I see a lot of religion card still. #4 is especially funny, since that information should have been part of his application for tenure if he thought it would help his chances.
, but he did have a lot going for him: he was author or co-author of dozens of peer-reviewed papers, he co-authored an astronomy textbook that is used by his own department.
"Did" being the operative word. His output dropped considerably soon after he joined the faculty. When making a tenure decision, they look at the trend. What the trend clearly showed was a once-promising scientist who lost it.
Imagine you were considering a promotion for an employee. You confirmed his work was outstanding at his previous employer, and even in the beginning with you. But in the last several years his work output has been far lower than previous, he brings in almost no new revenue-generating accounts compared to his coworkers, and he has only managed to train one subordinate in years.
Would you promote him? I doubt you would. But even better, he's black, and now he starts claiming he wasn't promoted because he's black, which makes you a racist. What's your opinion of him now?
RE: #4 is especially funny, since that information should have been part of his application for tenure if he thought it would help his chances.
What makes you think it was not part of his application for tenure? IT WAS. And it was not even made a major consideration. It was in effect, IGNORED.
RE: His output dropped considerably soon after he joined the faculty. When making a tenure decision, they look at the trend. What the trend clearly showed was a once-promising scientist who lost it.
NOPE. His work was ONGOING and parallel and simulataneous with is work on the Privileged Planet.
This denial of tenure had little to do with his ability as a researcher and teacher. Many of his students attested to his ability to teach and impart knowledge. Theire input were never taken into consideration at all.