The university won't give any information directly since that's confidential. Sweet deal for Gonzalez, he gets to say whatever he wants and the university can't just bring out the truth. Gonzalez probably could request a release of those records showing the reason for the denial, but I notice he hasn't done that.
Your contention is all well and good, but I think that evidence should show a significant rise in the parameters you mentioned at ISU due to the results of the anti-academic freedom campaign involving Avalos against Gonzalez.
I don't see how. It sounded pretty standard fare. There's a glut of Ph.D.s and only so many tenure positions, so competition is fierce and the standards correspondingly high, especially in hard science areas. His department had a pretty low tenure acceptance rate overall.
I also think that they, the Darwinists, are protected.
Darwinists (if there are any anymore) will be a protected class when someone can claim they were fired for working on natural selection and people will rally around them for that. That's not going to happen any time soon.
And I don't hate IDers, I just hate the very concept of a protected class. Pulling out the race card or an equivalent also makes me mad.
I won’t challenge your opinions since they are yours and not mine. The only evidence on the Gonzalez case are the statements made by Avalos and Gonzalez and the results of the tenure decision. That is not to deny the statistics of Gonzalez publishing, teaching, etc., but it seems to me that Avalos and others expected some outcome from their petition.
Is 70% low?