19 Responses to “Tenure for Francis Beckwith”

1. Thought Provoker Says:
   September 23rd, 2006 at 9:37 pm

   This is a shining star in a sky that is has too many dark clouds.

   Personally, I would like to see more shining stars.

Comment by Thought Provoker — September 23, 2006 @ 9:37 pm

2. Bilbo Says:
   September 24th, 2006 at 4:20 pm

   I'm curious: Was there any official announcement that explained why tenure was denied in the first place. Something like, "We found that the original decision to deny tenure to Beckwith was unfairly prejudiced, because of Beckwith's views on ID, etc."

Comment by Bilbo — September 24, 2006 @ 4:20 pm

3. edarrell Says:
   September 24th, 2006 at 4:52 pm

   One more refutation to the bizarre argument that ID advocates suffer from academic discrimination.

   Despite his publications advocating legal actions that the courts reject, Beckwith gets tenure.

   However will this blog keep arguing its victimhood in the light of such events?

Comment by edarrell — September 24, 2006 @ 4:52 pm

4. Bilbo Says:
   September 24th, 2006 at 5:33 pm

   However will this blog keep arguing its victimhood in the light of such events

   Um…I'd still like to know what the facts were. Do you know, Ed?

Comment by Bilbo — September 24, 2006 @ 5:33 pm

5. Bradford Says:
   September 24th, 2006 at 7:55 pm

   One more refutation to the bizarre argument that ID advocates suffer from academic discrimination.

   The only bizarre aspect of this is the fact that a man with the solid academic credentials and great intellect of Beckwith was twice previously denied tenure. The actions were reversed due, in no small part, to the hue and cry that followed the politically motivated denials.

   Denyse O'Leary accurately portrayed Beckwith's real offense.

   Actually, Beckwith's main offence was TWS - teaching while smart. As I have pointed out elsewhere, there is nothing wrong with having non-materialist opinions, as long as you are a pleasant Jesus-hollering dum dum, who cannot challenge materialists on their own turf with contrary evidence and convincing arguments. It's when they have to take you seriously that you can expect trouble.

Comment by Bradford — September 24, 2006 @ 7:55 pm

6. Thought Provoker Says:
   September 24th, 2006 at 9:05 pm

   Bradford wrote…

   The only bizarre aspect of this is the fact that a man with the solid academic credentials and great intellect of Beckwith was twice previously denied tenure. The actions were reversed due, in no small part, to the hue and cry that followed the politically motivated denials.

   Denyse O'Leary accurately portrayed Beckwith's real offense.

   Bradford, in our last exchange you asked…
   "Where is a specific reference to back this?"
   To which I provided a specific reference clearly showing the accuracy of my statement.

   I am returning the favor.

   1. You stated that "Beckwith was twice previously denied tenure."
   I offer that not even Beckwith believes he was denied twice.

   2. You stated "The actions were reversed due, in no small part, to the hue and cry that followed the politically motivated denials."
   It may have been simply that the man who was holding up Beckwith's tenure is no longer with Baylor. I don't know which it is, do you?

   3. "Denyse O'Leary accurately portrayed Beckwith's real offense." And your source for confirming her accuracy is… O'Leary?

   So, "Where is a specific reference to back [any of] this?" Just one reference for any one of your statements will do.

   Rejoice! Sometimes the good guy wins. Additional conjecturing and fabricating isn't needed, and leaves open the question of how you are tailoring other facts in other discussions.

Comment by Thought Provoker — September 24, 2006 @ 9:05 pm

7. edarrell Says:
   September 24th, 2006 at 11:22 pm

   No, I'm not particularly interested in the facts. Dr. Beckwith will share with me if he sees fit. From what I know, I don't think it has anything to do with his advocacy of intelligent design in the classroom (or however he wants to phrase it — he's still careful to say he doesn't advocate ID, only that it would be legal to teach it; my concern is that it's not legal to teach it and he's got the law exactly wrong).

   I suspect he's fairly engaging and entertaining in the classroom, and I've had professors who were a lot worse than having an ideological bent that colored their presentations towards inaccuracy.

   My only point is that the evidence is gone from the claim that Beckwith was being persecuted for his ID views. He got tenure.

   By my count, that leaves it at 0 for those persecuted for their ID views.

Comment by edarrell — September 24, 2006 @ 11:22 pm

8. edarrell Says:
   September 24th, 2006 at 11:25 pm

   Thought Provoker has it right, largely. Beckwith is generally a good guy. He's dead wrong on his legal arguments for ID, but being wrong isn't the same as being nasty or mean, or incompetent as a teacher or researcher. Were the Discovery Institute populated with more Beckwiths, it would be a much nicer discussion all around.

Comment by edarrell — September 24, 2006 @ 11:25 pm

9. Bradford Says:
   September 25th, 2006 at 12:41 am

   1. You stated that "Beckwith was twice previously denied tenure."
   I offer that not even Beckwith believes he was denied twice.

   Looks like you are right. Beckwith was apparently twice reviewed but only denied the first time. Here are two takes on the matter:

   http://reformclub.blogspot.com...

   http://www.pearceyreport.com/a...

Comment by Bradford — September 25, 2006 @ 12:41 am

10. DonaldM Says:
    September 25th, 2006 at 11:15 am

    Darrell
    

    By my count, that leaves it at 0 for those persecuted for their ID views.

    Look at the way Baylor treated Dembski, for starters. Then there are others that I personally know, who choose to remain anonymous to avoid further problems, who have been singled out precisely because they question Dariwinism. You speak in ignorance on this subject.

Comment by DonaldM — September 25, 2006 @ 11:15 am

11. DonaldM Says:
    September 25th, 2006 at 11:17 am

    Looks like you are right. Beckwith was apparently twice reviewed but only denied the first time. Here are two takes on the matter:

    It's a little more complicated than that. In the first review, he was denied tenure by the tenure review committee. He appealed. The second vote was, for all intents and purposes, an even split. That put the ball in the court of the PResident and the PRovost. The result being, they decided to award tenure after reviewing all the facts of the review process.

Comment by DonaldM — September 25, 2006 @ 11:17 am

12. Smokey Says:
    September 25th, 2006 at 12:39 pm

    DonaldM: Then there are others that I personally know, who choose to remain anonymous to avoid further problems, who have been singled out precisely because they question Dariwinism.

    Maybe they've been singled out because they weren't producing any new data in the process of testing THEIR OWN hypotheses.

    That's the way science is evaluated. The gold standard is producing new knowledge, not essays critiquing others.

Comment by Smokey — September 25, 2006 @ 12:39 pm

13. Thought Provoker Says:
    September 25th, 2006 at 1:40 pm

    I wrote…
    "1. You stated that "Beckwith was twice previously denied tenure." I offer that not even Beckwith believes he was denied twice."

    Bradford responded with…

    Looks like you are right. Beckwith was apparently twice reviewed but only denied the first time. Here are two takes on the matter:

    http://reformclub.blogspot.com...

    http://www.pearceyreport.com/a...

    Bradford, you surprised me (in a good way).
    This was the perfect response to my baiting you.

    DonaldM, on the other hand, just had to push the facts with…

    The second vote was, for all intents and purposes, an even split. That put the ball in the court of the PResident and the PRovost.

    Donald, are you sure the Tenure appeal wasn't always up to the Provost and then the President regardless of what the committee recommended?

Comment by Thought Provoker — September 25, 2006 @ 1:40 pm

14. Krauze Says:
    September 25th, 2006 at 5:01 pm

    Ed Brayton throws some light on the number of times Beckwith was denied tenure:

    [Beckwith] was denied tenure several months ago but appealed that denial. The committee reconsidered and took a second vote, which was apparently 6-5 against giving him tenure, much closer than the first vote. And now Lilley has overruled that vote and decided to give him tenure after all.

    And here's something edarell should pay attention to:

    Frankly, I don't think any of this really had much to do with either [Beckwith's] abilities as a teacher or his work as a scholar. He is caught up in an ongoing political and religious battle over the direction of Baylor University, and he represents the more orthodox religious side of things. It's a battle that has been going on for many years at Baylor, and will likely go on for many more. I don't know anything about his teaching skills, but my understanding is that is generally very highly rated by his students as a teacher. But I've read a good deal of his scholarship and, while I disagree with almost all of it, I think it's important to bear in mind that the standards by which legal scholarship is judged are quite different from how, say, scientific publications are judged.

    There are plenty of legal scholars that I disagree with completely that I cannot imagine being denied tenure at any university (Robert Bork, Robert George, etc). It's not enough to say "I think they're wrong, therefore they don't deserve tenure"; by that standard, no one would ever get tenure. Like those men, Beckwith is a prominent advocate for his position and regardless of whether I agree with that position, by the standards of legal scholarship, they would generally be granted tenure on the basis of their scholarship. And I fear for academic freedom if we're going to make disagreement the standard for deciding who can and can't be fired.

Comment by Krauze — September 25, 2006 @ 5:01 pm

15. Thought Provoker Says:
    September 25th, 2006 at 6:01 pm

    This thread was unique in that we all generally share the same opinion, it was wrong to deny Francis Beckwith and we are glad that wrong was corrected.

    This is when group-think takes over with each person trying to outdo the other in explaining how bad it was. When Bradford said "twice", my internal thoughts were "I didn't know that", and went to confirm it. What I found was Francis Beckwith himself correcting Denyse O'Leary on how the appeal was still in process and he had not been denied. My opinion of Beckwith shot up 1000%.

    While I probably should have just relayed that information in the first place, I was still a little taken aback some hoop-jumping Bradford put me through, so I challenged him. I said it once, I will say it again. Bradford responded very well to that challenge.

    DonaldM just said the wrong thing at the wrong time (while only slightly off center from reality, it was still "pushing the facts").

    The facts are only the Provost and the President can reverse a previously denied Tenure. Only the Provost or the President can deny a Tenure appeal.

    Here is a link to the Baylor's Faculty Promotion Policy…
    http://www.baylor.edu/provost/...

Comment by Thought Provoker — September 25, 2006 @ 6:01 pm

16. DonaldM Says:
    September 25th, 2006 at 6:39 pm

    TP
    

    DonaldM just said the wrong thing at the wrong time (while only slightly off center from reality, it was still "pushing the facts").

    What's your point, TP? Frankly, I don't see it. Are you here just to play mind games, because it sure is beginning to look like it!

Comment by DonaldM — September 25, 2006 @ 6:39 pm

17. Thought Provoker Says:
    September 25th, 2006 at 7:13 pm

    DonaldM asked…

    What's your point, TP?

    To provoke thinking.

    In this case, to provoke thinking about what we are saying before we say it.

Comment by Thought Provoker — September 25, 2006 @ 7:13 pm

18. DonaldM Says:
    September 25th, 2006 at 10:44 pm

    To provoke thinking.

    In this case, to provoke thinking about what we are saying before we say it.

    To me, its beginning to look like you want to provoke just to provoke. Are you seriously implying that we aren't thinking about what we're saying?

Comment by DonaldM — September 25, 2006 @ 10:44 pm

19. Thought Provoker Says:
    September 25th, 2006 at 10:48 pm

    I wasn't sure where to put this. I hope this is acceptable.

    While surfing the Web I noticed DonaldM providing links pointing to talk.origins FAQ on speciation and asking for help understanding how this squares with ID.

    Way to go, Donald!

Comment by Thought Provoker — September 25, 2006 @ 10:48 pm

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.