Your hypothetical assumes that any opinion expressed in this forum concerning this topic is relevant. I certainly do not think red herring and logical fallacies have any place in a truly fair discussion. Therefore, I would state that everything opined here does not deserve equal time in an academic workplace. Who decides? Those involved in the debate. But that is not the point of the film or my point. The point I believe the film attempts to make, is that there is "censorship" of an idea within the academic community.
The people who opine things here that those involved in the debate within the academic community decide don't deserve equal time are going to tell you they still are. Some people's opinions are going to have to be excluded. The logical basis to decide which ones do and don't get considered is going to be based on who can provide evidence that their opinions have scientific merit. Until the ID proponents can at least propose some methodology to test for positive evidence of ID, that's going to be problematic.