The Disco Institute has a press conference on Gonzalez’s behalf

| 103 Comments

Yesterday the Discovery Institute held a press conference at the capitol building in Des Moines, to announce Guillermo Gonzalez’s plans to sue Iowa State University over their decision to deny him tenure. Supposedly the lawsuit will be filed pending the rejection of an appeal to the Board of Regents, which is virtually guaranteed simply for the fact that the Regents typically uphold tenure decisions. Joining Casey Luskin, Rob Crowther, Gonzalez’s attorneys, and a few other DI folk was state Senator David Hartsuch (R-District 41).

The core of the DI’s assertion is that there were “secret tenure deliberations” aka a plan to oust Dr. Gonzalez because of his ID views.

Continue reading at Neurotopia.

103 Comments

Mark my words, some DI person will in a fit of pique utter the words “religious persecution.”

Professors who believe in ID should not get tenure, because ID is not science.

ID is not science because they have almost no publications in mainstream journals.

ID researchers have almost no publications in mainstream journals because they do not receive funding from mainstream scientific agencies.

ID researchers do not receive funding from mainstream scientific agencies because ID is not science.

Therefore: Since ID is not science, Professors who believe in ID should not get tenure.

realpc:

Professors who believe in ID should not get tenure, because ID is not science.

ID is not science because they have almost no publications in mainstream journals.

ID researchers have almost no publications in mainstream journals because they do not receive funding from mainstream scientific agencies.

ID researchers do not receive funding from mainstream scientific agencies because ID is not science.

Therefore: Since ID is not science, Professors who believe in ID should not get tenure.

You continue to spread your retardery like herpes. It doesn’t change the fact that you have no idea what you’re talking about. Please, PLEASE stop posting until you have something worthwhile to contribute.

I am most confused by the DI’s approach to the whole Gonzalez situation. They are treating the tenure review guidelines as if they are a set of rules, a sort of hard-and-fast minimum requirement.

I’m not confused at all. For the DI, this is a win-win-win strategy. If they lose, it shows that Darwinists control higher education, decide the curriculum, and stack the deck in their favor. If they win, it shows the validity of ID as a field of science. And win or lose, it generates lots of publicity and conflates ID and genuine science in the public eye.

The legal strategy looks straightforward, *especially* to the literal-minded: Represent the tenure guidelines as strict “do this and you’re in” rules, represent Gonzalez as having followed those rules, and conclude that Gonzales was shafted anyway because he refused to knuckle under to the Darwinist power structure. The issue here isn’t whether this strategy is valid, the issue is how well it will play from the pulpit.

I’m just waiting for some Hispanic group to enter the suit on the grounds that Gonzalez wasn’t granted tenure because of his ethnic background.

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 6, column 2, byte 240 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

Flint:

I’m just waiting for some Hispanic group to enter the suit on the grounds that Gonzalez wasn’t granted tenure because of his ethnic background.

Does Gonzalez have a mustache? That might have something to do with it.

What a pity that the “Discovery Institute” hangs its hat on this issue rather than “discovery” in science. I’m still eagerly awaiting their single testable hypothesis, and the discovery it leads to.

Regarding Gonzalez, once again, somebody cannot undermine the academic mission of an institution of higher learning and then claim the high privilege of tenure. It is that simple.

I might as well pile on, while I have a few moments.

Professors who believe in ID should not get tenure, because ID is not science.

WRONG. Professors who don’t do any science shouldn’t get tenure. They can believe whatever they want. Tenure is granted for results, not beliefs.

ID is not science because they have almost no publications in mainstream journals.

Gonzalez in fact had lots of publications in mainstream journals, as part of the effort in his prior job. Indeed, he was hired at Iowa State on the basis of his performance at that job, and was confidently expected to become principal investigator on another project. It never happened.

ID researchers have almost no publications in mainstream journals because they do not receive funding from mainstream scientific agencies.

Gonzalez had the background and reputation going into Iowa State to get plenty of funding. He needed only to select some candidate research questions worthy of grants. He didn’t do so. Remember that Gonzalez was not known as an ID believer at that time, he was only known as a promising young astronomer with a good start.

ID researchers do not receive funding from mainstream scientific agencies because ID is not science.

There is no such thing as an “ID researcher”, because ID has nothing to research. ID is a statement of religious doctrine, inaccessible to any known science. He didn’t get funding because he didn’t propose any research worth funding.

Therefore: Since ID is not science, Professors who believe in ID should not get tenure.

And so, having failed to capitalize on his background, having failed to generate any grants, having failed to attract any students, having failed to justify any telescope time, having failed to publish anything new, he was denied tenure.

Now, you might argue that his growing belief in ID was somehow responsible for his abandoning his responsibilities and expectations. And in fact, there IS a pattern of people falling for ID and their scientific or other professional output slams to a stop. See, for example, the efforts made to do real science by Behe, Wells, and Dembski. But tenure is neither granted nor denied on the basis of religious affiliation. It’s based on results. Gonzalez had none.

This is another Waterloo moment for the DI.

The DI is capital Desperate for an academic to replace Behe. Think about it. Behe is retirement age. Behe screwed the ID pooch at Dover on three important points: experimental ID, astrology and failure as an expert witness. Behe tried, and failed, to make a comeback with his book, Edge of Evolution. Behe is old school.

Not only does the DI need a new academic, but they need to open a new front, too. Cosmology. Without Gonzalez the DI is sunk. They have no “credibility” with popular culture and the scientific un-literate. ID in biology is a dead end thanks to Kitzmiller. Just look at the roll-back in interest in ID by school boards post-Kitzmiller. Just this week New Mexico flipped and Kitzmiller was a major factor.

The DI will fight tooth and nail to get Gonzalez tenured. Notice how cagey the lawyer was today when pressed for what the DI would want out of a lawsuit. “Justice,” he said. “Tenure,” he thought. It doesn’t matter to the DI if Gonzalez is the most loved or most hated professor at ISU so long as he has tenure so they can use the phrase “distinguished professor at the prestigious university, ISU…”

Look around. If Gonzalez falls who do they have?

Doc Bill:

This is another Waterloo moment for the DI.

So, does this mean if the DI staff botch this up, too, they will be sent into exile in the South Atlantic? Is the government of Saint Helena that desperate to replace the Giant Earwig?

Realpc Wrote:

Professors who believe in ID should not get tenure, because ID is not science.

Just ask Johnson

I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world.

To blame it all on a lack of funding even further undermines ID’s claims. At best ID seems to be a speculation. It’s that simple. If ID could formulate some testable hypotheses then it too could compete for funding. However, ID is not in the business of doing such pathetic things…

ID is not science because they have almost no publications in mainstream journals.

That’s like saying that Schwarzenegger is a lousy actor because he’s never won an Oscar. Your identification of cause and effect needs a little work.

Not only does the DI need a new academic, but they need to open a new front, too. Cosmology. Without Gonzalez the DI is sunk.

I’ve been saying for a while that it is time for the fundies to pick on something besides evolution. Their 4,000 mythology is contradicted by most of modern science, modern history, and modern archeology. Hmmm, astronomy might be next. Or maybe paleontology or geology, history, anthropology. So many fields, so little time :>).

Not sure why the DI couldn’t just fund and sponsor Gonzalez themselves. Lots of science is done outside of academia, a huge amount of biomedical is corporate, tens of billions of USD and Venter did the human genome this way. Not being an astronomer, the allocation of telescope time eludes me. But most of the time in research, money goes a long, long way. They used to claim to be the Discovery Institute, not the Propaganda and Lie Institute.

They might go the lawyer-court route. They will also lose. Gonzalez was showing a classic pattern that we’ve all seen way too many times. Someone gets tenure and goes inert. In one of my old departments, one faculty member had a nervous breakdown and joined a cult. He had tenure and never did another experiment again.

Yesterday the Discovery Institute held a press conference at the capitol building in Des Moines, to announce Guillermo Gonzalez’s plans to sue Iowa State University over their decision to deny him tenure.

You think they’ll actually do it?

Also: On what grounds do they plan to sue? And who’s paying for this lawsuit?

Everyone keep an eye out for the DI and their legal associates *demanding* that the judge rule on the issue of whether ID is science.

” the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme.”

Oh, I see. No matter how bogus an idea seems to be, it’s actually a scientific theory as long as it is “fully worked out.” The Darwnian theory explains exactly how evolution happened, while ID is vague and uncertain. So the Darwinian theory has to be the most scientific theory of evolution.

I finally get what you guys have been saying all along.

raven Wrote:

Their 4,000 [year] mythology is contradicted by most of modern science, modern history, and modern archeology.

Not to mention the multi-billion year mythology of the OECs and most IDers.

I think it would be very good to get a full-blown lawsuit, because that is the moment that the cards need to be played and put on the table.

Apparently DI has already claimed religious bias. From the Register article: “Gonzalez’s backers have insisted that he lost out on tenure, and will lose his job at the end of the school year, because of his religious beliefs and his advocacy for intelligent design.”

If I were Eric Rothschild or Nick Matzke or Barbara Forrest, I would be sharpening my claws in delighted anticipation. No matter what the DI comes up with, they are going to go down in hideously prominent flames, just like they did in Dover.

If I ran the world, I would make Iowa State University give as many loud critical call-the-dunces-and-liars-out news conferences as the DI. Take the gloves off.

I’ll say it one more time-and probably a few more times. The following of course is not necessarily legally binding. The legal obligation of Universities to adhere to the following principles depends on the state, the University, whether faculty are unionized, etc. These principles are generally accpeted as normative in academia.

1. AAUP (American Association of University Professors)view of tenure requirements is that professors should be informed of the requirements for tenure at the time of appointment, and if those requirements are met, they should be granted tenure. A University may set any requirement for tenure that it wishes provided that requirement is non-discriminatory. What it may not do is add additional tenure requirements at the last minute.

2. Universities cannot have “secret” tenure proceedings. They have to follow the tenure procedures they have published.

3. Academic freedom applies even to unpopular and wacky opinions. Provided someone’s publications are in the appropriate journals, the views expressed in those publiciations or the views expressed elsewhere cannot be held against someone in the tenure process.

4. In deciding tenure or any other similar case my best guess is that courts will apply a “but for” test. So the question in this case is if you removed Gonzalez’ advocacy of ID, would he have been granted tenure?

5. Some of the issues mentioned such as failure to obtain grants, failure to mentor students, etc. would (or one would think) be included in multiple ways in the University’s and Department’s guidelines (e.g. advising students and supervising student research is normallhy listed as a requirement for professors in research Universities as is applying for and receiving grants). The other factors that need to be looked at is what has happened in other tenure cases in the same disciplines. Does the University normally tenure in the natural sciences in spite of the lack of grant money? Is Gonzalez’ application for tenure in line with past decisions?

Getting tenure is not a “right”, but on the other hand it is not up to the whim of faculty or administrators to grant tenure. The right is to due process and to equitable treatment in the tenure process.

AGain, I don’t know that Gonzalez was treated unfairly. I suspect that he was not and that he will lose his case on its merits.

All that said, I don’t think it helps the cause of science to advance concepts of tenure and academic freedom that will lead to abuse in other fields.

Coin:

If Gonzalez wins, ISU will have to pay his attorneys’ fees and court costs. Who will pay his attorneys if he loses (or if they will be paid at all), we may never know.

In a jaw dropping moment of complete ignorance realpc sniffled,

the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme.”

Oh, I see. No matter how bogus an idea seems to be, it’s actually a scientific theory as long as it is “fully worked out.” The Darwnian theory explains exactly how evolution happened, while ID is vague and uncertain. So the Darwinian theory has to be the most scientific theory of evolution.

I finally get what you guys have been saying all along.”

Hey dumb butt that quote you copied comes from the grandfather of the IDC movement, Philip E Johnson. Johnson was pointing out that evolution has in fact a full scientific theory and ID does not. There is no such thing as an intelligent design theory. Well unless YOU have an ID theory you’d like to share.

What’s it like to be so dense?

professors should be informed of the requirements for tenure at the time of appointment, and if those requirements are met, they should be granted tenure. A University may set any requirement for tenure that it wishes provided that requirement is non-discriminatory. What it may not do is add additional tenure requirements at the last minute.

Once again, we charge headlong into the fog.

Seems to me that we have a sort of Goldilocks situation here. If the tenure requirements are excessively rigid, we run the serious risk that someone clearly not qualified for the position can “game” the rules. Like the obvious slut who regularly engages in every possible sexual activity *except* vaginal entry, so she is technically “pure”. And at the other extreme, the requirements for tenure can be so hazy and subjective as to amount to a test of personality, how well the faculty likes the candidate.

The typical solution to this problem is “guidelines”, a sort of happy medium where minimum requirements can be spelled out fairly clearly, but other clauses can alert a potential candidate that these guidelines are not exhaustive strict lists as the DI is trying to represent them. The guidelines say “The candidate should pretty well satisfy all of these things, yet recognize that there CAN be additional considerations, some of them subjective, taken into account.”

I admit, I don’t understand the “but for” test Chip mentions. Let’s say a candidate meets every published guideline with flying colors, BUT was also convicted of rape. Now, you’re not likely to find any tenure guidelines that say “rape convictions during tenure-track period are grounds for disqualification.” But in this hypothetical case, it’s entirely possible that the candidate would be refused tenure *solely* on the rape conviction. Would the courts then overrule this on the “but for” grounds?

I can’t imagine any university setting up a tenure-granting process that would be prohibited from even considering some (completely unanticipatable) show-stopper factor. I’d think the committee or someone would be remiss if that were the case. If enough people to turn Gonzalez down, sincerely regard his pro-ID religious posture as a black eye for the program, which is *guaranteed* to be widely publicized as ISU endorsement for anti-science, isn’t this why there IS a committee and there IS deliberation? Why it’s not a mail-in rubber stamp automated process?

I view the guidlines as saying “If you do all this stuff, AND there’s no additional factor we regard as decisive, you’ll be granted tenure.”

Beyond all that, it seems pretty obvious Gonzalez failed to meet any of the tenure requirements, and his trajectory was emphatically going backwards rather than forwards. But even so, his ID advocacy would bend ISU over in the “Lehigh position”, and I can understand them not wanting to volunteer to do this.

because of Gonzeles’s complaints, I would suspect all universities would be leery to hire an “ID” scientist (non-scientist). so more than just him will be affected.(that’s Leary as in careful, non Timothy Leary)

it seems pretty obvious to me that Gonzales has a plethora of deficiencies that led to him not getting tenure (no grad students, no grants, no publishing etc) this case will be a joke

re real pc’s seemingly vicious cycle

ID has no theory, no hypothesis that would lead to fruitful research, how would one evn write a grant proposal? “I need money to sit a think about.…”

ID makes no preditctions that can be imperically tested/falsified (at least relative to biology, physics, astronomy (actually if someone could come up w/ a “complexity/ design” detector and apply it to artifacts - that would be neat - and scientific - and GRANTABLE in archaeology/ paleoanthropology- we know this is a spearpoint and not a naturally occuring shard because it has complexity quotient beyon the .32 threhhold or some such - )

“scientists” that “believe” is ID as presented by the DI will not get tenure for research based on ID because THERE IS NO RESEARCH!

the type of ID

I’ve seen a few tenure rejection cases go to court. Not getting tenure is common. They always end up losing. Tenure is a privilege not a right.

Since they always lose, the main value of a court case will be Propaganda and Lies, the DI specialty. I’m sure the DI will pay the bills for lawyers. Maybe Thomas Moore will kick in some pro bono time. At any rate, these cases will last for years counting appeals.

Claiming religious bias is going to be dumb. (I thought ID and AP weren’t religious!!???) It wasn’t religious bias. It was not being able to tell the difference between his religion and astronomy. Basic mistake for an astronomer.

This is a minor issue. The major one was his career trajectory which was headed for the dreaded and common inert rock crackpot stage of faculty development. What happened to Behe.

The court case will be interesting. There is sure to be a huge paper trail, most of it confidential now. Chances are Gonzalez was warned for years that he was off track and going in a direction not consistent with an astronomer at an active department on the upswing.

If Gonzalez was seriously interested in pursuing a career in astronomy he would have followed the standard astronomy career path, which is, mysteriously enough, doing astronomy research and publishing findings in peer reviewed journals. In this case, he would have been better off keeping his mouth shut and starting over at another institution. Most likely a religious bible type college will pick him up and it will be a match made in heaven. How many creo astronomers are there anyway?

After you sue the university, no one is going to want you. Universities want professors not litigious troublemakers.

realpc:

“ the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme.”

Oh, I see. No matter how bogus an idea seems to be, it’s actually a scientific theory as long as it is “fully worked out.” The Darwnian theory explains exactly how evolution happened, while ID is vague and uncertain. So the Darwinian theory has to be the most scientific theory of evolution.

I finally get what you guys have been saying all along.

Again RealPC seems to be missing the point. What it shows is that ID fails to provide a scientific alternative to the prevailing theory of evolution.

Simple as that

No telling what kind of unintended fall out this will cause. I can see universities coming out with written policies about educators who promote psuedoscience and do other things that harm science and the university’s reputation.

Am I right?

Once you have tenure you have significant protections but until that, you are indeed at the mercy of the university. Unless the University discriminates

Courts must be extremely wary of intruding into the world of university tenure decisions. These decisions necessarily hinge on subjective judgments regarding the applicant’s academic excellence, teaching ability, creativity, contributions to the university community, rapport with students and colleagues, and other factors that are not susceptible of quantitative measurement. Absent discrimination, a university must be given a free hand in making such tenure decisions.

Judge Campbell’s concurring opinion in Kumar v. Board of Trustees, University of Massachusetts, 774 F.2d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 1985)(Campbell, C. J. concurring), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1097 (1986)

In the court case versus Bergman the judge observed that

To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. He must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.

Id. at 577. Using this analysis, the Supreme Court held in Roth that an assistant professor at Wisconsin State University - Oshkosh who had been hired for only a one-year term was not entitled to a hearing prior to the nonrenewal of his contract.

Whether a person has a legitimate expectancy of continued employment depends very much on the facts of each case. However, this circuit has generally declined to hold that a nontenured faculty member has a property interest in his continued employment unless the person was somehow “implicitly” tenured. See, e.g., Soni v. Board of Trustees, 513 F.2d 347 (6th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 919 (1976). In the context of nontenured grade school teachers, this court held [*14] that,

A non-tenured teacher may acquire an “expectancy” of continued employment where “the policies and practices of the institution” rise to the level of implied tenure. We hold, however, that a non-tenured teacher has no “expectancy” of continued employment, whatever may be the policies of the institution, where there exists a statutory tenure system.

As to institutional procedure

Like the plaintiff in the Fourth Circuit case of Siu v. Johnson, 748 F.2d 238 (4th Cir. 1984), Dr. Bergman presses as his main position that the process due is no less than that defined in detail by the institutional procedures. However, these institutional procedures are not identical to, but only a guideline for, what may be constitutionally required. Id. at 244. As the Fourth Circuit has held,

Source

The question seems to become, was Gonzalez denied tenure based on valid academic concerns.

As I understand it, the existence of concerns whether real or perceived can be sufficient a reason for academic concern. I however do not remember the case that I read.

Oops, the Bergman ruling

The district court also found that the tenure denial was based [*19] on concerns regarding the quality and relevance of plaintiff’s work. Dr. Siefert, Dr. Yonker, Dr. Davidson, Dr. Rurke, and Dr. Wiersma, for example, all testified to their negative impressions of plaintiff’s work. Although plaintiff may believe that their evaluations of his work were incorrect, this does not negate the fact that they based their tenure votes on their negative perceptions of his work.

I am not a lawyer, just trying to understand how the courts have ruled on tenure in the past.

PvM,

I’d have to look at the cases in more detail to say, and again, one would really need a lawyer’s opinion, and even then, a lawyer’s opinion in that state or circuit who has extensive experience in these kinds of cases.

That said, it reads to me like you are reading things into these cases.

My first point is that the principle of non-discrimination extends, at least in theory, to the exercise of academic freedom. Defining the limits of academic freedom is no easy task, and much will depend on the University’s regulations, whether it is public or private, unionized or not. In principle, outside of a few religious universities and a few secular exceptions, all Universities commit to the concept that academic freedom is always protected just like race, ethnicity, gender.

Here again, apply the “but for” test to academic freedom. If someone can publish in the appropriate journals that is the test of academic appropriateness. If someone’s views prevent them from publishing, then it is not protected.

As much as I may look with dismay on ID, I still believe that a belief in or advocacy of ID, in so far as it does not interfere with teaching or ability to publish or to get grant money, is not sufficient reason alone to deny someone tenure, even in the natural sciences. And yes, this does mean that people in history, or economics, or english literature who hold views that depart from the accepted boundaries of those fields, may hold those opinions and be tenured-even if I think their opinions are politically noxious.

Think here: do you want a situation where a bunch of cultural studies fanatics are able to deny tenure to someone because they hold to “racist” or “sexist” views? Do we want to deny tenure to the cultural studies crowd just because I don’t like it? Even bad views, politically noxious views, dissident views etc. are protected academic freedom. I’d rather deal with the occasional screwball getting through the system than having tenure committees making politically charged decisions-which is what will happen.

The second point is that tenure law is evolving and changing. Courts have gotten more resistant to reviewing employment decisions in general, including those in academia. That’s not necessarily IMO a good thing. Its a product of the right wing packing of the courts.

The third point is that even given the rightward shift, Universities still do have to abide by their stated tenure procedures. I don’t think those court cases say what you think they say.

If they do-if they really are saying that granting tenure is at the whim of the University unless you can prove racial or sexual discrimination, then we are really in deep doo-doo in the social sciences. And you are not going to be able to have different legal standards for the natural and social sciences.

Whatever the legal merits of the Gonzalez case, and I think they are slim, I wish people on PT and elsewhere would quit celebrating the idea that tenure should be decided on whim. That is not a good precedent for science. Why it is not would seem obvious.

(Off-topic) Chip:

Since receiving his PhD. in economics, Dr. Poirot have taught at Eastern Washington University, Spokane Washington (1991-1993), as a visiting lecturer sponsored by the Civic Education Project at the University of Timisoara, Romania (1993-1994), the American University in Bulgaria (1994-1997), at Mary Washington College (1998-1999) and at SSU since fall of 1999.

Should change the have to has, I think.

Now suppose a department of philosophy were to say that Popper’s rantings had been clearly discredited, so any one who still adhered to Popper had clearly not understood the definition of philosophy.

This may indicate Poirot’s fundamental failing. Just because some git can hypothesize a philosophy department saying something doesn’t mean that any philosophy department would say such a thing, or if they did that it was true. There is no basis for concluding that someone who “still adhered to Popper” clearly doesn’t understand the definition of philosophy, unless “adhered to Popper” means adhering to some definition of philosophy presented by Popper that is clearly wrong. But I’m not aware of any such definition, or of anyone who adheres to one (certainly not me). OTOH, it is clear, crystal clear, that someone who thinks that “some organisms are too complex to have evolved, therefore there is an intelligent designer” is a scientific theory doesn’t understand what a scientific theory is, even if the argument were sound. So a physics department rejecting someone because they adhere to ID, on the understanding that ID isn’t science, would have a true and valid understanding, wheras a philosophy department rejecting someone because they “adhere to Popper”, on the understanding such adherence indicates failure to understand the definition of philosophy, would have a false, invalid, and plain stupid understanding.

My point was that you burst in accusing me of grinding an axe, while you too grind an axe. Yet you did not advance any counterargument, nor do you have an interest in doing so.

Yes, you are correct. My point was exaggerated for rhetorical effect, but only slightly so. In multiple areas of academia there are many people who would like to say that X is outside the pale of the discipline, so therefore someone working on X does not deserve tenure. You haven’t addressed my point.

At the extremes, there do seem to be one or two areas where the litmus test might seem clear. But the fact of the matter is that there really isn’t any clear way to come up with such a litmus test. The relevant litmus test therefore is job performance-period, end of story. Gonzalez, as best as I can judge, was denied tenure because his publicaton record was weak and not up to the standards of publications for his University. That’s all that needs to be said-full stop. Anything more raises legal problems and does jeopardize academic freedom.

Since you are so intent on digging up information about me, perhaps you might take the time to actually read my article on evolutionary economics (Journal of Economic Isssues, 2007) and then you might be in a position to make an argument about my views on philosophy of science. I’ll match them against warmed over Popper any day.

So I stand by what I said: the relevant criteria in a tenure decision are what is in the faculty handbook or the contract. That criteria needs to be applied consistently across the board.

I have written to the forum moderators asking that the information from my University’s web page be removed from this forum.

I oppose having my personal information, even information that is posted in public re-posted for the following reasons:

1. There is no reason, pro or con to associate my University with my own personal views; 2. Trying to “dig up” personal information in light of a disagreement strikes me as a vile tactic, unless someone is deliberately misrepresenting: 3. Public web logs are accesible to multiple people, and while with a little digging, personal information is easily obtainable, I see no reason to make it easier for people to find my personal information; 4. There are furthermore, some specific reasons why Shawnee State University as a University might not necessarily wish to be dragged into this issue in a public forum.

Therefore, I respectfully request that my personal information be removed.

Finally, since my efforts to explain personal revelations about the tenure academic freedom implications of arguments made on this forum have been met only with smears and innuendos, save for a few exceptions, I will no longer bother.

Similarly, I find it disappointing that the best that can be done on the demarcation debate is Ruse’s mangling of Hopper and Pempel.

So, uh, information deliberately published on the web should not appear at PT?

Where do you get such bizarre notions, Chip?

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

…2. Trying to “dig up” personal information in light of a disagreement strikes me as a vile tactic, unless someone is deliberately misrepresenting:…

Why is it “vile” when someone is not deliberately misrepresenting? And you’ll kindly note that your personal information was “dug up” to defend your alleged pseudonym.

3. Public web logs are accesible (sic) to multiple people, and while with a little digging, personal information is easily obtainable, I see no reason to make it easier for people to find my personal information;

Yet you accuse people using pseudonyms of cowardice.

I have always posted on PT using my real name and on several previous occasions identified my professional affiliations. I never asked for nor needed a defense against the absurd accusation of using a pseudonym. Rather than deal directly with the legal and normative arguments I have made about tenure and academic freedom, multiple posters have decided to engage in personal, gratuituous, abusive attacks.

Contrast, for example, the very reasonable approach that Flynt adopted with that adopted by Popper’s Ghost. As a result of his approach Flynt and i could at least come to understanding, though not necessarily agreement.

I have said on many multiple occasions that denial of tenure to Gonzalez as far as I can judge does not in and of itself constitute a legal problem. I did say that additional gratuituous arguments people were making about Gonzalez were starting down a slope that if applied broadly throughout academia would be a threat to both academic freedom and tenure.

Several posters have decided to consistenly lie and smear me. First, I was accused of being an ID supporter. This is false and was known, or should have been known to anyone familiar with this board to be a lie. Second, I was accused of not really being a college professor. This too was shown to be a lie. Third, I was accused of publishing under a pseudonym, by people publishing under psuedonyms.

So who are Popper’s Ghost and Guye Faux? What are their real names? Who is registered user? What is there personal information?

Glenn Davidson **chose** to link to his url. I chose not to. That decision **not** to link to a url and **not** to post personal information on PT deserves to be respected. IF I were making false or exaggerated claims about myself, that would be a different matter.

I have chosen **NOT** to post a URL to a web page as one way of providing myself with a modicum of privacy and dissociating my institution from my personal views (as is only proper incidentally). Then my personal information was posted along with gratuituous personal insults.

So I ask one more time nicely. Please remove my information from this page.

As a result of his approach Flynt and i could at least come to understanding

Congratulations to both of you.

Shawnee State University as a University might not necessarily wish to be dragged into this issue in a public forum.

LOL. I’m sure the phones are ringing off the hook.

Chip Wrote:

Rather than deal directly with the legal and normative arguments I have made about tenure and academic freedom,…

…they pointed out that your legal and normative arguments had nothing to do with Gonzales’s case, i.e. off-topic, a la Registered User.

Chip Wrote:

…multiple posters have decided to engage in personal, gratuituous (sic), abusive attacks.

The attacks weren’t gratuitous. Your posts about hypothetical tenure-situations, however, are.

Chip Wrote:

Contrast, for example, the very reasonable approach that Flynt (sic) adopted with that adopted by Popper’s Ghost. As a result of his approach Flynt and i could at least come to understanding, though not necessarily agreement.

Contrast, for example, the very reasonable approach taken by P’sG to answer your comments regarding the tenure situation “Still grinding that axe, eh Chip? In fact, universities do have that freedom,…” with your totally off-topic (gratuitous!) response to him:

Chip Wrote:

But as for grinding axes, if you are still grinding the Popperian axe, its gotten pretty dull, and frankly, was already dull in the 1950’s.

Chip Wrote:

Several posters have decided to consistenly (sic) lie and smear me. First, I was accused of being an ID supporter.

In this thread? Where? (Not accusing you of lying).

Chip Wrote:

This is false and was known, or should have been known to anyone familiar with this board to be a lie. Second, I was accused of not really being a college professor. …

Once again, where? The closest I come to finding something to this effect was this:

Registered User Wrote:

If you fail to “get it” then you are just as lazy and silly as Gonzalez and are also unworthy of tenure in my view. I would not want stupid people who engage in apologetics for anti-scientific advocacy organizations to have tenure at my university.

…but of course this doesn’t “count” as claiming that you’re not really a college professor.

Chip Wrote:

… This too was shown to be a lie.

Yes, it was shown to be a lie by the very post you’re objecting to.

Third, I was accused of publishing under a pseudonym, by people publishing under psuedonyms.

Once again, the carelessness of this action was made evident by the post to which you object.

So who are Popper’s Ghost and Guye Faux (sic)? What are their real names? Who is registered user? What is there (sic) personal information?

Glenn Davidson **chose** to link to his url. I chose not to. That decision **not** to link to a url and **not** to post personal information on PT deserves to be respected.

Excuse me for not seeing the distinction between using your actual name and posting a URL. Also, I bet you fail to see the irony of accusing pseudonymous users of cowardice while demanding anonymity for yourself.

IF I were making false or exaggerated claims about myself, that would be a different matter.

I don’t see how.

Since I post using my real name, I fail to see how I am requesting or demanding anonymity. I am requesting that people respect my decision not to post my url or any other links to personal information on PT.

The following is the e-mail I have sent to [Enable javascript to see this email address.] this morning. I find it disappointing in the extreme that an attempted civil discussion about academic freedom and tenure standards is met with gratuituous personal insults, lies and smears. And I am referring to other threads and not just this one.

Dear Sirs and/or Madams,

On Post no. 137590 by Popper’s Ghost, “The Disco Institute has a Press Conference On Dr. Gonzalez’ Behalf” information about me on my University’s web page was cut and pasted into the forum by Popper’s Ghost. I have deliberately chosen not to link to my University url on PT for many reasons. I have always posted under my own name and provided minimal personal information. I think that my decision not to link to my url and not to provide additional personal information about myself should be respected. Therefore, I respectfully request that this post be removed.

I shouldn’t have to say the following but I will. I am not now, nor have I ever been a supporter of Gonzalez. Nor have I ever been a supporter or proponent of ID or of the Discovery Institute. Anyone interested in my views on science, the social sciences, demarcation debates and the social sciences may read my **peer reviewed** article in the Journal of Economic Issues, “How Can Institutional Economics be an Evolutionary Science” and the additional articles and the exchange that follows.

I have responded on several occasions to general points about tenure and academic freedom that official posters and multiple unofficial posters have made. To wit: multiple people continue to advocate the view that Universities may impose litmus tests with respect to **beliefs** for tenure. In addition, multiple people have posted that Universities may add to their requirements for tenure. Finally, multiple people have advanced the view that there is a clear, decisive, demarcation criterion for science.

I have said in turn that: 1. Universities may not impose litmus tests; 2. Univerities may not impose additional requirements at the time of tenure and in addition to do so is in violation of AAUP guidlines for tenure and academic freedom; I’m not saying, incidentally, that Universities never engage in these practices or that winning lawsuits in such instances is a slam dunk. However, such practices do expose Universities to legal liability and to the rather ineffective practice of AAUP censure. 3. Anyone who has bothered to read the extensive debates about the demarcation criterion would know that there is no single, decisive, demarcation criterion.

But I have never said, nor would I ever say that I think ID has validity.

Now people are free to disagree with me and I have not complained about the numerous, extensive, gratuituous personal insults, smears and lies that posters have spread about me in this and other multiple threads-simply for expressing the above opinions.

At this point, I am just disgusted with PT as a whole and with the multiple posters you attract.

I’m not disgusted because I disagree with PT in general. In fact, as a general rule in the past I have agreed with PT and found it to be a useful resource both for my personal education and for students interested in acquainting themselves with the debate.

I can’t stop people from refusing to debate the issue. Nor can I stop people from posting gratuituous personal insults.

I can request simply that you remove my personal information.

Obviously, the climate at PT is such that people with my views are not welcome on the boards so I will avoid the temptation of commenting further.

We can leave it at that.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Ethan Rop published on December 4, 2007 5:50 PM.

Game Over in Rio Rancho, NM: Science 1, Wedge 0 was the previous entry in this blog.

Casey, Your Slip is Showing is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter