Scientist's Firing After 36 Years Fuels 'PC' Debate at UCLA

I'm not buying the school's argument. And 36 years? It's not easy to fire someone with that kind of tenure, although UCLA's Department of Public Health hired some non-tenured faculty members on a contract basis. That's great as far as performance standards are considered (folks wanting to inject more market approaches to university appointments, etc). But the dude's dismissal looks pretty politically motivated. The story's at Fox News:

Dr. Michael Siegel, professor and associate chairman at Boston University's School of Public Health, says the reasoning raises some red flags.

"The mission of the department is to study the impacts of the environment on human health and that's exactly what Enstrom does," Siegel told FoxNews.com. "…What the department appears to be saying is it's not the nature of his research but the nature of his findings."

Siegel says he doesn't even agree with a lot of Enstrom's findings, but he agrees with his right to relay them without fear of losing his job.

"The significance of this is a threat to academic freedom and it's also a threat to academic science," Siegel said. "If scientists have to produce work that meets a certain view to keep their jobs, researchers are going to stop publishing negative findings for fear of being fired."

But UCLA says Enstrom's findings had nothing to do with his dismissal.

"The nature of research results, political views or popularity are not appropriate factors and are not considered when evaluating individuals for reappointment," Hilary Godwin, associate dean for academic programs at UCLA's School of Public Health, said in a statement.

She said Enstrom's position at the school was non-tenured and was appointed for fixed terms that are renewable subject to established departmental and university review procedures.

Hat Tip: Moonbattery.