The Princeton Institute for Advanced Study is trying to fire this tenured
Dutch astronomer Piet Hut because he's gotten interested in consciousness
studies and religion. His vita shows he is still publishing stuff in
astronomy and computer science along with a few philosophical pieces.  It
sounds like another case of the Science Wars to me, except this time they are
trying to get rid of a working physical scientist rather than preventing a
sociologist of science like Latour or an historian of science like Norton
Wise from being hired.

Newspaper articles and the fellow's extensive vita may be found at:

http://balder.prohosting.com/afreedom/

I append the NY Times article of this month on the case.

Val Dusek

EDUCATION




IN PRINCETON, A SCHOLAR'S UNSEEMLY DISMISSAL
IN TURN, ASTROPHYSICIST FILES FEDERAL COUNTERSUIT

NEW YORK TIMES
New Jersey section
October 8, 2000

By JOHN SULLIVAN

PRINCETON. The Institute for Advanced Study here is the country's most
rarefied of ivory towers, counting more than a dozen Nobel laureates among
its past and present scholars. The faculty -- only 22 tenured professors --
is utterly free from teaching duties, spending time on research and mentoring
180 visiting scholars each year.

In its 70-year history -- which has included such eminences as Einstein and
the computer pioneer John von Neumann -- it never engaged in the unseemly
exercise of removing one of its own. Not until now.

<Picture>

A dispute with one professor has spilled into federal court, with the
institute accusing a Dutch astrophysicist, Piet Hut, of performing poorly,
and Dr. Hut insisting that his academic freedom has been infringed upon.

``The director told me in so many words that people were unhappy with me and
there was a pressure building for me to leave,'' he said.

Dr. Hut was the institute's youngest tenured faculty member when he was
appointed in 1985 at age 32. A specialist in astrophysics, he co-wrote a
formula that has become a standard for measuring the movement of stars, and
he helped design one of the world's fastest supercomputers.

But in July the dispute between Dr. Hut and the Institute bubbled up beyond
the academic world when its lawyers filed a suit at the federal court in
Trenton seeking to enforce an agreement that called for him to resign by
mid-2001.

Dr. Hut countersued, claiming that the institute was forcing him out because
``it disapproved of his ideas, beliefs and expressions.'' In interviews,
professors from some of the nation's leading universities spoke highly of Dr.
Hut's work.

The notion of the institute publicly squabbling with a professor, much less
taking him to court, is a striking break with its serene image. Indeed, Kevin
B. Leblang, the institute's lawyer, said the organization has never before
tried to remove a professor through the courts.

Dr. Hut claims that the institute is trying to force him out because of
dissatisfaction with the direction of his research. He said his specialty,
using computers to simulate the behavior of stars and galaxies, has fallen
out of favor at the Institute.

Moreover, he said his interest in links between Western science and Eastern
philosophy -- he recently co-founded an institute devoted to exploring the
concept -- has been questioned by traditional scholars.

But Dr. Hut said his outside interests have not distracted him or prevented
him from conducting valuable research.

``There has never been due process, a group of people evaluating my
research,'' he said in a recent interview. ``The only thing is insinuations;
that what you are doing is not that great.''

According to court papers, the institute hired Dr. Hut with the understanding
that he would ``develop into an outstanding astrophysicist with the ability
to carry on the leadership of the institute's astrophysics program.''

``Unfortunately, Hut failed to develop into an outstanding astrophysicist,
much less a leader in the field, and, as he has stated for over 10 years, his
interests changed to other areas of science and other fields,'' the complaint
says.

When Dr. Hut was offered one of the tenured positions, he was a rising young
star in astrophysics, one of the institute's most important departments. He
said that at the time it seemed enthusiastic about his proposals to measure
and simulate the behavior of the universe. But the good feelings soured
quickly.

By 1990, the institute claims, Dr. Hut agreed to start looking for a new job.
The pressure increased after 1993, when a committee of outside scholars from
the finest universities in the country reviewed the performance of the
institute's academic departments. It subsequently wrote a letter to the
institute concluding that Dr. Hut was ``not the right person to be the leader
of astrophysics at the institute.''

Dr. Hut, who said he has never seen the committee's full report, says the
visiting committee never intended to review individual faculty members'
performance. He said he did not have a chance to explain his research to the
committee and was not even told they would evaluate his record.

Three years later, the institute froze Dr. Hut's salary at $140,000 for
``continued substandard performance.'' By the end of 1996, after a protracted
negotiation, Dr. Hut signed a letter agreeing to leave the institute by
mid-2001.

It is difficult to tell why the institute sought Dr. Hut's dismissal. Asked
for the record of his work since joining the institute, he provided a list of
publications, a textbook -- ``The Gravitational Million-Body Problem,''
published by Cambridge University Press -- and evidence of work on research
projects and supercomputers.

Colleagues at the institute contacted for this article declined to comment;
the chairman of the visiting committee also did not want to be interviewed.

On the other hand, Dr. Hut offered a list of scientists from some of the
country's most distinguished universities who vouched for his record. Gerald
J. Sussman, a professor of electrical engineering at Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, described him as a ``well-known, high-quality guy.''

Edwin L. Turner, a professor of astrophysics at Princeton University, said
Dr. Hut ``carries on a quite reputable and legitimate research program.''

One trustee, Immanuel Kohn, said the institute did not want to publicly
debate Dr. Hut's performance, insisting the lawsuit was not intended as a
personal attack.

Mr. Kohn said the institute believed it had negotiated a contract with Dr.
Hut in good faith, and that he had refused to honor it.

Whether there was a binding contract is something the courts will have to
decide. In 1996, Dr. Hut signed a letter agreeing to leave, but he did not
sign a formal contract until last year that laid out the details of his
removal. In addition, the contract he finally signed, which was included in
the institute's court papers, allowed him seven days to change his mind --
and several days after he signed, Dr. Hut notified the institute that he did
not intend to leave as scheduled.

Mr. Kohn, a partner in the New York law firm Cahill Gordon & Reindel, said
Dr. Hut and the institute both lived under the agreement for several years
before Dr. Hut canceled it. He said the institute merely wants the court to
find that the contract is enforceable.

But Paul Schachter, Dr Hut's lawyer, said the federal Older Workers
Protection Act says that such contracts must be in the form that Dr. Hut
signed last year, and not as informal letters.

He also said the institute clearly violated rules that govern removal of
tenured professors at most universities. ``You cannot remove a tenured
professor from his position merely because you want to change the direction
of where you want to go,'' he said.

Copyright 2000 The New York Times Company