As I’ve mentioned before, an article by Luana Maroja and me was included in Lawrence Krauss’s new anthology, The War on Science: Thirty-Nine Renowned Scientists and Scholars Speak Out About Current Threats to Free Speech, Open Inquiry, and the Scientific Process (Amazon link here).
I’ve now read the whole book, and won’t review it myself save to say that it merits reading although there is some duplication of material between chapters. However, a number of chapters, including the opening one by Richard Dawkins and the one by Steven Pinker, in which he’s reworked and expanded his 2023 Boston Globe op-ed, are marvelous. (And of course you should read the piece on biology by Luana and I, updated from this one.) Lawrence provides a good introduction as well as commentary for each section to tie the book together.
I have to add, though, that the one chapter I simply could not read was the last one by Jordan Peterson. It is so convoluted and prolix—par for the course—that I had to give up.
The book was put together before Trump began his assault on universities by punishing science grantees and by appointing people like RFK Jr. to science positions. I expected that, after this unpredictable bout of executive-branch bullying, there would be some wokesters who adopted a “whataboutery stance,” saying, “This book largely comprises attacks on how the progressive Left wing is eroding science. But Trump is dong much more damage from the Right.” And right now that is indeed the case, but Trump will be gone in a bit over 3 years, and I expect that, when Democrats take over (fingers crossed), the government will cut back strongly on interfering in the funding and production.
The effect of the Right on science, then, will probably be more temporary. In contrast, that from the Left will last a lot longer, for progressive professors who believe in nonsense like a spectrum of sex in animals will teach this nonsense to their students, and thus it will pass among academic generations. We simply cannot sit by and let progressives distort science in the cause of ideology, regardless of what the Right is doing.
And, as Luana wrote me, “I would add that the right-wing attacks on science are well understood by all, both inside and outside academia, whereas the left-wing attacks are unknown to many and not acknowledged by most in academia. For being so underreported, they deserve to be in the light. . . ”
Sadly, some people, including scientists and journalists, don’t understand that both Right and Left both merit criticism and should be criticized. No part of the political spectrum should be immune to scrutiny, regardless of what the other parts are doing.
This reminds me of the criticism I got for going after the pre-election Kamala Harris for being clueless. The comments were to the effect of “Shut up until after the election. When you criticize her you’re simply increasing the chances of Trump winning.”
Such people don’t realize that extremism of the Left, exactly what was instantiated by Harris (and now by woke scientists) actually helps Trump. Harris’s declaration that undocumented immigrants should get government-funded sex-change surgery, for example, was a huge part of Republican advertising during the election, and it made Democrats look clueless.
The same goes for science. Declarations that there is a spectrum of biological sex in humans, for example, is what plays into the hands of Trump, because everyone knows that such a claim (made loudly and frequently by progressives) is false and stupid. Criticizing ideologically-based infection of science by the Left, then, is essential in keeping science free from politics. You may recall that Nature’s endorsement of Joe Biden for U.S. President in 2020 didn’t help Biden a bit: it only made people distrust science (and Nature) more and strengthened support for Trump while having no significant increase in support for Biden.
None of this has been taken in by journalist Sarah Jones, who produced a hit job on our anthology in New York magazine. Jones is described as “senior writer for Intelligencer who covers politics and labor.” Her critique is largely an ad hominem attack on the contributors, failing to come to grips with our substantive criticisms. Further, Jones takes the book to task for ignoring Trump’s attacks on science, which many of us have written about elsewhere. We were, she says, attacking the wrong target, and even helping Trump.
I didn’t want to give Jones’s piece air time here, as it is simply a hate-filled piece that largely attacks the contributors, not their arguments. Here’s a taste of Ms. Jones:
So it’s a strange time to read The War on Science, a new anthology edited by the physicist and New Atheist writer Lawrence Krauss. In atheist and skeptic circles, Krauss is — or was — known not only for his work on the cosmos but for his campaign against creationism and for science education. Now Krauss and his collaborators have identified an “emerging threat” to science and inquiry, as he writes in an introduction to the book. What threat? Wokeness, of course. Universities prize diversity over merit, while hysterics confuse words with violence and brave truth-tellers risk cancellation. Krauss does know something about cancellation, at least. A former associate of Jeffrey Epstein, he was still defending the predator well after Epstein’s 2008 sex-crimes conviction. Epstein always had young women around him, Krauss told an interviewer in 2011, but “as a scientist, my presumption is that whatever the problems were I would believe him over other people.” In 2016, he quietly wrote a birthday letter to his old pal, and two years after that, the hammer fell — this time on his own head. BuzzFeed News reported that Krauss had been the subject of sexual-harassment and -misconduct allegations for about a decade. He retired from Arizona State University after an investigation into his behavior. Now he has a Substack.
Krauss does not mention this in his introduction to The War on Science. The reader is left to assume that Krauss — and his 39 contributors — cares only for the integrity of science. They are beings of reason, united not by ideology, which is the refuge of a weak mind, but by the purity of their logic. Contributors include Richard Dawkins, Niall Ferguson, and Jordan Peterson; others, like the skeptic and philosopher Maarten Boudry, may be less familiar. Many are atheists, while others, like Ferguson, have converted to Christianity. All are convinced of their own brilliance. Alas, our rationalists each face the same problem, the most obvious of many: Their anthology came out in July during a real war on science. Most contributors, Krauss included, have railed against DEI, and critical race theory, and social justice for years. Now their arguments are shaping policy, and the casualty isn’t creationism but science itself. One contributor, the biologist and prominent New Atheist Jerry Coyne, halfway admitted this on X. “A new book on the ideological threats to science (from the Left). And yes, we know that right now the Right poses a much more serious danger to science,” Coyne wrote before taking a final shot at “progressives.” You can’t defend reality if you aren’t willing to live in it.
The line “all are convinced of their own brilliance” gives her stand away, for that’s simply not true. Nor is it to be seen in the chapters. We are passionate, yes, but it’s hard to find arrogance in the book (do look at Peterson’s chapter, though!). If anybody’s convinced of their own brilliance, it’s Jones. But wait! There’s more fun from Jones!:
There are nearly 40 chapters in The War on Science, all pockmarked by omissions, misrepresentations, and, sometimes, obvious lies. Each section of the anthology addresses a different facet of the woke threat to reason, but a few common obsessions emerge: Genitals and what people do with them, Israel, DEI, and various professional insults — it’s all here, boomer Facebook on every page. The writers invoke the philosopher Judith Butler, but only by name, and their work on gender is never explained, quoted, or even paraphrased. Our rationalists are too sophisticated to bother with the effort. In one interminable entry, Dawkins insists that “science advances,” while other disciplines, like “theology, philosophy, sociology,” do not. “Science is the jewel in humanity’s crown,” he adds, and that is why trans people must not be indulged. Chromosomes are destiny. The “belligerent slogan” that “trans women are women” is therefore “scientifically false, a debauching of language, and because, when taken literally, it can infringe the rights of other people, especially women,” Dawkins writes.
Lies? Really? We give are plenty of data and examples, and I challenge Jones to point out one lie in our chapter: something that we deliberately fib about to make our points. And if she says “boomer Facebook on every page,” well, I could say her review is “geriatric Millenial from Bluesky on every page.” Again, no grappling with our arguments.
Note the personal character of the attacks, and that New Atheism has nothing to do with our arguments. As for my quote, Jones leaves out my caveat that Left-wing erosion of science may be more persistent, even if it’s not as dangerous at the moment. And of course I’m willing to live in reality: my frequent attacks on Trump and his bullying of science will testify to that. But Jones didn’t do her research to find that out.
But I will let my friend Maarten Boudry, a Belgian philosopher, finish bringing the hammer down on Jones’s rancor-filled screed. If you click below you can read his Substack piece for free (though he would appreciate a paid subscription).
Maarten explains the curious title:
Imagine some people in your neighborhood are mixed up in organized crime—say drug trafficking. Some locals decide to blow the whistle because they worry that the whole community will get a bad reputation, and they start urging everyone else to speak up too. Most people, though, just keep their heads down, understandably reluctant to pick a fight with the gang leaders and their enablers.
And then someday a new mayor arrives in town, eager to look tough on crime. In a big show of force, he has the entire neighborhood raided. Dozens are arrested, including plenty of people who did nothing wrong. Shops are shut down, and community leaders are strong-armed into accepting harsh, sweeping measures against anything that looks even remotely suspicious.
Now, what would you think of someone who blamed the internal whistleblowers as follows:
“Why did you bad-mouth your own neighborhood when a much bigger threat was looming on the horizon? You kept harping about some petty crime that may or may not have happened, while the police were gearing up for a massive crackdown. You didn’t see where the real danger was coming from.”
That, in a nutshell, is the reaction from a lot of left-leaning academics and journalists to The War On Science, a new collection edited by the physicist Lawrence Krauss, to which I contributed a chapter along with 38 others (including Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker, Alan Sokal, Jerry Coyne, Luana Maroja and Carole Hooven).
Well that’s a bit long, but is a decent metaphor and does sum up Jones’s whataboutery. (New York magazine is a notoriously woke rag that, as you may recall, forced Andrew Sullivan to resign.) I’ll give a few excerpts from Boudry’s analysis, which is not long:
So, is it true, as the kids say, that our book “didn’t age well,” becoming cringe-worthy and out of touch even before it hit the shelves? How could we have been so oblivious to the looming right-wing assault on science while we were preoccupied with left-wing critiques? In fact, many left-wing critics were already singing this tune long before they even had the chance to read our work. For instance, this post from April, shortly after our publisher announced the title and list of contributors, racked up nearly 10,000 likes on Bluesky (which is pretty huge for this relatively small platform).
Note that Hank Green hadn’t read the book, so he goes after the authors so-called “rightism” as well as the title itself. As Bugs Bunny said, “What a maroon!”
Yall wanna hear something extremely embarrassing? Before Trump’s election, a bunch of academics who lumbered rightward after being criticized by the left (Pinker, Dawkins, Krauss) wrote essays for a book that is coming out in July about the threats to academia from the left. YALL, THE TITLE!!
— Hank Green (@hankgreen.bsky.social) 2025-04-20T15:26:04.674Z
A bit more from Boudry:
The little story in my intro makes the point: when there’s rampant crime in a neighborhood and the community leaders look the other way, it creates the perfect opening for a sweeping police crackdown. In the same vein, the incursions of left-wing ideology in universities and other academic institutions have helped to turn them into prime targets for the populist Right. If you turn universities and academic journals into partisan lobby groups, don’t be shocked when you find yourself in the political crosshairs.
Yes, it is true that Trump’s assault on universities is both reprehensible and unconstitutional, that his professed concern about antisemitism is just a pretext for “owning the libs”, and that his sudden embrace of academic freedom is disingenuous—he just wants to swap one orthodoxy for another. But that is exactly why we should have cleaned our Augean stable before it came to this. As sociologist and physician Nicholas Christakis says in this interview about our book: “We made ourselves into political actors and so therefore became political targets.”
About Jones’s piece:
. . . . the point is not that we’re facing two separate attacks on science from different directions and are now trying to determine which one deserves more of our attention—the point is that the more severe external assault was motivated by the internal war, marking a further escalation in the politicization of science. Conversely, these Trumpian attacks now risk radicalizing left-wing ideologues in academia even further, convincing them that science must become an even stronger fortress of progressive ideology.
You can already see it playing out. Thanks to Trump’s ham-fisted attack on DEI and campus antisemitism, anyone criticizing DEI programs now risks being lumped in with the Trumpian Right. Case in point: this hatchet job posing as a book review in New York Magazine, with the subtle-as-a-brick title: “How the New Atheists Joined the MAHA War on Science”.
. . .The reviewer claims that we—the book’s authors—weren’t merely blindsided by the MAGA assault on science, but have actively contributed to it. By “railing against DEI, critical race theory, and social justice for years,” the argument goes, we supposedly handed Trump and his allies ammunition and, in effect, joined their camp.
This line of reasoning is strikingly similar to the argument, endlessly repeated by progressives (mostly in Europe), that we shouldn’t discuss the negative consequences of mass migration, as doing so might “help the Far Right”. The reality, however, is quite the opposite—it’s precisely the unwillingness of progressives to engage honestly with these uncomfortable truths that drives people toward the Far Right. Similarly, many academics’ reluctance to call out the ideological antics within their own circles has led to a widespread perception that universities have devolved into left-wing boot camps (which is still a wild exaggeration).
Maarten then tells us how flattered he is that Jones devoted a whole paragraph to him in her frothings, and he ends with this: “If you continue to politicize science, then sooner or later the chickens will come home to roost.” Progressives have only hurt themselves by trying to inject ideology into all STEMM fields, and so we face a flock of roosting chickens.
No Ms. Jones, I am not a sycophant of Trump—I detest the man, as you would know if you did your homework. And perhaps you should recognize that nobody should be immune from criticism in a society that has free speech.
To the Neo-Marxist everything is ideology and they can’t understand that personal experience might not be relevant to professional discourse. I wonder if Jones snarled or merely sneered as she wrote this?
“To the Neo-Marxist everything is ideology…”
An intriguing perspective, since Marxism is usually considered a variation on materialism — the classic divide in social science is between the Marxists who reduce social life to material conditions and the Durkheimians who reduce social life to ideology….. (Personally I like Weber’s efforts to bridge the two perspectives). A classic defense of “ideology” is “Culture and Practical Reason” by Marshall Sahlins (U of Chicago Press, 1976 — hard to believe it’s nearly 50 years old!)
No, the effects of Trump will not be gone in three years. Kennedy is our Lysenko. The assaults on the NSF and the National Academy of Sciences are like the Cultural Revolution.
We are losing an entire generation of young people who feel that science has a poor US future. Stanley Plotkin, the vaccine expert, predicts that vaccine development in the future will occur in India and China.
Plotkin, expert or not, is one man. Opinions aren’t destiny, but if he’s right, it’s worse than merely losing ground. Shifting vaccine work to those countries will spell the end of public acceptance of vaccines. Neither India nor China have regulatory agencies that can be trusted; there will be disasters.
“Neither India nor China have regulatory agencies that can be trusted; there will be disasters.”
You’d better hope not!
“Generic drugs [used in the US] come primarily from India. Generic drugs make up 90% of US prescription volume.”
https://qualitymatters.usp.org/over-half-active-pharmaceutical-ingredients-api-prescription-medicines-us-come-india-and-european
The effects of Trump may linger, but I am not sure about your claim that we are losing an entire generation of young people who are unsure about the future of science. Certainly we don’t have grad students dropping out, so what evidence do you have that college-age or younger people have decided not to become scientists (anecdotes aren’t sufficient)? After all, they are flocking to science from the humanities as there is certainly not much of a future if you get a degree in humanities.
Actually, E. Siegel has a good hypothesis. Imagine if you are a grad student or post-doc, with plans for going into academia or biotech industry in the near future. Many paths seems very precarious right now, especially vaccine research. Meanwhile, since vaccine development and production has a market-driven aspect, other countries will have the opportunity to pick up the ball. When these troubled times go away, will the workforce, institutional knowledge, and infrastructure in the US still be what it once was? Will research and production of vaccines return to the US? That decision rests upon CEOs.
I think you’re right. Already tremendous damage has been done in just a few months. One hates to think what it will be like after three more years.
I was optimistic that the Rs would not hang onto their majority in Congress until the re-districting business started. They mean to hang onto power whatever it takes.
It will be a long recovery. And some observers don’t think things will improve with the Rs, even after Trump goes. Who knows?
We have already lost a generation of scientists who were not allowed to get their foot in the door because of the wrong identity. Only in my group I have already half a dozen cases of brilliant young men who were pushed out from academic career by DEI.
The difference is that there is still scope for private funding of these things.
I just finished The War On Science. It’s excellent (I agree Dawkin’s intro is superb) but I have to say Peterson’s piece doesn’t really fit. Or make sense, for that matter. Anyway, it is safe to flush anything Ms. Jones says about the book down the nearest loo. My bet is the idiot didn’t even read it.
There are many good reasons why the book focused on the problems from the post-modernist Left that has infiltrated science departments and even granting agencies and research journals. Another is that a broader book about both the right and left would either have to be 2x the thickness or 1/2 the depth.
No, I think Jones wanted us to write ONLY about intrusions from the Right.
How DARE you criticize the left? You must be an Enemy of the People!
Jones:
“What terrifies me is if scientists were to criticize woke excess so much that Republicans cancelled a lot of research grants. Imagine the backlash against peaceful liberals?”
Translated from the much-missed Norm Macdonald (PBUH).
https://x.com/normmacdonald/status/809637479674281984
I don’t quite understand the argument Jones and those who agree with her are making. Is it “yes, those scientific ideas are indeed crap, but scientists need to ignore scientific crap in order to put up a unified front?” Is it “those scientific ideas are NOT crap, they’re wonderful?”
Or is it “scientists need to stop evaluating scientific merit one way or the other and focus on politics instead?”
Frankly, I don’t like any of those options. Maybe they have a better one.
I’m fairly certain that Jones thinks “those scientific ideas are NOT crap, they’re wonderful”.
My attempt at understanding what Jones thinks would be along the lines: “DEI et cetera is only about treating people who aren’t white males fairly, and is a welcome and necessary corrective.
“But some white males (Krauss, Pinker, Dawkins, Coyne, Boudry etc) dislike this (preferring white-male supremacy) and so oppose DEI. They are quite rightly criticised for this by all right-minded people, but they react badly to this just criticism.
“It is not owing to any fault of DEI or the woke that MAGA attacks science, they are doing it because they are bad people. And the criticism from the above list of dinosaurs provides the excuse, and hence the MAGA attacks on science really are the fault of Krauss, Pinker, Dawkins, Coyne, Boudry etc”.
Alluding to white male supremacy is something I see far too often on the left.
I actually read The War on Science. I am amazed at how similar my assessment is to Jerry’s, including which chapters are worth reading. One wonders if a bit more selectivity and editorship might have remedied the redundancy and the variability in the quality of the writing. The last chapter, by Jordan Peterson, is highly recommended it to anyone in the need of comic relief; I nearly fell off my chair from the convulsions.
I strongly suspect that the Right is covertly funding the Shrill & Looney Left (S’nLL).
Long and long ago, I wondered whether Nixon & Co. was covertly funding the Weathermen & Co. But the Right never has to fund this sort of thing: the pop-Left always volunteers its services.
+1
Despite its name and the fact people who don’t live here seem to notice it a lot, nobody here reads that magazine, NY Magazine. If I’m at the dentist I’ll read Golf first and I hate golf. It is a low brow local rag non-NYers ….read? I doubt it.
Krauss’ “sexual harassment” scandal was an example – one of the best – of the worst of the metoo moral panic and mania which has turned out to have negative second order effects on women and their careers. That Jones cretin is batting 1000.
I agree entirely with you and Luana regarding the respective threats to science and society from left and right.
I’ve watched many of the interviews Kraus made with the contributors and enjoyed most of them very much though in almost all cases I was aware of their legitimate gripes.
best,
D.A.
NYC
The complaints of Jones and her like are reminiscent of an earlier line of argument: that the wrong kind of Biology aided
fascism. For example, here is a comment by the great Soviet thinker O.B. Lepeshinskaya (a Stalin Prize laureate)..
“And in fact, the followers of Virchow, Weismann, Mendel, and Morgan, talking of the immutability of the gene and denying the effect of the environment, are preachers of pseudoscientific tidings of bourgeois eugenicists and of various distortions in genetics, which provided the basis for the racist theory of fascism in capitalistic countries.”
Oy. I guess that this kind of ad hominem crap is to be expected, but it is a deep disappointment nonetheless.
Is there anything in Jones’s article that isn’t ad hominen? It doesn’t seem like it. Yeah, that’s the person whose opinion I want to accept with respect to a science question (not!).
Academics face an insurgency within their institutions. Like all insurgencies, the host population provides substantial support to the insurgents, whether voluntarily, unwittingly, or by coercion. No matter, those insurgents now effectively control the culture of many institutions. The question is how many within academia will have either the will or the capacity to offer meaningful resistance to the point of regaining control. The backlash against “The War on Science” by academics strongly suggests that internal reform is not possible without the right-wing assault from outside. Can someone show us substantive success stories over the last ten years from within the Academy?
Some would-be reformers might not like that intervention, whether owing to preexisting animosity or the difficulties it introduces in winning other academics to their side. They also rightly recognize that there will be collateral damage, which some will see as a great enough threat that they will side with the illiberal insurgents. That’s an understandable choice given that the Trump Administration, also understandably, sees little need to wage a “hearts and minds” campaign to win over the few academics who seem willing to fight. The Republicans just don’t think that they need you. I think that is a mistake, but they might be right.
Many of us outside the Ivory Tower were once content to watch the follies from a distance. But academic activists were not content to destroy their home institutions; they and their collaborators in the Democratic Party had to foist their idiocy and intolerance on the rest of us—especially on our children and grandchildren. I needn’t laundry list examples for this audience. Being moderate by disposition, there was a time I would have used less incendiary language. That time is long past. Excessive politeness and agreeableness helped get us where we are.
Contrary to caricature, most of us who accept the necessity of efforts to hold academia to public account do recognize its vast promise if it could recapture what once made it strong. We are not so stupid as to be unaware of the quality work still ongoing in academia, and we appreciate the importance of academic freedom. But our focus is directed more toward free expression, free association, and rational thought—all of which can exist with or without academic institutions, but which our currently compromised institutions imperil. It is deeply unfortunate that the center of gravity in academia is the money; it is doubly so that most of the money flows through those areas that are neither entirely compromised nor entirely innocent. It is triply unfortunate that the money also bankrolls the insurgents.
How long did academics think it would take before a majority outside of their institutions were no longer interested—after years of hearing obfuscation, denials, and excuses—in waiting for any belated and would-be internal reformers to try futilely to get the academic houses in order?
” Can someone show us substantive success stories over the last ten years from within the Academy?” None, or almost none, to be sure. However, an example of a somewhat similar reform within the Academy can be found in a galaxy far away.
In the 1960s-70s, the Soviet academic establishment largely threw out Lysenkoist malarkey and restored normal genetics. Two lessons might be drawn from this academic experiment. (1) It owed much, at least at first, to specialists outside of the corrupted fields, such as Physics (e.g., Sakharov) and Biochemistry (e.g., Engelhardt). (2) The academic reform was only partly successful: research in Biology, particularly molecular biology, remained relatively weak in the USSR, despite its large population with relevant academic credentials. It is precisely this long-lasting toxic effect that volumes such “The War On Science” are intended to remedy.
The remedial effects (and the side-effects) of various treatments remain to be assessed. Time will tell.
My battered optimism has recently been somewhat revived by the last chapter of The Constitution of Knowledge. YMMV.
(FWIW, this is one of the handful of “Aha! … Duhh!” nonfiction books I’ve ever read. IMO a Very Good Idea is one that is surprising at first, and then is so blindingly obvious I wonder why I hadn’t already seen it.)
Wow, the Jones piece has it all: copious amounts of vicious ad hominem attacks, unwarranted mockery, unsupported calumnies, generational warfare, disrespect, an arrogant presumption of righteousness, and a commensurate lack of self-awareness. And above all, failure to honestly engage with actual issues presented in the book.
I guess that is what passes for journalism these days, at least in certain quarters. One cannot merely review the content of a book and then civilly opine on the strengths and/or weaknesses of the book. No, if the book does not align with your agenda you must endeavor to burn it utterly to the ground and try to assassinate everyone involved in its production.
“There are two sorts of people — the righteous and the unrighteous. The sorting is done by the righteous.”
(CS Lewis, The Great Divorce)
Nice to know that he had a sense of irony.
Classic example of a woke “debating” tactic – play the man, not the ball. Oooh, so Krauss was a friend of Epstein! (So was Stephen Hawking.) And accused of sexual misconduct! Therefore nothing he says can be trusted. But wait – what about Bill Clinton? (Oh I suppose he is now considered “far right” so perhaps it doesn’t matter to wokesters – he’s bad too!)
Boudry says “Yes, it is true that Trump’s assault on universities is both reprehensible and unconstitutional, that his professed concern about antisemitism is just a pretext for “owning the libs”…..”
For me the question raised here is why the so-called “libs” went so antisemitic in the first place.
There is also another aspect Boudry noted towards the end: “finally, many of the book’s critics are so fixated on Trump that they treat the U.S. as the center of the universe”.
I’m Italian and so so pissed off by these fake-left-wingers doing american cultural colonialism all the time while claiming to be anti-colonialist and against cultural appropriations (whatever that may mean).
There is a contribution by an italian physicist who was haunted by CERN because he did a biobliographic study and found NO discrimination against women in theoretical physics. It may not be the most noteworthy contribution (and I haven’t reached the end of the book yet) but is it a coincidence that Sarah Jones speaks of Epstein and male authors but conveniently forgets the many women contributing to the “War on Science” book?
We don’t have right-wing attacks against universities in Europe, while thanks to woke being exported from the US we still have the problem of (fake-)left-wing censorship in many spheres from academia to journalism to DEI in the private sector.
This book is very much needed.
Well, my ordered copy of WoS is awaiting me at the bookstore.
I also agree we should be looking to fix the mote in our own left eye before looking at the alleged planks in our right eye.
My concern with Trump is not what he wants to do, but the way he is going about it.