Discovery Institute, WA
12-03-07
Secret Emails Reveal How ISU Faculty Plotted to Deny Distinguished
Astronomer Tenure
ISU’s tenure process and official explanation in the Gonzalez case exposed as a
sham.
Des Moines, IA -- Iowa State University faculty secretly plotted to deny tenure to
a distinguished astronomer, as revealed in private emails written by faculty and
administrators at ISU.
Discovery Institute is making public a record of secret emails exchanged among
faculty at Iowa State University about noted ISU astronomer Dr. Guillermo
Gonzalez. The emails demonstrate that an orchestrated campaign was
organized and conducted against Gonzalez by his colleagues, with the intent to
deny him tenure because of views he holds on the intelligent design (ID) of the
universe, expressed in his 2004 book The Privileged Planet. In spite of his
distinguished publishing career, Gonzalez was denied tenure by ISU in the spring
of 2007.
Faculty involved in the tenure decision were well aware of Gonzalez’s support for
ID. More than one year before his tenure evaluation was scheduled, one ISU
professor wrote an e-mail that left no doubt that Gonzalez’s tenure application
would never receive a fair evaluation.
“He will be up for tenure next year,” wrote the professor. “And if he keeps up, it
might be a hard sell to the department.”
Contrary to his public statements, and those of ISU President Gregory Geoffroy,
the chairman of ISU’s Department of Physics and Astronomy, Dr. Eli Rosenberg,
stated in Dr. Gonzalez’s tenure dossier that Dr. Gonzalez’s support for intelligent
design “disqualifies him from serving as a science educator.”
“Dr. Rosenberg misled Dr. Gonzalez, the public, and the media when he said ID
barely played a role in the decision,” said Casey Luskin, Discovery Institute’s
attorney for public policy and legal affairs. “In fact, a third of his own statement in
the tenure dossier focused on Gonzalez’s views on intelligent design, where he
instructed faculty that support for ID as science should be a litmus test for
denying tenure to Dr. Gonzalez.”
ISU faculty have claimed that ID was not discussed as often as other subjects
during the tenure deliberations, but that “is only because at secret and
inappropriate tenure deliberations held via e-mail a year before the official
process started, they decided that they wanted Gonzalez out of ISU because he
supported intelligent design,” said Luskin.
In secret e-mails, Gonzalez’s colleagues privately deliberated about his tenure
and collaborated to express their intolerance toward him by asserting that ID is
“intellectually vacuous,” and “more than just vacuous,” and that “embalming is
more of a science” than ID.
They also wrote that Gonzalez should be lumped with “idiots” and “religious
nutcases.” They mocked Gonzalez’s ID work, saying they would study it “[u]nder
medication.”
His own department members drafted—and nearly released—a petition against
ID with the avowed purpose “to discredit” Gonzalez and “give Gonzalez a clear
sign that his ID efforts will not be considered as science by the faculty.”
Members of ISU’s department of Physics and Astronomy wanted Gonzalez to
know “that this is not a friendly place for him to develop further his IDeas” and
thus hoped “he may look for a better place as a result.”
“Faculty in the department knew they were treading on dangerous ground,”
explained Luskin. “They repeatedly expressed their fear that their e-mails were,
in effect, ‘secret meetings’ on Dr. Gonzalez’s tenure.”
One faculty member wrote in e-mails that “[i]n view of an upcoming tenure
decision, secrecy in the department may equally be interpreted as prejudging the
case as making a statement” because “[i]f it becomes clear that there were
efforts to write such a statement and that the statement was not made only to
avoid the impression of a hostile environment, isn’t this strong evidence for
secrecy in the department[?].” Another stated, “I don’t think talking behind
Guillermo’s back is quite ethical.”
“Their concerns ultimately centered around outward appearances of fairness for
legal purposes, not true protection of academic freedom,” added Luskin.
“The emails prove that Dr. Gonzalez lost his job because of views on ID, not
because of his job performance,” said Luskin, adding that this “is a clear First
Amendment case.”
On December 4, the Iowa State Board of Regents has its next scheduled
meeting.
“Like the ISU administration, the Board has ignored the significance of such a
gross breach of academic freedom and professional misconduct by some
faculty,” said Luskin.
“By denying requests to include these e-mails from the record in Gonzalez’s
case, the Board has refused to acknowledge most of the evidence uncovered in
the open records request in an apparent attempt to keep it from the public,” said
Luskin. “It is extremely disconcerting that they are closing their eyes to the fact
that Gonzalez was a victim of academic persecution, since they will ultimately
issue a final administrative ruling on this case.”