|
|
In a statement following Geoffroy's appeal denial in June, Gonzalez said he was certain the decision was based on Intelligent Design and predetermined in August 2005 when a petition began circulating around the ISU campus denouncing the use of Intelligent Design in science. Although the statement did not name Gonzalez specifically, he has said he believes it created a "poisoned" atmosphere toward Intelligent Design on the Ames campus.
Since that statement last summer, Gonzalez has stayed fairly quiet, moving his appeal up to the Iowa Board of Regents. The Discovery Institute, on the other hand, hasn't been so quiet.
The case presented Monday by the institute, a Seattle-based think tank leading the Intelligent Design movement, was based on the e-mails of nearly 40 ISU faculty and staff obtained through an open records request.
Drawing specifically from the e-mails of faculty and staff who spoke out against Intelligent Design, including several faculty in Gonzalez's department of physics and astronomy, the institute attempted to provide substance to the astronomer's claim that the atmosphere had indeed become "poisoned."
One series of e-mails, dated Nov. 22, 2005, shows interest among some faculty and staff in his department to draft a petition against the teaching of Intelligent Design, separate from the petition that circulated three months earlier and more specific to their department.
After explaining the worst-case scenario of the action would be the courts possibly turning against the department, Ames Laboratory scientist Vladimir Kogan wrote to a few of his colleagues, "On the other hand, our open statement signed and put in a visible place will show to GG (Guillermo Gonzalez) that this is not a friendly place for him to develop further his IDeas. He may look for a better place as a result."
He added: "Also, I agree with (ISU Distinguished Professor) Bruce (Harmon): It is not nice to discuss all this behind his back, after all he ... probably honestly believes in what he is doing and he is certainly a courageous man. An open statement will clear up the air."
The department decided against going for the petition.
A couple months earlier, soon after the initial campus-wide petition was released, Harmon, who would be voting on Gonzalez's tenure recommendation, wrote in an e-mail, "I don't have trouble voting for tenure based on his astronomy (I don't yet know the quality), but here he is claiming ID is a proper branch of science, and so I think he opens it up in his tenure consideration. I would have thought an intelligent person would have at least kept quiet until after tenure. Then you can advocate blowing up the moon."
Harmon added in his P.S.: "Gonzalez may sell enough copies of this book to retire, and solve us the potentially difficult issue."
'A blatant misrepresentation'
Casey Luskin, a program officer for the Discovery Institute who led the press conference Monday, said the institute based its argument on the department level, a place he said members of the institution saw the most outspokenness on Intelligent Design and where the tone of a tenure review is set.
At ISU, the dossier of a tenure candidate is reviewed by the department's tenured faculty, a department chair, a college-level committee, the dean of the college, the executive vice president and provost and the president, who offers a final recommendation to the Iowa Board of Regents. In Gonzalez's case, his tenure was recommended to be denied at each level of review.
Following the initial denial, ISU President Greg Geoffroy was silent on the issue as he considered an appeal. As the decision garnered much press, ISU's media relations department published the following about the Gonzalez case: "That evaluation was based on an assessment of the excellence of his teaching, service, scholarly research publications and research funding in astronomy, using standards and expectations set by the department faculty."
To this, Luskin replied Monday: "After reviewing thousands of pages of documents, we are prepared to say this is a blatant misrepresentation, even perhaps a lie. ... Many ISU faculty had prejudged the case in secret tenure e-mail deliberations where they decided they wanted Dr. Gonzalez out of ISU a year before the official process began."
The Discovery Institute singled out Eli Rosenberg, chair of the physics and astronomy department, for plotting an alleged "cover-up" in the media by saying Intelligent Design was not a major or even a big factor in the tenure decision not long after writing the following in his review that was included in Gonzalez's dossier:
"It is incumbent on a science educator to clearly understand and to be able to articulate what science is and what it is not. The fact that Dr. Gonzalez does not understand what constitutes both science and a scientific theory disqualifies him from serving as a science educator."
Rosenberg was out of town and could not be reached for comment Monday.
Gonzalez has not released his dossier, and the Discovery Institute made only bits and pieces available to the media Monday. Because a dossier and the tenure process are not a matter of public record, a copy could not be obtained by any member of the public without Gonzalez's approval.
There has been much speculation regarding the past six years of Gonzalez's academic work that would be included in his dossier.
Research funding expected
The same day Geoffroy denied Gonzalez's tenure appeal, the Des Moines Register published a story stating Gonzalez had only attracted $22,661 in external research grants since arriving at ISU.
During an interview with The Tribune this summer, Gonzalez countered that claim, saying he has brought in more. He said shortly before he left the University of Washington to come to ISU, he received, and brought much with him, a three-year, $58,000 grant he used to write his book "The Privileged Planet" and a five-year, $64,000 NASA grant, which he used to pay a doctoral student at the University of Washington. Then, as his tenure documents were at the provost level for review, he received promise of a five-year, $50,000 grant from the Discovery Institute.
Although it is more than the Des Moines Register originally reported, it was still far below that of the average $1.3 million in research funding the newspaper found tenured faculty in the physics and astronomy department had generated during their first six years before receiving tenure.
There was no mention of research funding during the press conference or in the packets provided by the institute. When asked following the press conference about the disparity, Luskin said research funding was not specifically stated in the guidelines required for tenure and therefore he believed it should not have been a factor in his tenure denial.
"Astronomers do not need the kind of grant funding to do research that, say, a physicist does," he said. "All you really need is travel time to go to the observatory, permission to go to the observatory and a PC computer to crunch some numbers."
But Gonzalez said during his interview with The Tribune last summer that he was told, beginning with his three-year tenure review in 2004, that he needed to bring in more research funding. He added he heard the same message in reviews every year since, as well.
He has made the effort, he said, submitting two grant applications per year, but to no avail.
Whether or not the e-mail evidence presented Monday by the Discovery Institute will make its way into the Iowa Board of Regents appeal documents waits to be seen. Luskin said the board office has since rejected the inclusion of the information.
Andy Baumert, interim executive director of the board, would not comment on whether it is already included or would be included, only saying the matter is under appeal and will be considered by the board at a future meeting.
William Dillon can be reached at 232-2161, Ext. 361, or William.Dillon@amestrib.com.
