Dark Ages: Scientists Are Being Purged From Universities for Doing Science

Heather Heying, The Wall Street Journal

The postmodernist left on campus is intolerant not only of opposing views, but of science itself.

Who would have guessed that when America cleaved, the left would get the National Football League and the right would get uncontested custody of science?

The revolution on college campuses, which seeks to eradicate individuals and ideas that are considered unsavory, constitutes a hostile takeover by fringe elements on the extreme left. Last spring at the Evergreen State College, where I was a professor for 15 years, the revolution was televised—proudly and intentionally—by the radicals. Opinions not fitting with the currently accepted dogma—that all white people are racist, that questioning policy changes aimed at achieving “equity” is itself an act of white supremacy—would not be tolerated, and those who disagreed were shouted down, hunted, assaulted, even battered. Similar eruptions have happened all over the country.

What may not be obvious from outside academia is that this revolution is an attack on Enlightenment values: reason, inquiry and dissent. Extremists on the left are going after science. Why? Because science seeks truth, and truth isn’t always convenient.

The left has long pointed to deniers of climate change and evolution to demonstrate that over here, science is a core value. But increasingly, that’s patently not true.

The battle on our campuses—and ever more, in K-12 schools, in cubicles and in meetings, and on the streets—is being framed as a battle for equity, but that’s a false front. True, there are real grievances. Gaps between populations exist, for historical and modern reasons that are neither honorable nor acceptable, and they must be addressed. But what is going on at institutions across the country is—yes—a culture war between science and postmodernism. The extreme left has embraced a facile fiction.

Postmodernism, and specifically its offspring, critical race theory, have abandoned rigor and replaced it with “lived experience” as the primary source of knowledge. Little credence is given to the idea of objective reality. Science has long understood that observation can never be perfectly objective, but it also provides the ultimate tool kit with which to distinguish signal from noise—and from bias. Scientists generate complete lists of alternative hypotheses, with testable predictions, and we try to falsify our own cherished ideas.

Science is imperfect: It is slow and methodical, and it makes errors. But it does work. We have microchips, airplanes and streetlights to show for it.

In a meeting with administrators at Evergreen last May, protesters called, on camera, for college president George Bridges to target STEM faculty in particular for “antibias” training, on the theory that scientists are particularly prone to racism. That’s obvious to them because scientists persist in using terms like “genetic” and “phenotype” when discussing humans. Mr. Bridges offers: “[What] we are working towards is, bring ’em in, train ’em, and if they don’t get it, sanction them.”

Despite the benevolent-sounding label, the equity movement is a highly virulent social pathogen, an autoimmune disease of the academy. Diversity offices, the very places that were supposed to address bigotry and harassment, have been weaponized and repurposed to catch and cull all who disagree. And the attack on STEM is no accident. Once scientists are silenced, narratives can be fully unhooked from any expectation that they be put to the test of evidence. Last month, Evergreen made it clear that they wanted two of its scientists gone—my husband, Bret Weinstein, and me, despite our stellar reputations with the students they claimed to be protecting. First, they came for the biologists . . .

Full story at The WSJ

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 9, 2018 7:26 am

What’s most fascinating is that this author and her husband, Bret Weinstein, are life long loyal “progressives”, who have always supported left wing causes and voted for left wing candidates. BUT they made the mistake of actually being honest, and of still thinking the logic was more valuable than pure emotion.

I feel sympathetic for them, of course, but it’s hard to ignore the schadenfreude when the Left starts to eat it’s own. Ms. Heying, we told you this was going to happen, and now you’re surprised that it has. Nevertheless, welcome to the fight. Glad you’re finally on our side.

James Francisco
Reply to  wws
July 9, 2018 8:15 am

Great reply wws. I wonder if Bret and his wife Ms. Heying appreciate living in a country that has not yet stooped to the tactics of past and present communists. “Reeducation” has been very cruel by the societies that they wanted our country to emulate. The communist were especially cruel to those who were willing participants and then saw the light. I am now going to search for the names of those who found themselves disagreeing with some part of there supreme leaders ideology. If someone has already done that please let me know. The Russian Sailors that fought for the Bolshavics ( Communist ) should be at the top of the list.

Dan Evens
Reply to  wws
July 9, 2018 9:25 am

Help! Help! The students we radicalized are attacking ME now!

Reply to  Dan Evens
July 9, 2018 9:39 am

But everybody else was already beaten bloody on the floor.

Nigel in Santa Barbara
Reply to  wws
July 9, 2018 10:28 am

The problem is politics. Doesn’t matter what you believe. If you pick sides, politics will eat you alive.

Reply to  Nigel in Santa Barbara
July 9, 2018 10:42 am

And if you don’t pick a side, those who do will eat you alive from both ends. “For us or against us” and all that. 😐

Reply to  Nigel in Santa Barbara
July 9, 2018 1:15 pm

An emulsion of politics and science may prove to be insanity on the hoof.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  ThomasJK
July 9, 2018 6:42 pm

Politics and science need religion to mix well. Then you really see the cuckoo’s nest.

holly elizabeth Birtwistle
Reply to  Nigel in Santa Barbara
July 9, 2018 4:11 pm

Truth and accuracy are usually on one side, more than the other.

Reply to  Nigel in Santa Barbara
July 9, 2018 9:47 pm

In a civil war, the middle ground is where you get shot by both sides.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  wws
July 9, 2018 11:24 am

I would suggest this couple were singled out precisely because they were “progressives”. You mujst maintain idological purity and it also encourages les autres, as it were.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
July 9, 2018 11:54 am

Personal jealousy and ambition often add to the injustices of extremism. People who disregard the means are dangerous to anyone and everyone. Even those who see them as “the most committed” to the ideals.
Hence, and regrettably, idealism itself is dangerous.

Reply to  John Harmsworth
July 9, 2018 12:13 pm

Idealism leads to “one ring that rules them all rings”…

Reply to  wws
July 9, 2018 11:26 am

Progressives are a cancer for humanity. Why are fascists bad but marxist/communist who killed millions of there own people for thinking different, good ?


Reply to  Robertv
July 9, 2018 6:24 pm

Because the people who write our histories and movies rather enjoy communism.

Reply to  Robertv
July 10, 2018 1:29 am

I think many people are ‘progressive’ by default, by virtue of the education system. I definitely was, but probably had never really thought through what it meant. All my family and friends are, in the sense that they adhere to ‘motherhood’ statements, as I did. They’re good people, they believe in equality, diversity, inclusivity, environmental protection, tolerance, climate change, refugees etc. They don’t even know why they have those values, other than they are the ‘right’ ones to have. It’s often when something happens to you personally, or small things start to build up as illogical or unfair or just plain stupid, that the warning bells start to go off. The more aware will be able to connect the dots and start to understand systemic problems and the significance and symbolism of seemingly small events. When you start to examine the genesis of the principles I articulated above, the logical problems of implementation, and the inevitability of identity politics arising become clear. Translating feel-good theory into practice is not so easy, as history proves. I think most people are sleepwalking. It really is an uphill battle. I am seriously concerned about the direction that academia has taken, with media bias, and the quashing of free speech, but I CANNOT get anybody else in my circle on board to consider these things in any way significant of dangerous. My friends think it’s a little odd that I consider them important at all.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Sylvia
July 10, 2018 10:28 am

Most people are just too intellectually lazy to think about these things deeply enough to see that something is wrong.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  wws
July 9, 2018 11:52 am

“First they came for the Socialists and I did not speak out…for I was not a Socialist…”

Reply to  John Harmsworth
July 10, 2018 12:24 pm

John Harmsworth : This statement related to the NAZI’s
BUT as you evidently understand , it makes NO difference
result is the same !

Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) was a prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps.
Niemöller is perhaps best remembered for the quotation:
“First they came for the Socialists,
and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists,
and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—
and there was no one left to speak for me.”
and that is WHY history isn’t taught now as well
as it once was……they don’t want us WARNED
As we are ALL discovering to our horror
our precious Universities have become mere
purveyors of Post-Modernist Neo-Marxist
propaganda and a breeding ground for mind-less
( The ZOMBIES are no longer imaginary ! )
It seems to be the culmination of a long term
programme to pervert and distort and destroy our
Scientific-Based WESTERN CIVILISATION and our
FREE-ENTERPRISE Capitalist Society !
Of course they will “come” for the scientists first!
because they have the proof that the Communist
Agenda of a UTOPIA will always fail due to faults

Reply to  Trevor
July 11, 2018 11:04 am

Niemöller was a naval officer and u-boat commander for the Kaiser in WWI. He resigned because he didn’t like the new democratic government; that’s why he stood for the National Socialists. Only when his version of christian faith lost out to the German Christians did he turn against Hitler.
Later he was a reliable useful idiot for Moscow and its “peace”-organisations. His feeling of guilt (for his earlier animosity against jews, etc.) made him do that.
Leftist German politicians and foreign governments still use this sentiment against stupid Germans today.

Reply to  wws
July 9, 2018 12:42 pm

For those of you who are interested & have the time, Heather Heying & Bret Weinstein on Joe Rogan Podcast, Feb 20, 2018.

Reply to  JWurts
July 9, 2018 8:25 pm

Here is Heather Heying on The Rubin Report (approx. 1 hour) posted in the last week:

Those that want a more in depth look at postmodernism and its impact on campus should delve into Jordan Peterson’s work or even Gad Saad (The Saad Truth) on YouTube.

PS> Heather and Bret are married – for those that might not know.

Reply to  wws
July 11, 2018 12:44 pm

Couldn’t have said it better myself. They should have known better but they got too comfortable in their ideological monopoly.

July 9, 2018 7:27 am

I like it better when you talk about Climate… or weather… or Al Gore

Sun Spot
Reply to  Mike
July 9, 2018 9:56 am

But This is exactly what cAGW is about, radical ideology, same group of people.

Gungas Din
Reply to  Sun Spot
July 9, 2018 4:24 pm

Sun Spot, The “A” should also be small case.
(Maybe the “C” and the “A” should both also be about a font size of “1”? 8- )

James Francisco
Reply to  Mike
July 9, 2018 9:57 am

Mike. If you want to fix a problem, it works best if you go after the root causes. There are many special interest groups that have found climate change remadies very helpful for their cause. Putting “a banana up the tail pipe” works so well for everyone that wants totalitarian one world government to those who think people are an unatural scourge on the earth. You will never bring an end to this CAGW madness if you don’t understand and fight the root causes.

holly elizabeth Birtwistle
Reply to  James Francisco
July 9, 2018 4:14 pm

+100 James, exactly right.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Mike
July 9, 2018 12:01 pm

There is NO GLOBAL WARMING> Not for 18 years. What came before that was most likely natural. We are left with the putrid politics that made it an issue in the first place and continues to flog the dead horse.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  John Harmsworth
July 9, 2018 7:03 pm

True John, But the average citizen has only MSM instilled knowledge of the actual science and is oblivious that the policies of the progressive climateers could actually affect his standard of living. It’s still kind of stylish for them to live on “Purgatory Road”.

Reply to  Mike
July 10, 2018 2:58 am

@Mike-then skip the article….

Reply to  Cube
July 10, 2018 1:03 pm

MIKE : and Cube :
No Mike ! Stick around and garner
ALL the information you can
BECAUSE that will inform ALL your
views , not just about the climate !
As James has said : You need to understand where
the CAGW nonsense comes from and
understanding some of these other issues gives
you the WHY and the HOW
these issues arose and the agenda behind it !
And CAGW sure isn’t scienctific !

July 9, 2018 7:28 am

“constitutes a hostile takeover by fringe elements on the extreme left”…..

give me a F’in break……that’s their base

Robert W Turner
Reply to  Latitude
July 9, 2018 8:23 am

Exactly. Anyone claiming there is still a moderate left in western society hasn’t been paying attention.

Bill Powers
Reply to  Robert W Turner
July 9, 2018 9:17 am

Moderates are actually the left of center social Republicans and right of center foreign policy Democrats. The near extinct dinosaurs gave themselves a name “The gang of 8” and the media touted them as champions of compromise. But you are correct, when they die off,there will be no moderates remaining. For the records moderates are not a good thing they are the soft malleable center that has spent the last 50 years giving in to the collectivists in order to get along. So we have them to thank for helping to build this strong Marxist movement that is near ready to clamp down on individual liberties and strike the Bill of Rights from existence because after all, in the left’s mind it is a “living document” just as social science trumps physical science.

Reply to  Bill Powers
July 9, 2018 9:39 am

x 42 many….


Reply to  Bill Powers
July 9, 2018 9:47 am

Take a side, make one friend and one enemy. Take the middle ground, make zero friends and two enemies. It’s why most diplomats wait until the war is over.

That said, there IS a difference between genuine compromise and appeasement.

Reply to  drednicolson
July 9, 2018 10:07 am

Take a side, make one friend and one enemy.

That assumes the two sides are equal in number.


Reply to  Jim Masterson
July 9, 2018 10:39 am

Only if the two sides can “mend” in an equation…so to speak!

John Minich
Reply to  drednicolson
July 9, 2018 5:52 pm

drednicolson: Your comment on the comparison between compromise and appeasement, I think, is well put. It reminds me of Neville Chamberlin’s honorable compromise that brought “Peace in our time.”, but turned out to be appeasement, with a different result. I think your comment, along with those of others’ give me some reason to be a little scared. I much prefer that 2+2 always= 4 rather than some people saying that they don’t want 2+2=4 and that I have to accept their way or else…

Reply to  Bill Powers
July 9, 2018 10:08 am

What Bill Powers said.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Bill Powers
July 9, 2018 12:03 pm

This is the result of a cancer that has been growing in Academia for over 60 years. Until university education is reformed it will produce more and more infected brains.

Carbon Bigfoot
Reply to  John Harmsworth
July 9, 2018 4:16 pm

Stop the money—all of it—– grants, scholarships, student loans and it will seriously impede this nonsense.

July 9, 2018 7:46 am

This has been quietly building for a long time, and anyone who pointed it out during the last 4-5 decades was ridiculed as a nutjob paranoid, and yet here we are. And it is not just in colleges and schools, this cancer has been bubbling along in USG agencies, too. Leftists love to get on the inside and weaponize regulation enforcement to target anyone who opposes their agenda. This is going to get very ugly, the left never goes away without destroying as much and as many as they can.

old construction worker
Reply to  2hotel9
July 9, 2018 8:03 am

“…… target anyone who opposes their agenda.” The EPA,IRS,FBI DOE and DOJ are good examples of targeting those who opposes their agenda.

James Francisco
Reply to  old construction worker
July 9, 2018 9:32 am

I attended a mandatory meeting in 1978 or 1979 while in the USAF where the Squadron Commander warned us that the communist sympathizing Vietnam war protesters were cutting their hair and seeking jobs inside the government. I’ll bet he doesn’t get any satisfaction in being proved correct.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  James Francisco
July 9, 2018 12:07 pm

But they didn’t mention that it was the U.S. government! Lol!

Reply to  old construction worker
July 10, 2018 7:21 am

The alphabet soup agencies always had a strong incentive to defend themselves from interference by citizens, the left has successfully infiltrated and turn that against their political opponents. Now citizens are having to root this crap out, and it is not going to be pretty.

Reply to  2hotel9
July 9, 2018 9:51 am

It’s one of those Merited Impossibilities. It will never happen, and when it does you’ll deserve it.

Reply to  2hotel9
July 9, 2018 10:15 am

This has been building for a long time. I first began being active with the “Democratic” party in the 1970s. I was a grass-roots reliable volunteer with local, state, and national efforts.

There pretty much are no more democrats left. I am the last one. All of my friends and colleagues got brainwashed and coerced or seduced to hold the Marxist SJW principles. Some are aware and support “democratic socialism,” or frank Marxism, but many still believe they are in the SAME party. All you have to do is look at Dem Party Platform of each prez election (each party actually forms a single, published platform as part of the convention at whihc the party candidate is nominated). The Dem platform has morphed across time to go from maybe a JFK type dem party to looking exactly like (google this) “The Original Port Huron Statement,” the Marxist SDS manifesto of the 1960s, when they were not fully merged with Dem Party.

“We” did not detect our party being taken over because it was done as a plan, and done as a surrepticious plan. The MAIN cover was to invent “Red-baiting” and “McCarthyism” as equivalent conversation-stoppers similar to screaming “racist.”

So, we never observed ourselves getting taken over by the Reds, est we be the dreaded “red-baiters” we accused the Republicans of being.

Quite clever. It worked.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
July 9, 2018 12:33 pm

That’s how they operate. Oh its “voluntary”, you can back out if you want. Were only asking self evidently beneficial adjustments. The thin edge of the wedge for the Paris Accord, Kyoto, etc. Once they have patiently concreted everything in over decades, it becomes the policy. We are voluntarily recycling our garbage, for example, but eventually there won’t be a choice.

Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
July 9, 2018 12:36 pm

Interesting observation from within as the destructive belief system of Politically Correct Progressivism destroyed the Democrat Party.

Here’s a 13 minute video that explains the who/why/how/where/when of the operation that created the belief system, and began its spread throughout out culture. See the website for more details:

Reply to  Kent Clizbe
July 9, 2018 10:21 pm

And what social relation connects all these? Surely they must organize their plots in a setting that is structured, and also relatively surreptitious.

Possibly a religion?

Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
July 10, 2018 7:23 am

Infiltration, a very useful tactic for those who have no morals to restrain them. Look at how cheerfully the rank&file left supports killing babies, all the while decrying that THEY are defending the children.

Scott Manhart
July 9, 2018 7:51 am

This is not surprising, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and all the other totalitarians, went after the scientists who disagreed making clear that those remaining that they best tow the party line regardless of the outcome. We may look back with disgust at the horrors the the “lived experience” of the Middle Ages but for human suffering to achieve its pinnacle( to date) the leftward among us needed to corrupt science to act willing accomplice. Then we were able to reach true abattoir status….with efficiency!

ferd berple
Reply to  Scott Manhart
July 9, 2018 8:12 am

After the revolution the first to be eliminated are the intellectuals.

ferd berple
Reply to  Scott Manhart
July 9, 2018 8:14 am

Eventually the revolution eats it’s own children.

Reply to  ferd berple
July 9, 2018 9:50 am

Maximillian Robespierre’s demise will attest to that.

Reply to  Scott Manhart
July 9, 2018 9:44 am

…And the pope put Galileo under house arrests for heresy.

The truth may set you free, but those in power will imprison you for spouting it, if it is inconvenient for them.

Reply to  rocketscientist
July 10, 2018 4:57 am

“It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.” Voltaire

The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it

George Orwell

Joel O’Bryan
July 9, 2018 7:52 am

Opinion piece is from last Fall (2017)…

It’s not postmodernism that is the real problem, it’s Marxism.

Postmodernism simply views consensus as fact. Marxism imposes a consensus via overt coercion.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
July 9, 2018 8:39 am

“Postmodernism simply views consensus as fact.”

Viewing consensus as fact allows any two individuals to form a group, claim a consensus in the group, and then begin making demands against any other “consensus group”, under the guise of “oppression” or “facism” or whatever claim they wish to make.

I’m not sure then why Marxism can’t be directly derived from Postmodernism.

Postmodernism at worst denies, at best makes relative, objective reality and/or truth. If you kick objective reality out the door then all you’re left with in the room is nonobjective fantasy, e.g., in one context, AGW.

Reply to  sycomputing
July 9, 2018 9:55 am

To what can science appeal if not evidence?

Reply to  drednicolson
July 9, 2018 10:06 am


John Harmsworth
Reply to  drednicolson
July 9, 2018 12:11 pm

Apparently a supposed or declared consensus does the trick….unless you are a sceptic by nature.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  John Harmsworth
July 9, 2018 2:25 pm

Appeal to authority is a compelling argument to the lazy. The trick therefor is to be in a position of authority, as demonstrated by Climate Science and many other craftily worded “authorities”…. *cough* UN *cough*.

Reply to  drednicolson
July 10, 2018 3:05 am

People in the name of science appeal to genocide, police states, concentration camps, mass starvation, terrorism, suppression, censorship, oppression, etc.
The best reasons are used to justify the worst actions.
“To commit a great evil, one must convince themselves they are doing a great good.”

Leo Smith
Reply to  sycomputing
July 9, 2018 8:07 pm

Almost right.

Reality – objective reality – is an idea on which science depends, but it’s an idea that s essentially metaphysical. Like God, it cannot be proved to be right or wrong.

And facts are relative to what we conceive it to be.

So the Post modernists have half of the correct idea. Thats facts and indeed our understanding of what reality is and the terms in which we interpret it, are malleable.

Why they hate science, however, is because science WORKS. And that magic does not.

Science is effective and magic is not, which suggests that reality is NOT just what we think it is, or want it to be.

That the ideas that there exists something beyond our consciousness of it, that is not subject to our conception of it, is an idea that is less wrong than that the world is just our collective Idea.

This means that Post Modernism is more wrong than science. That intellectual laziness and mere belief will not change the world half as much as an an engineer will.

So lets take the Idea of Racism.
1/. Racism is all in your mind.
2/. All White people are Racist.

There are several paradoxes in these statements if you use critical logic to examine them, which is of course why the Left hates critical logic.

The statement ‘all white people are racist’, is in itself, racist.
Of course for a white person to deny it, is a statement of their supposed racism. When did you stop beating your wife?

And of course it all depends on what is meant by ‘Racism’

As originally couched the term meant something like ‘discrimination on the basis of a false premise about race’. That is, not that race per se was not a valid concept, but that statements such as ‘black men have no souls’ were false.

That definition allows statements like ‘all white people are racists’ to be made without paradox, but is refuted as long as there is one white person who is not a racist.

However the postmodern conception goes more along the lines that ‘all discrimination is wrong’.

An yet,without discrimination we cannot live at all. We need discrimination, to tell us what is discrimination, and what is not! Never mind which side of the road we need to drive on to survive.

And the left is full of it. No longer are we all just human beings…no the Left now says we are oppressed minorities, we are lesbian, gay bisexual transsexual, heterosexual, black, white etc etc.

The oppressed minority is the white heterosexual male, and the really oppressed minority is the white heterosexual male STEM…person.

But science is somewhat to blame for making the false claim that it is in fact true.

It is not, and must retreat from that position in order to be safe from attack.

The real situation is that science demonstrably works. And magic thinking demonstrably does not.

That is, that the way science classifies and divides up the world, the way it DISCRIMINATES between things, is more USEFUL than not discriminating at all.

Postmodern leftism would, if left unchecked, destroy civilization. Possibly that is the aim. Born out of jealousy of people who simply are too rubbish intellectually to ever master logic critical thinking or the immensely hard work needed to become a good scientist, they unconsciously seek to destroy a society in which these things have any meaning or use. If we were all hunter gatherers, then we could all be intellectually lazy and believe that the word was magic and it would do no harm.

It must be galling to be smart enough to realise just how stupid you are, an that is, fundamentally, what drives the intellectual side of Leftism- a strong desire to move the goalposts to right in front of you, so you can score a goal without making any real effort.

Science must shrug its shoulders and say ‘sure, the idea that there is an objective reality, cannot be held to be an objective reality without doubt’ and admit that yes, when it comes to how we think the world is, it is pretty much in our minds, and no one knows whether there is a reality out there, or if its all just a collective dream BUT that science is a system of thought that ASSUMES there is, and science WORKS BETTER than magic.

Like the GOD concept, WORKS BETTER at making people feel good about themselves than Marxism, which is born out of people feeling bad about themselves and encourages it.

Equal under God is a far more comforting and socially cohesive concept than equal under the law, which is nonsense. The whole point of the law is to discriminate, between legal and illegal actions.

Post modernism cannot be attacked on the basis that its not true, because the response will always be that neither in that case is science.

Years ago in apartheid S Africa, a Zulu colleague asked me, as the Cuban Marxists had preached ‘why the white man, ruled the black man’ . I searched for an honest answer.

“Do you know how a rifle works, Lawrence, Can you build one?”


“I can.”

Leftism today is simply railing against what is seen as apartheid, of science and technology ruling the masses who are thick as pigsh1t.

We should not be ashamed, when asked what right we have to lord it over stupid people just because we are white, male, and understand science to say ‘because we can dude, because we knows stuff that works, and all you know is pixie dust and unicorn farts and if you want to believe in that rubbish, it’s still a free country, but don’t come crying to me when your car won’t start…’

In short, don’t engage in debates about ultimate truth that you cannot win. Engage in debates about whether or not Germany, with the most investment per capita in green energy, is not in fact the highest per capita emitter of carbon dioxide in Europe.

Renewable energy is not a bad idea because you deny climate change, its a bad idea because it does not work ON THE TERMS WHICH ARE USED TO JUSTIFY ITS EXISTENCE.

If renewable energy us there to reduce carbon emissions, then tacitly the greens have accepted the objective reality OF ‘carbon emissions’ and the ability to measure them.

They have stepped from ideological waffle to a set of ideas that can be shown objectively to be right or wrong in their own terms.

If all white people are racist, they have already tacitly accepted that the term ‘white people’ is valid, and that white people are a race, and that judging people in terms of their race is valid, and they have already made a sweeping generalization about a race that is in itself deeply racist.

Thats logic.

If they simply deny logic, I suggest you switch off the electricity in their faculty, and let them decide how to switch it on again.

Reply to  Leo Smith
July 10, 2018 1:19 am

Properly delineated, science is the search for fact, not truth. Fact is a component of truth, perhaps even the major component, but a proposition that fact makes up the whole of truth is not falsifiable, and thus falls outside the scope of science.

Reply to  Leo Smith
July 10, 2018 2:18 am

That’s what I’ve found. Every single position they take is a paradox and contradicts another ‘sacred’ position. When you try to reason with them and present them with unassailable logic that undermines that position, they attack you personally. On the Guardian you get moderated for the polite application of logic, presenting counter evidence and facts, or simply pointing out hypocrisy. But calling for the hanging or guillotining of politicians they don’t agree with, or climate ‘deniers’ or ‘fascists’ gets the OK with the Guardian moderators. That’s why I think they are unhinged. Or just really stupid. Or smart, but liars. Either way, it’s a worry because you can’t reason with a thick person anymore than you can with somebody who willingly embraces lies.

Reply to  Leo Smith
July 10, 2018 3:56 pm

Leo! So nice to see you! I knew you’d come.

“Almost right.”

I’m flattered, but at the same time I must demand you remain consistent as a practicing proselyte of Popper. Exchanging referents (i.e., “true” for “right” and so on) is clever, but it isn’t going to help you.

By your own admission you can’t know anything other than that which is false. If that which is false is equivalent to that which is wrong, then obviously a proper Popper proselyte is allowed only one possible premise:

“Almost wrong.”

Again, I’m flattered but surely this wasn’t what you intended to say? 🙂

“Reality – objective reality – is an idea on which science depends, but it’s an idea that s essentially metaphysical. Like God, it cannot be proved to be right or wrong.”

If you admit objective reality cannot be proved true or false, then to deny objective reality is to contradict yourself. The most you can do is choose to believe reality isn’t objective. But in that case, your choice to believe so is by faith. If I choose to believe the opposite, why is your faith better or more rational than mine?

Furthermore, don’t you contradict your own belief system as well? Shouldn’t a good Popperite rather say, “Like God, objectively reality cannot yet be proved to be right or wrong,” i.e., true or false? And in such a case the same objection as above applies, that is, believing one way or the other right now becomes belief by faith regardless. Under your assumptions, at some point in the future both God and/or objective reality might be proved by some method.

Presupposing the objectivity of reality allows me to describe the world in a much more useful (not to mention, non-contradictory) fashion than you are able to. E.g., I can know things that are true, false and unknown, i.e., all three, rather than being forced to know only that which is false. Did you not once argue in another place that knowing orange and ~orange was more useful than simply knowing “JUST” orange (your emphasis, as I recall).

In a world where reality is objective, then science makes sense and doesn’t contradict itself. Alternatively, if the world is turned into Popperville, then the entire world (including science) gets turned on its head. E.g., absolutely silly things like the proposition that cats in a box are both dead and alive at the same time, or trees don’t make a sound when they fall in the forest, get bandied about for serious consideration as though anyone should believe such things, when contradictory evidence proving otherwise is easily presentable by testing each and every time.

And while I’m thinking about it, perhaps you could explain how these inanimate instruments we use to discover the world have been engineered with Popper’s propositions built into them? That is, how is it that when I place a recording device in the forest and I record the sound of a tree falling that this device has been fooled into thinking the sound is real and therefore records a sound? If it hasn’t, then why isn’t this sufficient objective evidence for the sound of the tree?

I suspect you don’t live out your belief system in the real world. When you hear the words, “Heads Up!” and you turn and see the basketball coming at your head, do you form an hypothesis as to whether or not the ball is real, then make a decision to test the theory by maintaining your head in its current position, or do you instinctively duck? Certainly the latter, but by doing so you contradict your own belief system. You should rather first test the hypothesis that the ball is going to hurt when it hits you because there’s no guarantee under your assumptions that this proposition is false until it’s tested.

But of course that’s silly because the system is silly. Not to mention dangerous. Thankfully, your body understands that reality is real even if you don’t, and instinctively moves away from the ball.

Arguing that we cannot prove reality is real is akin to (but not exactly) arguing that Schrodinger’s cat is both dead and alive until you open the box. Of course the cat is one or the other, just like reality is one or the other. In both cases, the answer is unknown until we have enough information to make a determination.

But simply from the unknown variable it certainly does not follow that both are true at the same time. Rather, one or the other is true and can be proved as such (for the cat) once we open the box. As far as reality goes, admittedly it can’t be done right now, but this doesn’t help you, since as we’ve already seen, your own assumptions require you to admit that such proof may come about in the future.

“It must be galling to be smart enough to realise just how stupid you are…”

On the contrary Leo, knowing how stupid I am is a blessing. Some might argue such a thing is wisdom. It’s liberating for sure…no need to take myself too seriously. You might think about at least that much. You seem to be mad lately.


Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
July 9, 2018 1:01 pm

Post-modernism is what is allowing Marxism to (re)gain a foothold.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
July 10, 2018 3:01 am

Recall that Marx wrote what he claimed was a “scientific” theory of history.
in the USSR it was called “scientific socialism”.

July 9, 2018 7:58 am

The article is absolutely accurate.

Science is very inconvenient for the SJWs. In the name of equity they deny that there are any differences between men and women. Jordan Peterson says different.

Peterson points out that equity puts unqualified students in good schools and they displace hard working talented students. Equity places less qualified people in jobs and they displace hard working talented people. Equity is killing America’s competitiveness. China is going to eat our lunch if we don’t fix this problem.

Ian W
Reply to  commieBob
July 9, 2018 9:32 am

China is in the process of eating our lunch and being cheered on by the ‘free trade ‘ politicians.

Reply to  commieBob
July 9, 2018 9:51 am

I must say, J Peterson is a treasure,,, too bad Canada fails him…one of their best…painful at some point of consideration.


Jeff Labute
Reply to  commieBob
July 9, 2018 10:10 am

Jordan Peterson and Lindsay Shepard are sharing a lawyer in two lawsuits against Wilfred Laurier University. Not science related, but Lindsay as a TA reviewed a 5 minute publicly released video with her class that contained excerpts from Jordan Peterson, arguing about the use of gender-neutral pronouns. A panel of 2 superiors and a the manager of “Gendered Violence Prevention and Support” dragged Lindsay over the proverbial coals, making her cry and insisting there were complaints that she created a hostile environment for learning (which in actuality there were no complaints.) The whole inquisition was secretly recorded. They referred to Jordan as Hitler. The panel obviously had their pre-biases.
Lindsay is suing the University for $3.6M.
Jordan is suing the University for $1.5M

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Jeff Labute
July 9, 2018 12:37 pm

While I cheer on the complainants, this is an example of something that is wrong with our civil justice system. If the university loses, it will be required to pay out, when in fact the institution may not really be responsible for this action directly. Most likely,a judgement will fall on the taxpayers.
The judgement is in no way complete without the individual agents responsible being held accountable in a severe manner. They used the power of their positions without regard for the moral responsibility of those position or their responsibility to the financial wellbeing of the institution.

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  John Harmsworth
July 9, 2018 6:48 pm

“They” ARE the university . And the only thing they care about is power/money .
Take it from them !

Reply to  commieBob
July 9, 2018 10:43 am

China isn’t about to eat anything. They have so many systemic issues in comparison to the US that our great grandchildren will still be living in the greatest nation on the planet. Demographics, geography, environmental degradation, autocratic government, immense inefficiencies and waste and an economy having a huge dependence on exports. And that is just hitting the highlights.

Jeff Labute
Reply to  TimG56
July 9, 2018 12:42 pm

I think so too. Although a super-power at the moment, they will be surpassed in population by India, the next super-power. China will have negative population growth come 2025. In 2100, it is estimated they will drop from 1.4B to 0.9B people. In that instance, there will be two workers for every retired person, rather than the 7:1 today. Come 2100, India just may be better off than China. I don’t know what will become of the USA and their enormous debt(!?). China may eat a few lunches, but not in the long run.

Reply to  TimG56
July 9, 2018 12:54 pm

So just pray that progressives don’t take over the US. You could become a North Korea look alike much faster than you think. Hillary winning the last elections would have done the trick.
A good start would be to abolish the not federal reserve and eliminate direct taxation. It gives those in power the right to know 100 % about you. So more or less you already live in North Korea.

And why would China want worthless US dollars ?

Ed Zuiderwijk
July 9, 2018 8:04 am

In China they would be shot.

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
July 9, 2018 8:15 am

Were shot. Mao tried re-education camps in the 1960s.

Reply to  Gary
July 9, 2018 9:05 am

They still are being shot.

Reply to  Gary
July 9, 2018 9:56 am

And concluded that bullets were cheaper.

Reply to  drednicolson
July 9, 2018 2:03 pm

Cheaper still when they make the relatives pay for them

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
July 9, 2018 10:52 am

I doubt that is much of a concern here. First there is the not so small issue of the people they would come after tending to be those deplorables who cling to their guns and religion. Progressives are not typically gun owners. Which means they would have rely on government to utilize force on their behalf. The majority of law enforcement officers are not going to willingly turn on half of the population. The armed forces even less so.

The day they manage to revoke the 2nd Amendment is the day to worry. And with the President about to appoint his second Justice to the SC (and very likely to have the opportunity to appoint at least one more after that) that is very unlikely to happen in our lifetime.

Reply to  TimG56
July 9, 2018 12:59 pm

Hurricane Katrina Door to Door Firearms Confiscation

ferd berple
July 9, 2018 8:11 am

all white people are racist,
The irony is that many people do not understand that the above statement is racist.

It is no different than saying

Xxxxx people are yyyy.

You fill in the blanks. White, black, brown, yellow, red. Racist, stupid, dishonest, weak, lazy.

Reply to  ferd berple
July 9, 2018 8:26 am

People do understand that the statement is racist. When they try to raise that fact and point out the dictionary definition of racism, they are shouted down and told that the dictionary is wrong. They are then subjected to a torrent of obscurantist word salad.

According to Brandonlini’s Law:

The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.

Most people just give up and go away.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  ferd berple
July 9, 2018 8:27 am

But you can’t be racist against white people, they say, in much the same way that the Nazis claimed you could not dehumanize jews.

Reply to  ferd berple
July 9, 2018 9:59 am

Our prejudice is virtuous, your tolerance is diabolical.

Nigel in Santa Barbara
Reply to  drednicolson
July 9, 2018 10:39 am

As soon as you can claim that virtue is on YOUR side…feelings of superiority can quickly follow.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Nigel in Santa Barbara
July 9, 2018 12:39 pm

So…we should be careful…?

Leo Smith
Reply to  Nigel in Santa Barbara
July 9, 2018 8:11 pm

No. We should avoid claiming virtue.

“Who are you to tell me what to do? What gave you the right!

“The Colt 45 in my hand madam”

Reply to  Leo Smith
July 10, 2018 1:00 am

Embody virtue and you will have no need to claim it.

Reply to  ferd berple
July 9, 2018 10:41 am

When we “upgraded” our department the illiterate in two languages janitor told me later that –“this was when the bigots moved in,” noted also by the support staff. I was told that this happened more (not entirely) in the younger (research-wise) places, striving too much maybe. Our situation had other particular complications, which is probably true everywhere. Sociology studying science needs to look into this properly.

This is an interesting read for many reasons, not to invoke or suggest the result, but the way academia (and human nature) has long operated, which may make it susceptible.

Reply to  ferd berple
July 9, 2018 2:28 pm

Racism is the progressive way to divide and conquer.

If I don’t like Voodoo am I a racist because most who practice Voodoo are blacks?

No because it is not about race but about the rules of the game. We can only play the game if we all accept the same rules. You can’t unite 2 games with different rules. There is no american football soccer. He who wants to play soccer in a american football game is not welcome to play.That’s not racist that’s how a society works and the only way it works. If I go to England I have to accept that they drive on the wrong side of the road. If I do not want to accept those rules I should not go there or force them to change.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Robertv
July 9, 2018 8:22 pm

I express it this way.

It is not sideist to say that we must all drive on the left (or right) what cannot be tolerated is DIVERSITY because in this case, it kills people.

There may be no particular reason to drive on one side of the road as opposed to the other but there us a very good reason why ‘cultural diversity’ in terms of driving on whichever side of the road you choose is a Really Bad Idea.

This is my response to those who preach multiculturalism. I don’t oppose it on moral or ideological grounds, but on practical grounds, If you have a culture that respects womens rights to be out alone without being molested, and a culture that sees a woman out alone as little better than a prostitute, the two cannot coexist. You will inevitably create ghettoisation, rather than harmonious integration.

Science may be – as the Church told Galileo – no more than a way to get the right answer, but that is still a hell of an achievement.

Roger Graves
Reply to  Leo Smith
July 10, 2018 6:57 am

There is a perfectly good reason for driving on the left.

90% of people are right-handed. Consequently, in the days when people customarily wore swords, 90% of people wore their swords on their left side, because you can’t easily draw a 3-foot sword with your right hand if it’s worn on your right side. If you wear your sword on your left side, you must necessarily mount your horse from its left side, otherwise your sword will get in the way. Consequently, if you drive on the right, you will find yourself mounting your horse in the middle of the road, and will be liable to be run down by other riders while doing so.

I always knew driving on the left made sense, it just took a little historical analysis to prove it.

Reply to  Roger Graves
July 10, 2018 9:43 am

” when people customarily wore swords”

Only the Elite had a horse.

Solomon Green
Reply to  ferd berple
July 10, 2018 4:40 am

In the same way that one might believe in AGW and not CAGW. it is possible to be a racialist and not a racist.


Almost all humans are consciously or unconsciously racialist. Thankfully it is possible to believe that far fewer are naturally racist.

Stephen Singer
July 9, 2018 8:18 am

Evergreen State Uni. has been headed down this insane path for at least 15 years. I don’t understand how they can keep their credentials as a University. They quit being that 15+ years ago and it keeps getting worse there it seems every year.

Reply to  Stephen Singer
July 9, 2018 10:20 am

Who do you think comes to do the accreditation site visit?

Robert W Turner
July 9, 2018 8:20 am

Let me guess, they were targeted and fired for not supporting the pseudo science meme of “there is no such thing as race.”

Leo Smith
Reply to  Robert W Turner
July 9, 2018 8:24 pm

If there is no such thing as race, white people can’t be racist.

Reply to  Leo Smith
July 9, 2018 9:52 pm

If there’s no such thing as race, racism is meaningless.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Robert W Turner
July 10, 2018 11:25 am

Technically where there is only one human race, homo sapiens, the term “race” is used to refer to people from different geographical regions. While I agree this is a poor use of the word, it is commonly used that way and I can live with it. And while people from different geographical regions do have some completely unimportant variance in physical traits, they do vary greatly in cultural and societal customs. It is these cultural differences that cause the problems and are the root of what we call racism. Until this is widely recognized, we will not solve these problems.

July 9, 2018 8:27 am

It’s mainly just more Evergreen nonsense.

July 9, 2018 8:47 am

I had someone in an online chat say that economics should be ignored, because it was cruel. If he thought economics was cruel, wait till he sees the Socialist dictator we’re headed for.

Reply to  jorgekafkazar
July 9, 2018 9:14 am

We’ve already seen her running for President, selling US uranium to Russia for $140 million, and stiffing Haiti out of billions in earthquake relief.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
July 9, 2018 12:41 pm

That’s about like saying that “having to breathe” is unfair. Economics is a natural function of human society.

Reply to  John Harmsworth
July 9, 2018 2:46 pm

In a Free human society. Most of humanity has not been living in freedom for at least 4000 years.That’s why those who say that capitalism has failed are wrong because we currently do not live in a capitalist system.

Leo Smith
Reply to  John Harmsworth
July 9, 2018 8:24 pm

breathing emits a lot of carbon….

Reply to  jorgekafkazar
July 9, 2018 4:05 pm

Life is cruel. Good friends and family can help to soften that reality, but even they can’t change it.

Reply to  MarkW
July 11, 2018 10:03 am

I’d say it’s more that life/nature doesn’t care if you live or die. Only other people care enough to be cruel.

July 9, 2018 9:07 am

I agree that they were targeted unfairly and I think I would have done the same. But, the title makes no sense. They were not targeted for doing science.

Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 9, 2018 9:10 am

Yes, they were.

Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 9, 2018 9:29 am

They were targeted for supporting science. Not much of a difference.

Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 9, 2018 9:35 am

“But, the title makes no sense. They were not targeted for doing science.”

Isn’t it your objection that makes no sense, i.e., you say this regardless of this quote from the piece?

In a meeting with administrators at Evergreen last May, protesters called, on camera, for college president George Bridges to target STEM faculty in particular for “antibias” training, on the theory that scientists are particularly prone to racism. That’s obvious to them because scientists persist in using terms like “genetic” and “phenotype” when discussing humans. Mr. Bridges offers: “[What] we are working towards is, bring ’em in, train ’em, and if they don’t get it, sanction them.”

Reply to  sycomputing
July 9, 2018 10:50 am

Exactly. “doing science” is not being “STEM faculty” or teaching science. Big difference. It is not clear they are or were actually “doing science” and if they were, they were not targeted for their science, but their protests of Evergreens policies. They could have been English teachers and acted the same way, and perhaps been given the same treatment.

Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 9, 2018 11:33 am

“Exactly. “doing science” is not being “STEM faculty” or teaching science. Big difference.”

Because anyone actually “doing science” (i.e., not teaching) at the university, e.g., a geneticist who persists in “using terms like ‘genetic’ and ‘phenotype’ when discussing humans,” is completely different from one who is teaching the science based upon the research of the practicing scientists using and applying the terms?

That is, because it’s only those who are teaching the terms, not those who are actually using the terms in practical application in the real world, that have made the activists mad?

John Harmsworth
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 9, 2018 12:44 pm

I see. It’s ok to intimidate and mistreat people if they’re teachers, but they should be more careful if they’re actually scientists. Got it!

Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 9, 2018 9:42 am

markW says: “They were targeted for supporting science. Not much of a difference.”

No, they were targeted for not participating in race training activities and other rather interesting activities. You might read this: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bonfire-of-the-academies-two-professors-on-how-leftist-intolerance-is-killing-higher-education
I don’t see how they were supporting science at all.

Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 9, 2018 10:58 am

Dig deeper. They objected to the training because it placed political correctness above scientific principles. In other words they took a stand defending the primacy of scientific method over current political dogma.

Reply to  TimG56
July 9, 2018 11:27 am

” took a stand defending the primacy of scientific method over current political dogma”

Great. Fine. But….that’s not “doing science”.

Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 9, 2018 12:28 pm

At last, the troll admits it.
In it’s opinion the “scientific method” is not scientific.

Leo Smith
Reply to  MarkW
July 9, 2018 8:27 pm

well strictly that is correct.

Or at least the scientific method is not science. Its what makes science

John Harmsworth
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 9, 2018 12:45 pm

Nice wriggle! Glad we don’t have to consider messy things like principles.

Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 9, 2018 12:27 pm

As usual RS doesn’t even bother to read the article.
They weren’t targeted for not participating.
The radicals demanded that they take these courses merely because they were scientists and hence assumed to be racist.

Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 9, 2018 4:45 pm

So, according to numerous posts at WhatsUp, Galvin and Hanson are not doing science when they are taking a stand on climate action. But here it is. Make up your minds.

Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 10, 2018 3:32 am


Patrick Powers
July 9, 2018 9:15 am

The Royal Society’s motto of 1663 (or not much longer thereafter) is ‘Nullius in Verba’ which is today taken to mean ‘Take nobody’s word for it’.

Anyone able to tell me why this does not apply internationally to Climate Issues and to the freedom of scientists to report, to explore and to gain funding for each and every theory surrounding a topic??

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Patrick Powers
July 9, 2018 5:14 pm

I’ve asked this question once before.

Is there any evidence they ever practiced “Nullius in Verba” ?

Bruce Cobb
July 9, 2018 9:16 am


July 9, 2018 9:37 am

This is an old story from last October….worth repeating, I guess.

There are quite a few sites that follow the demise of Academia. Wm. Briggs often carries stories. thecollegefix.com is a good source of news on this topic, written by students.

July 9, 2018 9:43 am

Some outstanding statements from the article bear special attention:

The battle on our campuses—and ever more, in K-12 schools, in cubicles and in meetings, and on the streets—is being framed as a battle for equity, but that’s a false front.

The so called battle for equity is, indeed, a false front — a false front for denying categorical boundaries, a false front for denying standards, a false front for denying differences in general. It is a false front that is causing pathological homogenization, to the detriment of individuality, uniqueness, and originality.

Postmodernism, and specifically its offspring, critical race theory, have abandoned rigor and replaced it with “lived experience” as the primary source of knowledge..

I would say, “… replaced it with lived experience devoid of rigor, since rigor requires discriminating actions that define standards of excellence, and excellence itself has become a concept associated with racism.”

Despite the benevolent-sounding label, the equity movement is a highly virulent social pathogen, an autoimmune disease of the academy.

The equity movement has deformed, to become the very thing that it supposedly opposes. The equity movement strives to FORCE everybody into one homogenized mishmash of existence, which replaces individuals with clones of the mishmash of no standards, no identity, and no ethical boundaries.

Diversity offices, the very places that were supposed to address bigotry and harassment, have been weaponized and repurposed to catch and cull all who disagree.

Yes, these offices, taken to their extreme, do the very thing that they oppose, which is to create bigots and harassers against all who disagree.

July 9, 2018 9:44 am

Can’t remember when I bought it:
“Galileo Heretic”
–Pietro Redondi
Princeton University Press, 1987
Reading it now.
Outstanding detail and the battle against honest inquiry was even more brutal then.
Today’s authoritarians in Canada or the US, for example, have yet to grant themselves the privilege of state murder.
But their drive to enforce dogma is just as intense.
Bob Hoye

Janet L. Chennault
July 9, 2018 9:45 am

Bill Powers – we need moderates of all types. “For the records moderates are not a good thing they are the soft malleable center that has spent the last 50 years giving in to the collectivists in order to get along. ” The workable answers in real life generally involve compromise. You and I may wish that the nature of the compromise were different and that the extent were less, but moderate people who are willing to work out solutions are good as gold. The left has lost the Heyings; they are our gain.

I would like to welcome them to a group of people who are still trying to discern the nature of reality, as scientists ought. I will be perfectly happy if all of the moderate ‘soft malleable centers’ flee the ranks of the anti-science socialist extremists and stand by our shoulder. I do not actually think it is good that everyone should agree with each other 100% – we need different opinions on our side too.

And we need to set an example of accepting different opinions, so long as the touchstone of Reality is enthusiastically accepted to differentiate truth from poor rhetoric.


Reply to  Janet L. Chennault
July 9, 2018 9:55 pm

The modern left will never accept reality, because their entire ideology is based on the organized denial of reality.

You’re trying to find a compromise with lunatics. Whose leaders see compromise as weakness, and will just come back demanding more next week.

July 9, 2018 10:01 am

Prager U
“So, You Think You’re Tolerant?”


Reply to  Marcus
July 9, 2018 10:03 am

Postmodernism Part 1


July 9, 2018 10:05 am

Dr. Heying – thanks for posting, and otherwise getting your story out.

I watched the Evergreen State College mess as it was happening, and was getting posted online. Those students should be ashamed.

It is sad you felt you had to leave – that is a beautiful campus in a beautiful corner of the world, and I am sure your students appreciated you. Best of luck.

Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
July 9, 2018 11:22 am

Her students did appreciate her. She had the highest ratings possible.

July 9, 2018 10:53 am

It would be very easy to write up a comment decrying-in-sympathy the plight of Weinstein and his wife. The whole comment would be along the lines, “oh, come on! This is ridiculous!”.

Harder tho’ is to come to grips with the undeniable fact that college age — especially undergraduate 18-to–22 year olds — are particularly inclined to “do radical things”, and moreover, follow their loudest protagonists like equally loud goats. We even have a word for it in English. Sophomoric.

Anyone who has made it past 35 or thereabouts “gets it”, that sophomoric attitude. Having been “kept in an expanding BOX” for their first 10 fully rational years (8 to 18), having been “let free” to fend for themselves (in a very protected and “safe” fashion), being full of brand-new theories, untried dialectic, enthusiastic but poorly thought out rhetoric … undergraduates primarily, but most any self-assured group of college attendees is quick to pass judgement, quick to cast aspersions, quick to say the most self-mocking (if only they could see it) things … loudly, repeatedly, and ultimately wrongly.

YET (… and this is the point of my comment, really…) is this not precisely what University is for? It is a sandbox, safe, full of intellectual bits of sand, which the rapidly maturing young adults can PLAY in at their leisure. They can yell, they can shout, they can taunt, they can THROW sand wherever they want. Its a safe zone. Likewise, they can pit their fatuitious ranting, panting and chanting against whatever targets, shibboleths, sanctimonious, honored or hazed alike … and largely can and should be allowed to “get away” with it.

This is what happened on Oregon’s Evergreen University campus. They were allowed to get away with it. And in the analogy of 4 year-olds-in-sandboxes, they were patted on the head and praised.

Which is what — intellectually — universities are for. Post Kent and Berkeley, 1964 thru early 1970s Of course.

Just saying (as a Cal BEAR!) … if history is imbedded in language then Sophomoric tells it all.


Reply to  GoatGuy
July 9, 2018 11:07 am

Evergreen is a Washington State college, located in the capital, Olympia.

Bret’s brother Eric is Managing Director of Thiel Capital, the investment firm of Trump supporter Peter Thiel.

Reply to  GoatGuy
July 9, 2018 11:08 am


Why are my comments under moderation?

(They were listed as being on the blacklist, therefore dumped in the trash) MOD

Honest liberty
Reply to  Felix
July 9, 2018 3:46 pm

Felix, I have also been hit by awaiting moderation but it’s support and doesn’t have a pattern. I figured I was being too harsh on ol Nick and some others.

Reply to  Felix
July 9, 2018 7:34 pm

Why are my comments under moderation?

I use my real name because this site's rules say I'll get more respect. I've received zero respect. The other day on the "Green Comet" thread, I said that Halley's comet didn't meet expectations, and Hale-Bopp's comet exceeded expectations. For that nefarious comment, I went into moderation.

So, apparently I'm on the backlist too. I thought it was just the luck of the draw, but now after Anthony's comment to Felix . . . .


(Heh, this comment went into moderation too. But they did approve it while I could still edit it!)

Carbon Bigfoot
Reply to  Felix
July 10, 2018 4:38 am

Well deserved good job MODS!!

Leo Smith
Reply to  GoatGuy
July 9, 2018 8:38 pm

Goat Guy.

Sure college is about exploring intellectual freedom, but with one proviso.

Intellectual discipline. Ideas must past the test of debate and critical thinking.

And if you cant or wont tolerate intellectual discipline and critical thinking and debate then you do not belong at a university.

The issue here is that todays students are selected on the basis of political and racist policy, to include a load of people who should not be there, and who only are there because of racist or gender politics. Naturally they carry in laying te race or gender card.ts worked so far.

Once you make the university a political tool rather than a place to develop intellect, the thin edge of the wedge has already destroyed its academic respectability.

You are already offering faux qualifications to inferior people to virtue signal, not educating the finest minds in the use of the sharpest intellectual tools we have.

Jaap Titulaer
July 9, 2018 11:35 am

Don’t you mean equality? Or is this some kind of Newspeak?

[ as used here:
…. policy changes aimed at achieving “equity” ….
and here
… is being framed as a battle for equity, …
… the equity movement …

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Jaap Titulaer
July 9, 2018 12:49 pm

They should get jobs and save. Then they would have some equity!

Gary Pearse
July 9, 2018 11:42 am

The гасisм is there, but it is the very шhyte leaders of this stuff and their organizations. Thousands of Ravetz’s in universities. “Diversity”, sustainability, all the other “1984-like” terminology, the champagne soshulists, the global gov elites, all are lefty шhytes. Even the Climate Change poohbahs are this color and their masters in UN/EU upper echelons. They don’t care about other races. They use and abuse others, engaging despot elites who hate their own “other” people in the Third World using cold hard cash. They want to ruin the opportunities for African and Asian poor countries because they are the easiest to start with – ultimately they want to do the same to their own “deplorables” or, cynically have them do this to themselves. If they ever pulled this off, it would be the most ambitious totalitarian, neocolonial шhyty putsch in history.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Gary Pearse
July 9, 2018 1:10 pm

Heying: “First they came for the biologists”. Now the Heyings may be sterling folk who stand above what has become the first (long ago) corrupted science. It is no new news that the ‘End of the World’ books like the Club of Rome, The “Population Bomb” and other terminal Malthusian prognoses brought on by evil humans and their scourging of the earth and its lovely creatures and greenery, is the work of activist Biologists. They are taught this misanthropic stuff in their coursework. That they are the last people on earth equipped to make such prognoses is the fact that everyone of the distopian prognoses has been diametrically wrong, arising out of misanthropism and not scientific facts.

Now we have giants in the field like Jim Steele and Susan Crockford who examine the real unadorned, untainted facts and have been disrupting the horrid bias of “experts” (and taking unbeleiveable flack for it instead of “argument”), “experts” who jumped up to the trough set out for them by CC global gov comrads, so I will give the Heyings a provisional pass here. Hopefully, they get it and begin to look a bit deeper into the “body” of the science of biology. Anyway, they did come to a site like WUWT and as I say, the trolls that come here are one rung above the ones that avoid the site altogether fearing an education. Everyone gets a big or small education here whether seeking it or not.

July 9, 2018 11:42 am

It’s an old story, originally published in October 2017. Evergreen State is a third-rate institution, not a real university. Its sole reason for existence is that the good people of Washington State would have somewhere to send their stupid kids to. Apparently, stupidity is contagious, with the sad outcome that the school’s third rate faculty and leadership have been infected as well.

Roger Graves
July 9, 2018 12:50 pm

I will make a prediction that the STEM schools of many universities will, in the not too distant future, quietly dissociate themselves from their universities and set up shop as independent institutions. They won’t call themselves universities because this term has begun to mean something rather fatuous. The universities will then be left as places of no learning, very little scholarship and zero common sense, and will become little more than cannibalistic noise-making machines. Our youth will then have a choice. Go to a university and make lots of noise for several years, and come out at the other end with no useful knowledge or skills, or go to a STEM institution and learn something worthwhile.

Reply to  Roger Graves
July 9, 2018 5:01 pm

It is already in progress. Some are recommending that it be changed to STEAM. Guess what the A stands for – Art.

July 9, 2018 1:17 pm

Academia is almost the perfect leftwing institution, lots of money and very little oversight. If leftists can cull anyone who believes in science, that will drop to zero oversight.

Curious George
July 9, 2018 2:07 pm

Do these students really have a mind set of slave owners?

steve case
July 9, 2018 3:58 pm

STEM stands for “Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics”

Do people who use acronyms without defining them think it makes them look smart?

Reply to  steve case
July 9, 2018 4:08 pm

Some acronyms are so common that they don’t need defining.

steve case
Reply to  MarkW
July 9, 2018 5:37 pm

And I don’t look those up.

Reply to  steve case
July 10, 2018 3:41 am


July 9, 2018 4:21 pm

The precursors of a new “Red Guard” who started with minnow bites of Western Civilization will soon
be all devouring sharks if not halted.
These things snowball; there is not much time.

July 9, 2018 4:28 pm

When the lefties went first after the poor rural and blue collar urbans, I was silent.
When they went after religious fundamentalists, I was silent.
When the lefties went after those who supported traditional marriage, I was silent.
When they went after those who supported borders and legal immigrstion, I was silent.
When they went after the climate deniers, I said nothing.
When they came after me, I was alone.

tom elliott
July 9, 2018 5:09 pm

is there a way to read the full story with our subscribing to the WSJ?

Donald Kasper
July 9, 2018 5:53 pm

Science is expensive. Until the last decade, government grants for university-based research were generous. Scientists paid for their salaries by getting grants as the universities pillages 75% on average for “overhead”. As this grant system declined after the 80’s to cut federal spending, universities responded by raising tuition and over time, getting rid of the scientists, now an overhead burden not paying for itself. Ultimately, who needs a university to do research. It is the scientists who do the research, not the universities. Obama under his tenure said that NSF funding on cancer research would be dramatically cut back but who cares, private companies could take up the slack. Over time, science research will not go away, it will just go away from universities, who now get funded through tuition that is backed by the Fed. The Fed grant money is gone, and a bias against corporate sponsorship prevents pursuing that funding. This has nothing to do with a Left issue. Anything a student wants to study is on the table as long as a pool of students exist willing to be indentured for life to repay that tuition.

Reply to  Donald Kasper
July 9, 2018 7:26 pm

Wow. Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

” Scientists paid for their salaries by getting grants as the universities pillages 75% on average for “overhead””

Most are paid by the uni, for teaching and take limited salary in the summer, 3 months. Overhead at 75%? Right. 50% is usual and 60% high.

“As this grant system declined after the 80’s to cut federal spending, universities responded by raising tuition and over time, getting rid of the scientists, now an overhead burden not paying for itself.”

Wrong again. Mostly, higher university bureaucracy and lower state support. What, you thought science supported the entire uni? Dream on. Oh, and BTW, federal spending on research was higher in 2003 than the 80s, and has been flatish/slightly rising since.

“Obama under his tenure said that NSF funding on cancer research would be dramatically cut back but who cares, private companies could take up the slack.”

Love to see the quote on this, because NSF does not fund cancer research. The NIH does.

Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 10, 2018 12:10 pm

“…NSF does not fund cancer research”.


Roger Knights
July 10, 2018 1:13 am

College administrations are shirking their duty by allowing these bullies to go unexpelled. I suggest that some entities dedicated to academic freedom (e.g., FIRE, the ACLU, and associations of collegiate academics) collaborate in composing an expulsion-warning statement for colleges to include in their catalogs and application forms. It would list types of unacceptable behavior and state that prospective students who might be tempted to engage in them go elsewhere, lest they be expelled.

This collaboration should publicize its draft statement’s agreed-upon wording and send it off to some large number of colleges, asking them to respond if they intend to adopt it. After four months, say, a list of responses would be publicized.

Maybe the government should weigh in and state that it will no longer provide student loans to colleges that fail to adopt a bully-warning statement, and fail to live up to it. It would be awkward for legislators to vote against such a provision. (If liberal legislators do vote against it and manage to defeat it, or water it down to nothing, it will work against them in the long run, because episodes of intolerance-on-campus are alienating some liberal voters from their party.)

July 10, 2018 1:41 am

This is not “First, they came for the biologists” it is “Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

July 10, 2018 2:00 am

This seems somewhat unscientific? Glad I don’t live in Ottawa…


July 10, 2018 2:38 am



Science is not a popularity contest, to be led by scoundrels and followed by imbeciles. There is a bit more to it.

The persecution of many competent scientists by warmist fanatics is the new “Witch Hammer”, and it must stop now.

Here is a (partial) list of those forced from their institutions by global warming thugs:

Peter Ridd – James Cook University. Australia

George Taylor – Oregon State Climatologist

Sallie Baliunas – Harvard Smithsonian

Pat Michaels – University of Virginia

Murry Salby – Macquarie University, Australia

Caleb Rossiter – Institute for Policy Studies

Nickolas Drapela, PhD – Oregon State University

Henrik Møller – Aalborg University, Denmark

Bob Carter, James Cook University, Australia

Regards, Allan


Thank you for this post about the Malleus Maleficarum, aka the “Witch Hammer”, first published in 1486 and used by the Roman Catholic Church as a tool of the Inquisition, to torture and murder hundreds of thousands of innocents.

Nowadays, we have the modern equivalent of the Witch Hammer: the phrase “The science is settled”.

“The science is settled” is used by scoundrels and imbeciles to dismiss scientific reality – that we still do not know enough about climate science to even agree on what drives what (for example, warmists “KNOW” that atmospheric CO2 primarily drives global temperatures, but the data shows that atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperatures at all measured time scales – the warmists are in effect alleging that the future is primarily driving the past).

For clarity in this context, scoundrels are warmists who know that global warming alarmism is a fraud, and imbeciles believe it is real.

The list of academics dismissed from their posts for speaking out against the falsehoods of global warming alarmism is growing, and the people compromised by this new Witch Hammer number in the millions.

Global warming alarmist mania will run its course, but it will take years to do so, and society will continue to squander trillions of dollars in scarce global resources in this new false alarm of alleged catastrophic manmade global warming, in a [probably] cooling world.


Dr. Strangelove
July 10, 2018 4:30 am

Reopen Trump University
The new president and faculty:
Ivanka Trump – President
Sallie Baliunas – Chair of Department of Astronomy
George Taylor – Chair of Department of Climatology
Peter Ridd – Professor of Physics
Murray Salby – Chair of Department of Physics
Pat Michaels – Chair of Department of Environmental Science
Caleb Rossiter – Chair of Department of Mathematics
Nickolas Drapela – Chair of Department of Chemistry
Henrik Moller – Chair of Department of Electrical Engineering

comment image

Aaron Watters
July 10, 2018 6:22 am

It’s true that academia is too often bullied by the hard left. Case in point: the most notable recent Rutgers alum is probably the Nobel Prize winning Milton Friedman, but Rutgers has not devoted a building, classroom, statue, plaque, tree, or bush to his memory because he was not politically correct.

For the hard left private enterprise and capitalism is evil, and that is why AGW appeals to them so much because CO2 is the biggest bi-product of modern capitalism. For the hard right government action and particularly government interference in economic activity is evil. There is evidence supporting both views, but both views are over-simplification. Central government control of the economy doesn’t work and uncontrolled capitalism tends toward monopolistic abuse, environmental destruction, and economic injustice.

On the other hand most people like using modern technologies and eating cheap (certified healthy) foods without having to worry that they will be destitute in their old age. Let’s remember what things were like for most old people not long ago: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2897562/When-poverty-meant-poverty-Impoverished-Victorians-revealed-photographs-workhouse-residents-eating-dinner-coffin-beds-inside-shelter.html

edward w bergonzi
July 11, 2018 6:52 am

Interesting article … as a genuine scientific thinker and a Marxist, I am appalled at the post-modernist usurpation of what is considered to be “left”. Racial and gender politics, i.e. the problem with a particular scientist is not his ideas, but the fact that he is male, white, (often older), and “cis”, whatever the bleep that means, dominated current academic discourse. Post-modernism is both a-historical and a-theoretical, rejecting what they call “meta-narratives”, i.e. encompassing theoretical constructs and scientific concepts; the “End of Theory” according to an article that appeared in “Wired” magazine a few years back.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights