Wired Magazine Acknowledges Discrimination against Guillermo Gonzalez and Understands What the Ames Tribune Ignored

2007-12-17
By

In a post entitled “ Denied Tenure, Astronomer Alleges Intelligent Design Witchhunt ,” Wired Magazine ‘s blog has acknowledged that Iowa State University (ISU) discriminated against Guillermo Gonzalez because he supports intelligent design:

So far, science bloggers and defenders of evolution have dismissed Gonzalez’s complaints. However, I’m not sure they’re being fair. Though out-of-context email excerpts can be misleading, statements like “this is not a friendly place for him to develop further his IDeas” make it sound like Gonzalez was not, as the university insisted, judged solely on the content of his astronomical scholarship.

Wired is exactly right. Regardless of Dr. Gonzalez’s level of grants or his publication record, the crucial question here is, Was Gonzalez discriminated against because he supports intelligent design? The evidence undeniably shows that such discrimination did exist:
Eli Rosenberg, Chair of the Department of Physics and Astronomy, instructed other voting faculty in Dr. Gonzalez’s tenure file that his support for ID as science is a litmus test that “disqualifies him from serving as a science educator.”

John Hauptman, an ISU physicist, explicitly admitted that he voted against Dr. Gonzalez’s tenure because “Intelligent design is not even a theory.” He further said, “I participated in the initial vote and voted no, based on this fundamental question: What is science?”

In secret e-mails recently released, other faculty prejudged Gonzalez’s tenure case a year before the official tenure deliberation process began. It is noteworthy that in these e-mails, the faculty were only complaining about Dr. Gonzalez’s support for intelligent design—they were NOT complaining about his academic track record. Here are a few sample statements showing that their prejudice against intelligent design caused them to prejudge the case:

“In view of an upcoming tenure decision, secrecy in the department may equally be interpreted as prejudging the case as making a statement. If we go on record, we give Gonzalez a clear sign that his ID efforts will not be considered as science by the faculty.”“Yes it will get worse before it gets better . But circulating such a statement could accelerate the process and could easily play into the hands of your perceived adversaries. For example, it could be used to justify a legal claim of a ‘ hostile work environment .’ That could be ammunition in any appeal of a tenure decision. Damage has been done, and more will happen. We need to minimize that damage. Pushing ahead with this statement will serve no purpose but to increase the damage I feel.”

“[L]awyers might well be successful in convincing a jury of average Americans that publication of our statement was responsible for creating a hostile work environment. …. I now feel that publication of such a statement might become the most important piece of evidence in a successful court case to guarantee tenure to the person whose scientific credibility we would be attempting to discredit. … As for the unfortunate publicity we are receiving and the embarrassment we feel as a department, I think the best policy is to just grin and bear it for the next couple of years .”

“ [S]ome faculty in his department are not going to count his ID work as a plus for tenure. Quite the opposite. If he devotes his time to hard core astronomy and his case is based on work separate from ID then I might choke (because I regard his ‘hobby’ as detrimental to science) but I could live with a strong case getting tenure. I don’t see that happening right now .”

In other words, various ISU faculty prejudged Dr. Gonzalez’s tenure case long before they even started to look at Gonzalez’s academic accomplishments, and in fact they admitted they would hold him to a higher standard than otherwise due to his support for ID. The Ames Tribune chooses to report none of this information because they claim Dr. Gonzalez lacks grant funding. In so doing, they miss the following points:
Dr. Gonzalez’s funding level, high or otherwise, does NOTHING to negate the undeniable evidence of bias and prejudice against him in the department because he supports intelligent design . For faculty like these, it didn’t seem to matter whether Gonzalez had $1 in grants or $1 billion in grants: they were dead set against giving him tenure simply because he supports ID. Wired Magazine seems to get this, but the Ames Tribune tries to muffle this crucial point . Had Dr. Gonzalez been denied tenure after receiving a fair hearing, perhaps there would be no grounds for complaint. But this evidence shows that without question, Dr. Gonzalez was indeed not given a fair hearing .

Dr. Gonzalez’s department does not even consider grants as a criterion for gaining tenure. As one external reviewer observed “Dr. Gonzalez is eminently qualified for the promotion according to your guidelines of excellence in scholarship and exhibiting a potential for national distinction. In light of your criteria I would certainly recommend the promotion.” (emphasis added) So the over-focus on his department’s perception of Gonzalez’s grants is largely a red-herring and a distraction.

In the end, grants just became the pretext for denying tenure to Dr. Gonzalez. If you are the Ames Tribune :

Nevermind the fact that Dr. Gonzalez has published over 350% more peer-reviewed science articles than what his department ordinarily requires for indicating the type of reputation that demonstrates research excellence.

Nevermind the fact that Dr. Gonzalez has more per-capita publications and more per-capita scientific citations since 2001, the year he joined ISU, than all ISU tenured astronomers who voted against his tenure. And nevermind the fact that Dr. Gonzalez co-authored a peer-reviewed astronomy textbook with Cambridge University Press that some ISU astronomy classes are now using.

Nevermind the fact that observational astronomers don’t need the millions of dollars that physicists need to do research; roughly, they only need time on telescopes to collect data and then a PC to number-crunch the data. In fact, last March, before ISU’s provost or president had decided his tenure, Dr. Gonzalez received a $50,000 grant from Discovery Institute that allows him to collect more than enough observational astronomy data each year for the next 5 years. In short, Dr. Gonzalez has precisely the money he needs to have a successful research program at ISU.

Nevermind the fact that 2/3 of the external reviewers who gave an opinion about whether Dr. Gonzalez deserves tenure said he should receive tenure.

Nevermind the fact that Dr. Gonzalez’s level of grant funding or any other measure of his scientific accomplishments do absolutely nothing to negate the existence of the harsh anti-ID prejudice that is undeniably revealed by these e-mails.

…the Ames Tribune ‘s agenda is to blame the victim and stifle the existence of real discrimination at ISU.

Note: Unfortunately, Wired Magazine did misreport one issue. It stated: “Guillermo Gonzalez … has announced his plans to sue the university.” As Dr. Gonzalez’s attorney Timm Reid stated at the press conference last Monday, no decision has apparently been made as to whether Dr. Gonzalez will sue ISU. Indeed, Dr. Gonzalez himself stated in a 12/7/07 article in the ISU Daily that “I have not yet decided to pursue legal action. I will be consulting my lawyers and attorneys based on the totality of the evidence.”

Original source.

Tags: ,

18 views

  • http://www.paulburnett.com/creation.htm Paul Burnett

    No matter how much Dr. Gonzalez may want to sue, he doesn’t dare, because for one thing, his actual letter of refusal of tenure will become public knowledge. And the very good reasons for refusal of tenure will be publicly discussed, like how could he be so careless as to include his creationist book to be examined as part of his “scientific” submission.

    (Perhaps all that the Iowa astronomers were trying to do was avoid the shame and embarrasment that a tenured intelligent design creationist has brought to the Biology department of Lehigh University – see http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm for details.)

    And Dr. Gonzalez’ masters at the Dishonesty Institute are certainly terrified of public sworn testimony by their”expert” witnessses (most of whom did not testify in the Dover trial), because once again, just as in the 2005 Dover trial (see “Dover Trial” in Wikipedia for a summary), they will either flee in disrray like last time or reveal themselves to be as useless as Michael Behe was at Dover.

    (Any bets as to whether the Thomas More Law Center will be back for a re-match?)

    (And any bets as to whether they will try again to prevent Barbara Forrest from testifying?)

    If anybody wants some background about what’s going on here, please read Barbara Forrest’s paper “Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement,” available at http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf to where Casey (who is the paid mouthpiece for the Dishonesty Institute) is really coming from.

    And anybody who’s been following this issue on the Panda’s Thumb or Pharyngula knows why Dr. Gonzalez didn’t deserve tenure. See http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/never_trust_a_creationist_elli.php for an expose of the massive quote-mining done by the Dishonesty Institute. And see http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/12/released-gonzal.html for the latest of many revelations on Dr. Gonzalez.

  • http://www.paulburnett.com/creation.htm Paul Burnett

    Casey’s article is seriously flawed (to be gentle about it) – see http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/never_trust_a_creationist_elli.php for how the Dishonesty Institute majorly quote-mined the so-called “secret” Iowa e-mails.

    See the latest of many articles about Dr. Gonzalez on the Panda’s Thumb at http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/12/released-gonzal.html.

    See http://www.iowascience.org/?p=37 for an Iowa Citizens for Science article titled “Gonzalez, Discovery Institute seek to replace science with politics, religion.”

    If anybody wants some background about what’s really going on here, see Barbara Forrest’s paper “Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement,” available at http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf to where Casey is really coming from.

  • John Pieret

    It seems those things the Discovery Institute has so much trouble with — the facts — is catching up to this story as well. Brandon Keim has had his mind changed (as of December 10, 2007):

    “As I learn more about the case, I’m inclined to believe the University’s side. Gonzalez’s grant record was absolutely awful; the Mid-Iowa News reported that over six years, he secured just $22,661 in external research grants. His colleagues averaged $1.3 million over the same time. The Discovery Institute says Gonzalez was persecuted, but it seems they’re just using his case to push intelligent design — legally designated as religion — as science.”

    http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/12/astronomers-ten.html

    But hey! Considering that the DI is already 150 years behind the times, I guess we can’t expect them to know what happened a week ago.

  • http://mensnewsdaily.com/author/mike-lasalle Mike LaSalle

    “And the very good reasons for refusal of tenure…”

    Huh? Have you had a look the October 2001 edition of Scientific American? Gonzalez’s article is the cover story.

    And do I really have to go through Gonzalez’s superior academic statistics while at ISU?

    Gonzalez was denied tenure as a result of an overwhelming academic bias against his viewpoint. For no other reason.

  • http://www.paulburnett.com/creation.htm Paul Burnett

    Mike LaSalle said: “Gonzalez was denied tenure as a result of an overwhelming academic bias against his viewpoint.”

    So? Do you think if I tried to join the Creation Research Society, another creationist “scientific” organization, which requires members to subscribe to a statement of belief, including among other things “The Bible is…historically and scientifically true;…” that I might face overwhelming bias against my viewpoint?

    Gonzalez submitted a popular-press creationist publication as part of his tenure submittal to a bunch of actual scientists! He brought a spoon to a gunfight, and wonders why he lost. He lost because, like Michael Behe, he has stopped doing science and is doing religious apologetics instead.

    And speaking of intelligent design creationism’s leading light (at least Behe, unlike Dembski and “cdesign proponentsists” (sic – look it up), didn’t run away from the Dover trial), do you think Behe might face “overwhelming academic bias against his viewpoint” if he was applying for tenure all over again to the Biology department of Lehigh University – see http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm for details of what the entire department thinks of Behe and creationism. Is that “viewpoint discrimination” or what?

    Why should the Iowa astronomers have to go through that?

    And don’t forget the grant money – or rather, lack thereof. That’s important.

    And yes, I’ve seen Gonzalez’s superior academic statistics – he was good, no doubt about it. But he publicly chose a different path sooner than he should have, and now he’s paying the price. A good mind wasted.

  • http://mensnewsdaily.com/author/mike-lasalle Mike LaSalle

    In denying tenure to Dr. Gonzalez, ISU violated — clearly violated — their own tenure policies regarding academic freedom. Read it for yourself. The following is from ISU’s “General Policies on Tenure“:

    Academic freedom is the freedom to discuss all relevant matters in the classroom, to explore all avenues of scholarship, research, and creative expression and to speak or write as a public citizen without institutional discipline or restraint. Academic responsibility implies the faithful performance of academic duties and obligations, the recognition of the demands of the scholarly enterprise, and the candor to make it clear that the individual is not speaking for the institution in matters of public interest.

    Tenure is the keystone for academic freedom; it is essential for safeguarding the right of free expression and for encouraging risk-taking inquiry at the frontiers of knowledge. Both tenure and academic freedom are part of an implicit social compact, which recognizes that tenure serves important public purposes and benefits society. The public is best served when faculty are free to teach, conduct research, provide extension/ professional practice services, and engage in institutional service without fear of reprisal or without compromising the pursuit of knowledge and/or the creative process.

    Gonzalez was denied tenure because he offended the delicate sensibilities of intolerant and entrenched academic atheists.

    I hope he sues their asses off.

  • http://www.paulburnett.com/creation.htm Paul Burnett

    Mike LaSalle said “I hope he sues their asses off.”

    Mike, I agree with you. I really do sincerely hope Dr. Gonzalez sues Iowa State University, because that will finally bring a lot of information out that has thus far been held back.

    For one thing, such a lawsuit will reveal the egregious e-mail quote-mining that the Dishonesty Institute indulged in, “revealing” the actual complete data-set of e-mail. It will also reveal to the world the actual contents of the ISU tenure denial letter, which so far remains a privileged personnel document.

    And if any Discovery Institute fellows are asked to testify, it will be interesting to see if they actually do, and what they say. But because they will be constrained to answer questions truthfully (for once!), I predict they will fight like demons to avoid testifying. And I also predict they will pull every dirty trick in the book (possibly exceeding those in the Dover trial) to keep Barbara Forrest and other NCSE staff and sympathizers from testifying (just like they did last time).

    (And your parting comment is particularly revealing: “Gonzalez was denied tenure because he offended the delicate sensibilities of intolerant and entrenched academic atheists.” How can you deduce that everybody else at ISU is an atheist? And if intelligent design creationism is not a religion, what possible difference would it make? Are you seriously proposing there was religious discrimination against a member of a publicly-declared non-religion?)

    I’m really looking forward to this.

  • http://mensnewsdaily.com/author/mike-lasalle Mike LaSalle

    …to keep Barbara Forrest and other NCSE staff and sympathizers from testifying (just like they did last time).

    What on Earth does Barbara Forrest et al have to do with Gonzalez’s denial of tenure at ISU? This ain’t the Dover trial — overblown as that was. This is about academic bias and the overreaching desire on the part of careerists to control the direction and substance of academic discourse.

    Atheism enters into it because of the actions of philosophy professor Hector Avalos of ISU. Avalos drafted and circulated an anti-ID statement back in 2005, shortly after the publication of Gonzalez’s book, Priviledged Planet. Avalos is obviously motivated by an activist’s distrust of teleology — a telltale of ideological atheism.

    Ideology and classic groupthink were the foundations of the tenure decision on Gonzalez. Fairness and intellectual honesty were thwarted in plain view at ISU.

  • http://www.paulburnett.com/creation.htm Paul Burnett

    Mike wrote: “This is about academic bias and the overreaching desire on the part of careerists to control the direction and substance of academic discourse.”

    Of course it’s “academic bias” – actual astronomers finding out one of their potential peers isn’t a peer after all, but a creationist – as proved by his submission of Privileged Planet.

    And of course it’s an”overreaching desire on the part of careerists to control the direction and substance of academic discourse.” They didn’t want their astronomy department to suffer the same ignominy as Lehigh University’s biology department.

  • http://mensnewsdaily.com/author/mike-lasalle Mike LaSalle

    Your use of the term “creationist” appears so loose as to be meaningless. A “creationist”, apparently, is someone who believes in the Big Bang.

    You need to get a bigger shovel, Paul.






Search

RSS Amy Alkon

RSS Donna Laframboise