Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Blogs | Writers | Paid | My Orble | Login

The Rationale Quest - Politics, Economics and Philosophy

 
Explore the latent response of philosophy and philosophy to the global economic arena. Early posts include the study of heresies in the early church and the problems of Liberalism and Raw Capitalism in our times

Wanna be a professor? Then shut up.

October 3rd 2007 22:14
Cathy Young seems right on Norman Finkelstein, a professor and ideologue -- with no publication record -- who was denied tenure. But this passage baffles me:

Somewhat similar issues are raised by a tenure case at Iowa State University, where astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez was denied tenure last month despite a stellar teaching and publication record. Gonzalez is a fellow at the Discovery Institute, which supports "intelligent design," and the co-author of the 2004 book, Privileged Planet, which champions this theory. While the university claimed that the rejection of Gonzalez was based on his inability to raise research grant money, some of his colleagues have admitted that their vote against him was based his advocacy of "intelligent design."

Writing in The Weekly Standard, David Klinghoffer has decried the decision as a blow to academic freedom, claiming that Gonzalez is being punished for "the expression—outside the classroom—of an inconvenient personal belief."

Yet Gonzalez is not being penalized for expressing his personal belief in, say, the resurrection of Christ as a miracle outside the laws of nature. His advocacy of "intelligent design" amounts to promotion of ideologically motivated junk science. Even if he does not bring this advocacy into the classroom, a science department can be rightfully concerned about its reputation being used to lend credence to an anti-science crusade.

How could any reasonable person think this is OK? His job is astronomy, and he's great at it. If he were using his university title for something not only factually wrong but morally repugnant -- say, KKK recruiting -- there would be a point. But advocating an unpopular theory on his own time? That doesn't just hurt academic freedom; it dangles professorships in front of people, telling them to shut up permanently if they hold the wrong beliefs. And by the way, I thought Intelligent Design was just another religion-inspired form of creationism. Remember, Cathy Young? So how is advocating Intelligent Design any different from advocating a belief in "the resurrection of Christ as a miracle outside the laws of nature"? Presumably, if God resurrected Christ, it's also possible he created the world and guided its evolution, no? How is either belief more scientific or "anti-science" than the other?

81
Vote
Add To: del.icio.us Digg Furl Spurl.net StumbleUpon Yahoo


   
subscribe to this blog 


   

   


Add A Comment

To create a fully formatted comment please click here.


CLICK HERE TO LOGIN | CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

Name or Orble Tag
Home Page (optional)
Comments
Bold Italic Underline Strikethrough Separator Left Center Right Separator Quote Insert Link Insert Email
Notify me of replies
Your Email Address
(optional)
(required for reply notification)
Submit
More Posts
1 Posts
4 Posts
3 Posts
503 Posts dating from December 2006
Email Subscription
Receive e-mail notifications of new posts on this blog:
0

Tapsearch Com Editor's Blogs

11091 Vote(s)
75 Comment(s)
166 Post(s)
15777 Vote(s)
145 Comment(s)
249 Post(s)
11277 Vote(s)
158 Comment(s)
183 Post(s)
Copyright © 2012 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]