Discovery Institute, WA
12-04-07
How Eli Rosenberg, Chair of ISU’s Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, Concealed
Viewpoint Discrimination When Explaining Reasons for Tenure Denial
Tenure votes at the earliest levels are made by a faculty member’s department,
and they typically set the tone for whether that faculty member will ultimately
receive tenure. Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez was first denied tenure by his
Department of Physics and Astronomy at Iowa State University (ISU) in
November 2006, and he soon thereafter received a letter from the Eli Rosenberg,
Department Chair, asserting that intelligent design (ID) played only a minor role
in tenure deliberations. As Dr. Rosenberg stated:
“Your co-authorship of ‘The Privileged Planet’ and related activity was raised
by several of the external and internal letter writers and discussed briefly in the
faculty meetings where your promotion was under consideration.”
(Tenure notification letter from Dr. Rosenberg to Dr. Gonzalez, November 18,
2006)
Thus, Dr. Rosenberg tried to downplay the importance of ID, telling Gonzalez
that ID was only “discussed briefly.” In May, 2007 Dr. Rosenberg again
downplayed ID, telling World Magazine that ID "was not an overriding factor in
the decision that was made at the departmental level.” Around the same time he
told Nature that "intelligent design was not a major or even a big factor in this
decision."
These were Dr. Rosenberg’s public statements about ID and Guillermo
Gonzalez’s tenure. But Dr. Rosenberg was also required to author a private
Chair’s Statement that went into Dr. Gonzalez’s tenure file. This Chair’s
Statement contained instructions to other faculty on how Dr. Rosenberg thought
they should vote on Dr. Gonzalez’s tenure. Rosenberg’s Chair’s Statement tells a
very different story about whether ID should be an “overriding factor”:
[O]n numerous occasions, Dr. Gonzalez has stated that Intelligent Design is a
scientific theory and someday would be taught in science classrooms. This is
confirmed by his numerous postings on the Discovery Institute Web site. The
problem here is that Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. … A valid
scientific theory should plant the seeds of its own destruction and be falsifiable. It
should point to the way to new discoveries and increase our understanding of the
physical world. In this regard Intelligent Design does nothing. … The fact that Dr.
Gonzalez does not understand what constitutes both science and a scientific
theory disqualifies him from serving as a science educator. (emphasis added)
Dr. Rosenberg went on to discuss other matters and concluded by giving a
“recommendation to deny promotion.” Let’s compare Dr. Rosenberg’s private and
public statements below in Table 1:
Table 1: Dr. Eli Rosenberg’s Public and Private Statements about ID and Tenure.
Timing and Context of Statement by Dr. Rosenberg about Dr. Gonzalez’s tenure:
Statement by Dr. Rosenberg about the role of ID in tenure deliberations:
Public Explanation of Tenure Denial to Dr. Gonzalez in Nov. 2006: ID discussed
“only briefly”
Public Statement to Nature, Published May 24, 2007: "intelligent design was not
a major or even a big factor in this decision"
Public Statement to Des Moines Register, Published Dec. 1, 2007: Tenure
documents included “a few words about intelligent design at the end, and that's
it.”
Private Chair’s Statement in Dr. Gonzalez’s Tenure File in November, 2006:
A full third of Rosenberg’s Chair’s Statement in Gonzalez’s dossier dealt
with ID, stating that Gonzalez’s support for ID as science “disqualifies him from
serving as a science educator.” Here are key excerpts:
“Dr. Gonzalez has stated that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory and
someday would be taught in science classrooms. This is confirmed by his
numerous postings on the Discovery Institute Web site. The problem here is that
Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. Its premise is beyond the realm of
science. … But it is incumbent on a science educator to clearly understand and
be able to articulate what science is and what it is not. The fact that Dr. Gonzalez
does not understand what constitutes both science and a scientific theory
disqualifies him from serving as a science educator.”
In other words, when making public statements, Dr. Rosenberg claims that ID
was merely “discussed briefly” and was “not an overriding factor.” But privately
his Chair’s Statement sounds very different: he instructed other department
members that Dr. Gonzalez’s view that ID is science “disqualifies him from
serving as a science educator.” Something that “disqualifies” someone as an
educator sure sounds like an overriding factor, and it probably was discussed
more than just briefly.
Is Rosenberg Correct about ID and Guillermo Gonzalez?
As seen above, Dr. Rosenberg’s primary reason for claiming that ID is not
science is the assertion that ID is not falsifiable and makes no predictions.
Ironically, Guillermo Gonzalez anticipated that some of his colleagues would
mistakenly believe that ID is not science because they would misunderstand it to
be unfalsifiable or lack predictive power. As a rebuttal to this charge, in 2005 Dr.
Gonzalez published “An Open Letter to My Open-Minded Colleagues” on The
Privileged Planet website, which addressed the precise concerns about
falsifiability and predictability raised by Dr. Rosenberg. As Gonzalez publicly
wrote more than a year before his tenure evaluations:
The argument covers everything from the fine-tuning of the constants of
physics to the initial conditions of the Big Bang; from our host star and planetary
neighbors to our atmosphere and moon. Our conclusion? The universe is
designed not only for life but also for scientific discovery. The argument is
falsifiable, vulnerable to the river of data about extrasolar planets, our galaxy,
and the larger universe flowing in over the next two decades thanks to missions
like Gaia and Kepler. … Although I would love to see our hypothesis confirmed,
in the interim I’m gratified to see our argument the subject of reasoned debate
and discussions about what future discoveries would count for or against our
position. This is the scientific process at its best.
(Guillermo Gonzalez, “An Open Letter to My Open-Minded Colleagues,” June
29, 2005.)
It’s obvious that Guillermo Gonzalez clearly understands that scientific theories
must be falsifiable and tested in light of new data, and it’s clear that he views his
privileged planet hypothesis as meeting those criteria for being a scientific theory.
Indeed, Dr. Gonzalez tried to stave off precisely the types of misunderstandings
about ID that Dr. Rosenberg repeats when arguing that Gonzalez should be
denied tenure. Yet Rosenberg addressed none of Dr. Gonzalez’s arguments,
blandly asserting that “Intelligent Design does nothing” to make falsifiable
predictions and ignoring the fact that Dr. Gonzalez’s essay shows that he clearly
understands that good science is both predictive and falsifiable.
Did Dr. Rosenberg even read Gonzalez’s “An Open Letter to My Open-Minded
Colleagues”? We may never know. But it seems clear that Dr. Rosenberg has
turned out to not be one of the “open minded colleagues” to which Dr. Gonzalez
tried to address his letter.
Subjugating Academic Freedom to Personal Prejudices
Both Guillermo Gonzalez and Eli Rosenberg believe that science must be
testable and falsifiable. Gonzalez believes ID is testable and falsifiable, while
Rosenberg believes it isn’t. While Dr. Rosenberg is entitled to his view, does it
follow that he is entitled to claim that Dr. Gonzalez’s view that ID is science
“disqualifies him from serving as a science educator” and therefore Gonzalez
must be denied tenure? Not unless Dr. Rosenberg is to discount Dr. Gonzalez’s
academic freedom, which ISU’s Faculty handbook says is “the foundation of the
university.”
Dr. Gonzalez’s view may not be the majority view, but it is also not part of the
lunatic fringe. As he recounts in his "An Open Letter to My Open-Minded
Colleagues," The Privileged Planet has received praise from various prestigious
scientific sources:
Though controversial, the book has received positive endorsement or reviews
from such leading scientists as Cambridge’s Simon Conway Morris, Harvard’s
Owen Gingerich, and David Hughes, a Vice-President of the Royal Astronomical
Society. … Design theorists, as they define themselves, are simply those arguing
that purposive activity is scientifically detectable somewhere in nature. By this
standard, a number of prominent scientists are design theorists, though they
would never label themselves thus. … For example, physics Nobel Laureate
Charles Townes (by no means a self-identified design theorist) recently wrote the
following in The Wall Street Journal: “What is the purpose or meaning of life? Or
of our universe? These are questions which should concern us all. As a scientist,
I have been primarily trying to understand our world—the universe, including
humans—what it is and how it works. Of course, if the universe has a purpose,
then its structure, and how it works, must reflect this purpose.” Townes goes on
in the essay to call for a “serious intellectual discussion of the possible meaning
of our universe.”
Townes and I probably disagree about some issues. Here, however, there is a
meeting of the minds. Scientists can study the cosmos and argue from the
evidence to different conclusions. As long as they can formulate a plausible
hypothesis and put their arguments in empirical harms’ way--as philosopher of
science Del Ratzsch has put it--there should be no talk of banishing anyone to
outer darkness.
There is undeniable academic legitimacy to Dr. Gonzalez’s ID work, as he
recounts that it “has received positive endorsement or reviews from such leading
scientists as Cambridge’s Simon Conway Morris, Harvard’s Owen Gingerich, and
David Hughes, a Vice-President of the Royal Astronomical Society.” Again,
Gonzalez’s view may be the minority view, but it does not deserve to be
banished to the “outer darkness.” In short, it deserves academic freedom.
More ISU Faculty Disregard Academic Freedom
Dr. Rosenberg stated that Gonzalez’s ID views were “discussed briefly in the
faculty meetings where [his] promotion was under consideration.” If that
statement is true, it is irrelevant, for (as we have already discussed) there exists
an abundance of e-mails showing that ID was discussed extensively outside of
the official tenure deliberations. Documentation shows that his department
members communicated behind Dr. Gonzalez’s back, calling Dr. Gonzalez’s proID views “intellectually vacuous,” “more than just vacuous,” and expressing their
hope that ID would experience “self destruction.” They mocked Gonzalez’s ID
work, saying they would study it only while “under medication” and that Gonzalez
should be lumped with “idiot[s]” and “religious nutcases.” His colleagues drafted a
statement condemning ID with the purpose of discrediting Gonzalez and “giv[ing]
Gonzalez a clear sign that his ID efforts will not be considered as science by the
faculty” because ISU “is not a friendly place for him to develop further his IDeas.”
Indeed, Gonzalez’s colleague John Hauptman 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?” Does that sound familiar? It parrots the
same reasoning that Dr. Rosenberg put in his Chair’s Statement in Dr.
Gonzalez's tenure file, where Rosenberg wrote: “The fact that Dr. Gonzalez does
not understand what constitutes both science and a scientific theory disqualifies
him from serving as a science educator.”
At ISU, it seems that academic freedom really means the freedom to agree with
everyone else in your department. These scientists disregarded the academic
freedom of scientists to support the view that ID is science. Whether you agree or
disagree with ID, two things are clear: ID played a important role in Guillermo
Gonzalez’s tenure evaluations, and Eli Rosenberg tried, and failed, to suppress
that fact.