Nope. Verified by a letter from the Smithsonian(Sheila P. Burke, Deputy Secretary and Chief Operating Officer) to Congressman Souder dated May 3, 2006 which stated that "Dr. von Sternberg is a Research Assoociate in good standing at NMNH."
The proof is in the report. It says there was no evidence for mishandling, yet right there in the emails is evidence for mishandling.
Again someone's opinion is not evidence. The record again shows, more specifically than the letter above since it was written directly to Sternberg, that First, you requested a letter of apology from Secretary Small to you stating that you did not break any Smithsonian rule, regulation or policy, and acknowledging that your reputation has been affected by statements made by staff of the National Museum of Natural History(NMNH). With this letter let me confirm that you fulfilled all of your responsibilities as a Research Associate with the Institution and that you are a Research Associate in good standing.
Technically, no, Shapiro isn't an IDer, but he's open-minded. I was talking about the general debate.
Okay so Shapiro's statement remains that there is an inquisitive populace who believes that neo-Darwinism does not solve some biological issues.
So the scientists all not wanting to work with him anymore because of what he pulled never happened?
Scientific reputation is a bit more involved than a few pissed off people not wanting to work with you.
Back in reality, the scientists at the SI got pissed.
NCSE is not SI and "NCSE HAD NO BUSINESS..."
And yet we still sit here, after all of these exchanges, with no provable harm done to Sternberg by the management for his beliefs
Repeatedly, I have stated that Sternberg was the target of a witch hunt. This is from a letter to SI which prompted SI's reply mentioned above. The letter was from Senator Santorum and Representative Souder.
Specifically, the OSC found that had Dr. Sternberg been protected by Title V of U.S. Code, the NMNH staff would have violated Section 2303(b)(10) referring to the prohibition on personnel to discriminate against an employee for non-job related activities. Additionally, the OSC found that "there is strong religious and political component to the actions taken after the publication of the Meyer article." The OSC letter concludes that the retaliation against Dr. Sternberg was supported by the evidence: "Our preliminary investigation indicates that retaliation came in many forms. It came in the form of attempts to change your working conditions and even proposals to change how the SI retains and deals with future RAs. During the process you were personally investigated and your professional competence attacked. Misinformation was disseminated throughtout the SI and to outside sources. The allegations against you were later determined to be false. It is clear that a hostile work environment was created with the ultimate goal of forcing you out of the SI."
No, a letter wasn't sent directly to him about his overdue books. No, nobody ever complained about his keeping artifacts for far too long. No, nobody ever complained about his not managing inter-institutional transfers properly. No, nobody ever complained that he didn't keep artifacts in good condition. Someone might think that if he read the report or the DI press releases, but it's all right there in the emails.
Sure, the management let that slide and still considered him to be in good standing. Some persecution, huh? I think they just said that because they wanted the IDer attacks to go away. There was a lot of political pressure on them, as you have surely noticed.
The letter was from Senator Santorum and Representative Souder.
Two ultra-religious DI proponents who have an interest in promoting the lie of a persecution.
And I'm still trying to find evidence of any misinformation about him. Haven't found any yet, except from the IDers, of course.