It looks like the U.S. Office of Special Counsel has weighed in on the side of Dr. Richard von Sternberg. It doesn't surprise me. When David Klinghoffer first broke this story on January 28, 2005, Jonathan Coddington, Sternberg's supervisor, showed up on ARN to "correct" the mistakes in Klinghoffer's article. Back in February, I nevertheless noted three points of agreement. I explained it as follows:

When we compare the two versions, there seem to be three areas of convergence.

1. Sternberg has filed a complaint with the OSC.

2. Sternberg's office was in fact moved.

Coddington describes it as being in an "an entirely different part of the Museum." This choice of words creates the impression that Sternberg's new office is no longer part of the Department of Zoology, Invertebrate Zoology Section. But we can't say for sure.

3. There was some type of troublesome environment that centered around Sternberg.

Coddington wrote:

As for prejudice on the basis of beliefs or opinions, I repeatedly and consistently emphasized to staff (and to Dr. von Sternberg personally), verbally or in writing, that private beliefs and/or controversial editorial decisions were irrelevant in the workplace, that we would continue to provide full Research Associate benefits to Dr. von Sternberg, that he was an established and respected scientist, and that he would at all times be treated as such.

If Coddington had to repeatedly and consistently emphasize to his staff, verbally and in writing, that a) private beliefs and/or controversial editorial decisions were irrelevant in the workplace; b) they would continue to provide full Research Associate benefits to Dr. von Sternberg; and c) they would continue to treat Sternberg as an established and respected scientist, then, to me, it clearly suggests:
*Some staff members were making an issue out of Sternberg's private beliefs and/or controversial editorial decisions;
*Some staff members were standing in the way of providing Sternberg "full Research Associate benefits"
*Some staff members were not treating Sternberg as an established and respected scientist.
Keep in mind that Coddington says he "repeatedly" "emphasized" these points. And observe that it all swirls around Sternberg "“ his private beliefs, his editorial decision, his benefits, and his treatment.

Paul Nelson has the briefest of comments on this. Yes, I, as a taxpayer, would like to see these e-mails.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 16th, 2005 at 4:28 pm and is filed under The Debate. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.