More on Beckwith and Baylor
by KrauzeEd Brayton is commenting on Baylor's controversial decision to deny tenure to Francis Beckwith, who has published extensively on philosophy and law. Brayton believes that the decision was due to the internal politics at Baylor, and criticizes the "inevitable conspiracy theories and blame mongering from the ID crowd", whom he's sure will claim that the decision was based on Beckwith's acceptance of intelligent design defense of the constitutionality of teaching ID. However, so far the only one raising "conspiracy theories" is his fellow critic, PZ Myers, who says that yes, intelligent design was a factor in the decision:
[A]lthough it is nearly impossible to speculate on what's going on in tenure committees – he could have been denied tenure on the whim of some old fart with a grudge – it's hard to imagine that the politics of Intelligent Design did not play some small part in it. Beckwith tied his fortunes to those of the Discovery Institute and the ID movement, and at the very least we can say that that was not enough to salvage his tenure at Baylor. In fact, given that he has a respectable publication record and seems to be a personable fellow, it's hard to avoid the speculation that they might have wanted to steer Baylor away from the disaster of Intelligent Design. A solid record of publishing large quantities of something that is being shown to be utter crap is not helpful to one's tenure chances.
Some people have defended Baylor's decision by claiming that Beckwith lacked collegiality, but as Brayton points out:
I think the reason they gave for that denial – lack of collegiality – is patently absurd. You would be hard pressed to find a nicer, more engaging person. We have had many disagreements over the last few years, including times when I have been harshly critical of his work, and he has never failed to reply with civility and collegiality even to someone he had no reason to view as a colleague. The alleged basis for this claim is a ruse, but not an unexpected one – you certainly can't expect them to deny him tenure and blame it on internal political struggles, can you?
Southern Appeal is critizicing Baylor, as is First Things. Meanwhile, Kathy Hutchins suggests that just like the slaves in the movie Spartacus, all academics should stand up, saying "I am Francis Beckwith".
March 28th, 2006 at 11:00 am
Hi Krauze,
Just to set the record straight, PZ Myers didn't say that Beckwith's support of ID was the reason he was denied tenure. The quote you posted from him said
So, though he admits speculation is "nearly impossible", he speculated anyway, rather than reporting a verifiable fact, as you tried to spin it. I know that isn't nearly as helpful to the cause of establishing a new ID martyr, but another martyr isn't going to help make ID's case as a legitimate field of scientific study anyway.
Comment by Aagcobb — March 28, 2006 @ 11:00 am
March 28th, 2006 at 11:15 am
Hi Aagcobb,
"I know that isn't nearly as helpful to the cause of establishing a new ID martyr, but another martyr isn't going to help make ID's case as a legitimate field of scientific study anyway."
I'm not trying to establish a new "ID martyr". I don't know anymore about what took place behind those closed doors than anyone else. What I found ironic was that after Brayton had been railing against the "inevitable conspiracy theories and blame mongering from the ID crowd", the first person to offer conspiracy theories, or "speculation", as you call it, was none other than good old Steel Boot.
Comment by Krauze — March 28, 2006 @ 11:15 am
March 28th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
Hi Krauze,
Glad to hear it Krauze. You may want to change that was into a might have been for the sake of accuracy.
Comment by Aagcobb — March 28, 2006 @ 12:28 pm
March 28th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
As I have never met the man, I know that its possible that Beckwith is a real pain to be around once you get to know him, therefore justifying the claim of "lack of collegiality". However I wonder another possibility.
Is there any chance that Baylor is dominated by Young Earth Creationists? I know that many YECs view anyone who does not interpret the Bible as they do to be heretics worthy of burning at the stake.
Comment by bFast — March 28, 2006 @ 1:30 pm
March 28th, 2006 at 1:50 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
"You may want to change that was into a might have been for the sake of accuracy."
Except that PZ was actually less timid than "might have been" would indicate. In PZ's own words, "it's hard to imagine that the politics of Intelligent Design did not play some small part in it."
Comment by Krauze — March 28, 2006 @ 1:50 pm
March 28th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
I've been doing a little poking around on this topic. I came up with the following link.
here
It looks like the neo-Darwinists have a stronghold a Baylor. It seems that some of the biologists there don't want to be painted with the ID brush. We do live in a puzzling world.
Comment by bFast — March 28, 2006 @ 1:54 pm
March 28th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
Hi bFast,
"As I have never met the man, I know that its possible that Beckwith is a real pain to be around once you get to know him, therefore justifying the claim of "lack of collegiality"."
Yes, and it's also possible that "lack of collegiality", like this this Baylor gradstudent explains, is "a code for unjustified discrimination or the practice of ruthless politics." Anything's possible.
"Is there any chance that Baylor is dominated by Young Earth Creationists? I know that many YECs view anyone who does not interpret the Bible as they do to be heretics worthy of burning at the stake."
Again, anything's possible. To test this speculation, one need only look at other professors granted tenure at Baylor and see if they are all young earth creationists.
Comment by Krauze — March 28, 2006 @ 2:00 pm
March 28th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
bFast wrote
Not so puzzling at all. Baylor isn't a seminary, and the biologists there are real scientists, just like at many other universities affiliated with churches, so they recognize pseudoscientific bs when they see it.
Comment by Aagcobb — March 28, 2006 @ 3:21 pm
March 29th, 2006 at 2:25 am
So why was Beckwith denied tenure?
Comment by MikeGene — March 29, 2006 @ 2:25 am
March 29th, 2006 at 8:22 am
An interesting perspective on this issue has emerged. Tenure can be viewed as the most detailed and systematic example of peer review known in academia. And it's a peer review decision that not only shapes the direction and focus of academia, but it can inflict real-world pain and suffering on another human being. Yet despite this, both Brayton and Myers are on basic agreement about something:
According to Brayton:
According to Myers:
Theological and political struggles. Outcomes dependent on the world views of higher ups. Often spitting out the deserving and rewarding the undeserving. Too arbritrary and subjective.
The faith in peer review takes another hit.
Comment by MikeGene — March 29, 2006 @ 8:22 am
March 29th, 2006 at 9:24 am
Hi MikeGene,
I don't know, Mike. As Myers said,
In my personal opinion, making disingenuous arguments in favor of teaching discredited, creationist anti-evolutionary arguments in public school science classrooms would be a pretty good reason to deny someone tenure, but I have no idea to what extent, if any, that was considered by the tenure committee. For all I know, they just didn't like him because Sloan brought him in.
Comment by Aagcobb — March 29, 2006 @ 9:24 am
March 29th, 2006 at 9:41 am
Hi Mike,
That's a good observation. Why don't you give it a post of its own, instead of hiding it down here?
Comment by Krauze — March 29, 2006 @ 9:41 am
March 29th, 2006 at 9:55 am
Hi, Mike,
You're right. here is an article about how George Mason University took advantage of the prejudices of other universities to build a world class economics department (not to mention a final four basketball team).
Comment by Aagcobb — March 29, 2006 @ 9:55 am
March 30th, 2006 at 10:17 am
"The faith in peer review takes another hit. "
What do you suggest replace it?
Coin toss?
Internet discussion board posts?
Comment by derwood — March 30, 2006 @ 10:17 am
March 30th, 2006 at 11:35 pm
Hi derwood,
I'm not suggesting that anything should replace it.
Comment by MikeGene — March 30, 2006 @ 11:35 pm