Replies

Clearly you are intolerant of people that do not agree with your opinion on evolution. That is the definition of bigotry.

Hmmm… This comes from another forum from an individual who is neither ID nor neo-darwin friendly:

Academia has some rather odd standards and I’m not sure they are altogether “academic.” Recently the Chairman of the Department of Ethnic Studies at my alma mater said, in so many words, that the victims of 911 deserved what they got; comparing them (or at least those who worked in the financial industry) to NAZI’s. Judging by previous experience he’s not likely to face anything other than a few words of impotent indignation. Because just last summer the president of the university said that calling rape victims “c***s” could be considered “flattering” in some contexts. She, i.e., she, is still the president of the university. I expect he will remain chairman of his department.
Calling the victims of 911 “little Eichman’s” or rape victims “c***s”… OK. Saying that maybe the “Cambrian Explosion” occurred too rapidly to be accounted for by existing theory---Kiss your career goodbye!

Is this bigotry or just your garden variety dogmatism? Now he goes on to say :

“Political correctness” is an attack on our fundamental rights. It has proven to be a powerful and sustained attack. It has very powerful advocates—like university presidents and chairmen. They are not merely “advocates.” They are in positions of power. They have the power to enforce—their beliefs… And they do.

Now this relates to the OP because Sternberg, who at one time was respected, allowed Meyer’s paper to be published is experiencing this:

In October, as the OSC complaint recounts, Mr. Coddington told Mr. Sternberg to give up his office and turn in his keys to the departmental floor, thus denying him access to the specimen collections he needs. Mr. Sternberg was also assigned to the close oversight of a curator with whom he had professional disagreements unrelated to evolution. "I'm going to be straightforward with you," said Mr. Coddington, according to the complaint. "Yes, you are being singled out." Neither Mr. Coddington nor Mr. Sues returned repeated phone messages asking for their version of events.
Mr. Sternberg begged a friendly curator for alternative research space, and he still works at the museum. But many colleagues now ignore him when he greets them in the hall, and his office sits empty as "unclaimed space." Old colleagues at other institutions now refuse to work with him on publication projects, citing the Meyer episode. The Biological Society of Washington released a vaguely ecclesiastical statement regretting its association with the article. It did not address its arguments but denied its orthodoxy, citing a resolution of the American Association for the Advancement of Science that defined ID as, by its very nature, unscientific.

But beyond this… they are allowed to publish non-related peer-reviewed articles against ID:

Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2003; 4: 143-63. Creationism and intelligent design.
by Pennock, RT.
Lyman Briggs School and Department of Philosophy, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48825, USA.
Abstract: Creationism, the rejection of evolution in favor of supernatural design, comes in many varieties besides the common young-earth Genesis version. Creationist attacks on science education have been evolving in the last few years through the alliance of different varieties. Instead of calls to teach "creation science," one now finds lobbying for "intelligent design" (ID). Guided by the Discovery Institute's "Wedge strategy," the ID movement aims to overturn evolution and what it sees as a pernicious materialist worldview and to renew a theistic foundation to Western culture, in which human beings are recognized as being created in the image of God. Common ID arguments involving scientific naturalism, "irreducible complexity," "complex specified information," and "icons of evolution," have been thoroughly examined and refuted. Nevertheless, from Kansas to Ohio to the U.S. Congress, ID continues lobbying to teach the controversy, and scientists need to be ready to defend good evolution education.

Keep in mind that this article was published in the Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics and had nothing to do with ‘human genetics’…