His work is published and I reviewed much of it when I first heard of his tenure problems a year ago. IMO his work isn't up to MIT tenure standards and 3 different review comittees found that to be the case as well.
That really does tell the whole story, but there are always quite a few who seem willing or able to accept it.
What people don't understand is that there are many tiers within the tenure evaluation process. There separate reviews at the department level, college level and university level. There are opportunities for external review, and multiple opportunities to appeal a decision. Not to mention that in the years prior to and during application for tenure there are opportunities to change universities and turn the tenure clock back a tick or two.
Additionally, subsequent to failure to obtain tenure there are opportunities to move to other institutions or get a job outside academia.
It amazes me how easily people become convinced of complete unfairness and bias within the tenure evaluation process. People will read the complaint of one poor little conservative who has been denied tenure supposedly on the capricious whim of their colleagues and never question the conduct of the victim. A hunger strike is ridiculous - sounds like it's good to be rid of him.