A question of style: Guillermo Gonzalez and the tenure review process
by KrauzeThe blogoshere is atwitter over Guillermo Gonzalez, the ID astronomer who was denied tenure at Iowa State University. Gonzalez has an impressive publication record, and his research has been featured on the cover of Scientific American. Nonetheless, his university decided to deny him tenure.
Gonzalez has been open about his sympathies towards intelligent design, and in a press release the Discovery Institute is claiming that the denial of tenure was motivated by anti-ID bias. ID critic Ed Brayton has written a response that's supposed to squash the DI's allegations, but which ends up confirming them.
Brayton accuses the DI of making "false or unsupported claims of persecution" and notes that "people get denied for tenure every single day, all over the country, for a million different reasons, some fair and some unfair." To support this, he quotes from a post by physicist Sean Carroll when he was denied tenure:
The bad news is that I've been denied tenure at Chicago. It came as a complete surprise, I hadn't anticipated any problems at all. But apparently there are a few of our faculty who don't think much of my research. A stylistic clash, I imagine. And a handful of dissenters is all it takes to derail a tenure case. I don't think there are many people in the outside world who believe that the University of Chicago is better off without me than with me, but there seems to be an anomalously high concentration of them among my own colleagues.
Brayton doesn't criticize this account, so it's safe to say he considers it plausible. In other words, it's:
A researcher is denied tenure over a "stylistic clash" = perfectly believable
A researcher is denied tenure over his support of ID = false claim of persecution
The only thing Brayton manages to show is that tenure decisions are far from always fair, and that they rely on subjective judgements, such as whether your colleagues likes your "style". So let's look at some things that might have affected the subjective judgements of the committee deciding whether to give Gonzalez tenure:
In 2005, a petition against intelligent design signed by 150 of Gonzalez' colleagues was circulated at Iowa State University.
Professor of religion, Hector Avalos, one of the people behind the petition, was quoted in the press accusing Gonzalez of being part of "a movement … to place advocates of Intelligent Design in universities without revealing their true agenda."
Another of Gonzalez' colleagues, professor of engineering John W. Patterson, wrote a letter to the local newspaper, accusing Gonzalez of working to destroy democracy and turn the US into a Christian Theocracy.
But if you ask Brayton, none of this influenced the committee that held the power to award or deny Gonzalez his tenure. The same review process that slighted another professor because of disagreements over "style" was able to remain entirely objective and unprejudiced when dealing with a known supporter of intelligent design.
May 14th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Hi Krauze, I imagine Brayton's point was that people as good as if not better than Gonzalez are denied tenure, perhaps unfairly, whether they are IDists or not. But they don't all go around screaming about how they are being "persecuted". Gonzalez will land on his feet, just as Carroll did.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 14, 2007 @ 4:19 pm
May 14th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Aagcobb, the pertinent issue is not whether "persecution" is claimed but whether it in fact occurred. Given the history of hostility directed against Gonzalez and the exaggerated, indeed, irrational accusations made, Gonzalez would have at least a prima facia case IMO. In an exchange a short while ago you accorded plausibility to a broad sweeping claim to persecution for minorities. I know my US history so I'll give some out of the ordinary consideration to claims where individuals of minority groups are concerned. And since there is a personal history with this case I think you and others could do the same for Gonzalez.
Comment by Bradford — May 14, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
May 14th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Aagacob,
The issue is not whether Gonzales will land on his feet but whether he was denied tenure because of his association with ID.
Athiests are always complaining about being persecuted. Have you ever heard of an athiest being denied tenure at a public university because he was an athiest?
Comment by Jehu — May 14, 2007 @ 6:41 pm
May 14th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Krauze noted the following:
Contrast Brayton's view with that of Gerard Harbison who stated this:
Either Brayton is correct in asserting that "people get denied for tenure every single day, all over the country, for a million different reasons, some fair and some unfair" or Harbison is right in alleging that the reasonable position is that tenure was denied because of a failure to obtain a major grant or both Brayton and Harbison are wrong because the unfairness, that both are intent on denying, is real.
Comment by Bradford — May 14, 2007 @ 7:00 pm
May 14th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
The real issue is whether it is "atwitter" or "a twitter."
But seriously, in the academic world, the hostility against ID is rather high, right now. I'm surprised that Gonzalez is surprised he was denied tenure. The surprise would be that he wasn't denied tenure. And I'm surprised that he came out of the closet about his beliefs in ID before he got tenure. Gutsy move. I'll be curious to see where he "lands."
Comment by Bilbo — May 14, 2007 @ 7:40 pm
May 14th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Bradford, Jehu,
Gonzalez may well have been denied tenure because of ID. He may have been denied tenure because he's Hispanic (I'm guessing from his name). The particular reason he was denied tenure doesn't change the fact that lots of people who aren't IDists who have excellent credentials are also denied tenure. He's better off than most who are denied tenure; they don't have the opportunity to become professional martyrs, which Gonzalez has, if he so chooses.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 14, 2007 @ 8:26 pm
May 14th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Is professional martyr an apt description of a victim of racism who is compensated for an injustice? How does a martyr label, affixed by those bearing ill will toward you, help pay the bills?
Comment by Bradford — May 14, 2007 @ 8:49 pm
May 14th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Hi Bradford,
He can go on a church tour describing how the evilutionists got him fired and collect love offerings. Sean Carroll doesn't have that option.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 14, 2007 @ 8:58 pm
May 14th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Krauze:
Very nice.
Comment by MikeGene — May 14, 2007 @ 8:59 pm
May 14th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Aagcobb:
At ISU, 63/66 applicants received tenure or promotion. Do you do the percent at Carroll's school?
Comment by MikeGene — May 14, 2007 @ 9:01 pm
May 14th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
You might have made a good apologist for slavery- He can come to civilzation and get guaranteed room and board and be better off than some who don't have that opportunity. Gonzalez is a good man who will do what Carroll did although from a moral standpoint maybe neither should have had to.
You think it would it be a good idea to fire Avalos so he can collect love offerings from the public trough?
Comment by Bradford — May 14, 2007 @ 9:19 pm
May 14th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Bradford,
I didn't say it was a good idea, I only said Gonzalez has an option that many other folks denied tenure don't have. And to compare being denied tenure to slavery is ludicrous. Next thing you know, you're going to have me marching IDists to the gas chamber, then I can invoke Godwin's Law and declare victory!
p.s. I should add, you are merely making my point for me about the hysterical lengths IDists go to trying to portray themselves as "oppressed", when they in fact can make a pretty good living doing almost nothing.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 14, 2007 @ 10:35 pm
May 14th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Actually Aagcobb, very few IDists make a living with ID. Some make a good living working in fields that are tangentially related to issues that touch on natural history. Even Dembski and Behe make much of their income outside ID related activities so if we are going to evaluate what is an overreaction we can start with some silly assumptions anti-IDists make and go from there. Guillermo Gonzalez is a scientist who has spent many long hours studying physics and astronomy. It was your sarcasm I was addressing not any feeling of oppression. When was the last time you advised a doctor, a scientist, a judge or corporate executive to seek hand outs because he lost out on some professional position. You and like minded opponents of ID do us a favor by showing us your hysterical side. If a prof at ISU had sex with a child there would have been no petition circulated. We might have even been told how his contributions to science counter some his his "negative" behavoir. As Avalos shows it is about religion- the religious impulses of those threatened by what ID represents to them.
Comment by Bradford — May 14, 2007 @ 11:15 pm
May 14th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Ed Brayton makes a odd comment on his own site:
I don't see anyone around here "screaming" "persecution." I'm curious as to how one detects a scream, something that is auditory, by visually processing words on a computer screen. As for the accusation of "persecution," any reader can search the three threads for this word:
Here
Here
Here
It only appears in Krauze's thread and that is because he is quoting Brayton!
Clearly, the notion that we at TT are "screaming persecution" is a hallucination that may, in turn, stem from reliance on stereotype.
So Brayton is admitting that Gonzalez's ID views may have indeed played a role in the decision to deny him tenure.
No one here said anything about a "Stalinist conspiracy." All that matters is that Brayton admits "the highly politicized process of tenure."
No, I don't think we should "get over it" if get over it means "move on." On the contrary, the admission that the tenure process is subjective and political is a very significant admission and merits further exploration in terms of its larger implications.
Comment by MikeGene — May 14, 2007 @ 11:34 pm
May 14th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
I wonder… if some untenured history instructor in some state university somewhere, known to promote holocaust denial, who was "a fellow" belonging to some Seattle-based "think tank," whose primary purpose was to create doubt over whether the holocaust ever actually happened… I wonder… would there be such a hew and cry over denying tenure to such a person?
Hmmm…
Comment by takuan — May 14, 2007 @ 11:45 pm
May 15th, 2007 at 12:06 am
Bradford,
I didn't "advise" him to hit the church circuit, I merely pointed out that its an option Gonzalez has that Sean Carroll and many others denied tenure lack.
OK, you didn't take the gas chamber route, instead you accuse academia of coddling pedophiles, and you want to accuse me of hysteria?:roll:
Comment by Aagcobb — May 15, 2007 @ 12:06 am
May 15th, 2007 at 12:11 am
Hi taukan,
Yes, we know it is very common for ID critics to equate all forms of ID with Holocaust-denial. It's a stupid argument, but common nevertheless. Given that many critics are also admitting the subjective nature of tenure decisions, this misguided equation will become relevant.
Comment by MikeGene — May 15, 2007 @ 12:11 am
May 15th, 2007 at 12:16 am
The Patterson letter is a gem. The irrational hysteria among some of the critics is clearly worth studying, but I'm afraid such a study might cause a budding social scientist their career.
Comment by MikeGene — May 15, 2007 @ 12:16 am
May 15th, 2007 at 12:40 am
Sure he does. In fact, I would consider it more of a love offering to give to your "enemy" than to a "friend."
Comment by Mung — May 15, 2007 @ 12:40 am
May 15th, 2007 at 3:16 am
Aaagaaacob,
You think maybe Gonzales was denied tenure because he is hispanic? You think that is equally reasonable as being denied tenure for association with ID?
Comment by Jehu — May 15, 2007 @ 3:16 am
May 15th, 2007 at 3:33 am
Brayton's reply is peculiar. He acknowledges that publically supporting ID "is almost certainly going to have an effect on how your colleagues view you", but if someone else say the same thing, he's going to accuse them of suffering from a "persecution complex" and of believing in a "Stalinist conspiracy".
Comment by Krauze — May 15, 2007 @ 3:33 am
May 15th, 2007 at 3:57 am
Iowa State has issued a press release regarding the Gonzalez decision.
A key quote:
Comment by keiths — May 15, 2007 @ 3:57 am
May 15th, 2007 at 6:16 am
Hi Keiths,
"Based on recommendations against granting tenure and promotion at every prior level of review"
OK, so we can rule out the Sean Carroll situation, where it was just a few of his colleagues that had it in for him. Whatever it was, something had turned a lot of Gonzalez' colleagues against him.
Comment by Krauze — May 15, 2007 @ 6:16 am
May 15th, 2007 at 6:27 am
Krauze:
Excellent point. In addition to Brayton and Myers, many other critics think ID played a role in the decision (or should have played a role in the decision):
Brayton's "persecution complex" rhetoric has gone down in flames.
Comment by MikeGene — May 15, 2007 @ 6:27 am
May 15th, 2007 at 7:08 am
But it is not an option. Aagcobb, are you being deliberately naive? Nobody makes money by doing the "church circuit." Have you checked out the fees Sam Harris charges for public speaking? I'm in favor of free enterprise so if he can get the money I have nothing to say against his compensation. But speaking engagements in front of secular crowds hosted by secular organizations is where the money is.
Comment by Bradford — May 15, 2007 @ 7:08 am
May 15th, 2007 at 7:30 am
Yes Aagcobb, please a) tell us who these martyr's are that are making money off the "church circuit"; b) how much they make; and c) how you know this.
Comment by MikeGene — May 15, 2007 @ 7:30 am
May 15th, 2007 at 8:57 am
Hi MikeGene,
Duane Gish has been galloping around the country for decades, and Kent Hovind made enough bucks to end up owing the IRS over $800K in back taxes. Washed up sit-com stars are showing up on network TV to preach anti-evolutionism. Gonzalez' opportunities are only limited by his own imagination and willingness to prostitute himself.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 15, 2007 @ 8:57 am
May 15th, 2007 at 9:11 am
Hi Aagcobb,
Ah, those are exactly the type of answers I would expect from someone trafficking in simple-minded stereotypes. But thank you for clarifying your advice that Gonzalez should become a prostitute. And thank you for showing us all your own sense of ethics and morality about this whole issue.
Comment by MikeGene — May 15, 2007 @ 9:11 am
May 15th, 2007 at 9:28 am
Hi MikeGene,
As I previously pointed out when Bradford put those same words in my mouth, I'm not advising Gonzalez to do anything, I'm merely pointing out the opportunities available to him which aren't available to the many good researchers who aren't IDists who are also denied tenure. For all we know, Gonzalez may have been denied tenure even if he wasn't an IDists; lots of guys with similar credentials don't get tenure. The only difference is, they don't get to play the martyr.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 15, 2007 @ 9:28 am
May 15th, 2007 at 9:49 am
You're being deliberately condescending. Gonzalez is a legitimate researcher who has shown no interest in Ken Hovind type activities. It's not his field. Anti-IDists denied tenure can join the lecture circuit by your logic and attempt to gain money that way. There's a market for anti-IDism.
Except Gonzalez is not playing the martyr. That's a meme you and others are busily attempting to foster.
Comment by Bradford — May 15, 2007 @ 9:49 am
May 15th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Hi Bradford,
If he's not, bully for him. But its not I who started promoting the martyrdom of Gonzalez. That meme is being heavily pushed by IDists.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 15, 2007 @ 10:08 am
May 15th, 2007 at 10:41 am
Hi Aagcobb,
Bradford nicely knocked this one down. All you are doing, Aagcobb, is showing us how stereotypes control your thinking.
To prop up your spin, I see that you purposely choose to ignore the fact that many ID critics think Gonzalez's ID views played a role in the decision to deny tenure. Here's another one for you to ignore:
Comment by MikeGene — May 15, 2007 @ 10:41 am
May 15th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Hi Aagcobb,
Another stereotype?? Please document where we are heavily pushing this meme.
Comment by MikeGene — May 15, 2007 @ 10:43 am
May 15th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
I already documented where IDists are pushing this meme, Mike. I didn't say all IDists.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 15, 2007 @ 12:34 pm
May 15th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Hi MikeGene,
First, unless they have information from Gonzalez or people involved in the decision making process, their thinking is uninformed. Second, even if IDism was considered a factor by the people making the tenure decision, my point was that many others with equivalent records to Gonzalez's have also been denied tenure, so even if Gonzalez was not an IDist, he may well have been denied tenure for some other reason anyway. If Sean Carroll gets denied tenure, why should Gonzalez get automatic approval just because he's an IDist?
Comment by Aagcobb — May 15, 2007 @ 12:42 pm
May 15th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
As keiths pointed out, Iowa State has issued a press release regarding the Gonzalez decision. After a long lecture about what is tenure, and procedures, they finally ask relevant question: Why was tenure not granted to Guillermo Gonzalez? But instead of the answer we are given typical bureaucratic hogwash.
Comment by inunison — May 15, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
May 15th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Hi inunison,
I have read elsewhere that Gonzalez did not have any grants, and that making rain is a big deal in tenure decisions. I do not know this for a fact, but if its true I would bet it would be a bigger factor than IDism. Money talks.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 15, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
May 15th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Aagcobb:
Where?
Comment by Bilbo — May 15, 2007 @ 7:19 pm
May 16th, 2007 at 4:45 am
Hi Aagcobb,
Whatever reason they should give it in that statement. Instead, in aswering their own question, they chose to obfuscate.
Comment by inunison — May 16, 2007 @ 4:45 am
May 17th, 2007 at 4:34 am
I have read elsewhere that Gonzalez did not have any grants, and that making rain is a big deal in tenure decisions. I do not know this for a fact, but if its true I would bet it would be a bigger factor than IDism. Money talks.
That's pretty much the way it works in science. You do not get tenure merely for publishing or being a great guy… you need to find some kind of research foundation or private company who is prepared to fund your research.
Usually there is heavy competition for this funding, and since it's offered by private organisations, those companies are free to do what they want with it. Do not moan about this being unfair… that's just how it is. Nobody has to give you money. If you do not bring in the money, that valuable tenure will be offered to somebody else who can.
It will probably hard for this guy to get funding no matter how good his research was because a simple Google search for his name would find plenty of references to ID. I'm sure many of you here consider it to be a valid and important scientific theory, but many people in professional science consider it to be an absurd embarrassment.
Unfortunately for Mr Gonzales, anybody deciding on his next grant application who finds this page is likely to be convinced that Gonzales is an ID researcher with a martyrdom complex. It may not be true, but that is what people will think, and pages like this only emphasize that notion.
I feel a little sorry for Mr Gonzales. Thanks to his ID friends, he is now more famous for having been denied tenure than he is for any valuable research he may have done. That is going to cause him problems every time he applies for funds in the future.
Nice going!
Comment by salimfadhley — May 17, 2007 @ 4:34 am
May 17th, 2007 at 5:11 am
This was linked from the Discovery Institute's page on Gonzales:
http://www.midiowanews.com/sit...
Basically a letter signed by over 120 members of Gonzales faculty to a local newspaper. The DI want you to take this as evidence of persecution. I see it as evidence that Gonzales was just not highly regarded as a scientist by his faculty.
Tenure is more like a marriage than passing an exam. It's a lifetime appointment rather than a simple award. You have to win your colleagues respect in order to get tenure. Gonzales did not do that, and so he did not get tenure.
It's as simple as that.
As I said before, Bob Jones University need more Astronomers. Why not apply to them?
Comment by salimfadhley — May 17, 2007 @ 5:11 am
May 17th, 2007 at 6:43 am
You don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. Make things up as you go along.
Comment by Bradford — May 17, 2007 @ 6:43 am
May 17th, 2007 at 7:16 am
Bradford, quoting salimfadhley:
How true. Do you want to tell him, or should I, that BJU requires its faculty to affirm a YEC view, and hence Gonzalez would not be welcome there. Ditto for Liberty U.
(Yes, some Christian schools would be biased against Gonzalez for his views.)
Comment by David Heddle — May 17, 2007 @ 7:16 am
May 17th, 2007 at 7:24 am
Bilbo, I read Gonzalez lacked research grants on another message board, from a poster I trust, but not a definitive source, so take it for what its worth. Its as speculative as assuming he was denied tenure for being an IDist.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 17, 2007 @ 7:24 am