Category: Cancel Culture

A new issue of J. Controversial Ideas on censorship in the sciences

October 28, 2025 • 9:30 am

For several years a group of us have been working on a paper on censorship in the sciences, and it’s finally come out in the Journal of Controversial Ideas (go here to access all the papers ever published). This “heterodox” journal founded in November 2018 by moral philosophers Francesca Minerva, Jeff McMahan, and Peter Singer. It’s peer-reviewed and open access, but believe me, the reviews are every bit as stringent as those for a science “journal of noncontroversial ideas.”

At any rate, our paper came out, but I didn’t realize that it was part of a special issue on censorship in the sciences until Heterodox at USC posted an announcement. Here’s part of it:

A special issue of the Journal of Controversial Ideas published today explores the serious problem of censorship plaguing the sciences, from the classroom to the research lab to scientific journals. The special issue contains 9 peer-reviewed papers including:

●     From Worriers to Warriors: The Cultural Rise of Women by Cory Clark, Executive Director of the Adversarial Project at the University of Pennsylvania

●     Fire the Censors! It’s the Only Way to Restore Free Inquiry by Robert Maranto, 21st Century Chair in Leadership at the Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas

●     Silencing Science at MIT: MIT Shows that Cancel Culture Causes Self-Censorship at STEM Universities by Wayne Stargardt, President of the MIT Free Speech Alliance

●     With Friends Like These: On the Role of Presupposition in Pseudo-Defenses of Free Speech on Campus by Mike Veber, Associate Professor of Philosophy at East Carolina University

The collection expands upon subjects discussed at the Censorship in the Sciences conference held at the University of Southern California in January 2025. Over 100 academics gathered for three days to discuss what constitutes censorship, how this problem impacts scientific research and teaching, and how to combat its spread.

The collection also includes an introduction highlighting the themes discussed at the conference.

Contrary to the popular belief that censorship emanates mostly from authoritarian governments or religious mandates, this conference and follow-up publications, including this special issue, revealed that self-censorship and censorship attempts led by academics against their peers form the majority of “cancellations” occurring within the academy today.

Moreover, such censoring of science originates largely from the progressive left. This is unsurprising, given that the academy is now overwhelmingly dominated by faculty who self-identify as liberal or progressive.

Such intra-academic censorship is a serious problem, as the introduction to the special issue makes clear: “Academic jobs and promotions require letters of recommendation from colleagues. Grants necessitate approval from other academics, as do publications. Thus, control over the careers of scientists from within academia influences what subjects are researched and what scientific information is disseminated. In short, it is academics who are the gatekeepers of knowledge production and dissemination. They have the means to block publication, funding, and even employment of their peers.”

 

You can peruse the contents, and choose which papers you want to read, if any, by clicking on the screenshot below.  You can get our paper, which puts present instances of censorship in historical context (including censorship in Soviet Russia), by clicking below.

And the abstract:

The 20th century witnessed unimaginable atrocities perpetrated in the name of ideologies that stifled dissent in favour of political narratives, with numerous examples of resulting long-term societal harm. Despite clear historical precedents, calls to deal with dissent through censorship have risen dramatically. Most alarmingly, politically motivated censorship has risen in the academic community, where pluralism is most needed to seek truth and generate knowledge. Recent calls for censorship have come under the name of “consequences culture”, a culture structured around the inclusion of those sharing a particular narrative while imposing adverse consequences on those who dissent. Here, we place “consequences culture” in the historical context of totalitarian societies, focusing on the fate suffered by academics in those societies. We support our arguments with extensive references, many of which are not widely known in the West. We invite the broader scientific community to consider yet again what are timeless subjects: the importance of freely exchanging views and ideas; the freedom to do so without fear of intimidation; the folly of undermining such exchanges with distortions; and the peril of attempting to eliminate exchanges by purging published documents from the official record. We conclude with suggestions on where to go from here.

It’s a cry in the wilderness. . . ,.

A panel of authors from the anthology “The War on Science”

October 8, 2025 • 11:45 am

As I’ve mentioned, the anthology The War on Science, edited by Lawrence Krauss, has gotten some flak from “progressives”. These critics argue that it really should have been a book about how Trump and the Republicans are attacking science rather than a book about how the Left is damaging science. I’m not going to go after that whataboutery again, as I’ve done it before. No one side is immune from criticism, and there are a gazillion people noting, correctly, that Trump is doing rather serious damage to scientific funding right now. But how many people are showing how the leftist ideology is injuring science? QED. (Full disclosure: Luana Maroja and I have a chapter in this book, one that’s a slight revision of one we wrote for The Skeptical Inquirer.)

At any rate, there is now a longish video, featuring Krauss and three authors, with moderator Joshua Katz.  Everyone on the panel is listed below in bold.  It was based on a discussion held by the American Enterprise Institute, and if you want to damn it because the AEI is a generally conservative venue, damn away, but you’ll be outing yourself as narrow minded.  Here are the AEI notes for the discussion that I’ve put below.

On October 2, AEI’s Joshua T. Katz hosted an event to discuss The War on Science, a new volume to which he and several other AEI fellows contributed chapters.

After brief opening remarks from AEI’s M. Anthony Mills, the Origins Project Foundation’s Lawrence M. Krauss, the volume’s editor, delivered a presentation offering historical context for the book and detailing some notable instances of the imposition of ideology on scholarly practices. Each panelist then gave brief overviews of their respective chapters: AEI’s Sally Satel discussed her chapter “Social Justice, MD—Medicine Under Threat”; AEI’s Carole Hooven discussed her chapter “Why I Left Harvard”; and the American Council of Trustees and Alumni’s Solveig Lucia Gold discussed “An Apology for Philology,” a chapter she coauthored with Dr. Katz.

Following these remarks, the panelists engaged in a discussion moderated by Dr. Katz, and the event concluded with a Q&A, wherein panelists fielded questions from the audience.

Event description

Among assaults on merit-based hiring, the policing of language, the denial of empirical data in medicine and science, and the replacement of well-established standards with ideological mantras, rigorous scholarship is under threat throughout Western institutions. To make matters worse, many who have spoken up against this threat have faced professional consequences, creating a climate of fear that undermines the very foundation of modern research. In The War on Science, the Origins Project Foundation’s Lawrence M. Krauss assembles a group of prominent scholars from wide-ranging disciplines to detail ongoing efforts to impose ideological restrictions on scholarship—and issue a clarion call for change.

Solveig Lucia Gold, Senior Fellow in Education and Society, American Council of Trustees and Alumni
Carole Hooven, Nonresident Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
Lawrence M. Krauss, President, Origins Project Foundation
Sally Satel, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute

Moderator:
Joshua T. Katz, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute

Now I haven’t yet listened to the whole thing, as I cannot abide long podcasts and videos, so I’m going through it person by person.  So far I’ve heard Krauss’s nice opening (31 min.), which spares no science-warping ideologue from the Left, giving lots of cringeworthy examples.  If you have the patience to listen to a 1.5-hour long discussion all the way through, knock yourself out and comment below.

Critics of Colossal Bioscience’s “de-extinction” efforts get targeted by lawsuits and smears

October 6, 2025 • 11:00 am

I’ve written extensively about Colossal Bioscience’s efforts to bring back extinct animals, “de-extincting” species like the dire wolf, the woolly mammoth, and the dodo (see here for some posts). And I’ve been pretty critical of their efforts, arguing that they are not producing genuine extinct species but modern species that have been genetically tweaked to have some superficial resemblance to modern species. Besides that, which I consider pretty misleading to the public, Colossal has wavered in its claims, going back and forth between saying that they are/are not producing extinct species.  For my taste there’s just too much hype, too much rancor, too much waffling, and too much capitalism.

There have been other scientific critics, too, including mammoth expert Tori Herridge, a paleontologist at Sheffield (she turned down an offer to join Colossal’s advisory board), and, as the EMBO article below reports, “Vincent Lynch, an evolutionary developmental biologist at the University at Buffalo, who studies elephant embryos; Flint Dibble, a zooarcheaologist at Cardiff University, who runs a podcast called “Archaeology with Flint Dibble”, and Nick Rawlence, “a paleogeneticist at the University of Otago in New Zealand.”

As the EMBO Reports article below describes (click to read for free), these critics of Colossal have been subject to “Dark PR tactics”:  they’ve been smeared in various obscure publications by anonymous writers, or writers who won’t answer emails, attacked in articles that later disappear, and even threatened with lawsuits for using Colossal material, like videos, which were apparently employed with “fair usage”.

But it doesn’t look as if these threats come from Colossal; in fact, the evidence is against it.

The authors of of the EMBO piece are identified this way: “Howard Wolinsky is a freelance journalist based in Chicago, USA. Holger Breithaupt is an editor at EMBO reports. Yehu Moran is Professor of Ecology and Evolution at Hebrew University of Jerusalem and an academic editor at EMBO Press.”)

A few descriptions of the attacks on Colossal’s critics:

Herridge, Lynch and Rawlence have been targets of smear articles and blog posts that questioned their credentials, professional integrity and intentions. Lynch and Dibble have been targets of digital copyright infringement claims. Lynch said he was accused of violating copyright on X and his account was permanently suspended. Dibble had to fight similar charges for what he described as fair use of videos from Colossal and the popular Joe Rogan Experience podcast. He said the aim was to shut down his YouTube podcast, but he won appeals.

Herridge, who said she was offered a seat on Colossal’s science advisory board but declined, was featured on Feb. 7 in an article in BusinessMole, an online website covering small business: “The Controversy Surrounding Tori Herridge: Are Her Scientific Critiques Dangerously Unqualified?” This article had the byline and photo of Samuel Allcock, the founder of PR Fire, a UK-based PR company. Laura Johnson, Managing Director of PR Fire, stated that Allcock had left the company in 2024. Allcock did not respond to email inquiries, nor did BusinessMole.

. . . . On March 31, an anonymous hit piece about Herridge appeared in an online news site, The Signal, covering California’s Santa Clarita Valley, under the headline “TrowelBlazers and the Cult of Visibility: A Critical Look at the Intersection of Science, Media and Branding”. TrowelBlazers is a project of Herridge and three other scientists to honor “the contributions of women in the ‘digging’ sciences: archaeology, geology, and paleontology, and to outreach activities aimed at encouraging participation, especially from under-represented minorities”. The article, which has now been taken down, stated that the story was paid for by an advertiser. The Signal did not respond to inquiries about this article. TechTock also attacked Herridge on its YouTube channel; @MrTechTok could not be reached for comment.

. . . Throughout the summer, a series of articles questioned Lynch’s credentials and integrity and claimed he is a misogynist, which he said he found especially offensive. On March 7, A Typical Work Day, a website aimed at business people, ran an anonymous piece “Vincent Lynch’s Failures in Genetic Research Cast Serious Doubts on His Authority in the De-Extinction Debate.” It has been taken down. On June 2, GreenMatters ran “Questioning Credibility: Lynch’s Stem Cell Shortcomings”. GreenMatters did not respond to a query. On June 6, Lynch was again smeared in an anonymous piece in CEO Today Magazine entitled: Vincent Lynch’s Repeated Failures in Stem Cell Research.”

On July 3, The Daily Blaze ran a piece questioning Lynch’s credentials entitled “Everything You Need To Know About Vincent Lynch, Evolutionary Biologist”, and the USA Daily Chronicles ran a piece claiming Lynch is a misogynist. Both have been taken down after EMBO reports made inquiries. Both websites are part of the Price of Business Digital Network run by Kevin Price and Gigi Price under the name Coco Media, LLC, which also includes The Price of Business syndicated radio show.

There’s a lot more in the article.

Indeed, some of the language from the different smear sites has been similar, leading people to think that the smear were generated by chatbots.

While these articles and blog posts have appeared in different media—often websites catering to specific topics that have little or nothing to do with science, evolution, or conservation—they all share commonalities, such as similar introductions, trying to discredit the targeted scientists’ expertise, or question their neutrality or integrity, and seem to be generated by chatbots. A semantic analysis of the articles about Herridge and Lynch shows considerable similarities in particular for those targeting Lynch, suggesting that these may have come from the same source (Fig. 1). While the two earlier articles against Herridge have a byline—Sam Allcock and an external advertising source—most of the later articles against Lynch are all anonymous; the html code of the CEO Today article lists Jacob Mallinder, their head of digital marketing, as an author. The site did not respond to queries about the possible role of Mallinder and blocked the sender’s email address after the first attempt to contact them.

For several reasons, I don’t think Colossal is involved in this at all. First, they flatly deny it. I have to give credit to Colossal’s George Church for his denial:

Church speculated that Colossal fans might be behind the anonymous smear articles, which he called “a tempest in a teapot”. “Maybe they’re trying to ‘help’ in some misguided way. If ‘fans’ want to engage in the conversation, ideally, they would use their real names (as Ben, Beth, and I do) and avoid ad hominem comments”, he said. “These folks questioning expertise and credentials, ironically, have zero credentials themselves (due to anonymity), and their editors are not showing strong responsibility.”

Further, the articles appear in journals or magazines with minimal readership. If Colossal wanted to attack its critics, it would do so on its site, on YouTube, or in big-name places.  But they haven’t done so, save for a few comments and videos by chief scientist Beth Shapiro, using her own name.

Third, the articles are often anonymous, and when they’re not, attempts to contact the author or the publication either show that the author doesn’t exist or doesn’t respond.

Finally, the articles have often been taken down after EMBO contacts the journal/magazine.

All of this suggests that Church is right: these are, as Matthew (another critic) speculated, “Colossal fanbois.”  Matthew and I are just happy that the fanbois didn’t go after us.  I did write a Boston Globe op-ed critical of de-extinction in addition to quite a few pieces n this website, and Matthew has been critical of it in his books.  But as critical as I am of Colossal, I have to give them credit for responding openly and publicly, even if I find their responses inadequate.

My only question is this: why would somebody be so keen on de-extinction that they try to ruin the reputation of scientists who criticize it?  I can understand cancellation campaigns based on ideological differences, but bringing back the wooly mammoth? These anonymous and cowardly cancellers are either marinated in Jurassic Park, or have too much time on their hands.  Either way, they are not engaging in the give-and-take that occurs in real scientific criticism, including our criticisms of Colossal and their responses.  Instead, they attack people rather than ideas. The Colossal fanbois are good at only one thing: discomfiting critics by using ad hominem arguments.

Maarten Boudry’s job at the University of Ghent endangered because he has “Zionist-tinged opinions”

August 27, 2025 • 10:30 am

Maarten Boudry, a Belgian philosopher at the University of Ghent, is not a timorous man.  You’ve met him before when he wrote this recent post defending our anthology, edited by Lawrence Krauss, against claims that we should not be criticizing the Left’s intrusion into science when the Right is doing it more vigorously. You may also recall that both he and I were deplatformed when we were supposed to hold a discussion on science and ideology at the University of Amsterdam, and this cancelation was done for a completely irrelevant reason: we were “too sympathetic to Israel.” Having visited both Belgium and the Netherlands in recent years, I have become depressingly aware of how anti-Israel, if not anti-Semitic, these countries are, perhaps because of a large influx of Muslim immigrants.

(I should mention by way of self-aggrandizement that Maarten and I also co-wrote a paper in Philosophical Psychology on the cognitive status of supernatural beliefs: my only philosophy paper, and one that gives me a soupçon of credibility in philosophy.)

But I digress. The point of this post is to show how anti-Semitic academia really is in the Low Countries, to the extent that Boudry has been threatened with being sanctioned (and certainly with having his speech chilled and repressed) simply for defending Israel in published interviews.  And he’s standing up to some of his colleagues who would take away his professorship.

I reproduce some of the history of to this conflict, putting Maarten’s background explanation as well as the exchange of emails in indented text. Bold headings are mine, as are the words that are flush left.

Introduction from Maarten:

A few words on the context of the letter bellow. What “triggered” my colleagues was a joint interview I gave to a Flemish magazine alongside a rabidly anti-Zionist MP (interestingly, he was from the Right), who stormed out after 20 minutes because he couldn’t take it anymore. You can read it here in the archive (right-click “translate” in Google).

This MP actually subscribes to the antisemitic conspiracy theory that Netanyahu knew about the October 7 pogrom in advance and deliberately let it happen, sacrificing 1,200 of his own citizens—women, men, and children. The fact that such a figure sits in our parliament says everything about the state of Belgian politics.

During that interview I made remarks they deemed so offensive that they urged the Board of Directors to discipline me. As an aside: I dislike these double interviews and hesitated to agree, since the result is always an extremely condensed, truncated transcript that strips away nuance, context, and sources. You’re at the mercy of the journalist—not that he did a bad job, but such reduction is inevitable. And it’s always weak to attack a sound-bite interview rather than engage with what I’ve actually written in my book or opinion pieces, where the arguments are properly developed and sourced.

When I asked Maarten who the author of the letter below (Herman Mielants) was, Martin replied,

Herman Mielants is a professor emeritus (UGent) and physician, specialized in rheumatology.

And when I asked why Mielants wrote the letter below, Maarten replied:

Why did Mielants write the letter? Because he’s fervently anti-zionist, like many people on the Left, and he’s so dogmatic that he cannot tolerate a colleague dissenting with his own “correct” view. In general, public opinion in Belgium on Israel is an echo chamber: many people are completely shocked to hear about Israel’s disengagement from Gaza in 2005, or about Arabs in high positions in the Israeli parliament and in the courts. They have no idea.

Here’s Mielants’s Letter to Ghent professors about Boudry’s “impure views”, demanding some kind of punishment. (The rector is the head of the University). 

From: Herman Mielants
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2025 9:06 PM

To: rector; Petra De Sutter

Cc: Jean Jacques AMY; Marleen Temmerman; Marc DeMeere Jan Tavernier <

Subject: FW: Double interview Jean-Marie Dedecker vs. Maarten Boudry

Importance: High

Dear Rector and dear future rector

The undersigned, professors emeritus of Ghent University (Marleen Temmerman, Jan Tavernier, Mark Demeyer, and Herman Mielants), are deeply concerned about the Zionist-tinged opinions of philosopher Prof. Maarten Boudry. While Boudry certainly has the right to freedom of expression, he coldly distorts the truth regarding the Gaza issue. He defends outspoken Zionist ideas regarding the apartheid regime since the beginning of the state of Israel, as well as the illegal occupations of the Palestinian territories and the genocide currently being committed in Gaza. In a recent publication in De Morgen, Omer Bartov, professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Brown University USA, himself a Jew and former Zionist, concludes that Israel is undoubtedly committing genocide in Gaza. The denial of this genocide is all the more cynical now that starvation, especially of children, is also being used as a weapon of war. Maarten Boudry’s ideas reflect extremely negatively on the objectivity of Ghent University. Given Maarten Boudry’s authority and charisma as Professor of Philosophy, who inherited the chair from Prof. Etienne Vermeersch, we ask the Board of Governors of Ghent University to make it clear to Prof. Maarten Boudry that Ghent University attaches importance to an objective approach to humanitarian problems and to promote this in his academic teaching and publications.

Below you will find the letter from Prof. Em. Jean-Jacques Amy, Professor Em. VUB, which he sent to Knack, following a conversation between Jean Marie DeDecker and Maarten Boudry, with the approval of JJ Amy [JAC: those letters aren’t attached here]

Kind regards
Prof. Em. Rheumatology, Herman Mielants, U Gent

More from Boudry about his job at Ghent:

About my current position: I don’t have tenure, only a part-time (50%) research position until the end of the year. Even the Etienne Vermeersch Chair which they mention, which I held for four years, was not a tenured position. By the way, it would be virtually impossible for me to get such a position in the academic climate post-7/10. Even before that I was already a controversial figure (for my views on islam & migration, climate policy, etc.), and there was an outcry about the appointment in the Flemish media. But today it would be a non-starter, and my rector would never risk it.

And, as he notes, “Here is my reply to the miscreants.” It is bold and unapologetic:

From: Maarten Boudry
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2025 at 19:15
Subject: Re: Dubbelinterview Jean-Marie Dedecker vs. Maarten Boudry
To: Jean Jacques AMY
Cc: Rik Van de Walle, rector, Petra De Sutter, Marc De Meyere, Marleen Temmerman, Jan Tavernier, M.Galand Pierre, Maarten Boudry

It is disheartening that some academics, even after decades-long careers at universities, still fail to grasp the meaning and value of academic freedom. The debate over the war in Gaza is still raging among scholars and experts. I have never denied that the Israeli army has committed war crimes in Gaza—such crimes occur in nearly every war—and I have myself often voiced sharp criticism of Netanyahu and his far-right allies (see my book and previous articles, which are naturally more detailed and substantiated than a condensed interview transcript).

What I emphatically deny is that a “genocide” is taking place in Gaza, and I am far from alone in this view. Holocaust scholars such as Norman Goda and Jeffrey Herf, historians like Benny Morris, legal experts including Julia Sebutinde of the ICJ, and specialists in urban warfare like John Spencer share this position.

Your letter, by contrast, contains almost no argumentation; it simply repeats, in indignant tones, the familiar accusations of “genocide,” “apartheid,” and “open-air prison.” Anyone who seeks to prematurely shut down scholarly debate, even calling for sanctions against dissenting voices before the ICJ has issued a ruling, betrays a complete lack of understanding of academic freedom and of the UGent motto Dare to Think. Even Omar Bartov’s article in The New York Times, which you cite, acknowledges the intense debate among experts over whether genocide is the right term. What is particularly cowardly is that you demand disciplinary measures behind the back of the person targeted.

Most troubling, however, is your repeated pejorative use of the term “Zionist.” That I supposedly hold “Zionist-tinged views” is, in your eyes, sufficient reason to urge the Board of Directors to sanction me. Yet “Zionism,” at its core, is simply the pursuit of self-determination of the Jewish people. Unless you deny that same right to every other people in the world, your argument is therefore guilty of antisemitism.

But by all means, feel free to engage in antisemitism—that, too, is part of the academic freedom I cherish. I can recommend it highly to all of you.

Cheers
M.

I fear that Maarten’s day as a scholar at Ghent University—or any university—are numbered.  Yes, we have our haters and antisemites in American universities, but it is much, much worse in Belgium and the Netherlands. I should add that he is not Jewish.

Lawrence Krauss interviews Carole Hooven

August 9, 2025 • 12:00 pm

This is one of the twenty-odd interviews that Lawrence Krauss conducted to support the new book he edited, The War on Science, comprising essays about the pollution of academia by ideology. (Nearly all of us indict ideology from the Left, though many of us, including me, admit that the Right is currently a bigger threat to science—but perhaps only temporarily.)  As you know, I am not a fan of podcasts and long videos, but I’m trying to listen to as many of my cowriters  as I can (Luana Maroja and I have an essay in the volume, but didn’t do an interview).

Here’s an interview with Carole Hooven, whom you’ve surely heard of as an evolutionary biologist specializing  in testosterone and the evolutionary basis of sex differences. (Her book T: The Story of Testosterone, the Hormone that Dominates and Divides Us, is excellent.)  When teaching at Harvard, she made the mistake of saying that there were only two sexes, and that statement snowballed into a huge fracas. Hooven’s colleagues in human evolutionary biology wouldn’t support her for emphasizing the biological facts about biological sex, for that’s a minefield that demonizes those who enter it as “transphobes”. As Carole recounts in her Free Press piece, “Why I left Harvard,” she got in trouble for simply speaking the truth. If you know Carole, you’ll know the she’s eminently civil and polite. She just wasn’t ideologically correct. Here’s an excerpt of the FP piece, which she reprinted as the essay in The War on Science.

In the brief segment on Fox, my troubles began when I described how biologists define male and female, and argued that these are invaluable terms that science educators in particular should not relinquish in response to pressure from ideologues. I emphasized that “understanding the facts about biology doesn’t prevent us from treating people with respect.” We can, I said, “respect their gender identities and use their preferred pronouns.”

I also mentioned that educators are increasingly self-censoring, for fear that using the “wrong” language can result in being shunned or even fired.

The failure of her colleagues to defend her for speaking the truth is reprehensible, and eventually the pressure forced her to leave her department.  The rest you can hear in this video (the interview starts at 4:04).  There’s a lot more than the Harvard-cancellation story: Carole’s had an interesting life, starting as a primatologist working in Africa, and you’ll learn something about that, too. Have a listen.

Alex Byrne’s “colleagues” dogpile him for co-writing a critique of American pediatric gender medicine

July 7, 2025 • 8:45 am

Alex Byrne holds a chair in philosophy at MIT, and has done considerable research on gender issues.  This has resulted not only in several papers but also in an estimable book, Trouble With Gender: Sex Facts, Gender Fictions. I read the book and liked it, and eventually became convinced of its thesis that the idea of “gender” is so slippery that it really shouldn’t be used at all. “Sex roles” would do as well, but somehow even I continue to use the g-word.

Luana sent me this new development in the Byrne saga. Because Alex contributed to the writing of a Health and Human Services Review of treatments for pediatric gender dysphoria, he is in the process of being demonized by a group of academics. It’s not that there’s anything wrong with the HHS review, really; the demonization came because it was issued by an HHS whose head was appointed by Trump, and also because it goes along with the increasing evidence that treating childhood dysphoria with “affirmative care” is deeply problematic, leading to premature dispensations of hormones and surgery to adolescents and children who, without that “care,” would mostly come out as gay.

But the pre-puberty treatments, often given before any reasonable age of consent, deprive those children of any chance of a meaningful sex life—including one without orgasms—forever. And the mutilation involved in sex-role-altering surgery surely requires consent of someone who understands the consequences—someone who’s mature. (I waffle between the ages of 18 and 21.) But if you deviate from the “progressive” party line that “gender-affirming therapy”—the one-way escalator from dysphoria to hormones and often to surgery—is the essential cure for gender dysphoria, then what is happening to Alex will happen to you, too.

Finally, Alex is getting dogpiled because his critics aver that, because he’s a philosopher, he has no expertise to weigh in on issues involving gender, even if he’s written about them repeatedly in scholarly venues. That’s rich because, as you’ll see, most of his critics don’t even approach Alex’s level of expertise.

The whole brouhaha serves to demonstrate that “cancel culture”—the attempt to ruin someone’s career if they transgress “progressive” ideological stands—is alive and well.

The announcement of the dogpile was tweeted by Jesse Singal, who has suffered his own accusations of “transphobia” for taking positions similar to Alex’s:

Here’s the letter, with the link in the heading:

Dear Professor Alex Byrne,

It was alleged in May that you were among the anonymous authors of the HHS report on pediatric trans care. The report, among other things, issues the alarming recommendation that trans youth should not have access to gender-affirming care, despite the leading pediatric medical body in the country supporting the efficacy and life-saving potential of these treatments. [1]

In light of your recent confirmation [2] of these allegations, we as your colleagues at MIT, in philosophy, and in higher-education feel it necessary to speak out.

While we are not here calling for official or unofficial sanctions, we the undersigned believe that your behavior (a) perpetuates harm toward the trans community; (b) constitutes a failure to uphold your responsibilities as an academic; (c) is the result of an extremely misguided decision to collaborate with the Trump administration.

Marginalization of Trans Communities. While you claim to support the right of trans people to live freely, in practice your behavior does not support this right. Since 2020 you have published a number of academic articles, as well as one book, arguing against trans inclusivity. And there can be no doubt that such rhetoric, along with the new HHS report, further marginalizes and stigmatizes trans people, both within and outside of philosophy. [3]

But your contribution to the HHS report raises serious issues well beyond this particular issue about marginalization. Indeed, we submit that the allegations against you should be a cause for significant concern, even for those who share your views about trans people.

Let us explain.

Academic Professional Ethics. We are happy to grant that your participation in the authoring of the report is an exercise of your academic freedom. Per the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, jointly agreed upon by the AAUP and AAC, academic freedom entitles professors to freedom in research and publication of results. [4]

But since 1966, the AAUP has also agreed on a Statement on Professional Ethics. [5] Per this 1966 Statement, professors are obligated to “exercise critical self-discipline and judgment in using, extending, and transmitting knowledge” and to “practice intellectual honesty”. We take this to mean that as academics, we also have a responsibility to the public to not misconstrue the scope of our expertise, nor comment in our capacity as academics on issues where we lack the requisite expertise. It is, of course, compatible with professional academic ethics to express one’s views publicly, even when one is not an expert, i.e., one might lobby for a particular candidate or write an op-ed in a newspaper.  But contributing to a document as an expert in an area in which one is not an expert is contrary to professional standards.

The HHS cites contributors to their report on pediatric trans care as including medical doctors, medical ethicists, and a methodologist. [6] While you are a highly regarded philosopher of mind and have recently written on the philosophy of gender, you are not a medical ethicist by training. Moreover, to our knowledge, you do not have medical or scientific training, nor have you published any peer-reviewed pieces in medical journals.

Given your lack of the requisite expertise, we believe it is inappropriate for you to engage in the shaping of national medical policy on gender-affirming care for trans youth. Familiarity with theories of gender made from the armchair does not equip one to make expert judgments about the quality of medical studies, nor about the lived experiences and needs of trans youth and their families.

In contributing to a medical report that will have significant negative impacts on the lives of trans youth across this country, we believe that you have failed to uphold your responsibility as an academic to provide expert testimony only on matters included in your domain of expertise.

Collaboration with the Current Presidential Administration. The past few months have witnessed the Trump administration engage in the kidnapping of international graduate students from the streets, the deportation of innocent people to dangerous foreign prisons without due process, the cutting of lifesaving aid to millions across the world, and the undermining of the independence of colleges and universities across the country. We find these actions appalling, unethical, and undemocratic.

For these reasons, we believe it is deeply myopic for any academic to collaborate with the Trump administration in this moment, regardless of one’s particular views about gender. However misguided one may think “gender ideology” is, it is simply unconscionable to for that reason, make common cause with an administration so engaged. Indeed, were the Trump administration to suddenly decide tomorrow to support gender-affirming care for minors, we hold that it would be equally shortsighted and reprehensible if trans advocates were to then overlook everything else the administration is doing and join them as collaborators.

There is already a term of criticism for when a government appeals to pro-LGBTQ+ policies so people turn a blind eye to its other, harmful actions: that term is ‘pinkwashing.’ In this moment, we need a similar term of criticism for gender-critical theorists who overlook the rest of a government’s appalling behavior, merely because that government shares one’s views on gender. One can think that trans politics is misguided and also refuse to collaborate with such an administration.​​​​​​​

By contributing to the HHS report, we believe you have not only misconstrued the extent of your academic expertise, but have also badly misjudged the gravity of the current administration’s actions.

As of yesterday, the letter was signed by (according to my count) 211 people, 31 of whom who refused to give their names and appear as “anonymous”, 65 who say they are graduate students, and 57 who say they are undergraduates. (See the signers by clicking on this link.) While there is some overlap between these groups, it’s fair to say that about half the signers lack either the courage or the expertise to call out Byrne for “lack of expertise”. What kind of person would refuse to give their names when engaging in such a dogpile?

And note that the “expertise” of those judging Byrne’s expertise (probably without having read his book or the rest of his work) include students or professors in mathematics, mechanical engineering, women’s history, urban studies and planning, aerospace engineering, computer science, chemical engineering, bioengineering and a even “Anonymous (Staff)”. (I didn’t bother to look up some of the others whose fields weren’t specified.)

What is clear about these critics are several things (characterization and bolding below are mine):

a.) Many of them have not read Byrne’s work on gender and transitioning, as judging from their signing a letter that mischaracterizes his views (see his response below).

b.) His real crime is almost Soviet-style in its nature: “Collaboration with the Current Presidential Administration.” Because the report came out as an HHS document, it can be traced to Trump, ergo to Satan, and ergo Byrne is an agent of Satan.  It’s Trump, Jake! Read this again and weep (from the letter):

Collaboration with the Current Presidential Administration. The past few months have witnessed the Trump administration engage in the kidnapping of international graduate students from the streets, the deportation of innocent people to dangerous foreign prisons without due process, the cutting of lifesaving aid to millions across the world, and the undermining of the independence of colleges and universities across the country. We find these actions appalling, unethical, and undemocratic.

For these reasons, we believe it is deeply myopic for any academic to collaborate with the Trump administration in this moment, regardless of one’s particular views about gender. However misguided one may think “gender ideology” is, it is simply unconscionable to for that reason, make common cause with an administration so engaged.

Whatever else the administration has done, and I’ve made it clear that I deplore nearly all of it, it’s crazy to say that you shouldn’t try to help it provide more salubrious forms of gender care given Trump’s EO on the issue. Kids are being mistreated, and you shouldn’t help them because in so doing you’re co-signing an HHS document?

c.) The collaboration of Byrne on a public document is characterized as a breach of professional ethics, since he’s a philosopher and therefore lacks “expertise”. From the “Dear Professor Alex Byrne” letter:

Given your lack of the requisite expertise, we believe it is inappropriate for you to engage in the shaping of national medical policy on gender-affirming care for trans youth. Familiarity with theories of gender made from the armchair does not equip one to make expert judgments about the quality of medical studies, nor about the lived experiences and needs of trans youth and their families.

Byrne answers this in his response (see links and excerpts below).

d.) These people who decry Byrne for lack of “expertise” are apparently themselves unaware of the increasing evidence against “affirmative” pediatric gender care, especially the use of “blockers”. They cite American organizations ideologically determined to support “affirmative care”, but don’t even mention Britain’s Cass Review, which led to the dismantling of all but one of that nation’s gender clinics and a ban on puberty blockers for people younger than 18. Several European countries now allow puberty blockers only as experimental treatments, forbidding them as instruments of  general “affirmative care”.

e.) It’s clear that although the letter denies any attempt to ruin Alex’s career, accusing him of professional malfeasance clearly has that end. It will predictably encourage his colleagues—not just at MIT but everywhere—from associating with him, and will drive away students who would otherwise seek his mentorship. As Byrne says in a Washington Post op-ed noting why he co-authored the HHS report:

The hostile response to the review by medical groups and practitioners underscores why it was necessary. Medicalized treatment for pediatric gender dysphoria needs to be dispassionately scrutinized like any other area of medicine, no matter which side of the aisle is cheering it on. But in the United States, it has not been.

I was familiar with the other authors — there are nine of us in all — and I was confident that we could produce a rigorous, well-argued document that could do some good. Collectively, we had all the bases covered, with experts in endocrinology, the methodology of evidence-based medicine, medical ethics, psychiatry, health policy and social science, and general medicine. I am a philosopher, not a physician. Philosophy overlaps with medical ethics and, when properly applied, increases understanding across the board. Philosophers prize clear language and love unravelling muddled arguments, and the writings of pediatric gender specialists serve up plenty of obscurity and confusion.

f.) Finally, and perhaps most important, nowhere in the letter do the signers engage in the claims of the HHS report. The proper way to engage something like the report is with rational counterargument and data, not with accusations of “lack of expertise” or of being on “the wrong side of the aisle.” This is implied in these tweets, two by Byrne’s wife Carole Hooven, who suffered her own demonization on the basis of sex and gender—to the extent that she had to leave her department at Harvard:

Robert P. George, a political philosopher at Princeton, also notes the letter’s failure to engage the recommendations of the HHS report:

Byrne’s reply is a document of unusual rationality, calmness, and maturity, and simply dismantles the dogpile letter above. I don’t have space to reproduce it all, but I will give the first bit:

Dear colleagues and others,

Thank you for your open letter (reproduced below), concerning my involvement in the recent Department of Health and Human Services Review of treatments for pediatric gender dysphoria, which I discussed in a June 26 Opinion for the Washington Post.

The topic of pediatric gender medicine is emotionally fraught, and some people understandably feel vulnerable, angry, and frustrated. However, an open letter of this sort is not a constructive way to express one’s view that a colleague has committed professional ethical lapses and errors of judgement. Formal university channels as well as more collegial options are available, including writing opinion pieces. Encouraging individuals on social media to join a public condemnation of a colleague is inimical to the mission of the university.

The letter makes two main complaints:

(A): I have breached “professional standards” in contributing to the Review because of my “lack of the requisite expertise”; this “constitutes a failure to uphold [my] responsibilities as an academic.”

(B): Given the actions and policies of the current administration, my decision to take part in writing the Review was “extremely misguided” and “unconscionable.”

Framing the letter, you write that “since 2020 [I] have published a number of academic articles, as well as one book, arguing against trans inclusivity.” Despite referring to my “rhetoric,” you give no quotations or citations in support. People interpret “trans inclusivity” differently, but on an ordinary understanding of that phrase I haven’t argued against it. For example, from the preface of my book, Trouble with Gender:

[N]o one’s pursuit of a dignifying and fulfilling human life is impeded by anything in the pages that follow–neither transgender people, nor women, nor gay people, nor any other relevant constituency. If there is any doubt about that at the start, I hope it will vanish by the end.

You also accuse me of producing work that “further marginalizes and stigmatizes trans people.” Indeed, you have “no doubt” that this is the case. Since you provide no evidence for this claim, I will not address it here, except to say that I disagree.

The last 2+ pages of Byrne’s letter take up the claims (A) and (B) that he says his critics make, and simply demolishes them. But he ends on a conciliatory note:

Our “Ethos, Diversity, & Outreach” webpage says that “the Philosophy Section aims to create a vibrant and tolerant intellectual community with heterogeneity in backgrounds and opinions, and where the overriding norms are those of civilized rational argument.” I endorse these aims and commend them to you. As some of you know, I enjoy talking to people with very different perspectives from my own. My office door is always open if any of you would like to discuss the issues raised by your letter in person.

The misguided, erroneous, and hamhanded letter of the critics above shows the extent to which science and medicine have been politicized in America, injected with ideology to the extent that if you collaborate on an endeavor coming from the “wrong side of the aisle,” people on the “right side of history” (or so they think themselves) will try to ruin your career. This is a reprehensible endeavor from people infused ideology, hate, and anger.

Day 3: USC Conference on Censorship in the Sciences

January 31, 2025 • 9:30 am

To finish up my reportage on the USC conference on Censorship in STEM, I present a video Day 3 for your delectation.  It’s 6½ hours long, but below I’ll give the time marks for three items of interest, one of which is of interest only because it includes ME.

First the whole day; I’ve put the written schedule at the bottom so you can find the other talks.

The first talk is by heterodox black political scientist Wilfred Reilly, speaking about ten taboo topics; it begins at the beginning. I won’t list the taboos, so you’ll have to listen to the talk to see them.

The second talk, involving Julia Schaletzky, Luana Maroja, and me, begins at 4:29:51; its topic is “Censorship, sciences, and the life sciences”.  I can’t bear to listen to myself again. But I advanced the video 5:26:00, where some guy asks me about filling the “god-shaped hole” in humanity, and by eliminating religion the hole is filled by solipsism, some undefined “meta-narrative”. I got as heated as I ever do in a meeting, which is not very heated, but did stand my ground.

But below a talk you must hear. It’s from Greg Lukianoff, President of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). I think it was the best talk of the conference, and was also the last one. Fortunately, you can avoid scrolling around above because the talk is also posted as a standalone video (below). It’s a bit over 52 minutes long, and the topic is “How cancel culture destroys trust in expertise.”  Lukianoff is a passionate and eloquent speaker.

It’s a very good talk packed with information and slides, beginning with what happened to professors during the Red Scare in America the 40s and 50s, and then going on to the increase in cancellation happening today: how many professors get fired, how many deplatforming attempts are happening and how fast they’re increasing, and how schools rate on free speech. (Lukianoff really doesn’t like Harvard or Columbia; see 28:00, at 44:30, and at 51:44, when he says that Columbia should declare itself a “technical school.”)

Lukianoff also gives a number of examples of demonization or cancellation, all of which bear on how speech is chilled (note his comment on the Nature Human Behavior policy), and describes some ongoing FIRE lawsuits to promote free speech.

There are a full twenty minutes of good questions, the first by Jonathan Rauch (“What about the ACLU, the AAUP, and other organizations like yours?”). All of the questions get thorough and thoughtful answers.

 

Finally, here’s the schedule for day 3: