Well the article you presented was not promotional material, but I will accept the citation as discussion material. Stein does say people were fired and did say Sternberg lost his job.
Your example of people losing their positions I will also accept as losing a job, however, Ms Comer evidently resigned. Taking that as an example Dr. Sternberg also resigned from the editorship of the publication at the center of his controversy. He indicates so on his site, but unlike Ms. Comer he does not indicate pressure from the journal. He does indicate pressure from the Smithsonian. To make a long story short, the U.S. OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL does indicate pressure from the Smithsonian on Sternberg due to his activities as the editor. This is validated by a simple reading of the email traffic. This pressure would be illegal had Sternberg been an employee, but due to recent legal decisions he was not considered to be covered by the law which protects the "employees" of the Smithsonian. Somehow Darwinians justify that treatment simply because he was not an employee, because it was legal. It is also legal to have an anchor baby, but is that activity right? Be that as it may, his treatment was worse than your example. Your article indicates that Ms Comer was legitimately treated for activities counter to the workplace from the workplace.
The move came shortly after Comer forwarded an e-mail announcing a presentation being given by the author of Inside Creationism's Trojan Horse. In the book, author Barbara Forrest says creationist politics are behind the movement to get intelligent design theory taught in public schools. Comer sent the e-mail to several individuals and a few online communities.
Here the TEA indicates one of the reasons for her treatment.
"Ms. Comer's e-mail implies endorsement of the speaker and implies that TEA endorses the speaker's position on a subject on which the agency must remain neutral," the officials said.
It is up to the TEA to decide what the policy is for TEA employee's and not the employee. I work for the government and there are things that I cannot do. One of which is exactly what she did(notice the word politics in the description of the book). I would have broken the law had I done what she did, but she is a state employee. There are other activities of Ms Comer noted in the article that also are not beneficial to a career.
I don't have time to take your suggestion, but I think it might be very interesting. But I can also provide evidence that real or not there is a perceived danger to espousing ID within the centers of learning.
Nature 434, 1062-1065 (28 April 2005)
doi: 10.1038/4341062a
In contrast, William Dembski, a mathematician at Baylor University in Texas and another prominent intelligent-design researcher, says that he is no longer allowed to teach on campus. "Essentially I've had about a five-year sabbatical," he complains. Stories such as Dembski's make some intelligent-design supporters fearful of expressing their views in public. One researcher, approached by Nature for this article, declined to be interviewed because he did not yet have tenure.
Addendum
Comer said she paused for a moment before forwarding the Forrest e-mail, but she felt sending it was OK because of Forrest's credentials.
Why did she pause?
Ben Stein is the primary spokesman for the movie. He traveled the country giving promotional interviews. Quibbling over whether interviews — most of which were made into Internet videos — constitute promotional “materials” is equivocation.
You haven’t yet said what job Sternberg lost. Nor have you named anyone else who was fired. Sternberg’s term as editor expired. The article he greased through was in his last issue. What job did he lose?
From the Baylor University mission statement:
“Baylor is founded on the belief that God’s nature is made known through both revealed and discovered truth. Thus, the University derives its understanding of God, humanity, and nature from many sources: the person and work of Jesus Christ, the biblical record, and Christian history and tradition, as well as scholarly and artistic endeavors. In its service to the church, Baylor’s pursuit of knowledge is strengthened by the conviction that truth has its ultimate source in God and by a Baptist heritage that champions religious liberty and freedom of conscience.”
Are you suggesting that a university is forbidden by law from deciding what gets taught and who gets to teach it? The fact the Dembski was paid for five years for doing nothing will surely affect tenure applications of people who oppose empiricism in science. Can you think of a legal or rational reason it shouldn’t?