You're expecting to find academic freedom at a 'Christian' University?
Forget it.

The 'free market' trumps academic freedom.

Posted by: justintime | August 15, 2007 2:29 PM

Not only does academic freedom NOT exist at these 'Christian' 'Universities', the concept of freedom of speech is apparently a crime.

I get tired of hearing them called institutions of higher eduction. Let's call them what they are - institutions of indoctrination and brainwashing. Look at the lawyers Regent University has turned out. Apparently, the ability to interpret the law was skimmed over while the concept of actually applying it was just ignored.

Posted by: Charity | August 15, 2007 2:46 PM

kevin:

"He also advocated infanticide, which, while not being explicitly anti-Capitalist, is pretty !@#@$% up, not that indifference to bestiality doesn't get him there anyway.

Wallis did write that those fleeing the Khmer Rouge were doing so to sate their capitlalistic urges, which is a smidge anti-capitalist (and almost as !@#$%^ up)."

How about a reference or a link to support your hearsay, kevin?

And what is YOUR point, kevin?

Posted by: justintime | August 15, 2007 2:50 PM

"You're expecting to find academic freedom at a 'Christian' University?
Forget it."

Do you expect to find it at non-Christian universities? Iowa State refused tenure to an astronomer on the basis of a book he wrote advancing scientific evidence that the earth was not designed at random thanks to a campaign by an atheistic professor of religion who equates the Bible to Mein Kampfand said that "any act of love based on religion is immoral".

The professor in question co-authored a textbook used by intorductory students.

Is that the academic freedom for which you pine?

Posted by: kevin s. | August 15, 2007 2:54 PM

I attended CCU from Fall of '94 to Spring of '95. Just one year. Long enough to rack up a lot of student loans and to discover I didn't belong there.

I got into a fight with then-University President over tuition increases of 13% and turned my back to him in protest in front of the entire student body.

Two Presidents later, we get this story, which is not too different from a scandal while I was there involving the dismissal of an ancient languages scholar for being too liberal. I was mad about that, too.

And, if my memory is right CCU is also home to our beloved K-Love. You know, positive, encouraging, sappy enough to make you vomit K-Love.

But the issue here is interesting to me.

I read Wallis' book. I've heard of Singer. I read a lot of atheists and liberals who I disagree with, and plenty of Conservatives I disagree with. And I think I'm smart enough to come up with my own educated opinion about these things. And I think college students are smart enough, too.

Shall we protect our children until they are in the grave, or do we expose them to all the ideas of the real world and challenge them to synthesize what they read with what they observe for themselves?

Then again, if CCU wants to let a guy with just a Master's degree and only two years experience go, there should not be a big baruhaha about it.

Finally, there is the issue of capitalism through this incident. If the Prof wants to better reconcile Jesus' mandate with the effectiveness of capitalism he needs to consider renouncing the state, and discerning between the church and society.

Nathanael Snow

Posted by: jurisnaturalist | August 15, 2007 2:56 PM

For once I can agree with N. Snow.
Except for the last two paragraphs.

Posted by: justintime | August 15, 2007 3:04 PM

"You're expecting to find academic freedom at a 'Christian' University?
Forget it."

I also wonder if there isn't more to this story. If this is the whole story let's not prejudge all Christian Institutions of higher learning. My experiences in a Christian University and a Seminary was that everything was in play to discuss in the classroom relevant to the topic of the course.

Ask the former president of Harvard about academic freedom.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | August 15, 2007 3:15 PM

Denying a particular professor tenure, at Iowa State or wherever, is sometimes controversial. Declining to offer tenure to any of your professors, as a matter of general policy--as is the practice at CCU--is the very definition of hostility toward academic freedom. There's a fundamental difference.

Posted by: Steve Thorngate | August 15, 2007 3:26 PM

"Wasn't it the Iowa State Board of Education that banned the teaching of evolution in public schools, only to have their decree thrown out by a judge?"

I am referring to the University.

"And what is YOUR point, kevin?"

My point is that this professor was removed for teaching for teaching from Singer's texts. If I send my kid to a private Christian school (not that I would), I would certainly expect them to teach in accordance with Christian values, and Singer's views are despicable.

In addition to his anti-Captialistic views, Wallis also advocates legal abortion and gay marriage. I think most college kids can see through God's Politics, and I don't know to what extent Wallis' work in particular played in the firing, but one can sense a pattern.

If Balmer disagrees with the firing, that is fine. Let's have a discussion about it. But he should at least discuss the article he cites honestly, as opposed to pretending that the school teaches the gospel of capitalism. Balmer knows who Singer is, and why he is controversial.

Posted by: kevin s. | August 15, 2007 3:33 PM

Wiki has all the sources you would need for the Singer quotes. He has written extensively on these issues whether you have heard of him or not. Wallis' quote can be found in the Weekly Standard article about him, among other places.

Posted by: kevin s. | August 15, 2007 3:38 PM

"My point is that this professor was removed for teaching for teaching from Singer's texts. If I send my kid to a private Christian school (not that I would), I would certainly expect them to teach in accordance with Christian values, and Singer's views are despicable. "

How do you know he wasn't? Just because he used Singer's texts doesn't mean he was advocating them. What if he was introducing Singer for the purpose of showing other worldviews that are not in line with the Gospel? My high school English teacher taught from the Bible, not because he was advocating Christianity (although he was a Christian) but because much of Western Lit is rooted in the Biblical text. I'm sure there is some sort of comparative religion course at this school--do they not allow students to read the Koran?

There seems to be this inherent fear in Christian education that if students learn about opposing world views they will chuck Christianity and follow after all manner of ungodly ideas. I wouldn't want my kids indoctrinated in the Christian worldview as much as I would want them to be able to think for themselves, understand and be able to critically analyze other world views, and be able to robustly challenge and defend their own faith. They will be exposed to other world views sooner or later.

Posted by: squeaky | August 15, 2007 3:53 PM

Kevin says:

"Wallis did write that those fleeing the Khmer Rouge were doing so to sate their capitlalistic urges, which is a smidge anti-capitalist (and almost as !@#$%^ up).

Wallis' quote can be found in the Weekly Standard article about him, among other places."

Weekly Standard:

"In September 1979, Wallis wrote of the Vietnamese "boat people": "Many of today's refugees were inoculated with a taste for a Western lifestyle during the war years and are fleeing to support their consumer habit in other lands," somehow managing to credit their desperate flight in fear of totalitarian oppression to the corruption of capitalism."

What's your point, Kevin?

Posted by: justintime | August 15, 2007 3:59 PM

Do you expect to find it at non-Christian universities? Iowa State refused tenure to an astronomer on the basis of a book he wrote advancing scientific evidence that the earth was not designed at random thanks to a campaign by an atheistic professor of religion who equates the Bible to Mein Kampfand said that "any act of love based on religion is immoral".

Or you could point to the same professors lack of original research (which he was supposed to be doing being on tenure-track)as the main factor if his tenure denial.

Posted by: aaron | August 15, 2007 4:39 PM

I have nothing to do with a Christian university since I am not of that faith but it seems to me that a private college of any kind can hire and fire as they wish.

Hopefull the professor will find work elsewhere where he can do as he wishes.

Laura

Posted by: laura | August 15, 2007 4:49 PM

In what way then, should Christian universities differentiate themselves from secular institutions?

By not promulgating myth as fact???

Posted by: aaron | August 15, 2007 4:56 PM

"In what way then, should Christian universities differentiate themselves from secular institutions?"

They should encourage discussion of every topic from the point of view faith: specifically Christian faith.

That said, I note from CCU's website that they are accredited - unlike, say, Bob Jones University, which doesn't pretend to have academic freedom. In his presidential statement, Armstrong says that: "In the classroom students are learning to think for themselves, to ponder and interact with today’s ideas and theories."

Not knowing the full context, I will withhold judgment. Let me just say that faith seems to me, of all the soul's attributes, the least likely to develop in an environment where intellectual vitality is not allowed full and vigorous expression.

Posted by: Another nonymous | August 15, 2007 5:08 PM

To my mind, there's just too much we don't know to draw any conclusions either way. In particular we don't know what Prof. Paquin told his students about Singer or Wallis in class. And without that, I don't feel comfortable making any judgements either way.

As for Balmer's closing comment -- "Trust me Bill, you qualify" -- it's comforting to know I'm not the only smart-aleck on this board.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | August 15, 2007 5:14 PM

That is the University's "official" reason, even though Prof. Gonzalez's work was published in 68 peer-reviewed journals. There is simply no compelling, consistent reason for the denial of tenure in this case aside from his views on ID.

1) It's not his total publication record, it his publications since joining the University in a tenure-track position

AND

2)Having those recent publications be original research and not a continuation of his post-doc work with colleagues from other universities.

He failed both those criteria. All the time he could've been fulfilling those criteria, he spent writing a religious book. No wonder he was denied tenure.

Posted by: aaron | August 15, 2007 5:15 PM

I attended a secular (or as someone else said, "real") college and found much less academic freedom.

translation: I wasn't allowed to use Answers in Genesis as a primary source in my evolution class.

Posted by: aaron | August 15, 2007 5:25 PM

Aaron,
Where are you getting this evidence that he didn't author original research since joining ISU? He claimed to have published 25 papers since joining ISU (15 was the minimum for granting tenure): http://www.midiowanews.com/site/tab1.cfm?newsid=18333457&BRD=2700&PAG=461&dept_id=554432&rfi=6

I also think the Larry Summers Harvard fiasco to be a telling tale about the poor state of academic freedom in secular universities.

Posted by: jesse | August 15, 2007 5:32 PM

That isn't true. Either way, he cleared the bar.

Wrong on both accounts, you HAVE to show original research initiative and publish to support it, he did neither while on tenure track. Which aspects of that don't you understand?

Let's not forget grants:

The Des Moines Register reported Thursday that university records showed that Gonzalez had raised significantly less research and grant money than his peers in the Department of Physics and Astronomy.

Iowa State has sponsored $22,661 in outside grant money for Gonzalez since July 2001, records show. In that same time period, Gonzalez’s peers in physics and astronomy secured an average of $1.3 million by the time they were granted tenure.

It was not at all a religious book. It was scientific research advancing a theory that can be interpreted as religious or not.

Which is why it wasn't submitted to scientists for peer-review, it being *snicker* advancing a "scientific theory" and all. And you must be the only person who doesn't understand the whole ID as science concept is smoke and mirrors.

Posted by: aaron | August 15, 2007 5:34 PM

You're right Jeff, that was mean, I apologize.

I come from a science background and just took the bare minimum of liberal arts classes, so I don't have much experience in a classroom that doesn't have concrete right/wrong answers.

Posted by: aaron | August 15, 2007 5:46 PM

Hello all.

I recently graduated from Colorado Christian University in May 2007. After 3 hard years dealing with Student Life and the likes thereof, I am still divided in my opinions of CCU. Allow me to explain.

You see, all of you that claim that you can't have academic freedom at a Christian university are wrong. Dead, 100% wrong. I graduated with a BA in Theology at CCU and I will tell you that I have never seen a better "religions" faculty or department at a secular OR Christian school than the one at CCU. Dr. Jeffrey Mallinson leads the charge impeccably, striving to maintain an academic environment in his department of Theology and succeeding in doing so. We have incredibly talented professors in these successful departments often under fire from other people in the community or on the campus that do not agree with them. But don't EVER say that they are not promoting academic freedom.

I champion certain departments at CCU like I would champion Johns Hopkins for their medical program. We may not be as renowned for these programs, but the professors in these programs and departments are among the most intellectual, most challenging, most academically rigorous professors you will meet at ANY type of school. These departments include Theology (which encompasses Biblical Studies, Philosophy and Youth Ministry, as well as any ancient languages) Psychology, English, History, Global Studies (that is, until Paquin, who recently changed his name to Syed, was let go.) Please do not comment on the academic freedom or nature of this school without recognizing that the administration in the spotlight does not stand for everything.

I have spoken with President Armstrong a number of times, and he seeks to make the university a more academically rigorous place. I agree with him on a few of his objectives (not the "strategic objectives," mind you,) such as the strengthening of the tutoring program, the overhaul of student study habits and learning habits, making sure that students in this school are known for their academia and not for the fact that they barely should have graduated high school. How does he plan to do this after firing Paquin and watching countless other prized professors leave at the idea of potentially being the next on the list? I have no idea...I don't trust that plan of action, either. He let go one of the most incredible professors that CCU had on campus and it is just plain unfortunate that he has neglected to see what prizes he has at that university. You see, our professors do not enjoy tenure...they have to watch their steps and not be quick to criticize student learning habits because they have mortgages to pay and mouths to feed. Think about all of the background before you comment on academic freedom.

I had my first and only class with Professor Paquin/Syed in my last semester at CCU and I am privileged to say that I know him and enjoy a friendship with him. He is an incredible man of God and one that desires for students to reach deep inside themselves and LEARN. Whatever their opinions may be, he entertains them in class and challenges them to go further. He stretches our students and forces them to think in ways that their youth groups didn't let them think. He challenges them to own their faith and their religious beliefs and to know WHY, and to own their view of the world, politics and our nationi in the same way.

You may believe that I have simply been brainwashed by this university to say anything good about it...*chuckles.* You would be wrong. I hated that university while I was there, but I stayed for a reason. I stayed because the department I was in was phenomenal and I wouldn't trade my education at CCU for anything in the world. Because of my impeccable education at this university, I was accepted to the highest honors program at the graduate school I applied to: the Master's of Philosophy at the University of Exeter to study Historical Theology with a concentration on Heresiology in the Reformation Period. I achieved this honor because I went to this university, had professors like the ones in our Theology, Psychology, Languages and Global Studies departments, who showed me that my world is so much bigger than just what I see around me...that my opportunities are as numerous as I am able to conceive of...and most importantly, that my duty to give back to humanity is tremendously important and significant because of this gift I have been given in this education and in these people.

So please...please do not think that the firing of such a stellar professor speaks of the lack of academic freedom at any and all Christian universities. It is unbelievable and it outrages me that such an incredibly brilliant man was let go for not being "capitalist" enough when Christ taught that we should care for "the least of these," (which is hardly what capitalism praises, by the way.) However, do not direct your anger, cynicism, bitterness and resignation at the Christian community or even at CCU as a whole. Direct it at CCU's administration...at the board, at the president, at the people in charge of making decisions at that school. And never, ever stop championing academic freedom in such environments.

Posted by: Danielle Bilbruck | August 15, 2007 6:00 PM

Kevin says:

"If Balmer disagrees with the firing, that is fine. Let's have a discussion about it. But he should at least discuss the article he cites honestly, as opposed to pretending that the school teaches the gospel of capitalism."

Kevin,

I went to the school. That's exactly what they are trying to implement.

Also in the strategic objectives that President Armstrong is trying to implement into the school is 'the promotion of Western civilization.'

I confronted Mr. Armstrong on such a subject and he said that while Rome was not without its problems (like every civilization,) it was definitely the best model for us as Americans and it's one that, as Christians, we should be championing and teaching others to champion as well.

Academic freedom is this:

I asked President Armstrong whether he wanted to champion Nero's Rome, Constantine's Rome or Caesar Augustus' Rome...or if he was aware that the Romans regularly sat around and tried to think of different ways to torture people and if that was in line with what Christ has taught us.

I should clarify also: we are academically free in many of our classrooms...but citing where that academic freedom exists would mean that the freedom has the potential to be lost. It's academically free...as long as we don't mention we have the freedom or where it's at. But to me and to many of my peers who have gone on to very highly renowned graduate schools, it was an academically rigorous and challenging place.

Posted by: Danielle Bilbruck | August 15, 2007 6:14 PM

You see, our professors do not enjoy tenure...they have to watch their steps and not be quick to criticize student learning habits because they have mortgages to pay and mouths to feed. Think about all of the background before you comment on academic freedom.

Danielle - Thanks for your thoughtful insider's comments. You're right that academic rigor, excellence, and openness are often found in many otherwise less-than-ideal situations, usually thanks to good teachers. But the issue this story raises is about a professor's academic freedom--not so much a student's--and this is defined primarily by the existence of tenure. W/o tenure, professors are potentially muzzled, for exactly the reasons you describe.

Posted by: Steve Thorngate | August 15, 2007 6:23 PM

Steve,

I completely understand and agree with what you mean.

What I am saying is that I HATE the idea that because I come from a Christian university, i MUST be brainwashed. Do you know how damaging that is to my future education, to my career, to my future networking? Many could say that I just shouldn't have gone there, but the education that I was afforded was incredible and could not be matched elsewhere. It's just unfortunate that ignorant people continue to REMAIN ignorant instead of thinking that perhaps the situation is different than they think.

The professors don't have real freedom, I'll grant you that. But no one should take that and make it something where students are not properly educated at that school. My diploma says that I graduated from Colorado Christian University, and it will say the same thing as another student who was brainwashed...but because that unfortunate stereotype continues to be perpetuated, my diploma is worth less and less when the education I was given is qualified to be worth so much more.

Posted by: Danielle Bilbruck | August 15, 2007 6:28 PM

I just realized that the numbers I posted don't mean much if you don't understand that CCU is a small school...less than 1,000 undergrads. 7 teachers in 3 years is a huge blow.

Posted by: Danielle Bilbruck | August 15, 2007 6:34 PM

Danielle,

Thanks for your input. CCU has been through the wringer over the last decade, and it appears it isn't over.

Is there still goose poop everywhere? Can you walk across the pond at all in winter?
Is T.K. Murphy still around?

In regards to capitalism:

Unregenerate humans are self-interested. Capitalism attempts to channel this aspect of human nature most productively by offering compelling incentives for action.

Christians can overcome self-interest by responding to the call of Christ and obeying His commands.

The response to Christ does not guarantee positive social or personal outcomes! Rather, we are promised persecution and trials, in short the cross of Christ, for our decision.

The enemy of both systems is power, or the use of force. The use of force removes the restraint on self-interest which permits individuals from realizing mutual gains from exchange. The use of force likewise corrupts the message of the cross.

Christians ought to work first to eliminate force from their own habits. Second they should work to protect the victims of the use of force. Third they ought to work to restrain the use of force.

Only Christians are capable of acting out of conscious virtue in imitation of Christ in the renunciation of, protection from, and resistance of force unselfishly. In other words, most people can take care of themselves fine so long as they allowed to defend themselves and care for themselves out of self interest. But for the defenseless and incapable God has provided the Church as a means for overcoming this world.

Capitalism works up to a point, but it neglects the least of these. It does tend to raise the welfare of all participants albeit disproportionately. Christianity has as its unique mandate to care for those who are stuck outside of the Capitalist system.

Nathanael Snow

Posted by: jurisnaturalist | August 15, 2007 7:52 PM

He published 21 articles, clearing the bar of 15, while (again) writing materials used in their own courses.

You just don't get it. How many of those were he first author, how many were co-authored with either his post-doc buddies from Washington or his previous doctoral advisor(s)? How many were original research not related to his previous work? How many were tied to major grant funding initiated research for ISU? 15 isn't some automatic number where you collect $200 and pass go.

I disagree.

Noted.

First of all, anyone who believes in God (and I know that you do not) believes that there is an intelligent designer. As such, any intellectually consistent theistic scientist ought to be interested in unraveling how the universe may have been created intelligently.

Sure, or you can just believe God works in mysterious ways. Not a very parsimonious position from which to begin the investigation, but I digress...

Your point that ID is automatically invalid as scientific theory,

Well, since nobody has actually published or proposed what could properly be defined as "scientific theory", sure they have some guesses, Behe and IC, Dembski and CSI, but they even know it's not a theory. The Discovery Institute itself knows that and has said as much. So I have a valid point that it is NOT a scientific theory.

and research done regarding ID is automatically dismissable

Until they do publish and submit to peer-review it IS dismissable, much like I can dismiss most herbal claims as they have not gone through peer-review.

only augments my point regarding the lack of academic freedom in secular schools.

Your point is further diminished.

Posted by: aaron | August 15, 2007 8:51 PM

Kevin, Do they teach evolution at Pomona College?

Posted by: justintime | August 15, 2007 10:21 PM

Nathanael,

The goose poop is still there, they took out the pond for landscaping purposes and I don't know who Murphy is.

I agree with your last paragraph, but I cannot agree that only Christians can enact the virtues that Christ holds for his church. I have seen many a non-Christian do it much better than i.

also, to the person who thinks that the alumni should speak out against Armstrong: we have...there are still many financial tanks willing to pour money into the way he runs things.

Posted by: Danielle Bilbruck | August 15, 2007 10:29 PM

For those of you questioning the release of a professor with only a masters degree, may I remind you that the president of CCU himself does not have a degree. He leans on his political experience and "honorary doctorates." And given the global experience of Professor Paquin/Syed with the 10/10 project, Armstrong has little, if at all, any leverage with respect to academic experience. My graduation from CCU in '05 gives me a higher education than the president of the institution in which I am an alum.

In my opinion, the key to this situation is that CCU was recently denied funds by the federal court provided by the state to students who stay in state to pursue a college degree. The court ruled CCU is "pervasively sectarian." More so now than ever. And if CCU is to have any hope of receiving this money, they are running in the wrong direction. In fact, CCU's strategic objective of free enterprise has dropped them on a double edged sword. A good portion of CCU' monetary donations come from people whom most would label religious conservatives. So when a professor "seems" to be teaching something other than donor's beliefs, the school falls under pressure and has chosen to quiet the noise by ridding the school of intelligent professors. The product of this, as I said above, is rejected state funds most private Christian schools wouldn't have a chance at anyway, let alone schools with the mentality of the current administration of CCU.

Posted by: Mike M | August 15, 2007 10:52 PM

It is if you aren't Gonzalez, by and large.

Ok, if YOU say so.

I know what the talking points are, but any way you slice his accomplishments, there is simply no way anyone else is denied tenure for having accomplished what he accomplished.

Many qualified people are passed for tenure. Gonzalez failed to engage in and find funding for research, and ISU being a research university, this tends to be a big thing. I know you know what the talking points are as you cannot deviate from them without easily losing the argument.

I think you know well what I mean, which is that any effort to elevate the legitimacy of ID is automatically dismissed.

That's the claim that hasn't been established.

You back over yourself here.

No, just your typical lack of reading comprehension and desire to argue with what you want the person to have said rather than what they actually said.

Is submission for peer review important or no?

Yes, which is where the ID'sts fail, as they seem to not even submit (with a few teeny tiny exceptions) manuscripts to academic journals, but they have plenty of time to write quacked out books, go on church speaking tours, or spend their tenure track time writing books to a non-literate public about misrepresentations of science they'll never understand.

I mean, you're tooting Gonzalez's horn here and his publications. Why is his ID "research" never submitted to the same peers the other much touted papers are?

Or is it important only up to the point it benefits Gonzalez, and not at any other point? Which argument are you making here?

You seem to be under the mistaken notion that:

1) I'm trying to have my cake and eat it too
2) All publications are equal
3) That 15 is some magical admittance number, when it's merely a "we'll consider your application now" minimum
4) That there is some conspiracy to keep IDists from publishing (hint they don't even submit, so how can they be rejected?)
5) Failure to initiate and publish work independent of past associates does not factor into the tenure process (strange for one who usually applauds the entrepreneurial spirit)
6) Failure to get significant grant funding at a research university does not factor into the tenure process

For the record, there is no real theory as to how the universe began.

And that has what to do with ID's pseudoscience?

The big bang theory takes us from a certain point, but what began it all?

Good question, anyone who claims to know the answer is a certified nut.

Research into the origins of all existence ought to be legitimate, and Darwin does nothing to get us there.

Well I wouldn't think so either, as Darwin was about how species change in time, not sure why you're invoking him here.

At any rate, just as Christian colleges expel ideas that run contrary to biblical truth, so secular schools expel ideas that are consonant with biblical truth. As such, secular schools teach that which is false.

Ah, I see, you are a certified nut.

Posted by: aaron | August 15, 2007 11:07 PM

Danielle,

Just to clarify:
I was careful to qualify my statement by stating that only Christians can act consciously and unselfishly at the same time. I ought to add to this rationally.

No individual has a rational explanation for acting unselfishly, unless they are hoping for some future benefit, in which case they are again acting selfishly.

The uniqueness of the Christian Ethic is that we have already been promised our reward. It is unconditional. So acting unselfishly now is done purely in imitation of Christ, and remains peculiarly rational.

No unregenerate individual can make the same claim and no other religion I know of makes this claim either.

Nathanael Snow

Posted by: jurisnaturalist | August 15, 2007 11:48 PM

Errata: Please substitute 'the right person' for 'the right man'.

Posted by: justintime | August 16, 2007 12:01 AM

"Ok, if YOU say so."

You first made the case the Gonzalez doesn't get credit for articles prior to ISU. I noted that he meets the criteria either way. You then shifted gears. Even if I cede your argument, he meets the criterion in letter, and blows the criterion out of the water in spirit.

Incidentally, the department's tenure policy has says this about published work:

"For promotion to associate professor, excellence sufficient to lead to a national or international reputation is required and would ordinarily be shown by the publication of approximately fifteen papers of good quality in refereed journals."

Not only has Gonzalez appeared in refereed journals, he has served as the referee himself.

Gonzalez's peers concede that his embrace of intelligent design influenced their decision. Gonzalez was the victim of an overzealous religious studies prof. (whose own ideas would classify him as a nut much moreso than mine). There is simply no way that Gonzalez is one of the very few to be denied tenure if he doesn't embrace ID.

You can argue whether that is fair, but that is the reason, and that does not constitue academic freedom in my view.

"You seem to be under the mistaken notion that:

1) I'm trying to have my cake and eat it too"

You are.

"2) All publications are equal"

I have not made this argument.

"3) That 15 is some magical admittance number, when it's merely a "we'll consider your application now" minimum"

See above.

"4) That there is some conspiracy to keep IDists from publishing (hint they don't even submit, so how can they be rejected?)"

Publishing what? Gonzalez published plenty.

5) Failure to initiate and publish work independent of past associates does not factor into the tenure process (strange for one who usually applauds the entrepreneurial spirit)

Where so you see that Gonzalez has failed to initiate and publish work? He has consistently done so. I have plenty of criticisms of the tenure process as they relate to the entrepreneurial spirit, but that is not what this is about.

6) Failure to get significant grant funding at a research university does not factor into the tenure process"

This is all you have to stand on, but it is not an expressly stated reason, and many who had not received grant funding were granted tenure. It factors is for political reasons, and Gonzalez was certainly denied tenure for political reasons, but not for this one.

"And that has what to do with ID's pseudoscience?"

That it is one means of attempting to explain what has yet to be explained. I disagree that ID consitutes pseudoscience.

"Well I wouldn't think so either, as Darwin was about how species change in time, not sure why you're invoking him here."

Simply to illustrate how far scientific theory is from explaining how the universe began. Further, you cannot deny that much of the anti-ID fervor is based on the fact that it runs afoul of evolutionary theory.

"Ah, I see, you are a certified nut."

You find all Christians to be nuts, or at least those who believe the Bible to be literally true in any substantive way.

Posted by: kevin s. | August 16, 2007 12:12 AM

Professor Paquin,

Thank you for your comments. It sounds as though you were treated unfairly. I am sorry to hear that.

Posted by: kevin s. | August 16, 2007 12:18 AM

Kevin: "But if trying to prove the existence of an intelligent designer is out of bounds, then, for Christians, the scientific community is incapable of discovering the truth."
....
Could you run that by me again, Kevin?
....
Kevin: "For the record, and I think you know this and are hoping to start an argument, I do not consider the Genesis account of creation to be a myth."
....
Do you think Genesis should be advanced as a theory for the origin of the universe - and be examined by science?
....
justintime: "I believe the universe always was."
kevin: "I believe that God always has been."
....
Can we agree so far, Kevin?
....
Then you say: "Will you concede that either phenomena has yet to be adequately explained by science, which has yet to find a way to account for the concept of eternal history?"
....
What's the logical punch line on this line of reasoning, Kevin?

Posted by: justintime | August 16, 2007 12:31 AM

"Could you run that by me again, Kevin?"

I am beginning with the assumption, as a Christian, that the universe was designed by God. As such, any scientific inquiry that rejects the idea of an intelligent designer out of hand cannot result in truth. If it can, then I have faith in a non-existent God.

"Do you think Genesis should be advanced as a theory for the origin of the universe - and be examined by science? "

Absolutely.

"What's the logical punch line on this line of reasoning, Kevin?"

Based on your previous posts, the line would be that science cannot explain God, but I would amend that to say that science has simply not explained that way God created the universe.

Posted by: kevin s. | August 16, 2007 12:44 AM

Let me begin by saying that I wholeheartedly support Andrew Paquin's case. My statements in the Rocky Mountain News article demonstrates that: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/education/article/0,1299,DRMN_957_5670848,00.html

I, like Danielle, am an insider, both through my involvement with the 10/10 Project as well as the numerous classes I had with him. My opinion is that CCU’s dismissal of Andrew Paquin represents a travesty of everything a university should be; namely, a template for learning, dialogue, and the free exchange of ideas.

There is little I can add to the comments by Danielle and Andrew. I second the opinion that his classes were balanced, unobtrusive, and his endorsement of any idea or ideology was always qualified. In a nutshell, it was a mistake to dismiss Andrew Paquin.

But like Danielle I maintain that the fault here lies with the administration, and particularly President Armstrong. Those of you who have questioned the qualities of Christian universities should think twice. Through CCU, I spent two semester abroad studying at the University of Oxford, with around 75 other students from Christian colleges around the U.S. No, this program was not an extension of our Christian colleges. We were exposed, in full, to the life of a student at one of the world's finest universities. Our professors (they call them tutors), except in theology, were generally not religious, and they hardly fit the mold that many tend to lump Christian into. Our professors at Oxford were and are world-class scholars, on top of the academic world. Their books have won international prizes, they have edited prestigious journals like the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, and they have taken research and teaching fellowships at many of the world's leading universities. And do you know what they said about us "Christian college students?" That we are some of the most lively, intelligent, industrious, and free-thinking students they encounter at Oxford. And as a product of the questionable Colorado Christian University, I was told by two Oxford professors that I fell roughly on the border between an Oxford "First" and "Second." Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher were both Oxford "Seconds." The point is that CCU is not an institution that brainwashes students; rather, its fine professors are competently preparing students for successful work at the world's leading universities. Andrew Paquin was one of these fine professors. The problem lies with the administration.

What do I attribute this to? Like Danielle, I attribute this to professors which, despite their personal convictions, encourage their students to interact with the world and its ideas. Never once while at CCU did I feel my thinking was limited by anything. Having been raised to be politically and intellectually conservative, it was at CCU that I experienced by first faith crisis, my first crisis of belief (faith, politics, or otherwise), and at CCU that I largely worked out these crises. CCU has been, and can still be, a place where students are able to embrace higher learning and all it entails. Professors like Andrew Paquin make it possible; his dismissal does not sound the death knell of academic freedom at Christian colleges. It is important, however, that dynamic and engaging professors like him remain at CCU.

And if Christian colleges do not foster this academic freedom, how do you explain the success of Christian college students when they go on to "real" universities? My Christian college friends that attended the Oxford program with me are making their way to some of the finest institutions in the world, three of which were awarded nice fellowships to attend Yale.

As for me, a 2007 graduate of CCU, I was awarded the John K. Rice Fellowship to the Ph.D program at the University of Colorado at Boulder. This is their top fellowship for historians of British history. Is Andrew Paquin's firing a travesty? Yes. Does it mean that Christian colleges cannot be respectable places of learning? No. With enough effort of concerned people like yourselves, we can "put them back on the map."

Posted by: Trevor Simmons | August 16, 2007 1:40 AM

"Do you think Genesis should be advanced as a theory for the origin of the universe - and be examined by science? "

Absolutely.

It was examined starting about 200 years ago, and found severely lacking in supporting evidence.

Posted by: aaron | August 16, 2007 7:33 AM

If anyone actually wants to help Paquin and preserve academic integrity in the face of ---- here is a link to sign a petition started by a student of CCU.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/AndrewPaquinatCCU/

Posted by: Dave | August 16, 2007 8:23 AM

Please...everyone and anyone...sign that petition. Thus far, we've only had student and alum signatures, which carry weight, but not enough. If we have community members signing this petition...well, we may not get Professor Paquin/Syed back, but we will make some changes in this university.

Posted by: Danielle Bilbruck | August 16, 2007 10:23 AM

Danielle,

First let me apologies for my comment regarding indoctrination and brainwashing. I did not mean to imply that any particular person had been brainwashed or even that every Christian college and/or institution engaged in that behavior.

When I wrote that post, I was angry and spoke/posted hastily. I don't completely take back what I said, but I admit that it was way too general and lacked fairness. When we speak in anger, we often are (at least I am). So I apologize for the insult - I was out of line.

The reason for my anger is this - I'm an academic librarian and when I first came into the field, I did apply at some smaller Bible colleges and Christian institutions near family. I was appalled at the contract I would have had to sign. That contract would have muzzled me regarding what I would say, even off the clock. It also dictated what I could and could not believe, which really offended me. Interestingly enough, having been raised as a Baptist, I was always taught that only the wicked tries to prevent people from speaking out and that it was my duty as a Christian to speak out against tyranny - even within the Church.

In the end, I joined the library at a state-run, research institution. But as a librarian, I have become very alarmed over these last six years at the level of censorship that is happening before the students even see anything. (Many government documents that were freely available are no longer availalle to anyone - and this started happening BEFORE 9/11). And talking to some librarians at these Christian institutions, I know that there is pressure put on the librarians not to buy certain types of books. Like it or not, that does result in muzzling academic freedom. I feel it's dangerous because one of the easiest ways to manipulate people is to allow access that only supports a certain viewpoint of those in charge. It's what dictatorships do - book burning is very popular and it happens at both extremes.

Re: evolution v. creationism or ID. As a librarian, I want materials covering both aspects. My job is not to say what is true, but to provide access to both points of view, regardless of my personal feelings. Which also means buying Ann Coulter AND Jim Wallis. The discussion as to the scientific validity has to happen within the discipline.

Posted by: Charity | August 16, 2007 10:50 AM

If you agree with this statement...

"With his practical and experiential knowledge in the non-profit sector, as well as his relentless passion for empowering the poor and marginalized, Professor Andrew Paquin should remain an asset to the Global Studies Department of Colorado Christian University."

...please sign the petition at:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/AndrewPaquinatCCU/

I did.

Posted by: justintime | August 16, 2007 12:10 PM

Please...everyone and anyone...sign that petition.

Not going to sign. This is a private institution and they have the right to assemble their faculty as they see fit. It is not a state school with tax dollors - the student makes a choice wheather to go there or not.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | August 16, 2007 2:03 PM

I agree that academic freedom and censorship are issues worthy of discussion. However, I think we miss the point by debating whether it was just to fire this professor. For me, this is a prime example of how some religious conservatives mix and confuse Christianity with patriotism, or if you will, love of God and love of country. Jim Wallis addressed this in God's Politics, "Since when did believing in God and having moral values make you pro-war, pro-rich, and pro-Republican?" Since when is capitalism and the free market part of Jesus' Gospel message?

Somehow in certain circles being pro-America is part and parcel with their faith: criticize America and suddenly you have committed heresy. They often fail to remember JW's other oft quoted point, "God is not an American."

As Christians we all need to understand that our country, our citizenry, and our government are not above the laws of God. America doesn't get a buy simply because some believe we are the greatest nation on earth due to Divine Providence. America does evil things. Just because we try not to do evil or we do fewer evil things than other countries doesn't make it OK. Evil is unfavorable to God regardless of who does it.

I think this situation provides an ironic opportunity for further support of the separation of church and state. But what we need to do is not keep God out of the White House, but keep the flag out of church. I think the real heresy is equating American patriotism with being a good Chrisitian.

Posted by: CKC | August 16, 2007 2:12 PM

"don't even attempt to submit their ID 'research" to the proper chaneels, so how would we know? (note: they do submit their mainstream research [i.e. all of Gonzalez's works SANS his ID stuff]to the proper channels, see the difference?)"

Gonzalez ID work was based on the same research as that which was submitted for peer review.

"His candidacy did have merit, in that he met the minimum qualifications to be CONSIDERED, but being considered is a far cry from meeting a minimum criteria and then automatically getting in, see the difference?"

15 is not described as a minimum standard. It is described as a means of proving ones national and international influence. Further, there is no requirement that all of his work be during his time at ISU. This is a contrivance used to explain his denial of tenure after the fact.

That said, I do see a difference between the minimum standard and a compelling case for tenure. One might also expect his work to be referenced by other researchers extensively (it is) and that he be considered an excellent instructor (he is).

His work is rated as the most influential amongst his colleagues in his own department according to standards created by the ADS. He has had more citiations of his work DURING his time at ISU than any other professor in the department.

Further, he would have undoubtedly published more had he not been working on two textbooks, one of which is the intro. textbook used by his own school. Should professors not write textbooks in order to pad their submissions to journals?

Professors do not solely exist to bring in the big bucks. Otherwise, scores of professors would have to be denied tenure solely on this criterion. A number of professors have admitted that their vote was based on the ID issue, so I am not just making it up.

And yes, it presents a problem when the scientific community dismisses ID as science on the basis that it isn't science, and refeuses to allow scientific inquiry. What happened at ISU is a breach of academic freedom.

Posted by: kevin s. | August 16, 2007 3:32 PM

Prof. John Hauptman (who opposed Gonzalez) writes in his own editorial, stating the following.

" Intelligent design is the notion that a supreme being arranged it for us.

The Greeks thought in a similar way. Grains grew, so there had to be a god Ceres who managed this. The oceans had waves and tides and sank ships, so the god Poseidon was responsible for these. There was love and war and lightning, and a god for each: Aphrodite, Ares and Zeus.

We are past this way of thinking about nature. If one person exemplifies this, it is Galileo, who argued that just thinking about what you see and imagining reasons are not enough. You must test your ideas with measurements, and your ideas (your "theory") must not only agree with all previous measurements, but also predict the results of measurements that have not yet been made. Any single wrong prediction, and you must junk the theory.

Intelligent design is not even a theory. It has not made its first prediction, nor suffered its first test by measurement. Its proponents can call it anything they like, but it is not science."

That is his case in it's entirety.

He concludes by stating this his decision...

"...is purely a question of what is science and what is not, and a physics department is not obligated to support notions that do not even begin to meet scientific standards."

In other words, it is purely a question of whether intelligent design is science. That comes from him, and not Casey Luskin.

Posted by: kevin s. | August 16, 2007 4:26 PM

Intelligent Design is not a theory of the origin of the universe or a theory of anything else.
Intelligent Design is simply not science.

If you talk to ID groupies, you will first hear them attack Darwin's theory of the origin of species.
They argue that evolution is flawed science.

Then you will hear them propose that ID be taught alongside evolution in the high school science curriculum.
Their idea is that once high school students are exposed to both ID and the evolution of species, they can make up their own minds on they should believe, the evolution of species or the Book of Genesis.

ID is just a Trojan Horse for Christianizing the science curriculum in our public schools and breaking the firewall between their religion and the American government.
In this respect, ID is anti-science and also anti US Constitution.

I won't have my kids wasting any of their precious time on this Trojan Horse.

Posted by: justintime | August 16, 2007 6:19 PM

(continued)

journals. If the hypothesis stands up to such tests, it becomes a theory. ID is not, by definition, a theory, nor is it even close to becoming one. Evolution is a theory, and by definition has been subjected to rigorous testing.

Sorry about the weird gap there--somehow the message posted spontaneously before I was finished.

Posted by: Squeaky | August 16, 2007 8:02 PM