I learned on the morning of June 1, 2007 that President Geoffroy has denied my tenure appeal. I understand that this was a very difficult decision for him to make given its far-reaching implications. It is now clear to me that this decision, in effect, had been predetermined by August 2005, when Hector Avalos and other ISU professors began circulating a petition statement condemning Intelligent Design. At the same time several of the same ISU faculty spread misinformation about me and the nature of my Intelligent Design research in the local press. These events poisoned the atmosphere among the faculty and administration on campus towards Intelligent Design, and, ultimately, impacted negatively on my tenure evaluation. It is unfortunate that the personal religious and ideological beliefs of some faculty have been so influential on this issue.

Ultimately, the decision to deny or grant tenure is a subjective one, based not only on published objective academic criteria, but also on such ill-defined criteria as the perceived standing among peers and the whether the mission of the university is advanced. My publication record must be balanced against other aspects of my professional research. It is in the way the separate factors are weighed that personal biases and political pressures can influence the final decision. I continue to believe that I have met my department's and the university's criteria for tenure. I have not yet decided whether I will appeal the decision to the Board of Regents.