Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: AndrewC
That is paranoia since no congresscritter was breathing down anyone's neck.

Maybe not personally. But they were certainly worried about the possibility and the general political climate very early on: in September 2004, one person wrote "I was strongly advised that we do not make a 'martyr' out of Sternberg; you may be aware that there are powerful members of Congress who would rush to his defense." In another e-mail, which I can't locate right now, they worried about "lurid" hearings on Capitol Hill. So they were definitely worried about a political backlash.

Nevertheless, in 10/04, one of the managers wrote, "This issue has now been dealt with at length, and NMNH will not take action against Sternberg as he has not violated the SI-approved terms for Research Associates."

When his RA contract was up, he was given another contract as a Research Collaborator--in a letter dated 11/28/06: "It is a pleasure to inform you of your appointment as Research Collaborator at the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, for a period of three years."

Someone inquired on Sternberg's behalf about the difference between an RC and an RA, and this was the answer: "A [RA] works more closely with NMNH staff, often on joint projects....A [RC] is less closely involved with NMNH staff and generally works on his own projects using NMNH resources. [RA] and [RC] both have access to work space and to the collections they need for their projects."

So, far from being "expelled," he was given a new contract and more autonomy. However, he had to work with people who didn't love him, poor baby.

657 posted on 04/30/2008 2:52:36 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 641 | View Replies ]


To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
However, he had to work with people who didn't love him, poor baby.

You mischaracterize the record. The emails indicate that they did not want to work with him. His crime? He allowed the publication of an "ID" paper. As the email traffic clearly indicates his work was not the issue. The issue was, as hinted by the NCSE, which is not the SI, to destroy the paper. That should have been a cakewalk in their eyes by doing what is normally done publish an argument against the evidence or conclusions. Instead, they go to extremes to "get" the person that allowed such an affront to them. The email traffic certainly indicates that.

658 posted on 04/30/2008 3:26:19 PM PDT by AndrewC (You should go see "Expelled")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 657 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson