in the context of his lawsuit, he was denied tenure even though many others received it (and the pay raise it brings) who had fewer students, fewer favorable evaluations, fewer publications, and less well-subscribed classes. The denial was based on specific points culled from his writings that showed his conservative point of view. So his suit was about tenure only in the context of fighting the obvious point-of-view discrimination against a conservative. It was a important victory for our side.
I have no doubt that discrimination took place against him because of his conservative views. My sense is that was the reason tenure has always been argued for in academic circles. Now, it’s extraordinary that he had to fight to prove his bonafides, and that the security of tenure was what was being withheld from him because the establishment did not want him to have the security of tenure and did want to censure his views. I’m glad he overcame. However, I’m also glad that he now has the security of tenure which originally was designed to protect those who had unpopular views.
I’m quite sure that if his retention of tenure becomes based on ‘evaluations’ from his administrators that he will soon be out on his ear. They will make the evaluations unfair.