Gonzalez has published more peer-reviewed journal articles than all but one of the faculty members granted tenure this year at ISU – across the university as a whole, not just his department.
In fact, Gonzalez has more peer-reviewed journal articles to his credit than all but five faculty members granted tenure at ISU since 2003.
In addition, he exceeded his department’s own tenure standards, which define “excellence” in terms of publications in refereed science journals, by more than 350%.
Yet ISU president Dr. Gregory Geoffroy has attributed his rejection of Gonzalez’s tenure appeal to matters having nothing to do with intelligent design. The astronomer simply “did not show the trajectory of excellence that we expect,” Geoffroy has said ( yeah right ).
His department chairman, Dr. Eli Rosenberg, claims in Gonzalez’s tenure dossier that the astronomer failed to show an “overall positive trend” in his research record of late.
Yet in 2006, the year he was up for tenure, Gonzalez published more total articles than all other tenured ISU astronomers.
Moreover, Dr. Gonzalez has more per-capita citations in science journals and per-capita scientific publications than any other tenured astronomer at ISU since 2001, the year he joined ISU.
In other words, Gonzalez OUTPERFORMED the very astronomers that voted against his tenure, negating any basis for their complaining about the “trend” of his research while at ISU.
Meanwhile, his work has been featured in the world’s most prestigious science journals, Nature in 2002 and Science in 2004. He co-authored the cover story for Scientific American in 2001, and he is also co-author of a 2006 peer-reviewed Cambridge University Press textbook, Observational Astronomy.
He was clearly impacting the next generation of scientists, as his ideas about the Galactic Habitable Zone have even been incorporated into two astronomy textbooks by other authors.
With all this going for him, and being well-liked personally by his colleagues, STUDENTS, getting tenure at ISU should have been nearly automatic.
The university has struggled to explain the reason for his rejection, offering explanations that fall far short of being convincing. The claim is advanced, for example, that Gonzalez failed to secure enough funding for his research.
But observational astronomers are not heavily dependent on sumptuous grants to support their research. They only need an already existing telescope, enough money to fly or drive to the facility, and an inexpensive computer to analyze the observational data they obtain.
In any event, Gonzalez received more grant funding than 35 percent of faculty members who were granted tenure at ISU in 2007 and who listed their research grants on their curriculum vitae.
The utmost importance is the fact that grants are not even listed in the tenure guidelines for his department. Of the nine review letters that gave recommendations regarding Dr. Gonzalez’s final tenure decision, six strongly supported his tenure promotion and gave glowing endorsements of his reputation and academic achievements. (Even Dr. Gonzalez’s tenure dossier admitted that “five of the external letter writers … including senior scientists at prestigious institutions recommend his promotion” and that only “[t]hree do not.”)
One reviewer observed that ISU’s Department of Physics and Astronomy does not consider grants as a criterion for gaining tenure, and stated that “Dr. Gonzalez is eminently qualified for the promotion according to your guidelines of excellence in scholarship and exhibiting a potential for national distinction.
MY CONCLUSION : His denial of tenure is NOT RELATED to his performance as a faculty member. You have already mentioned the reason -— HIS SYMPATHY TOWARDS INTELLIGENT DESIGN as PROVEN BY HIS WORK -— THE PRIVILEGED PLANET.
This year? He left in 2008. Looks like you made a mistake in your cut-and-paste from a supporter site.
In addition, he exceeded his department’s own tenure standards, which define “excellence” in terms of publications in refereed science journals, by more than 350%.
You're giving me the spin. I gave you the numbers. Most of those publications were from before his time at ISU. I keep seeing this 350% figure from supporters, but I don't see any numbers behind it. Got any? I'm betting that like the disinformation of the rate of achieving tenure, it's for the university overall, not his department.
His department chairman, Dr. Eli Rosenberg, claims in Gonzalez’s tenure dossier that the astronomer failed to show an “overall positive trend” in his research record of late.
That is 100% correct, although sugar-coated. It was clearly an overall very negative trend.
Yet in 2006, the year he was up for tenure, Gonzalez published more total articles than all other tenured ISU astronomers.
He isn't competing with tenured professors who often get lazy, he's competing with associate professors looking for tenure. But it sounds good, until you realize that means he published only two articles. Also note that 2006 was his most productive year as a first author since his sharp decline in output. Even then it is 1/5 of his highest output with less than 1/2 of the first authorship. That shows a very poor trend.
I have given you hard numbers. You have given me spin and how much of a great guy he is. Here is his publication record for original research starting from just prior to him going to ISU, total/first/other authorship:
Numbers don't lie, spin does. They are looking for a trend of excellence in original research in order to predict future academic output before granting a permanent position. 10-6-6-4-2-2-3-2-1, a steep drop in production. First authorship is very important, and that goes 5-3-2-0-0-1-2-0, another disturbing trend downards. He completely bottomed out on that for YEARS.
But observational astronomers are not heavily dependent on sumptuous grants to support their research.
For one seeking tenure in that department at ISU, the average in grant awards over their first six years was $1.3 million, and he was far below that. Gonzalez was counseled multiple times for his failure to bring in sufficient grant money. He failed this tenure criteria. No amount of spin can counter the numbers.
Gonzalez received more grant funding than 35 percent of faculty members who were granted tenure at ISU in 2007
There you go again, expanding and collapsing the scope as needed. That is all faculty members overall, not his department, the only one that matters. An acceptable grant rate for an English professor seeking tenure is far lower than that for an astronomer, who needs obscenely expensive equipment to do his job and thus needs to show an ability to bring in the cash to pay for it.
They only need an already existing telescope, enough money to fly or drive to the facility, and an inexpensive computer to analyze the observational data they obtain.
There are three ways to get telescope time. 1) pay for it. 2) have your university build or buy it. 3) write a proposal and be granted highly competitive free time (like how it works on the Hubble). The first two take money, i.e., grants. BTW, in case you haven't noticed, he was cited for failure to secure much telescope time too.
And what's this about inexpensive computers? Very expensive supercomputers are common in the field of astrophysics, the bigger the better, thousands of cores better than hundreds.
His denial of tenure is NOT RELATED to his performance as a faculty member.
I don't see how you can say that with a straight face given the proven poor performance that would result in anyone being denied tenure. The numbers don't lie, spin does. He failed.
Actually, I can see. Al Sharpton and his ilk have a complete inability to perceive a use of the race card by someone who screwed up and is trying to get out of it. They have so much bias, so much invested in their victimhood, that they can't see past the card. They automatically believe anyone who uses it, and no logic, reason or hard evidence can get through that.
I'm seeing the same here. If you want a good test case, you need to find one with solid credentials, not one with a PROVEN downard trend in academic output, a PROVEN failure to mentor his doctoral candidates to completion, and a PROVEN failure to secure grants at even close to the level of his colleagues who are also seeking tenure.