Warnings of the Past, Foreshadowing the Future

“Once I called you brother. Once I thought the chance to make you laugh, was all I ever wanted.
[I send the thunder from the sky, I send the fire raining down]
And even now, I wish that God had chose another.
Serving as your foe on his behalf is the last thing that I wanted.
[I send a hail of burning ice on every field, on every town]
This was my home. All this pain and devastation, how it tortures me inside!
All the innocent who suffer from your stubbornness and pride!”

-Ralph Fiennes and Amick Byram, The Plagues

When I wrote my first piece for HxSTEM last year, I publicly joined other academics and scientists who warned about the ideological monoculture in academia, the descent into activism, the impact on science, and the danger approaching. As John Tomasi stated earlier this year, we saw a dragon (or perhaps the plagues) approaching. We care deeply about higher education and our respective disciplines, so we tried to warn our peers. We warned our colleagues, but we were ignored, and now we see the results.

As I write this, my heart breaks for my colleagues in federal agencies who have lost their positions. I console other colleagues who have lost grant funding (knowing that I may lose funding myself). However, none of what is occurring is surprising. As Lee Jussim writes, for more than 30 years, many academics and scientists have warned of events like this. As Lee wrote in 2022:

“Political battles will be fought using political tools, and not exclusively in the pages of peer-reviewed journals or DEI committees. It would not be surprising to discover that cuts to government funding of social science are among the next targets in the sights of politicians who oppose the academic far left.”

Lee wrote of social science, but this sentiment can be applied to all sciences. Jukka Savolainen also recently echoed this sentiment. We warned our colleagues and were ignored (or worse derided). Now I think many of us lament the stubborn pride of academia and scientists that is, at least in part, the cause of such suffering given to students and young professionals in this time of chaos. Now the plagues strike.

As John Tomasi wrote, the plagues are not the Trump administration, it's the public opinion of academia and scientists. The ire of the U.S. public has been earned, and it is no surprise that any administration would react to public furor. Allow me to walk through some particulars as to why public ire has been earned:

1. The Decline in Viewpoint Diversity: Multiple studies and surveys have shown that, over time, the faculty in academia has become increasingly left of center to far left. These surveys include the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education Faculty Survey (1969-1984) and the UCLA-HERI Faculty Survey (1989-2016) among others (e.g. here, here, and here). This particular bias toward leftist ideology is strongest in the social sciences, but still dominant in the STEMM fields. Musa al-Gharbi’s analysis also shows that the ideological leanings of academia are not representative of the broader U.S. population, with far more leftist ideological leanings in academia than in the United States generally. Higher education is considered a liberalizing force, and this may explain why the ideological leanings of scientists also trended left over time. While ideological leaning is not necessarily representative of engagement in activism or intolerance of other viewpoints, other surveys suggest university faculty's willingness to discriminate against faculty, staff, or students expressing right-leaning views in hiring, promotion, tenure, and grant funding decisions (source here). Anecdotal accounts of discrimination and exclusion also bolster this perspective (e.g. here). Another recent survey pointed out that only 20% of U.S. university faculty think a conservative would be a positive fit in their department, while 71% say the same for a liberal (source here).

2. Campus Free Expression: The increasing ideological monoculture in academia and the sciences leads to concerns about campus expression, censorship, and other topics. As I previously covered, a recent survey study shows that 70% of conservative academics in the U.S. report a hostile departmental climate, one third of conservative academics and PhD students reported being threatened with disciplinary actions for their views, and (worryingly) up to 62% of conservative leaning students are hesitant to attend graduate school because of the perceived hostile environment. A recent faculty survey from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) also shows that 55% of conservative faculty report self-censoring themselves (compared to 17% of their left leaning counterparts). The same survey reported that 35% of faculty toned down their written work to avoid controversy (four times the amount of academics self-censoring in the McCarthy era [9%]). This recent survey from FIRE follows on from their 2022 survey, the FIRE College Free Speech Rankings, and the Heterodox Academy Campus Expression surveys that point to strong concerns from students and faculty about free expression on campus, with both groups primarily afraid of their peers and university administration. We must not forget that academia is the training ground for the next generation of scientists that join academia or federal agencies. It is reasonable to think that what happens in academia in the training of scientists then affects the sciences themselves. This was discussed in great depth during the January 2025 conference Censorship in the Sciences: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (full disclosure, I was invited to attend but could not owing to a scheduling conflict). The meeting, summarized here, discussed in depth the effect of canceling, language-policing, putative retractions and more on the sciences that owe its origin to the ideological monoculture inculcated in academia (you can view the whole conference on YouTube).

3. The Result: What’s the result of an ideological monoculture in academia and the sciences? The result ranges from things largely in the public eye to those things less visible. These include “studies” driven by ideology rather than a genuine interest in the truth, compelled speech, hiding the results of studies, specious guidelines for research and publication, and more. Here are some examples:

   1. “Studies:” In 2021, Physics Review Physics Education Research published the article “Observing whiteness in introductory physics.” This poor quality article was written with an ideological bias, and rightfully drew mockery and criticism from the public. The editors subsequently decried the public backlash, invited comments to respond, but then refused to publish a submitted comment because the physicists who wrote the comment would not critique the original article from the same perspective as the article’s authors (which they acknowledged was not a scientific perspective).

   2. “Studies:” The Journal of Chemical Education published an article regarding how to “decolonize” the undergraduate chemistry curriculum. The notion of “decolonization” is drawn from postmodernist thinking and critical theory and operates on the premise that existing systems are inherently bad (or “colonial”) and should be changed. Never once do the “scientists” writing the article challenge the premise rather than assume this radical left premise is true.

   3. “Studies:” The Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association published a “research article” describing “whiteness” as a parasitic condition with no cure. This article, also based on postmodernist thinking and critical theory, presents itself as research, but it’s ideologically driven and a horrifically racist article that was subject to fierce public backlash.

   4. Funded “Research:” The National Science Foundation (NSF) funded a STEM Equity program that created QuantCrit as an attempt to embed critical race theory into quantitative research by simply assuming that the leftist view that any group disparity is the result of discrimination is correct, rather than attempting to determine why such a disparity may exist.

   5. Compelled Speech in grant funding proposals: A group of scientists published an article highlighting attempts to compel the speech of scientists applying for grant funding. Specifically, multiple agencies began requiring DEI statements and plans (which are drawn from a far-left perspective) as a condition of receiving grant funds. This has changed recently with the Trump administration, and there remains a pending lawsuit against the Department of Energy by the National Association of Scholars to end DEI plan requirements in research solicitations from the DOE Office of Science.

   6. Compelled Speech in hiring and promotions: DEI statements in hiring and promotion have become increasingly prominent. These vague and ideologically motivated policies can easily function as political litmus tests and penalize dissenting views. This is shown in some available rubrics that suggest very specific ideological views are highly valued.

   7. “Guidelines” for journal editors: Nature Human Behavior provided controversial guidelines for editors that allow editors to retroactively retract an article that may be perceived offensive to a group of people.

   8. “Guidelines” for journal editors: The Royal Society of Chemistry published guidelines to encourage its editorial staff to censor any articles that “have the potential to cause offence.”

   9. Hiding results: A study on the effects of puberty blockers was not published by the authors to avoid disrupting a preferred political narrative around “gender affirming care.”

   10. Disruptions: At the 2022 meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in Chicago, two activists (who also have professional roles as “scientists”) disrupted a plenary session to push their activism on their colleagues. Punishments were doled out for their actions, but others claimed the pair were unfairly punished for peaceful protest (nevermind that they infringed on the rights of the speaker and the audience).

   11. Professional “Education:” AGU among others has promoted professional “education” such as the “Unlearning Racism in Geoscience (URGE)” program which draws from the anti-racism premised on such “scholars” as Ibram X. Kendi or Robin DiAngelo. This postmodern take, out of step with the public, has been pushed into such federal agencies as the U.S. Geological Survey.

   12. Specious Retractions: Without evidence of factual inaccuracies, Angewandte Chemie, retracted an article by the late Tomas Hudlicky when they bowed to a group of “scientists” offended by Hudlicky’s choice of words in the article. The controversy, summarized here, resulted in 16 members of the editorial board resigning in protest of the retraction.

   13. Political endorsements: Nature and Scientific American chose to break precedent in the last few years, openly endorsing Joe Biden for president in 2020 and again endorsing Kamala Harris for president in 2024. The latter endorsements were done despite published research showing the action damaged the credibility of the publication and scientists generally.

The examples provided above do not represent all academia or scientists, though it’s fair to say they represent a large portion. Recent investigations have found that more than 10% of NSF funded grants are devoted to DEI rather than scientific research. The real or perceived ideological bias of academia, and the trickle into the sciences, leads to the collapse in trust in academia shown both in the Censorship in Sciences conference presentations, and in multiple public surveys (here, here, and here). Ultimately, a real or perceived ideological monoculture in academia or the sciences degrades public trust and prominent examples of that bias bring the ire of a public that in large part doesn’t share those views dominant in academia.

It’s easy for scientists and academics to form ranks and scream for the defense of the status quo. However, the descent of academia and much of the scientific community into an ideological monoculture and growing intolerance to other viewpoints is a grave error that has (in part) led to the current situation.

Some readers may recognize that the opening quote comes from the 1998 film The Prince of Egypt, where Dreamworks reimagines the biblical story of Moses, portraying a familial relationship between Moses and Ramses. The quote above is from the scene where the plagues strike Egypt. Moses knows what Ramses is doing is wrong, warns him, and is heartbroken when his adopted home suffers the consequences. However, Ramses has a very different reaction and cannot see his error:

“You who I called brother, how could you have come to hate me so? Is this what you wanted? Then let my heart be hardened and never mind how high the cost may grow, this will still be so.”

Ultimately, Ramses’ stubborn pride leads to unimaginable tragedy and heartbreak for his people.

None of us wanted the current situation, but I dearly hope that academia, our scientific professional societies, and scientists do not have Ramses’ reaction. I dearly hope my colleagues will finally examine where we have collectively gone wrong, foregoing stubborn pride for intellectual humility. If recent articles from Nature, Science, Scientific American, the American Association of University Professors, and others are any indication, then my fears will come true.

I fear my colleagues will never question their most deeply held premises. For example, I fear my colleagues will simply change language, attempting to hide DEI programs and requirements rather than interrogating their underlying assumption that DEI is inherently good. I fear that my colleagues will continue to push out viewpoint diversity, push for more activism, and retain their ideologically driven blindness and stubborn pride.

I pray that I’m wrong and that further tragedy doesn’t strike everything all of us hold dear in our disciplines.

“Something else is coming, something much worse than anything before. Please, let go of your contempt for life before it destroys everything you hold dear! Think of your son! … Ramses, you bring this upon yourself.”

In the film, this is the final warning Moses gives Ramses before unimaginable tragedy strikes.