He pushed through a religious-grounded paper in a science paper that practically all scientists reviewing it said it had no business there.
He was not renewed as an RA as it was. They made him an RC. And you admit in the following quote the words "without a sponsor" are meaningless.
Had his sponsor still been alive, it would have been up to that sponsor to re-sponsor him for another period of three years as an RA when his time came up. His sponsor was dead, so, LIKE ANYONE ELSE, he had nobody to sponsor him for his next three years. Obviously he had such a poor reputation at the SI that nobody else ended up sponsoring him again. Thus the most he could do was become an RC.
if he had been an employee(another position that is a privelege not a right)
Had he been an employee, his position wouldn't have depended on him having a sponsor. In fact, he would be the sponsor.
Not prejudiced very much are you?
I'm sick of cards being played, any cards. And, yes, I saw exactly as described above. A useless woman gamed the system with her various cards for YEARS, and they were never able to get rid of her. Actually, the word useless is incorrect. She was worse than useless, a constant drain on the organization. Simply having nobody in her position would have been better. The bosses tried to do that, put her on the sidelines so she couldn't hurt anything, but she pulled another card and was right back in the game. New bosses would come in and not know what they were getting into. They would try to discipline her not knowing she already had all her cards in a row ready to screw them the moment they tried.
Get your facts straight. The paper was not "religious-grounded", though you may assert so. And even if it was, it would have still been illegal at the SI since the work was done outside of SI. Plus Roy McDiarmid, The Biological Society of Washington's president, wrote in an email
I have seen the review file and comments from 3 reviewers on the Meyer paper. All three with some differences among the comments recommended or suggested publication. I was surprised but concluded that there was not inappropriate behaviors a vis the review process. Whether one would consider the reviews appropriate is another issue and I would be pleased to share my views on that with you if you so desire.
ROY
Thus the most he could do was become an RC.
Making things up are you?
From an SI response:
On the issue of extending his appointment, it would be inappropriate to agree to the extension of an appointment which has not been requested through the normal application process. To do so would be a disservice to other applicants, and in fact would treat Dr:von Stemberg in a manner-different from other Research Associates. Should he seek an extension of his appointment when it expires in January 2007, his application will receive full and fair consideration.
No mention of lacking a sponsor is made here.
Another letter
as other applications. Please also note that your belief that you lack a sponsor is ia error. When your first sponsor, Dr. Brian Keasley, passed away, Dr. Jonathan Coddington, Chair of the Invertebrate Zoology Department, became your sponsor. When you transferred to the Vertebrate Zoology Department, Dr. Richard Vari, the Chair of that Department, became, and continues to be, your official sponsor.
Had he been an employee, his position wouldn't have depended on him having a sponsor. In fact, he would be the sponsor
The employee aspect had nothing to do with sponsor. It had to do with the illegality of the actions of the SI staff as evidenced in their emails which also demonstrated their prying into the political and religious beliefs of Sternberg for his activity outside of SI. It is simply against the law. Fortunately for SI, Sternberg was not an employee and the OSI could not get involved.
useless woman gamed the system with her various cards for YEARS, and they were never able to get rid of her.
That in no way negates your prejudice. You mention a specific and draw a generality.