How illiberalism in academia hurts science, research, and society
Illiberalism distorts and suppresses academic research
A previous post, How to Make Universities Mediocre, examined the illiberalism, censorship, and expectations of ideological conformity at some universities. This surrounds extreme postmodernist social justice activist movements.
Wherever it comes from and for whatever the cause, such illiberalism distorts and suppresses science and academic research. This in turn hurts society and often the activists’ very causes.
Freedom of inquiry, expression and debate are essential to science and academic research. Science is supposed to be about objectively as possible acquiring knowledge wherever it leads. Science and research often lead to important discoveries that are novel, unexpected, and contrary to prevailing wisdom.
History is full of pressure on scientists and academics by the government, society, and churches
Socrates was executed by the authorities for his questioning. Galileo was compelled by the Catholic Church to disavow his scientific discoveries. The Nazis prohibited "non-Aryan physics," including Einstein's theory of relativity. Religious leaders in Italy banned mathematicians from using the numeral zero, believing it to be the work of the Devil.
Such pressures have hindered, and at times halted, scientific progress, resulting in both intellectual and tangible harm to society.
For ideological reasons, the Soviet Union dismantled the field of agricultural genetics, replacing it with pseudoscience, which caused widespread crop failures and famine. In the United States, federal restrictions on the use of embryonic stem cells and fetal tissue in research, driven by religious beliefs, have blocked life-saving treatments, including those for cancer. During the Covid pandemic, political and ideological interference in medical science and communication led to thousands of unnecessary deaths.
The Disastrous Effects of Lysenkoism on Soviet Agriculture
Why Researchers Say Fetal Tissue Is Essential for Medical Research
.
There also is a long history of such pressure on scientists and academics coming from within academia and universities
These pressures stem from both political and ideological forces in broader society as well as within academia and university campuses.
Subrahmanyam Chandrasekhar’s groundbreaking work in astrophysics was stifled by political forces within academic circles, hindering scientific advancement. Physicist Hugh Everett's revolutionary theories in nuclear physics were met with such widespread ridicule that he abandoned the field altogether. Medical researcher Howard Temin faced mockery from academic peers for his innovative ideas about RNA and DNA.
How Astrophysicist Chandrasekhar’s Work was Suppressed by University Forces
Scientists are human, and scientific institutions are vulnerable to human flaws such as cognitive biases, social pressures, blind spots, and groupthink. Philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn observed that science operates within dominant paradigms shaped by social and psychological forces. Physics Nobel laureate Charles Townes noted, “Much public thinking follows a rut. The same thing is true in science. People get stuck and don’t look in other directions.”
Science is imperfect and often slow, but it does move forward. The groundbreaking work of Chandrasekhar, Temin, and Everett was eventually recognized, with Chandrasekhar and Temin later awarded Nobel Prizes.
.
History repeats: Examples of academic illiberalism today and the damage it causes
Many scientists have expressed concerns that university departments, governance, and once-respected science magazines like Nature and Scientific American have been influenced by extreme social justice ideologies. They argue that these publications now feature ideological and political content unrelated to science and that some editors are unwilling to publish a range of perspectives. This, they believe, has undermined the scientific credibility of these outlets and contributed to growing public distrust of science.
Professor Jerry Coyne, recently wrote: “There’s no longer any doubt that one of the main missions of Scientific American involves not the dissemination of science, but pushing a ‘progressive’ Democratic ideology on its readers. What this has to do with science is beyond me. In fact, it has nothing to do with science; it has to do with the editor, Laura Helmuth, publishing op-ed after op-ed that agrees with her own political views.”
Neuroscientist Debra Soh wrote, “There is activism and there is science. Activist science, no matter how passionate or well-intentioned, is not science.”
Scientific American Goes Woke – by Michael Shermer Ph.D
The Danger of Politicizing Science – by Jonathan Rauch, Brookings Institute
Why ideology should not be injected into science – by Prof. Jerry Coyne
The Peril of Politicizing Science– by Chemistry Prof. Anna Krylov
.
The replacement of facts with ideology, subjective views, and mythology
Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist, advocate for academic freedom, and critic of organized religion, is professor emeritus at the University of Chicago and author of Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible. Politically left-leaning, pro-choice, and a former anti-war activist, Coyne has voiced frustration with modern political liberals for failing to uphold traditional left-wing values like free speech and expression.
He has also criticized how extreme progressive social justice activism has compromised scientific research, pushing social ideologies as facts and promoting subjective ideas as objective truths. Coyne argues that, like any ideology, such beliefs have no place in science, and that this ideological influence has led to misinformation and even scientific falsehoods.
Coyne strongly opposes the notion that the subjective viewpoints of minorities should be accepted as unquestionable truth or that aboriginal mythology claims must be regarded as indisputable facts.
Nature Ecology & Evolution buys into “indigenous fact claims are always right” – Jerry Coyne
Oxford University biologist and fellow religion critic Richard Dawkins has similarly criticized those who equate mythology with science, and legends for objective facts.
Coyne, Dawkins, and others have noted that accepting aboriginal myths as factual is a form of religious fundamentalism, comparable to believing that Mary was a virgin, Noah's ark was real, or Jesus was the Son of God.
In New Zealand, there is a push to teach aboriginal mythology alongside science in science classes. Coyne highlights that this mythology includes a creationist narrative, meaning that creationism would be taught as part of the science curriculum. Coyne and Dawkins argue that while there is a place for mythology and aboriginal perspectives in education, it does not belong in science classes.
Luana Maroja, a biology professor at Williams College, has also voiced concerns about how extreme and intolerant social justice activism threatens scientific research and academic freedom. She wrote, “What scientists are able to teach and what research we can pursue are under attack. I know because I’m living it.”
“An Existential Threat to Doing Good Science,” by Luana Maroja
Political biases create blind spots
A large 2021 study from Emory University revealed that authoritarians on both the left and right share key psychological traits. However, it was only recently that academia began to acknowledge authoritarianism on the left, as it had long been associated primarily with the right.
Sally Satel, a psychiatrist and lecturer at Yale University Medical School, suggests this is because academics are predominantly left-leaning, making them less likely to recognize authoritarian traits in causes they support.
Satel argues that this highlights the importance of political and ideological diversity in academic departments to ensure objective science and sound research.
How Experts Overlooked Left-Wing Authoritarianism – by Sally Satel MD
.
The cancellation of an economist whose research conclusions countered progressive ideology
Roland Fryer, an economist and recipient of the MacArthur Award and Bates Medal, became the second-youngest tenured professor and the youngest black tenured professor in Harvard's history. Known for his independent thinking and rigorous data analysis, Fryer conducted groundbreaking research on crime, policing, and race. His findings challenged the dominant progressive social justice narrative, including his conclusion that defunding the police would lead to higher crime rates and an increase in homicides within black communities.
Do Not Defund: Roland Fryer And Rafael Mangual On Crime And Policing In The 21st Century
Fryer was suspended from Harvard, and his lab was shut down, in response to what many believe were exaggerated charges of sexual harassment, without a fair hearing or proper due process. His supporters argue that this action was taken because of his unconventional viewpoints and research findings.
Brown University economics professor Glenn Loury wrote, “In my opinion and that of many others, those accusations are baseless. But Harvard has used them as a pretext to shut down Roland’s lab, to curtail his teaching, and to marginalize him within the institution . . . I’ll not mince words. Those at Harvard responsible for this state of affairs should be utterly ashamed of themselves. They have unnecessarily, heedlessly tarnished the career of a historically great economist. Again, I can’t help but suspect that they have effectively buried vital research not because it was poorly done but because they found the results to be politically inconvenient. ‘Veritas’ indeed.”
‘Harvard Canceled its Best Black Professor’: documentary (thecollegefix.com)
Why Harvard’s canceling of Roland Fryer matters (substack.com)
Freyer ultimately emerged as a wise thinker, with his ideas eventually being better understood and embraced, even by the Democratic Party.
As violent crime leaps, liberal cities rethink cutting police budgets | The Economist
A similar situation occurred with Democratic data analyst and political polling expert David Shor, who tweeted during the 2020 racial justice protests and riots, citing research showing that riots tend to reduce public support for Democrats. Although his post was factually correct, racial justice activists deemed it harmful, leading to Shor's dismissal from his polling agency. Later, Democrats recognized that his observation was not only accurate but also a valuable insight for the party.
.
Suppression of debate and research on trans and LGBT+ issues
Transgender issues, including their intersections with gay, lesbian, and women’s rights, and medicine, are inherently complex. However, there has been a vocal, militant fringe of trans rights activists who actively seek to stifle debate and suppress any viewpoints that challenge their rigid beliefs. This includes intimidating and silencing transgender individuals, gays, and lesbians who hold differing opinions.
UK universities struggle to deal with ‘toxic’ trans rights row | Higher education | The Guardian
“The fear to speak freely stalks Cambridge” by Philosophy Prof. Arif Ahmed (archive.ph)
Extreme illiberalism, censorship, and public bullying stifle essential and reasoned discussions on crucial topics and have impeded research, including in medical fields. This also suppresses the diversity of viewpoints within the LGBT+ community and, for many, undermines the very social justice cause it seeks to advance.
In an editorial, a Canadian transgender woman wrote, “Personally I’ve found this toxic, in-your-face activism overly confrontational. I believe it creates more, not less, animosity toward the trans movement . . . . We live in a pluralistic, democratic society and everyone has the right to express their views or opinions on laws or policies that impact their lives, rights, and security.”
Stephen Whittle, a British transgender man, law professor, and the founder of the trans rights group Press For Change, said, “Trans academics have mostly tried really hard not to accuse, and certainly not to ‘no platform’ anybody. Yet these voices are making trans people look like the extremists. Sadly, it will have the effect of shutting down the debate.”
Extremist ideology and illiberalism have corrupted and undermined medical research and practices. This was the case in Britain’s Travistock clinic which was recently shut down by the government and the subject of patient lawsuits for unsound medical and ethical practices based on ideology.
How Tavistock Came Tumbling Down – by Sue Evans
NHS to close Tavistock child gender identity clinic – BBC News
Lawsuits impending against Tavistock
National Health Service ends “gender-affirming care,” replaces with “holistic and appropriate” care
.
Even when driven by noble intentions, academic illiberalism and censorship undermine science and research. They damage the credibility of academic and scientific institutions, fostering public distrust of science and universities. It also harms social justice causes, where progress and solutions are achieved through reasoned debate and inquiry, rather than through extremism and bullying.
.