Replies

I did. All the talk in the world is worth nothing if he can't actually show adverse action towards himself. While there was none, he certainly tried to make bureaucratic normalcy look like persecution. There was clearly adverse action. He was ranked highest of all the candidates (and there really wasn't anyone else close). He was then passed over because of his beliefs. He was asked about those beliefs as part of the interview (What were they thinking? Our EO-AA office would be on us like a ton of bricks for doing that!). The chair of the search committee wrote immediately after they chose another candidate that he was clearly the best candidate and that he was passed over because of those beliefs. The chair of the department told the committee to forget his views on evolution and appoint the best qualified director. I've been on academic search committees more times than I can count. You need to put all the job expectations in the job posting. You can't rank on criteria not in that posting. The post hoc claims that there would be a requirement for interactions with biology teachers weren't even remotely addressed in the posting. I doubt we would ever be given permission to question a candidate on his religious views. If we were, the questions would have to be pre-scripted and narrowly tailored to the advertised job requirements. Vaporous claims that entertaining theistic views about evolution means one can't somehow think properly about science would be discounted, as they will be by the court. Martin has hundreds of highly cited scientific papers; he has a proven record of effective teaching and outreach. My own daughter, who did research with him for three years, was not aware of any opinions he had on evolution, and in my own conversations with him, his usual answer was 'I'm an astronomer, not a biologist'.