You would think, but universities these days are about far more than just teaching the student.
The evidence is clear, Gonzalez published enough such that he blew away the written requirements for tenure.
I see a rising star who turned his attention to ID and let his scientific work lapse. This is all about "What have you done for me lately?"
Now is the business of the Science department science? Or is it making money?
It's the truth of the situation. Bringing home the bacon is practically the first check mark on the list for an astronomer. Grant money makes research (expensive telescope time, etc.), research makes prestige. Prestige is paramount. Given the situation I can even see pushing ID as science as a legitimate reason (not absolute, just under the current tenure system) to deny tenure, since it would harm the university's prestige.
I read some years back that a bunch of people were trying to change the tenure requirements at several colleges, saying the current system reflects greed and an ivory-tower mentality that is not in the real world. I don't know what kind of success they've had.
I guess the morals of the story are: 1) Don't let your ID work interfere with your regular science work, and 2) Keep it secret until you have tenure.
What you see is a chart from NCSE which shows bogus information. You yourself produced 14 more entries than the chart shows and your query was incomplete. And if money is a consideration put the numbers on the table, for everyone at Iowa State. It is not. The money angle is an ad hoc argument produced as an attempt to justify the denial of tenure.
Prestige? How much "prestige" does Dr. Hector Avalos provide Iowa State?