Agreed.
My point, however, is that tenure standards have changed. If Sagan had been up for tenure 10-20 years later, it is not at all clear that he would have made it.
1 Like
The requirements are probably higher nowadays, granted. However, from what I have heard, the changed standard means that more publications are required, or more publications in “high impact” journals, or a higher h-index (or whatever it’s called), etc. I’m unaware of any change in standards that says: “No scientist who publishes a popular book will be granted tenure, even though in all other respects he merits tenure.” So the mere fact that Gonzalez had published a popular book would not in itself have been held against him, if all his other work was up to the current standard.
The unresolved question, then, is whether he was denied tenure solely for failing to meet the current standard, or whether there was in addition some prejudice operating due to his religious views. In the nature of the case, it is unlikely that we are going to find memos from one department member to another, saying, “I don’t care how much he’s published or how high his citation index is, I don’t want no *$#% Christian apologist in this department!”, so it will never be possible to provide irrefutable proof, but certainly it looks as if the tenure decision took place within an atmosphere which was at the very least poisoned by atheist activism coming from another department. The department and university may have reasoned that similar hostility would arise from outside the university had they granted tenure, and decided that they didn’t want that kind of public relations problem for the department or the school. We will never know the whole truth, unless 30 years from now some professor writes a tell-all biography of his university career and reveals that certain people in the department had it in for Gonzalez, or cut him adrift even though they thought he was OK, for the greater good of the reputation of school. All I can say is that it looks as if the process was tainted by some prejudice, while granting that Gonzalez might not have received tenure anyway.
I doubt that we can ever completely resolve that.
As far as I can tell, the tenure committee acted properly. What we can never know, is whether individual members of that committee were affected by personal biases.
It’s unlikely that the members of the committee can know that either. That’s how bias works, and it’s a reason to be wary about letting it go unexamined and unchallenged.
6 Likes
In the end, it really doesn’t matter. The Dean overseeing the department did a second appraisal that excluded all of the ID material and the Dean also agreed with the denial of tenure.
That’s exactly what happened.
At least one member of the committee admitted afterwards that Gonzalez’s book was a factor in his thinking. Beyond that, I would make no formal charges, though in a free country, I have a right to my suspicions.
Grants matter a lot, especially in a department that is pushing to be a top tier research program. 4 of the previous 12 candidates had been denied tenure, so it wasn’t as if they were giving everyone tenure. Gonzalez’s peers were pulling in an average of $1.3 million a year on grant money, and Gonzalez was nowhere close to that.
This isn’t meant to disparage Gonzalez in the least. Getting a grant funded is really, really hard. In my own world there are times when only 3-5 grants are funded out of 75 applications. There are a lot of good scientists who don’t get funding.
The Dean of the department made the final call, and he said that Gonzalez’s religious belief and ID writings didn’t factor into his decision.
You mean, the ID material that supposedly never factored into the Department’s decision in the first place? How could he exclude it? Once a jury has heard tainted evidence, it’s not humanly capable of forgetting what it has heard. No one at Iowa State reviewing the decision was unaware of Gonzalez’s book or his views on design. Even if someone retyped Gonzalez’s c.v. without the book reference, the Dean would still be aware that it had originally been there, and would be aware that there was widespread dislike of ID among scientists, and might well have shared that dislike himself, if he was a scientist, which was presumably the case if he was the Dean in charge of the Astronomy department.
In your opinion, which is formed by taking the official rationale at face value. I don’t completely buy the official rationale. I don’t say that the decision regarding tenure was wrong, but I am more suspicious than you are regarding the motives. And the difference in our suspicion levels appears to be tied very closely to our differences over a number of other large issues in science and religion. We aren’t going to agree on this one, so let’s drop it.
And we should take his word on that because? Because Science Deans at state universities, when confronted by an issue that could embarrass their university, always tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Would you give the same credence to an explanation by, say, the current President of the United States, if he assured you he was telling the truth?
It was actually the President of Iowa State University. This is part of the statement:
I would ask you to look at the facts and how they relate to the criteria for getting tenure.
The facts, as selectively presented by the President (and by the way, I read that document when it came out). The President of course conveniently leaves out Gonzalez’s very high citation index (higher than that of almost anyone in his department), among other things. And Presidents have a huge PR interest in justifying their university’s actions.
Anyhow, I’m done discussing this. I shouldn’t have raised the example in the first place – it always raises arguments from scientists who are neither in the field of astrophysics, nor have any personal acquaintance with anyone at Iowa State, and the arguments are always the same. And always religious prejudice is completely discounted as a possible motive, which is a completely unrealistic assessment of such situations, given the reality of the culture war. It was pointless of me to invoke the name of Gonzalez. I’m done.
I am not sure what exactly you are arguing. I think most people would admit that anti-religious prejudice probably played a small role. Most of that, however, was amplified by his association with the controversial Discovery Institute, which takes on a political - not just purely scientific aspect. The lesson here is, don’t associate with controversial political institutions before you get tenure.
3 Likes
Bingo.
3 Likes
Most people probably would, but I haven’t yet “met” any self-identified atheist on the internet who does!
I agree. Behe tells young ID folks this all the time. It’s wise advice. If Gonzalez had asked my advice, I’d have told him not to publish his book until after he had tenure. But I was considering the professional ethics aspect of the case, not the prudential one.
1 Like
Most scientists don’t get tenure.
2 Likes
Most scientists work in industry not academia.
Many scientists in academia don’t get tenure either. Less than 30% of faculty are tenured or tenure-track.
2 Likes
It’s just a reality that if you associate with a political entity very opposed to everyone else’s views at your workplace, you may get some pushback. Not just in academia but many regular industries as well. That’s not ideal but true even in Christian institutions. (Especially more true in many institutions where if you depart from the statement of faith you will have to leave.)
1 Like