Potentially Troubling, But Hard To Figure Out Without More Information:

Several people pointed me to this story:

In 2001, [William C.] Bradford was hired as an associate professor at Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis. . . . [H]e's under fire, he said, because his ideas about the war on terror do not conform to views held by [two tenured professors]. . . . Bradford said the two [professors] voted consistently to deny him tenure, despite good academic ratings.

In March 2004, he said, he was told during a review that someone described him as "uncollegial."

That's the new kiss-of-death buzzword. "Faculty seeking to get rid of others claim they are not collegial," Bradford said. . . .

Bradford wrote a defense of the flag after 9/11 — one that hung in the school lobby until some faculty objected.

He refused to sign a letter sent by [one of the professors] defending Ward Churchill. He's the Colorado professor who called victims of 9/11 "little Eichmanns." . . .

The difficulty in this case, as in many others, is that it's so hard to tell exactly what's going on here. Actually, the story isn't even clear on what the current state of Bradford's tenure case is — was he denied tenure? Is the matter still being considered?

It's also not clear how strong the evidence is that the tenure decision was influenced (or is likely to be influenced, if the decision is still in the future) by the perceived lack of collegiality. From the story, it sounds like one stray comment, and it's not clear whether it was linked to political disagreement or just to some personal clash. (For some thoughts on whether true collegiality concerns should be considered in tenure decisions, see this post.) The story also quotes a professor who's saying that people are trying to drive Bradford away, but again it's hard to tell exactly what evidence there is that they're trying to drive him away because they disagree with his ideology (as opposed to, say, thinking that his scholarly work is badly reasoned).

Bradford does have a lot of publications for a junior scholar (the norm is two to five in the years before tenure, and he has much more than that), though I can't speak to their quality or meatiness. But in any event, without knowing more about how strong his tenure case is, how strong the evidence is that it's being blocked for political reasons, or for that matter what the status of his case is, it's hard to pass judgment. I wish that the Star piece gave us a little more to work with.