Wrong. As with any group that refuses to play by the rules -- in this case that your views must first succeed, on merit, as science before they deserve a place in science curricula -- and instead pursues affirmative action, bar lowering, or other special dispensation; "diplomacy" and other forms of appeasement will only encourage them to pursue such illegitimate avenues more vigorously.
Surely you would agree with this principle if the focus were on appeals for affirmative inclusion of environmentalism (as opposed to scientific ecology), of identity group icons in history, or any of the numerous curricular emendations constantly sought, and too often obtained, by the political left.
The only appropriate and effective response to this is absolute, unapologetic and unbending INSISTENCE and high and hard-nosed academic standards; restricting curricula to covering material with objective academic merit.
When creationism, or ID, or any non- or extra- evolutionary view has earned such merit, I have no objection to teaching it, which in such case will happen as a matter of course anyway. In the meantime I'm not "shifting" one single, solitary inch.
The rules themselves are evolving. Change is a painful thing--you're throwing away the good cards in your hand from sheer emotion. Not that I expect you to listen to me. It's more amusing that you don't. It's clear to me how you could easily win the day, but tantrums and whining work against you.