Replies

Those are the excuses I expect to hear in the preponderance of cases of Christians being denied tenure. Christianity won´t be specifically cited as the reason for its denial, threading through liability issues, so they come up with this other subterfuge.

What you are seeing is the religious version of the race card. People are being denied things purely on their merits, but because they are religious they think they can claim persecution, and others of their persuasion will automatically believe them and support them.

Academics write books all the time.

And if they're smart, they won't let it affect their academic work as severely as Gonzalez did. Look at the facts! Before granting permanent employement a university wants serious assurance that a candidate will continue to publish at a high rate, pull in major grant money and have a lot of successful doctoral students. Once Gonzalez got there:

His scientific publishing practically disappeared
He got a tiny percentage of grant money compared to others
He only got one doctoral student through a dissertation

That's not an excuse. That's plain old failure to perform. If it weren't for the religion card being played, everybody would see this for what it is, the tenure system weeding out the weak academics as it is supposed to.

You will hear his proponents tell you that 90% get tenure at that university. That's a lie on two levels. One, that's only of applicants, and most people don't apply unless they have a good chance of getting tenure. Second, the tenure rate of applicants in his department (the one that matters) is only 66%. So, in a highly competitive environment, with a sub-standard record at that university, he didn't make the two-thirds cut. Boo-hoo.

I have zero sympathy for people who play the race card, the religion card, or any other such card.

Personally, I´ve enjoyed Gonzalez´ writing, and dont´t have anywhere near the faith you seem to have in the university system.

Best....

One, that's only of applicants, and most people don't apply unless they have a good chance of getting tenure.

Haha! What a rip-roaring statement that is. The rest of the universe fits within the set of non-applicants. What a hoot of an argument! You win the Cliff Clavin award for inane statements.

aR: “What you are seeing is the religious version of the race card. People are being denied things purely on their merits, but because they are religious they think they can claim persecution, and others of their persuasion will automatically believe them and support them. “

********************************************************************************

Actually, what we are seeing here is how wrong you are. In this post 95 on this thread, we have a clearly defined and documented example of exactly what this thread is about. That someone is being denied things based on their religion, not on their merits.

See this comment as an example. It is not imagined persecution. There meadsjn clearly states that he would not hire someone based on their religious preferences or beliefs. The person’s proficiency on the job and qualifications do not even enter the picture.

He has judged him on several levels simply based on religion. Contrary to what you claim, that IS persecution based on religion, not equivalent to the race card.

Could you imagine the fallout if someone made that claim about a minority? Substitute *black* or *Hispanic* for *young earth* and *creationist* and see where it gets you.

There’s no difference there.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2641996/posts?page=95#95

meadsjn: “No. No one gets punished for believing or not believing any certain way.

If “faith” is even part of this person’s situation, he “spoke” or “acted” in some way to make his “faith” a problem to his job. Actions have consequences.

Personally, I wouldn’t hire a “young earth”, “creationist” type idiot for anything requiring thinking above the turnip level.”