Not many Westerns or Fantasy Novels or Mysteries have won the Nobel Prize for literature. Such novels are specifically designed to appeal to a subculture, and are not generally interesting for people who aren't already fans of the genre.
Likewise, I think most fans of Science-Fiction don't read much in the realm of mainstream fiction. For such readers, there are Hugos and Asimovs and plenty of awards/top 10 lists for Science Fiction, and any other genre fiction you can think of. It's not even like the Oscars, which receive a good amount of attention even from people who don't watch many movies, where it would make sense that sci-fi fans want their genre to receive the attention as well. Only people who read fiction regularly care about the NY Times "10 notable books of 2016" list.
So what's really being argued? That people who read general fiction should enjoy science fiction more? Of course there is good science fiction, and I would say this is generally acknowledged, but generally speaking it is less intelligent, ridden with cliche, and is designed to appeal to young men. There is nothing wrong with a fun read, just as there is nothing wrong with a fun special-effect heavy super-hero movie, but pretending genre fiction is on the same intellectual level as fiction is simply untrue.
I also think that the ability of the literature press to praise certain works of sci-fi shows that it's not a wholesale rejection of the genre.
And sorry for a lack of political correctness, but seriously is Kim Stanley Robinson really commenting? He is just a wonderful example of how even a relatively successful sci-fi author can write on about the level of a 12 year old. Everything about the book is embarrassing. If he wasn't writing about spaceships on Mars nobody would buy a single copy of his crap. That includes the science - even if you like all the rockets and so forth, all the info on geo-engineering is complete nonsense. Of course serious authors who use sci-fi tropes would want to distane themselves from an author like him.