? Gonzales was and is free to challenge his discipline's norms.

University's are free to deny him tenure and point out to the world what a dumbaxx Gonzales is.

I really hate to bursting your tender bubble this way but it needs to be done. I'm sure you'll understand and applaud my free expression.

I’d rather live with the occasions nutcase or political extremist than have tenure committees or Universities trying to add any kind of politically correct test for tenure.

Nice strawman, Chip.

What about a Scientist who writes articles that pro-post modernist? What about a cultural studies professor who violates the norms of cultural studies?

News flash: nobody really cares about any of that garbage one way or another except other academics.

Try to stay focused, Chip. I'll help you out: Gonzalez is a dumb lazy man prone to lying on behalf of an anti-scientific advocacy group. His peddling on behalf of the DI is proof of that characterization.

That's all. That's what's happening here. If you fail to "get it" then you are just as lazy and silly as Gonzalez and are also unworthy of tenure in my view. I would not want stupid people who engage in apologetics for anti-scientific advocacy organizations to have tenure at my university.

It is not about political correctness. It's about brains, an ability to reason, and an ability to work as a scientist at a high level.

Gonzalez isn't qualified to do that and any place that hires him will only be demonstrating their disinterest in promoting such qualities in people.

Why do you think Casey Luskin works at the Discovery Institute? The answer is he is an idiot who can only do one thing well: spin lies that promote his religion.

realpc: " the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme." Oh, I see. No matter how bogus an idea seems to be, it's actually a scientific theory as long as it is "fully worked out." The Darwnian theory explains exactly how evolution happened, while ID is vague and uncertain. So the Darwinian theory has to be the most scientific theory of evolution. I finally get what you guys have been saying all along.

Registered User: My point is academic freedom includes the right to challenge your discipline’s norms and conventions-provided that challenge doesn’t prevent you from publishing Guess what Chip? Gonzales was and is free to challenge his discipline's norms. University's are free to deny him tenure and point out to the world what a dumbaxx Gonzales is. I really hate to bursting your tender bubble this way but it needs to be done. I'm sure you'll understand and applaud my free expression.

Registered User: What about a Scientist who writes articles that pro-post modernist? What about a cultural studies professor who violates the norms of cultural studies? News flash: nobody really cares about any of that garbage one way or another except other academics. Try to stay focused, Chip. I'll help you out: Gonzalez is a dumb lazy man prone to lying on behalf of an anti-scientific advocacy group. His peddling on behalf of the DI is proof of that characterization. That's all. That's what's happening here. If you fail to "get it" then you are just as lazy and silly as Gonzalez and are also unworthy of tenure in my view. I would not want stupid people who engage in apologetics for anti-scientific advocacy organizations to have tenure at my university. It is not about political correctness. It's about brains, an ability to reason, and an ability to work as a scientist at a high level. Gonzalez isn't qualified to do that and any place that hires him will only be demonstrating their disinterest in promoting such qualities in people. Why do you think Casey Luskin works at the Discovery Institute? The answer is he is an idiot who can only do one thing well: spin lies that promote his religion.

Department Chairman Eli Rosenberg said it best himself: "The fact that Dr. Gonzalez does not understand what constitutes both science and a scientific theory disqualifies him from serving as a science educator."

(from article linked in comment 137286)

Rosenberg's expert opinion is not "whim" - he pretty clearly states that because GG submitted his "privileged planet" (PP) book AS SCIENTIFIC work - he doesn't qualify for tenure

from a legal point of view Rosenberg also stated that GG's PP book WASN"T EVEN A MAJOR FACTOR - GG didn't produce good work. - if you took away the book - he still wouldn't get tenure because he wasn't doing enough research that got funding/publishing

Registered user:

Why this bizarre contempt for how academics try to address issues within academia? That is after all, in part what this debate is about.

As for your personal speculation about who is more intelligent than I am, I guess I don't see the relevance. Lots of people are more intelligent than I am. Some of them agree with me, some don't. Who cares? How would we even determine this?

If Universities can simply decide what ideas they deem to be outside the pale, then there isn't academic freedom. That's the whole point. You are free to express the idea without fear of job loss provided that you otherwise competently fulfill your job requirements.

At first glance trying to say what is outside the pale of particular disciplines seems easy. I do in fact agree that ID does not fit into the overall structure of science as it is currently practiced, defined and understood. As matters stand, with a few exceptions and caveats, I am in fact a supporter of science as it is currently practiced, defined and understood. I think that ID is unscientific-as the term science is conventionally understood in our society.

But that said: if people who are outside the disciplinary norm can publish in the discipline, teach their classes competently and at the same time wish to engage in speculative work or challenge their discipline's foundations-they should have the right to do so without censure.

The natural sciences have strongly defined understandings. The social sciences are more ambiguous. But by trying to enforce a definition of science you will also create a situation where people in the social sciences will follow suit.

So, my point is that this argument is in fact about what goes on inside academia and about what is customary and what is normative for academic practice. As far as I can tell, there were good reasons to deny tenure to Gonzalez. His support for ID does not even need to be mentioned, save for the fact that he is bringing it up.

I hope any further responses you make to me will be sans the personal insults which did not make you seem particularly intelligent.

Couldn't GG make his entire tenure file public if he so chose? Why hasn't the DI insisted on this? You'd think they'd be gung-ho to do so, just so that all could see the bases for the tenure decision.

GG is willing to go on Fox News, but he's [i]not[/i] willing to make these documents available?

Wait a minute . . . holding press conferences instead of providing evidence . . .

Never mind.

ID doesn’t have a theory, makes no predictions and explains nothing because it ends with hand-waiving and the proclamation that “God did it.”

— Moses

Why this bizarre contempt for how academics try to address issues within academia? That is after all, in part what this debate is about.

Actually, there is no "debate". There is a whining concern troll (you) and a bunch of dimtwits with their empty threats (Gonzalez and the DI).

If Universities can simply decide what ideas they deem to be outside the pale, then there isn’t academic freedom.

Your logic is so bad it begs to be taken as parody.

But that said: if people who are outside the disciplinary norm can publish in the discipline, teach their classes competently and at the same time wish to engage in speculative work or challenge their discipline’s foundations-they should have the right to do so without censure.

Keep moving the goalpost, bud. This is about tenure, not "censure". Gonzalez is free to spout his baloney and reveal to the world that he is anti-scientific idiot. University's are free not to give hime tenure for that reason.

What's the problem? The answer is that there isn't any. There is just you, trolling away and trying to find something to be "concerned" about. Get over yourself.

Registered User: Why this bizarre contempt for how academics try to address issues within academia? That is after all, in part what this debate is about. Actually, there is no "debate". There is a whining concern troll (you) and a bunch of dimtwits with their empty threats (Gonzalez and the DI). If Universities can simply decide what ideas they deem to be outside the pale, then there isn’t academic freedom. Your logic is so bad it begs to be taken as parody. But that said: if people who are outside the disciplinary norm can publish in the discipline, teach their classes competently and at the same time wish to engage in speculative work or challenge their discipline’s foundations-they should have the right to do so without censure. Keep moving the goalpost, bud. This is about tenure, not "censure". Gonzalez is free to spout his baloney and reveal to the world that he is anti-scientific idiot. University's are free not to give hime tenure for that reason. What's the problem? The answer is that there isn't any. There is just you, trolling away and trying to find something to be "concerned" about. Get over yourself.

I am still waiting for you to post your CV, you clown, so we can measure it against Guillermo Gonzalez’s.

All you need to know about my CV is that I've never peddled "intelligent design" in any way shape or form. Gonzalez' flacid CV hangs like a bare broken twig in the harsh wintry air. I and my lady friends can only point and laugh.

Registered User: I am still waiting for you to post your CV, you clown, so we can measure it against Guillermo Gonzalez’s. All you need to know about my CV is that I've never peddled "intelligent design" in any way shape or form. Gonzalez' flacid CV hangs like a bare broken twig in the harsh wintry air. I and my lady friends can only point and laugh.

I already know you are a pseudo-intellect, so it is not as if you will be losing face with me.

— Robert O'Brien

Registered User you are a liar-pure and simple. You have chosen personal insults and outright misrepresentations of my position over any reasonable argument. And yet you do so hiding behind a pseudonym of "registered user."

I have no affiliation with the DI and no association with ID pure and simple.

Universities are not free to not grant tenure to faculty when they don't like their viewpoints. They are free to not grant tenure when someone doesn't meet the requirements.

This distinction seems to be lost on you.

Universities are not free to not grant tenure to faculty when they don’t like their viewpoints. They are free to not grant tenure when someone doesn’t meet the requirements. This distinction seems to be lost on you.

This is, within the confines of my lack of formal legal training, my understanding of what "the law" is regarding awarding of tenure at public Universities in the U.S. I put "the law" in quotes because "the law" will vary from state to state and even from institution to institution. I'll go from the most restrictive to the lest restrictive.

If a public University has a Union contract, it is legally bound to abide by the procedures and standards for awarding tenure in that contract. The right of public University faculty to unionize is normally governed by individual state codes. Here in Ohio, the Ohio Revised Code grants to University faculty the right to Unionize, but has some oddities thrown in that I like to call "the Vern Riffe exception."

In some states the University is legally obligated to follow the procedures and standards in its faculty handbook.

In some states, the University is legally free to disregard its handbook.

In states or situations where Universities must follow a contract or handbook, and the contract or handbook says you will be tenured if x, y and z, and there are no disclaimers to this in the contract, then if you do x,y and z you must be tenured.

No Public University can refuse to tenure on the grounds of race, ethnicity, gender, religious or political affiliation. Under some circumstances, no University can refuse to tenure on the basis of statements made by faculty on matters of public concern (what constitutes a genuine matter of public concern is predictably vague). But let's say for example, a faculty member was well known for working for a local non-profit environmental advocacy group-or its political opposite. Unless this work somehow reduced the ability of the faculty member to publish or teach his or her classes, this is protected First Amendment speech. A caveat to this is that Courts have become increasingly hostile to First Amendment rights of all public employees.

The concept of academic freedom includes First Amendment rights, but is significantly broader. Nearly all institutions will to some degree at least officially proclaim their committment to AAUP standards of academic freedom and academic due process. For those interested in what the AAUP has had to say, go to www.aaup.org . This is in essence what the AAUP defines as academic freedom:

Academic freedom includes the right to publish freely and to comment on matters related to the curriculum in the classroom, and to speak freely on University affairs. Some institutions may modify this statement to some degree.

The right to publish freely does not exempt one from standards of peer review. Though peer review has its problems, it is the standard that is used in academia to determine (rightly or wrongly) the academic acceptability of work. A University is free to say that you must publish in a flagship journal, but it is not free to say that they dislike the conclusion you came to in the article you published. The University is free to say that you must publish with an academic press. IT is not free to say that they don't like what you said in that publication. Gonzalez case is different because he did not publish Privileged Planet with an academic press. So therefore, it seems to me, the University could reject it for that reason.

The right to comment on matters related to the curriculum means the right to speak freely on the topic you are lecturing on. It does not mean the right to substitute your own idiosyncratic views. You can't refuse to teach evolution if that is the curriculum. You can say you disagree with evolution. In short, academic freedom includes the right to challenge the prevailing consensus in your field. You do however have to be able to demonstrate sound understanding of the academic consensus.

The way to decide academid freedom cases is by the same criteria used to decide discrimination cases. If a male and a female have the same number of publications, in the same number of journals, and the same teaching evaluation scores, you can't tenure the female and deny tenure to the male (or vice versa). If you have a history of tenuring males with 5 publications, you can't say to the female candidate with 5 publications, oh, sorry, you only **barely** met the tenure requirements, and so based on our judgement, we won't tenure you. You aren't free to discriminate.

So, again, apply the "but for" standard. It isn't hard. Just ask the simple question. Would this person have been tenured "but for" the characteristic in question? If we took away the fact that the candidate was female, would she otherwise hvae been given tenure? If the answer is yes, you have discriminated.

Now apply the same standard to expression of viewpoints. Two candidates come up for tenure. Candidate one has published 6 articles and is awarded tenure. Candidate two has 6 articles and in the same quality journal. But candidate two holds views that are regarded as contrary to prevailing scholarly consensus in the field. You can't use the candidate's views as a valid reason for denying tenure.

I can understand why in the sciences there is a strong temptation to say that holding view X puts you outside the pale. But the problem with this (among other things) is that you can't confine this to the sciences. It in short becomes a test of orthodoxy. And a test of orthodoxy is contrary to the principle of academic freedom.

Therefore, as much as I oppose ID, I don't believe it is appropriate to deny tenure on the basis of unorthodox opinions. On the other hand, if an unorthodox opinion means someone can't work on projects, co-author articles, get grant money, publish their research, then the failure to do these things is valid grounds to deny tenure.

Universities are not free to not grant tenure to faculty when they don’t like their viewpoints.

Still grinding that axe, eh Chip? In fact, universities do have that freedom, whether or not it is well-advised. In the case of the "viewpoint" that a syllogism is a scientific theory, a syllogism that is a form of the argument from design, an argument for the existence of God, I believe a university would be well-advised to deny tenure as professor of science on that ground alone.

Universities are not free to not grant tenure to faculty when they don’t like their viewpoints.

Would this person have been tenured “but for” the characteristic in question?

I think the but for case applies as well to matters of academic freedom (as defined above).

But as for grinding axes, if you are still grinding the Popperian axe, its gotten pretty dull, and frankly, was already dull in the 1950's.

Now suppose a department of philosophy were to say that Popper's rantings had been clearly discredited, so any one who still adhered to Popper had clearly not understood the definition of philosophy. Therefore, we will not tenure Popperians. Come to think of it, there is a tempting thought there.

Fortunately for you, I believe people in philosophy have the right to be wrong - Even spectacularly and ridiculously wrong as Popper was and is. So, I would apply the "but for" case to Popperians. Reluctantly-I admit. But I would still defend the academic freedom of Popperians, absurd as Popper was from the get go.

Now apply the same standard to expression of viewpoints. Two candidates come up for tenure. Candidate one has published 6 articles and is awarded tenure. Candidate two has 6 articles and in the same quality journal. But candidate two holds views that are regarded as contrary to prevailing scholarly consensus in the field. You can’t use the candidate’s views as a valid reason for denying tenure.

You keep making the same red herring arguments.

If you have a tenure quota, and you inform people at the time you hire them that there is a tenure quota, then that's the case. Pure and simple.

Very few Universities have tenure quotas. Furthermore, the AAUP opposes tenure quotas. So your argument is simply bogus.

What I have said all along is that you can't make up new requirements at the last minute. If the University tenures 95% of applicants for tenure, then you can't legitimately at the last minute tell one applicant that you have suddenly decided to hire only the most brilliant minds in the profession-and then go back to tenuring everyone.

Who is going to decide what is the acid test for the discipline. I think Michelle Focault is an absolute disaster as an historian-when taken in total context (aside from the few good points he makes).

And you can't tell successful PhD candidates that you are refusing their PhD's because you don't like their beliefs.

What you are actually doing is giving the DI ammunition.In addition, you are proposing standards that allow Universities to impose corporate standards of management.

I have not once said that I think Gonzalez has a case. Not once. And that really is the point. Here is a case where a person's beliefs stopped them from doing science. The fact that he didn't do the science is sufficient. There is no need to bring in anything else at all. To the contrary. IT simply weakens the argument.

And by the way, if you really did choose candidates on the basis of "looks", then you left yourself open to all sorts of litigation.

Flint: Similarly in science, one can hold (and argue vigorously) for a different interpretation of available evidence. One can NOT argue that evidence doesn't matter, and expect this "unorthodox" view to be passed over in a tenure decision.

Robert O'Brien said: I already know you are a pseudo-intellect, so it is not as if you will be losing face with me.

And you can’t tell successful PhD candidates that you are refusing their PhD’s because you don’t like their beliefs.

And by the way, if you really did choose candidates on the basis of “looks”, then you left yourself open to all sorts of litigation.

Of course, that is not at all descriptive of Guillermo Gonzalez.

Flint: Similarly in science, one can hold (and argue vigorously) for a different interpretation of available evidence. One can NOT argue that evidence doesn’t matter, and expect this “unorthodox” view to be passed over in a tenure decision.

At least we now understand where we disagree. And I'm not sure that we entirely disagree in the abstract. What you say makes sense to a limited degree in the same way that arguments for capital punishment make sense. I can honestly think of cases in the abstract where morally and ethically I could support capital punishment. In concrete terms, capital punishment always seems to get corrupted.

That's my problem. I admit there is a paradox in giving people PhD's or tenuring them who have views that run contrary to what science is understood to be in our society-and worse, seem to want to use those views to engage in anti-science campaigns.

My way is to simply ignore "belief" and instead focus on "practice." From what I can see Gonzalez destroyed his own scientific career. His publication record abruptly dropped off, he couldn't initiate new projects, etc. If what appears to be the case as published here on PT is true, then the tenure committee was perfectly justified in not granting tenure. Ditto the other case reported here where a post-doc all of a sudden said he wouldn't work on projects x, y and z.

Therefore, it all comes down to performance for me-not belief. If you can perform, I don't care about your beliefs. If your beliefs keep you from performing, then I still don't care about your beliefs. I care about your lack of performance.

And again, while what you say may make some limited sense in the natural sciences, this would be horrible in the social sciences and Humanities. It would be a recipe for people to start denying people jobs because they are too post-modernist, or not post-modernist enough, etc.

In my own discipline, economics, we have one very powerful paradigm that controls the major journals and Universities. We have multiple rival paradigms that publish their own journals and have their own toeholds. Much of what mainstream economists do can be justified by some philosopher's definition of science, and I can say the same thing for those of us that are heterodox. So which philosophy of science will we use? Popper's? Logical Empiricism? Constructive Empiricism? Realism? Pragmatism? Shall we enforce idealism or materialism?

The point is you won't be able to limit your litmus test to just the natural sciences. Now mind you, I'm not saying that a lot of viewpoint discrimination doesn't already exist.

And finally: your criteria in hiring really did open yourself to litigation. If you had that many qualified applicants and no other way to really choose, then yes-an entirely random process would be better than going by looks. I'd offer to ask the personnel director at my University what she thinks of what you did, but I have a pretty good hunch what she would say.

The issue of whether or not we could hire based on ID actually came up several years ago. Her view was that we could ask candidates if they would spend time on ID in the classroom-but we could not ask them if they supported ID.

That's a subtle difference-but it matters.

Chip:

OK, I think I see your position. You feel that tenure should be based on what the candidate has actually done. No data base of the subsequent performance track records of those with a given belief should have the slightest attention paid to them - that is, the committee is not permitted to predict future performance, regardless of how strong or consistent the signs may be.

So you ask if the candidate will spend time on ID, knowing from countless cases that those who believe in ID will present it every time, they can't help themselves, regardless of whatever reassurances they give you. And the candidate solomnly promises never to mention his beliefs in class. So you go ahead and guarantee that if he does so anyway, there's no longer anything you can do about it. But you KNOW he will - they all do. You know grants and research and papers will dry up - it always happens.

So you're like the personnel guy deciding whether to hire someone fired from his last 8 jobs for stealing from the company. He's been a temp worker for you for a year, he hasn't stolen anything you know of, he promises he'll never do it again. Maybe this time it's true, but he followed the same pattern several times in the past.

So anyway, I think it's legitimate for the tenure committee to consider the most likely pattern of future performance. Tenure isn't supposed to be a sit-on-your-laurels reward for having met some recipe, it's supposed to be protection of future accomplishment which may irritate powerful people. I really do think looking toward the future as well as the past is important.

I'm saying the best (and actually safest legal way) to make decisions about future performance is on the basis of individual past experience. So actually, if you were making a decision about whether or not to hire a temp worker at your own company, past job references would matter. If an individual had a history of stealing in the past, that could be a justifiable reason not to hire the person. You might however use their current record as evidence that the person may actually have turned over a new leaf. And of course, it might be the case that the evidence that the person had actually stolen from past employers was spotty and thin-not the kind of thing that would have stood up in court, but that was sufficient to get one fired.

So I agree that the decision to tenure is a prediction about future performance. I have not said that it is a simple way of resting on one's laurels. There might even be good arguments (in the abstract) for post-tenure reviews. Though here again, the practicality of post-tenure reviews worries me.

The argument you are making here is a very tenuous one. In the case of Gonzalez, actual past performance, (as it has been presented in multiple public places) appears to have suggested that his future performance would not be up to snuff. There was no reason to get into his beliefs at all.

Now there is a larger issue that I think is relevant. What happens when someone has a committment to a research agenda that is unlikely to bear fruit? The question has to be decided on the basis of what this person has done in the past and is doing at the present. If they are able to demonstrate the ability to do the job then their belief is irrelevant. If however their belief is clearly inhibiting their ability to do the job, then you deny them tenure or refuse to hire them in the first place.

It comes down to how do you best predict future performance. My answer is on the basis of what they have done and are doing. This is actually usuaully covered in letters of appointment, faculty handbooks, tenure guidelines, etc. You can't, for example, publish five articles in your first year and then nothing thereafter and expect to get tenured. Nor can you expect to get tenured on the basis of what you did elsewhere-unless the University specifically agrees to credit you with previous publications, which usually, they won't.

And so I will say it one more time. In the very abstract sense I can see your point that a professed belief in ID indicates a problem in the future. But in the concrete, trying to make tenure decisions on the basis of beliefs, real or imputed, rather than on the basis of actions is just a bad idea. And in the case of Gonzalez, why bring beliefs into it at all. I frankly don't see the evidence that he met the tenure requirements and I frankly doubt he will have a case.

I will say this though: if the University does go to court and the University does say that the decision was based on his beliefs and not on his actual performance, then the University might have a legal problem.

Flint:

I am most confused by the DI's approach to the whole Gonzalez situation. They are treating the tenure review guidelines as if they are a set of rules, a sort of hard-and-fast minimum requirement.

I'm not confused at all. For the DI, this is a win-win-win strategy. If they lose, it shows that Darwinists control higher education, decide the curriculum, and stack the deck in their favor. If they win, it shows the validity of ID as a field of science. And win or lose, it generates lots of publicity and conflates ID and genuine science in the public eye.

Having the Discovery Institute on Gonzalez’s side is probably the last thing that he would want if he really thought that he had a case.

Registered User you are a liar-pure and simple. You have chosen personal insults and outright misrepresentations of my position over any reasonable argument.

Anyone reading your long-winded whines, Chip, will readily see that your "position" is simply to act "concerned" and pretend that you're the only serious person here who has really thought about the "implications" of this moron being denied tenure.

The problem, Chip, is that there are no problematic "implications" that flow from Gonzalez being denied tenure that come remotely close to the problematic implications of GRANTING a lying anti-scientific moron like Gonzalez tenure.

That's why you have to resort to making up hypotheticals that have little or nothing to do with the facts of Gonzalez' wonderful and deserving predicament.

And yet you do so hiding behind a pseudonym of “registered user.”

And you hide behind a pseudonym "Chip Poirot". So what? If you don't like being referred to as a blowhard concern troll, then stop commenting.

To Chip Poirot: If you don’t like being referred to as a blowhard concern troll, then stop commenting.

— Registered User

But as for grinding axes, if you are still grinding the Popperian axe, its gotten pretty dull, and frankly, was already dull in the 1950’s.

And you hide behind a pseudonym “Chip Poirot”.

Since receiving his PhD. in economics, Dr. Poirot have taught at Eastern Washington University, Spokane Washington (1991-1993), as a visiting lecturer sponsored by the Civic Education Project at the University of Timisoara, Romania (1993-1994), the American University in Bulgaria (1994-1997), at Mary Washington College (1998-1999) and at SSU since fall of 1999.

Now suppose a department of philosophy were to say that Popper’s rantings had been clearly discredited, so any one who still adhered to Popper had clearly not understood the definition of philosophy.

My point was that you burst in accusing me of grinding an axe, while you too grind an axe. Yet you did not advance any counterargument, nor do you have an interest in doing so.

Yes, you are correct. My point was exaggerated for rhetorical effect, but only slightly so. In multiple areas of academia there are many people who would like to say that X is outside the pale of the discipline, so therefore someone working on X does not deserve tenure. You haven't addressed my point.

At the extremes, there do seem to be one or two areas where the litmus test might seem clear. But the fact of the matter is that there really isn't any clear way to come up with such a litmus test. The relevant litmus test therefore is job performance-period, end of story. Gonzalez, as best as I can judge, was denied tenure because his publicaton record was weak and not up to the standards of publications for his University. That's all that needs to be said-full stop. Anything more raises legal problems and does jeopardize academic freedom.

Since you are so intent on digging up information about me, perhaps you might take the time to actually read my article on evolutionary economics (Journal of Economic Isssues, 2007) and then you might be in a position to make an argument about my views on philosophy of science. I'll match them against warmed over Popper any day.

So I stand by what I said: the relevant criteria in a tenure decision are what is in the faculty handbook or the contract. That criteria needs to be applied consistently across the board.

I have written to the forum moderators asking that the information from my University's web page be removed from this forum.

I oppose having my personal information, even information that is posted in public re-posted for the following reasons:

1. There is no reason, pro or con to associate my University with my own personal views;
2. Trying to "dig up" personal information in light of a disagreement strikes me as a vile tactic, unless someone is deliberately misrepresenting:
3. Public web logs are accesible to multiple people, and while with a little digging, personal information is easily obtainable, I see no reason to make it easier for people to find my personal information;
4. There are furthermore, some specific reasons why Shawnee State University as a University might not necessarily wish to be dragged into this issue in a public forum.

Therefore, I respectfully request that my personal information be removed.

Finally, since my efforts to explain personal revelations about the tenure academic freedom implications of arguments made on this forum have been met only with smears and innuendos, save for a few exceptions, I will no longer bother.

Similarly, I find it disappointing that the best that can be done on the demarcation debate is Ruse's mangling of Hopper and Pempel.

So, uh, information deliberately published on the web should not appear at PT?

Where do you get such bizarre notions, Chip?

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

...2. Trying to “dig up” personal information in light of a disagreement strikes me as a vile tactic, unless someone is deliberately misrepresenting:...

3. Public web logs are accesible (sic) to multiple people, and while with a little digging, personal information is easily obtainable, I see no reason to make it easier for people to find my personal information;

I have always posted on PT using my real name and on several previous occasions identified my professional affiliations. I never asked for nor needed a defense against the absurd accusation of using a pseudonym. Rather than deal directly with the legal and normative arguments I have made about tenure and academic freedom, multiple posters have decided to engage in personal, gratuituous, abusive attacks.

Contrast, for example, the very reasonable approach that Flynt adopted with that adopted by Popper's Ghost. As a result of his approach Flynt and i could at least come to understanding, though not necessarily agreement.

I have said on many multiple occasions that denial of tenure to Gonzalez as far as I can judge does not in and of itself constitute a legal problem. I did say that additional gratuituous arguments people were making about Gonzalez were starting down a slope that if applied broadly throughout academia would be a threat to both academic freedom and tenure.

Several posters have decided to consistenly lie and smear me. First, I was accused of being an ID supporter. This is false and was known, or should have been known to anyone familiar with this board to be a lie. Second, I was accused of not really being a college professor. This too was shown to be a lie. Third, I was accused of publishing under a pseudonym, by people publishing under psuedonyms.

So who are Popper's Ghost and Guye Faux? What are their real names? Who is registered user? What is there personal information?

Glenn Davidson **chose** to link to his url. I chose not to. That decision **not** to link to a url and **not** to post personal information on PT deserves to be respected. IF I were making false or exaggerated claims about myself, that would be a different matter.

I have chosen **NOT** to post a URL to a web page as one way of providing myself with a modicum of privacy and dissociating my institution from my personal views (as is only proper incidentally). Then my personal information was posted along with gratuituous personal insults.

So I ask one more time nicely. Please remove my information from this page.

As a result of his approach Flynt and i could at least come to understanding

Congratulations to both of you.

Shawnee State University as a University might not necessarily wish to be dragged into this issue in a public forum.

LOL. I'm sure the phones are ringing off the hook.

Rather than deal directly with the legal and normative arguments I have made about tenure and academic freedom,...

— Chip

...multiple posters have decided to engage in personal, gratuituous (sic), abusive attacks.

— Chip

Contrast, for example, the very reasonable approach that Flynt (sic) adopted with that adopted by Popper’s Ghost. As a result of his approach Flynt and i could at least come to understanding, though not necessarily agreement.

— Chip

But as for grinding axes, if you are still grinding the Popperian axe, its gotten pretty dull, and frankly, was already dull in the 1950’s.

— Chip

Several posters have decided to consistenly (sic) lie and smear me. First, I was accused of being an ID supporter.

— Chip

This is false and was known, or should have been known to anyone familiar with this board to be a lie. Second, I was accused of not really being a college professor. ...

— Chip

If you fail to “get it” then you are just as lazy and silly as Gonzalez and are also unworthy of tenure in my view. I would not want stupid people who engage in apologetics for anti-scientific advocacy organizations to have tenure at my university.

— Registered User

... This too was shown to be a lie.

— Chip

Third, I was accused of publishing under a pseudonym, by people publishing under psuedonyms.

So who are Popper’s Ghost and Guye Faux (sic)? What are their real names? Who is registered user? What is there (sic) personal information? Glenn Davidson **chose** to link to his url. I chose not to. That decision **not** to link to a url and **not** to post personal information on PT deserves to be respected.

IF I were making false or exaggerated claims about myself, that would be a different matter.

Since I post using my real name, I fail to see how I am requesting or demanding anonymity. I am requesting that people respect my decision not to post my url or any other links to personal information on PT.

The following is the e-mail I have sent to thecrew@pandasthumb this morning. I find it disappointing in the extreme that an attempted civil discussion about academic freedom and tenure standards is met with gratuituous personal insults, lies and smears. And I am referring to other threads and not just this one.

Dear Sirs and/or Madams,

On Post no. 137590 by Popper's Ghost, "The Disco Institute has a Press Conference On Dr. Gonzalez' Behalf" information about me on my University's web page was cut and pasted into the forum by Popper's Ghost. I have deliberately chosen not to link to my University url on PT for many reasons. I have always posted under my own name and provided minimal personal information. I think that my decision not to link to my url and not to provide additional personal information about myself should be respected. Therefore, I respectfully request that this post be removed.

I shouldn't have to say the following but I will. I am not now, nor have I ever been a supporter of Gonzalez. Nor have I ever been a supporter or proponent of ID or of the Discovery Institute. Anyone interested in my views on science, the social sciences, demarcation debates and the social sciences may read my **peer reviewed** article in the Journal of Economic Issues, "How Can Institutional Economics be an Evolutionary Science" and the additional articles and the exchange that follows.

I have responded on several occasions to general points about tenure and academic freedom that official posters and multiple unofficial posters have made. To wit: multiple people continue to advocate the view that Universities may impose litmus tests with respect to **beliefs** for tenure. In addition, multiple people have posted that Universities may add to their requirements for tenure. Finally, multiple people have advanced the view that there is a clear, decisive, demarcation criterion for science.

I have said in turn that:
1. Universities may not impose litmus tests;
2. Univerities may not impose additional requirements at the time of tenure and in addition to do so is in violation of AAUP guidlines for tenure and academic freedom;
I'm not saying, incidentally, that Universities never engage in these practices or that winning lawsuits in such instances is a slam dunk. However, such practices do expose Universities to legal liability and to the rather ineffective practice of AAUP censure.
3. Anyone who has bothered to read the extensive debates about the demarcation criterion would know that there is no single, decisive, demarcation criterion.

But I have never said, nor would I ever say that I think ID has validity.

Now people are free to disagree with me and I have not complained about the numerous, extensive, gratuituous personal insults, smears and lies that posters have spread about me in this and other multiple threads-simply for expressing the above opinions.

At this point, I am just disgusted with PT as a whole and with the multiple posters you attract.

I'm not disgusted because I disagree with PT in general. In fact, as a general rule in the past I have agreed with PT and found it to be a useful resource both for my personal education and for students interested in acquainting themselves with the debate.

I can't stop people from refusing to debate the issue. Nor can I stop people from posting gratuituous personal insults.

I can request simply that you remove my personal information.

Obviously, the climate at PT is such that people with my views are not welcome on the boards so I will avoid the temptation of commenting further.

We can leave it at that.