YouTube Transcript:
The War on Science

Skip watching entire videos - get the full transcript, search for keywords, and copy with one click.

Video Transcript

Video Summary

Summary

Core Theme

This content is a critical review of the book "The War on Science: 39 Renowned Scientists and Scholars Speak Out about current threats to free speech, open inquiry, and the scientific process." The reviewer argues that the book is outdated, poorly edited, and filled with the contributions of individuals whose own actions and associations undermine the very principles they claim to defend, particularly concerning issues of scientific integrity, free speech, and social justice.

Hello everyone. Today's video is about

the book The War on Science: 39 Renowned

Scientists and Scholars Speak Out about

current threats to free speech, open

inquiry, and the scientific process. And

let's start by reading a quote

describing this book taken from the

distributor's website. An unparalleled

group of prominent scholars from

wide-ranging disciplines detail ongoing

efforts to impose ideological

restrictions on science and scholarship

throughout Western society. From

assaults on merit-based hiring to the

pleasing of language and replacing

wellestablished disciplinary scholarship

by ideological mantras, current science

and scholarship is under threat

throughout Western institutions. As this

group of prominent scholars ranging

across many different disciplines and

political leanings detail, the very

future of free inquiry and scientific

progress is at risk. Many who have

spoken up against this threat have lost

their positions, and a climate of fear

has arisen that strikes at the heart of

modern education and research. Banding

together to finally speak out, this

brave and unprecedented group of

scholars issues a clarion call for

change. Topics include free speech,

victimhood, ideology, corruption of

academic disciplines, cancel culture,

DEI, gender, and race, and what we can

do. Huh. I wouldn't be surprised if you

found that list of topics a little

confusing there. When you heard the war

on science, scientists speak out about

current threats to free speech and the

scientific process, you probably imagine

something rather different than cancel

culture and diversity programs, right?

If you were asked to list some current

threats to free speech and science in

the US, you might say something like the

Trump administration's massive staff

reductions and funding cuts for US

science programs. The Trump

administration deleting decades of

scientific research for no good reason.

Cancer experts being detained by ICE.

Students being arrested and jailed for

writing articles in campus newspapers.

Or the Trump administration reviewing

museum exhibits to ensure alignment with

the president's directive to celebrate

American exceptionalism. You might also

mention that Donald Trump made Robert F.

Kennedy Jr. an antivaccine conspiracy

theorist, the United States Secretary of

Health, and he's been halting vaccine

research, shutting down the study of

infectious diseases, and claiming that

AI can approve new drugs for the Food

and Drug Administration. These are

obviously the current threats to

science, right? So why, you might be

wondering, am I talking about such an

old, irrelevant book today? This book

must have been released years ago.

Surely this book can't be new, can it?

It can't have just come out in 2025,

right? This book just came out, and this

is what drew me to want to make a video

about it today. It's how out of time it

is. This book is a collection of tired,

irrelevant, right-wing culture war

nitpicks being released at the most

ridiculous possible time. These

complaints have never been less relevant

to reality, which makes the entire book

read like one big joke. For example, the

beginning of one section of the book

reads like this. The unchecked growth of

diversity, equity, and inclusion

bureaucracies within academia, industry,

and government has become perhaps the

biggest threat to academic freedom, free

inquiry, merit, and fairness in the West

today. to those unfamiliar with the

current situation like hold on what are

you talking about current situation

another chapter says the Biden

administration has widened these

regulations has it in the present tense

the Biden administration how's life

treating you over there in the alternate

timeline is everything going well

because we got one of your books by

mistake it's pretty clear that when this

book was being planned and put together

they never expected Trump to win another

term in office, but he did. And then he

did various things which make the book's

complaints seem totally inconsequential,

but the project was just too far along

at that point, and they had to release

it anyway. Or is that true? Let's not

rush to judgment here. Let's give this

book a fair shake today. And we'll start

off by introducing some of the people

involved in the project. The War on

Science is edited by the theoretical

physicist and cosmologist Lawrence

Krauss. Here's a picture of him with one

of his friends there. Don't worry about

who that is. Now, I imagine most of you,

if you know who Lawrence Krauss is, will

know who he is for one of two reasons.

The first is for appearing in the video

That Time Geocentrists Tricked a Bunch

of Physicists by Dan Olsen. That's him

in the thumbnail there, accidentally

promoting the idea that the Earth is at

the center of the universe. And the

second reason I imagine you might know

who Lawrence Krauss is, well, we'll get

to that in a little while. The epigraph

of the book is written by another

Lawrence, former Harvard University

President Lawrence Summers, pictured

here with some of his friends. Who is

that one guy you might be asking? But

listen, don't worry about him. Although,

in the background of this picture, we

can see another contributor to the book,

psychologist Steven Pinker. And look,

Steven Pinker was also in this picture

with Krauss and the mystery man there.

Small world, eh? Another bigname

contributor to the book is evolutionary

biologist Richard Dawkins, pictured here

with Steven Pinker and others on an

airplane, taking a little trip on

somebody's airplane there. I wonder

whose it is and where they're going.

Anyway, the war on science begins with

an introduction written by Lawrence

Krauss that covers the main grievances

of the various contributors to the book.

So, let's have a peek at that and see

what all the fuss is about. Krauss

starts out by lamenting the fact that

while universities were once upon a time

bastions of free speech and open

scientific inquiry, recently they've

been overrun with progressive politics,

political correctness, and

governmentmandated diversity programs.

Debate is stifled. Diversity trumps

merit. And anyone who disagrees with the

imposition of this Marxist dogma keeps

silent for fear of the dreaded cancel

culture. If you speak out, the woke mob

is going to come and cancel culture you.

Nevertheless, the potential problems are

so grave and the stakes so serious that

a stellar group of 39 distinguished

scholars from a wide variety of

disciplines and a wide variety of

experiences including a full spectrum of

political leanings have agreed to

contribute to this volume describing the

existing and emerging threats. So who

are this group of 39 distinguished

scholars? No, hang on first. Are there

39 distinguished scholars? because I

counted them. There are 39 authors

listed in the book, but Nicholas A.

Kristakis writes two of the included

essays. So, he's counted twice. So,

there's only 38 scholars really, unless

of course Krauss is counting himself,

which would mean that when he says he

applauds the stellar group of 39

distinguished scholars for their clarity

and bravery, he's talking about himself,

which seems a little egotistical, but

okay. Now, when we go on to read the

essays written by this apparently

stellar group of distinguished scholars,

I want you to keep one point that

Lawrence Krauss makes in his

introduction in mind. Krauss talks about

how in 2020, after George Floyd was

murdered by the police, the American

Physical Society endorsed a strike in

favor of eradicating systemic racism and

discrimination, especially in academia

and science. But the American Physical

Society, Krauss claims, gave quote, "no

direct empirical justification for their

claims. The presumption of systemic

racism was all that seemed necessary."

Krauss is asking here, why do we need

these anti-racist, anti-discrimination

measures if it hasn't been proven that

there even is racism or discrimination

to counter? We can't just assume the

existence of discrimination. We as

scientists first need to evidence it.

And this is going to be one question we

can investigate today. Let's do our own

science experiment here. Is there

bigotry and discrimination in academia

and the sciences? And our sample group

today will be oh, let's say 39 renowned

scientists and scholars. As we read

their essays, let's keep an eye out for

any possible racism or discrimination in

there. But before we get started, let me

just say with the due amount of respect

to Lawrence Krauss, this book is not

very well edited. Multiple people here

have written the exact same essay

covering the exact same events and

talking points. So, I'm not going to be

relaying everything in minute detail. To

take an example at random here, if we

want to read about the time evolutionary

biologist Carol Hooven left Harvard

after a transphobic Fox News interview

she did, we could read Lawrence Krauss

talking about it, Abigail Thompson talks

about it, Lana Maroia talks about it,

Aleandro Strumia talks about it, Judith

Swisser and Alice Sullivan talk about

it, and finally Carol Hooven herself

talks about it in the essay why I left

Harvard. So, I'm not going to bother

explaining six different times that

Carol Hooven shouldn't have been

surprised that nobody wanted to work

with her or take her classes anymore

after she went on Fox News to help them

discriminate against trans people. Also,

before we get started, I need to include

a note here about the publisher of the

book, which is Post Hill Press, because

there are a few strange things about

Post Hill Press. Let me read you some of

their other recent releases. Star

Spangled Blessings. Devotions for

patriots. Star Spangled Blessings will

introduce you to patriots who discovered

the secret to happiness was not politics

or power, but a life lived as an

ambassador for Christ. An almost

insurmountable evil. How Obama's deep

state defiled the Catholic Church and

executed the Wuhan plemic. Beyond the

stethoscope, miracles in medicine, where

gripping stories of miraculous

recoveries, experiences in the ER, and

global medical missions illuminate the

transformative power of prayer. The 1896

prophecies, 10 predictions of America's

last days. A 127year-old prophecy warns

of America's last days should socialist

philosophies be permitted with

modern-day commentary showing the

parallels with current events. Christian

Patriot 12 steps for creating one nation

under God. Christian Patriot offers a

compelling road map for Christians to

reclaim their cultural influence and

establish an explicitly Christian

society rooted in faith, family, and

biblical values. This book was published

on the same day as the war on science,

by the way. Now, I wouldn't blame you

for finding all that rather confusing,

right? This publisher pretty much

exclusively puts out far-right

conspiracy theory, Christian

nationalist, faith healing nonsense. And

it published a book by physicist

Lawrence Krauss, featuring many people

who are well known for criticizing

religion, such as Richard Dawkins. So,

the obvious question here is why are

Krauss and his scientist pals being

published by this two-bit religious

conservative slop farm? And to answer

that, we first need to talk about the

elephant in the room. I first became

aware of the allegations against

Lawrence Krauss when watching this

video, Sexual Harassment and Assault in

Astronomy and Physics by Angela Collier,

which I will link below. That video

covers the allegations against Krauss as

part of a wider discussion about

problems with sexual harassment and

discrimination in the sciences and also

covers allegations against other people

such as astrophysicist Christian who

also writes a chapter in the war on

science ominously enough. Now I'm not

interested in being sued today. So I'll

say that it has been alleged in the

press that and then the rest of this

section. Okay. So, it has been alleged

in the press that Lawrence Krauss

sexually assaulted a woman in a hotel

room in 2006. He was barred from a

university campus in 2008 for

inappropriate comments made towards an

undergraduate student. In 2009, a sexual

harassment complaint was filed against

Krauss at the Quantum to Cosmos Festival

where he was a guest speaker. He

sexually assaulted a woman in a bar in

2011. In 2016 at the Australian Skeptics

National Convention, he grabbed a

woman's breast uninvited and in public.

This one was witnessed by multiple other

people. And these are just some of the

allegations that you hear about Lawrence

Krauss. There is allegedly more out

there that isn't publicly known about.

As an example, biologist and fellow

skeptic Jerry Coin wrote the following

on his website, Why Evolution is True,

in 2018. Certainly, most of you are

aware of the allegations that physicist

Lawrence Krauss engaged in sexually

predatory behavior. This was made public

with the BuzzFeed article that accused

Krauss of a popoly of sexually

aggressive and harassing behaviors,

ranging from inappropriate comments made

to women through physical groping up to

sexual assault. I didn't find the

specifics of most allegations fully

convincing. Yet, the fact that there

were so many of them that resembled each

other meant they could not be ignored.

As I've said, the more independent

claims there are against a person and

the more they paint a consistent pattern

of behavior, the greater the likelihood

that the accused is guilty. After that

article appeared, I did some digging on

my own and came up with three cases that

have convinced me that Krauss engaged in

sexual predation of both a physical

nature, groping, and of a verbal nature,

offensive and harassing comments. The

allegations that convinced me are not

public, but the accusers are

sufficiently credible that I believe

their claims to be true. Further, these

claims buttress the general allegation

of sexual misbehavior made in BuzzFeed.

In my view, then Krauss has a propensity

to engage in sexual misconduct. I

therefore disassociate myself from the

man. So, you can throw the three extra

allegations dug up by Jerry Coin on top

of the mountain of allegations made

against Lawrence Krauss there. They're

not public, but whatever they were was

apparently substantial enough to

convince Jerry Coin to never work with

Lawrence Krauss again. So, very

principled behavior from Jerry Coin

there. Well done. Now, Lawrence Krauss

denies these various allegations, of

course, painting the whole thing as a

conspiracy of people who were out to

ruin his life for some reason. Now, I

don't believe that personally, and not

even just because it doesn't seem very

likely. No, I don't believe it because

of things that Lawrence Krauss has said

himself. And I think it's time to

introduce the mystery man from the

photos I showed earlier here. So, yes,

this is Jeffrey Epstein with Lawrence

Krauss and Steven Pinker. That's Jeffrey

Epstein with Lawrence Summers and Steven

Pinker. This is Steven Pinker and

Richard Dawkins on Jeffrey Epstein's

Aeroplane. For whatever reason, Jeffrey

Epstein seems to have fancied himself as

something of an intellectual, and among

his associates were a surprising amount

of prominent scientists. And I'll hear a

quote from a 2019 Guardian article which

talks about this association. Lawrence

Krauss, a physicist who retired from

Arizona State University, where he was

being investigated for sexual

misconduct, by the way, even continued

defending Epstein after his 2008

conviction, telling the Daily Beast in

2011, "As a scientist, I always judge

things on empirical evidence, and he

always has women ages 19 to 23 around

him, but I've never seen anything else.

So as a scientist, my presumption is

that whatever the problems were, I would

believe him over other people. He added,

I don't feel tarnished in any way by my

relationship with Jeffrey. I feel raised

by it. So I have a few things to say

about this, of course. Firstly, I'd just

like to mention here that in 2008, when

Jeffrey Epstein was convicted of

soliciting prostitution from minors, he

pleaded guilty. So Krauss's comments

defending Epstein here came after that

conviction. Secondly, I'd like to

highlight Krauss's use of his reputation

as a scientist to defend Epstein.

Because for someone who is supposedly

worried about the public perception of

the sciences, using your position as a

prominent scientist to defend a

notorious sex trafficker after he was

convicted for sex crimes is far more

harmful to the reputation of the

sciences than anything you complain

about in this book. The woke Marbar

undermining academia says man who uses

his own academic reputation to try to

shield Jeffrey Epstein from criticism.

Thirdly, I'd like to point out that

Lawrence Krauss was when he was at

Arizona State University the head of the

origins project which was some sort of

science event thing where people gave

talks and presentations and all that

like this talk between Lawrence Krauss

and Richard Dawkins here for instance. A

public records request made by BuzzFeed

revealed a list of people and

organizations who had donated to support

the origins project over the years. And

in the list on page 11, we see the quote

Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation, which

pledged $100,000 in support. The Jeffrey

Epstein VI Foundation was set up by

Jeffrey Epstein, if you didn't pick that

up from the context there. The VI stands

for Virgin Islands, as in where Jeffrey

Epstein's private island was. We also

see multiple donations from the Enhanced

Education Foundation totaling $250,000.

The Enhanced Education Foundation was

also set up by Jeffrey Epstein. And we

also see millions of dollars in pledges

from Epstein associates Leon and Deborah

Black. So, when Lawrence Krauss says he

feels raised by his relationship with

Jeffrey, I can only assume he means that

primarily in a financial sense. Now, I

have to say that all of this makes

Lawrence Krauss's attempted scientific

defense of Jeffrey Epstein look rather

ridiculous, doesn't it? Krauss is not

considering in his scientific empirical

judgment of Jeffrey Epstein's character

the possibility that he might be biased

towards his friend who gives him

wheelbarrows full of money. When you

measure, include the measurer Mc Hammer.

I'll quote here from a Buzzfeed article

reporting the allegations against

Krauss. And this section details how

feminist skeptic Rebecca Watson

criticized Krauss for defending Epstein.

and I quote on her Skept Chickick blog,

Watson slammed Krauss for not

acknowledging his obvious bias and thus

violating a core value of skepticism.

Krauss's statement is extremely

disturbing and makes scientists look

like ignorant biased fools who will

twist data to suit their own needs. She

wrote, "I remain skeptical and I support

a man whose character I believe I know,"

Krauss responded in the post's comments.

"If you want to condemn me for that, so

be it." And you know what, Lawrence?

Okay, I will I will condemn you for

that. Now, before we move on, I'd like

to include a note about Steven Pinker

here. Pinker is a psychologist at

Harvard who, as I mentioned earlier,

writes a chapter in the war on science.

And as we've seen, he's got a few photos

of him with Jeffrey Epstein floating

around out there. But unlike Krauss,

Pinker has since decided to distance

himself from Epstein rather than defend

him. I could never stand the guy and

always tried to keep my distance, he

says. This is complicated somewhat by

the fact that Steven Pinker helped

Jeffrey Epstein's lawyer, Alan

Dersowitz, with Jeffrey Epstein's legal

defense when he was indicted for sex

crimes in 2006. To quote a Buzzfeed news

article here, "An obscure document from

Epstein's legal defense shows that

Pinker weighed in on the precise meaning

of a federal law about using the

internet to entice minors into

prostitution or other illegal sex acts."

Pinker has since claimed that he didn't

know Dersawitz was going to use his

opinion in defense of Jeffrey Epstein

and claimed that he was not paid for the

letter. Quote, "It's something that

Allan and I do regularly as colleagues."

He also claimed he was not aware of the

charges against Jeffrey Epstein, which I

find a bit difficult to believe to be

honest. It was big news at the time, and

you regularly work with his lawyer.

Apparently, also, if a lawyer asked me

to provide expert opinion for a criminal

defense and it pertained to a law about

enticing minors into prostitution, I

would probably ask for the details on

that one before my name ends up in a

court document defending the head of a

sex trafficking ring or something.

Anyway, even if we very generously take

Steven Pinker at his word and assume he

didn't mean to help defend Jeffrey

Epstein at trial and that he never liked

the guy and thought he was awful, we

still have to ask, what's he doing in

this book with Lawrence Krauss? Because

Lawrence Krauss doesn't think Epstein is

awful. He thinks he's great. He loves

the guy. He thinks he was absolutely

brilliant. Now, maybe it's just me, but

I would find it hard to maintain a

positive working relationship with

someone who likes and keeps defending

Jeffrey Epstein. That would be a deal

breakaker for me in a friendship. So,

no, I don't believe Steven Pinker never

liked Jeffrey Epstein because I think if

that was the case, he probably wouldn't

now be working with Lawrence Krauss.

Anyway, with regards to the allegations

made against Lawrence Krauss and his

friendship and financial relationship

with Jeffrey Epstein, you might be

wondering what he says about all of this

in his book. And the answer is he

doesn't mention it at all. He seems to

be hoping people would forget about all

of that. But although Lawrence Krauss

doesn't mention the allegations against

him directly, he does allude to them.

For example, they certainly seem to have

been present in his mind when he wrote

the following passage. Christian, a

distinguished astrophysicist at Caltech,

was forced to resign his tenur position,

not for what he said, but for what

others claimed about what he did. What

makes his case even more poignant is not

just the lack of due process and

fairness associated with what happened

to him at Caltech, typical of so many

recent claims of inappropriate behavior

by male faculty at universities, but

also the subsequent efforts of numerous

activists to distort his case to try and

ensure he could never carry out his

research at any subsequent institution.

What happened to Christian art seems to

have hit quite close to home for

Lawrence Krauss. So, okay, what happened

to Christian Art? Let's talk about his

chapter. Christian D. Art's chapter is

titled Delicious Moral Treats, and it

begins with what it claims is a passage

from Aldous Huxley's novel, Chrome

Yellow, but it isn't. This is from

Huxley's introduction to a Samuel Butler

novel. So, we're off to a good start

here. Uh, but don't worry, Christian.

Any halfway decent editor will catch

that error before it gets printed.

Anyway, let's start by quoting from

account of what happened to him. I was a

tenure professor of astrophysics at the

California Institute of Technology,

Caltech, a private nonprofit corporation

and accredited institution of higher

learning in Pasadena, California. My

research focused on stars and black

holes and so on. In September 2015, I

was found responsible for having

violated Caltech policies and title 9. I

was put on administrative leave without

pay for an academic year, which was

extended by another year with pay. I was

the subject of BuzzFeed news articles

and I was pillaried on social media. I

ultimately resigned my tenure position

voluntarily on December 31st, 2017. Then

he gives his backstory, talks about

being a nerd in school and bullied. He

went through university, got a job in

academia, and was eventually put in

charge of a team of students and

post-doal researchers. What he admits to

here is that he was a bad manager. He

claims he could lack empathy and be too

demanding. He was under a lot of

pressure and he didn't have the

interpersonal or managerial skills he

needed to do his job basically. So it

sounds like Christian art is being

rather candid so far. My case involved

two graduate students as complainants

and a third graduate student who was

agitating and driving complaints behind

the scenes. Student A joined my research

group in the summer of 2012 and I was

her formal graduate adviser. Not long

after she started working with me, she

confided in me that she was dealing with

serious mental health issues that

impeded her research and coursework. I'm

not a mental health professional and

certainly wasn't qualified to help, but

I tried to help listen and accommodate.

Student A and I became close and

frequently discussed personal issues.

Student A relied on me as her

psychological support person. Student B

joined Caltech in the same year as

student A. She had already published

research broadly relevant to my

research. I had met her previously at a

summer school program at her alma matter

and had worked hard to recruit her to

Caltech. I wasn't her formal graduate

adviser, but she decided to join my

research group and carry out research

with me for her first year at Caltech.

Student B and I got along well. I felt

that there was positive chemistry

between us. Our interactions sometimes

touched on personal topics. Uh-oh. Now

it sounds like he's being a little less

candid. All this personal issues,

personal topics stuff. That's a little

suspiciously vague, isn't it? Anyway,

fast forward a year. It's now late

summer 2013. Student A and I have

continued a positive relationship and

she was making progress. Student B, on

the other hand, struggled and appeared

to be unenthusiastic about the research

she was doing. I sought advice from

faculty colleagues about what to do. In

the annual faculty meeting in which the

research progress of all firstear

students is discussed, I got a clear

message from my colleagues. Student B

should switch research topics and

research advisers. This is a rather

common thing. Many students in student

B's graduate program switch topics and

advisers after their first year.

Overall, not a big deal. However, it was

a big deal for me. I had given her a

research project that didn't work out.

I'd worked hard to recruit her, invested

time and energy into her research, and

was deeply invested in her success. I

couldn't make things work out. I felt

like a failure. After meeting with her

to discuss the decision that we should

stop working together, I felt horrible.

My emotions were complex. It was a mix

of failure, self-pity, and a sense of

loss combined with affection for student

B. I was lost and didn't know how to

deal with my feelings. The right thing,

of course, would have been to talk to a

counselor and friends outside of

Caltech. I felt I needed to talk to

someone who would understand the

situation. In a desperate moment, while

I was on foreign travel and feeling

horrible about the situation, I confided

in student A about my feelings. Student

A became my confidant and helped me deal

with my emotions. She consented to all

of this. Now, what Christian Art has

done here is that he's developed

inappropriate relationships with his

students. Art was 38 at the time, and

he's become infatuated with one student

in her early 20s, and he's using another

student, also in her early 20s, as a

kind of therapist to deal with it.

That's very unprofessional there. Even

in his telling of events, which is very

favorable to himself, that's a problem,

right? He shouldn't be doing that sort

of thing. Obviously, the next problem is

that he might not be telling the full

story here. And I'll hear a quote from

one of those BuzzFeed articles that give

student A and B's accounting of events

over coffees at a pet just off campus.

Clya recalled. That's student B. There

broke the news that he no longer wanted

to work with her, meaning she would have

to find another adviser to finish her

graduate studies. The change totally

upended her research plans, but she said

she didn't really understand why he was

firing her. He mentioned an email that

she had not responded to a few weeks

earlier, she recalled, and said he

couldn't emotionally deal with her

anymore. She had no idea that he had any

romantic feelings for her. She just

thought she had failed at her job.

Around the same time, Ot began chatting

online with another of his female

graduate students, 23-year-old Sarah

Gossan. that's student A to confide in

her about the situation with Kaiser. One

evening, u asked Gossan to switch from

chat to Skype. I can't even write this

stuff down, he typed on Skype a few

minutes later. According to Gossan, Ot

confessed to being in love with Klyiza.

The reason he had fired her was because

he was concerned she was using her

sexual influence over him to not do any

work, Gossan told BuzzFeed News. Now

obviously what's happened to Kaiser/

studentb here is very unfair isn't it?

Her advisor developed feelings for her

and he couldn't deal with it but he

didn't tell her about that and then he

fired her leading her to believe that it

was her fault. And even in accounting of

events in the book he tries to distance

himself from the blame here by claiming

he was merely acting on the advice of

his colleagues. Now the students went on

to complain to Caltech about u's

behavior. And when relays how this

happens, he blames everything on a

mysterious student C, who he paints as

an activist and agitator who's

constantly looking for things to

complain about and who talked the other

students into speaking out against u.

This is very different from the account

in the Buzzfeed article. In that

telling, student A became increasingly

distraught by OT's inappropriate

communications and demands on her time

until she eventually switched advisers

by herself and filed a complaint about

him. But how did student B get involved

in the complaint? Well, Klya said she

didn't find out about OT's feelings for

her until June the 4th when Caltech's

Title 9 coordinator called her into her

office and presented her with a stack of

86 poems had posted about her on his

Tumblr page. The poems, which Buzzfeed

News has reviewed, are no longer online.

That's a real loss to the world of

poetry there, I'm sure. The coordinator

told Kaiser she could join Gossan's

official complaint. Now Art telling his

version of events claims the complaints

about him were orchestrated by the

villainous student C. And he doesn't

mention his volumes of Tumblr love

poetry being found by the university. So

it's really up to you which of these two

versions of events you think is more

likely. In a letter sent to Clyiser in

September, the university acknowledged

that her firing was prompted by OT's

romantic or sexual feelings for you and

that his behavior significantly and

adversely affected your educational

opportunities at Caltech. A letter sent

to Gossang concluded that interactions

with her placed an inappropriate and

undue burden on you that adversely

affected your emotional and physical

well-being. I would mention in relation

to his communications with Gossan that

when Art claims that all of this

intimate personal communication was

consensual, he's ignoring something very

important here obviously, which is the

power dynamic of their relationship.

She's a student. He's a teacher,

obviously. He's older. He's established

in the field. He has the ability to

hamper her academic career by firing her

if he thinks she's too difficult to deal

with, something which he apparently

does. So, there's a big incentive there

for her to try to remain on his good

side, even as he inappropriately uses

her as emotional support to try to deal

with his weirdo crush on a different

student. Does later state that the

university investigators looking into

the case mention this imbalanced power

dynamic to him, but he dismisses their

argument and he accuses them of blindly

adopting hypotheses of post-modernist

intersectional social theory. So I feel

like he still doesn't really understand

what he did wrong there. In addition to

Kaiser and Gossan, seven other students

have left OT's research group since

2012. All of them spoke with BuzzFeed

News. Four said they were fired

abruptly. Many said that OT's erratic

behavior created a hostile and demanding

work environment where bullying was the

norm. Casey Handmerma was a grad student

in Ot's group until June 2013 when he

was fired partly because Ought didn't

want him to keep his bicycle locked up

inside. "Either you accept my rules or

you go look for another advisor," O

wrote him by email. "Your call." Now, I

think this bicycle anecdote is important

to keep in mind when considering OT's

claim that all the communication was

consensual. I mean, if he's the sort of

man who would fire someone for parking

their bicycle somewhere where he doesn't

like, you really don't want to get on

the bad side of someone that petty,

right? Five other students, including

Gossan, quit his group on their own for

a variety of reasons, some of which were

unrelated to his behavior. Since joined

Caltech's faculty in 2009, just two of

his graduate students have completed

their degrees. That's not a very high

hit rate from Christian there, is it?

There's something I want to mention here

which I think is relevant to Christian

arts chapter in the book but is going to

be a recurring theme as we talk about

the other contributors and it's this.

Quite apart from the specifics of what

he did in the incident in question the

canceled party here Christian art simply

does not appear to have been a very good

employee. Part of his job was to manage

all these students and he's not doing

that is he? He's developing crushes on

them and calling them on Skype at night

to talk about his feelings and firing

them over minor infractions or things

that were actually his fault. And the

fallout from his mismanagement is going

to be landing on his colleagues who have

to pick up his slack and clean up his

messes. And I know academia can be a bit

of a bubble, but out in the real world,

if you get hired somewhere to do a job

and then you don't do that job, they

fire you. You know, that's how it works.

But Christian Art isn't really taking

responsibility for not doing his job

properly. He does admit to not being a

good manager, but the reasons he gives

for not being a good manager aren't

really the most relevant to the actual

situation. He claims to be very driven

and too demanding and to not have enough

empathy for people who don't work as

hard as he does. And these really just

sound like camouflaged compliments he's

giving to himself. They're the sorts of

flaws you might list in a job interview.

You know, I just work too darn hard.

Regardless of the validity of that, it's

not really the important thing here, is

it? The important thing is the stack of

Tumblr love poetry, which I would very

much like to read. In the interest of

fairness here, let's investigate whether

Christian art has had any positive

relationships with female colleagues. I

mean, he can't creep them all out,

surely. So, let's talk about women he's

worked with successfully. For example,

in the paper, the gravitational wave

signature of core collapse supernovi art

is listed as a co-author alongside us

gamma, someone who is also his co-author

on the paper core collapse supernovi,

neutrinos and gravitational waves. This

is Ursula Ushi Gamma, someone who was

listed on the Caltech website as being

part of the tapia theoretical

astrophysics group alongside Christian.

papers coming out of this group often

either had Ursula Gama listed as a

co-author or thanked her specifically in

the acknowledgements. And I want to

relay two interesting things about

Ursula Gamma here. The first is that

she's collaborated with on multiple

projects and as far as I'm aware, she

hasn't had a single negative word to say

about the man. So, congratulations to

Christian art for that. The second

interesting thing I want to relay about

Ursula Gamma is that she's not real.

She's a fake person invented by

Christian and he added her name to

papers and instructed his students to

add her name to their talks and someone

was sending emails in character as her.

Now, it seems like he's done this for

funding reasons, and I can only

speculate here, but I imagine he's

trying to make it seem like his papers

have a more diverse array of co-authors

than they actually do in order to appeal

to funders. like fund us, we've got a

lady scientist. Imagine that. And if

that is the case, I would point out that

if he just stopped alienating the actual

women who worked with him, he probably

wouldn't have to invent women to work

with. After details what happened at

Caltech, or his version of what happened

anyway, he talks about the subsequent

investigation, and I think it's fair to

say he handled the consequences very

poorly. He didn't do himself any favors

whatsoever. Firstly, he appeals against

the university's decision to place him

on leave, which is a bad idea as it

signals to them that he doesn't think

he's done anything wrong when he

obviously has. So, they're going to be

worried he's going to do it again in the

future. He makes assumptions about other

events at the university being

orchestrated by student C, even when he

doesn't have evidence for that. He talks

about the university having him under a

gag order, but then he violates that gag

order by talking about one of the

students on Twitter. like, "No, bad.

What are you doing? Stop it, man." This

was a mistake, but it was great for

Caltech. They accused me of having

violated the terms of my administrative

leave and happily extended my leave by

another 12 months, though this time with

pay. Yeah, it sounds great for Caltech

all this. I'm sure they loved having an

employee on extended leave because he

was generating bad press for them by

creeping on his students and then is

still posting about the students on his

social media even though they asked him

not to. I'm sure they were thrilled

overjoyed about all this I bet.

Honestly, OT's arrogance and

selfcenteredness here can be really

quite irritating to read. For example, I

came to the conclusion, which I hold to

this day, that the outcome of my case

was determined by what Caltech deemed to

be the most favorable outcome for

Caltech. Oh, you don't say. I mean, what

were you expecting exactly? Did you

think you were working at the Christian

Art Institute, the fan club for

Christian Art, where they try to reach

the most favorable outcome for you, even

though you caused the problem? and he's

saying this as if he's dulging some deep

revelation he had instead of it being

something that's immediately obvious to

anyone who has ever worked anywhere. He

also complains about how long it took

Caltech to come to a verdict on his

case. Quote, "Partly because one of the

investigators disappeared for an

extended Hawaiian vacation. Oh, I'm

sorry. They were living their own life

instead of prioritizing you, the

protagonist of the universe. That must

have been very hard for you." Now,

before I blow through my entire sarcasm

quotota for today's video, I'll move on

and share the funniest moment of

Christian art chapter. Eventually, he

gives up on trying to be an educator,

which is good, and he changed his career

to being a software engineer, something

he says made sense because of his

extensive computing experience and his

quote broad training as a problem

solver. To wrap up here, Christian art

is someone who did something wrong. But

that's not why he was air quotes canled.

That happened because he refused to

either admit he was wrong or let it go.

He doubled down when he appealed the

university's findings when he violated

the gag order. He's been doubling down

since. And now he's doubling down again

by appearing in this book with Jeffrey

Epstein associate and accused serial sex

pest Lawrence Krauss. If your employer

looks at you and sees a liability,

someone who's generating bad press for

the university and isn't demonstrating

remorse or a willingness to change and

thus is likely to keep generating bad

press in the future, they're probably

going to find a way to get rid of you

and they did and that was your fault.

Anyway, let's move on and talk about

another chapter. So, this is an apology

for philology by Sulvie Gold and Joshua

Katz. Lawrence Krauss describes their

essay as covering Princeton University's

decision in 2021 to quote, "Eliminate

its language requirement for

undergraduate majors so that students

could graduate with a degree in classics

without ever taking a single course in

Latin or ancient Greek." So, what

happened here was that prior to 2021,

Princeton apparently required classic

students to take a class in either Greek

or Latin, but then they changed the

curriculum to make that optional. So you

can still take the languages if you

like, but you're no longer required to

to graduate. And then this essay by

Golden Cats is criticizing that

decision. Now, to begin with here, I'll

say that while I am sure that Princeton

reorganizing its classics department is

of middling interest to the Princeton

Classics Department, I'm not sure why

I'm hearing about it now in the book,

The War on Science. It's not the war on

the humanities, is it? What's a classics

department doing in here? Well, in 2018,

an investigation found that Joshua Catz,

then a professor at Princeton, had

engaged in a relationship with an

undergraduate student in the classics

department. He was suspended for a year

without pay for violating the

university's rules about not doing that.

Now, you might be thinking, ah, that's

why he's in this book, right? Lawrence

Krauss must have gone around and

collected any professor who's ever been

subject to a sexual misconduct

investigation and got them to write a

chapter for his book. But the problem is

that Joshua Katz is a linguist, not a

scientist. So, he got to write a chapter

about languages. However, there is more

to the story here. I'm not saying that's

wrong. It's just there's more to say

about it. So, Joshua Catz dates a

student. Princeton finds out he gets

suspended, but it hasn't been made

public yet. So, you might imagine that

he'd want to keep his head down after

that, right? Not want to draw too much

attention to himself, that sort of

thing. But in July of 2020, Katz wrote

an article in Colette, which is a

right-wing rag. And in that article, he

criticized an anti-racist student

organization at Princeton describing

them as a quote local terrorist

organization. He wrote that article

shortly after George Floyd was murdered.

So you can imagine the sort of

environment in which he decided to offer

his opinion that some black student

activists are terrorists. Katz was of

course widely criticized in the wake of

this article, including by Princeton,

but they didn't formally punish him for

it. Katz then wrote another article

gloating about this incident in the Wall

Street Journal. I survived cancellation

at Princeton. It was a close call, but I

won't be investigated for criticizing a

faculty open letter. He is really poking

the bear here, isn't he? So, in early

2021, the Princeton student newspaper

published the story about cats violating

university policy by engaging in a

relationship with a student and also

quoted two other students who claimed

that cats pursued them in a way they

felt was inappropriate. After this, the

student who Cats had a relationship with

quote submitted a detailed complaint to

university administrators. According to

Monday's statement, this complaint

provided new information to the

university, prompting a separate

investigation. This time, the

investigation did not revisit the policy

violations that caused his 2018

suspension, instead establishing that

Katz had misrepresented facts and failed

to be fully forthcoming during the 2018

investigation, the statement said.

Additionally, according to the

statement, Catz had a successful effort

to discourage the alumni from

participating and cooperating after she

expressed the intent to do so. So,

Princeton launched a second

investigation of Cats and then they

fired him. Now, Cats and his defenders

present this as terribly unfair. Of

course, he'd already been punished for

the time he dated a student. They claim

Princeton is just going back to that now

to find some technicality to use as an

excuse to get rid of him because he

wrote something racist and then said,

"Nah, no, nah. I got away with it. You

can't catch me." And you know what? They

probably are, but also good. Like, yeah,

you're asking for it at that point. I

imagine it is easier to get rid of you

for the time you violated university

policy by dating the students than it

would be over a free speech issue. It

probably is, but Princeton didn't do

anything wrong there. If anything, they

writeed a wrong because the truth is

they let you off easy last time. They

didn't fire you and they didn't make

what you did public. They were going to

let you come back and carry on your

career. Now, this was self-interested on

the part of Princeton. Of course, they

don't want bad headlines like Princeton

professor creeps on his students, that

sort of thing. But you should have

respected the mechanism of your

salvation there. They don't want bad

headlines. So don't go and write

articles in Colette calling black

students terrorists during a period of

civil unrest caused by the police

murdering black people. Because if

you're going to generate bad press for

them anyway, they might as well just

find some way to get rid of you. And

they did. And that was your fault. Now,

you might be wondering who Sulvie Gold

is in all this. Well, she is Joshua

Katz's wife. She's 25 years his junior

and is another one of his former

undergraduate students. You can make of

that whatever you want. I want to move

on from specific instances of sexual

misconduct now and talk about more

general sexism and misogyny in the

sciences. And to get us started here,

I'll first introduce Aleandro Strumia,

who is an Italian man. And he is

introduced by Lawrence Krauss in the

following way. Aleandro Strumia is a

scientist formerly of CERN in Geneva

whose own research arguing against the

empirical basis of discriminatory DEI

hiring quotas in physics led to his

first being censored then censored and

then expelled from that organization.

And let's read Trumia's account of this

event in his essay which starts out in

the past decade we lost some excellent

apolitical journalism. I'll stop you

there. There is no such thing as

apolitical journalism. I am vetoing the

rest of this sentence. We're skipping

it. I accidentally got involved in these

troubles while at CERN thanks to a

European Research Council grant for

physics. In 2018, CERN decided to host a

workshop about a new topic, gender.

Having worked on biblometrics, I had the

data needed to test anecdotal claims

about why women remain under

reppresented in physics. According to

the politically correct mainstream

theory, STEM, science, technology,

engineering, and mathematics disciplines

conspire to keep women out. This happens

despite that Western academia is one of

the most progressive environments

globally. Why should these champions of

diversity seek to exclude women,

especially in countries with higher

levels of gender equality? Apparently,

because we all suffer from sexist

stereotypes and unconscious systemic

bias, such as believing that biological

gender differences exist that create

invisible obstacles via

microaggressions. Okay, I'm going to

stop you there again. Ease up on the

sarcastic quotation marks. We're only in

the second paragraph here. So, this is

just all over the place, isn't it? He

thinks the theory is that STEM conspires

to keep women out, seeks to exclude

women because of unconscious systemic

bias. I mean, that just doesn't make any

sense, does it? The more sensible point

here would be that even if a field was

not seeking to exclude women, they could

still end up doing it because of

unconscious biases. Additionally, if

women are under reppresented in physics

or any other field, that might point to

a problem in the field, sexual

harassment, for instance. Uh but the

imbalance might also be originating

outside it. Societal attitudes towards

women in STEM, making it less likely

that as many women as men want to go

into those subjects or want to stay in

those subjects when they're there. So

Strumia seems to be a little off base

here. But what did he decide to do? To

me, this seemed to be a bizarre

conspiracy theory. So I conducted basic

biblometric checks that CERN could have

performed before hosting claims that

physics discriminates against women. For

example, I calculated the number of

papers published and the citations

received by each author at the time of

hiring. Do women need on average higher

biblometric indices than men to be

hired? The data indicated no evidence of

discrimination in favor of men? Now,

what he's done here in seeking to

counter the idea that there is

discrimination against women in physics

is examine whether there's

discrimination against women in physics,

specifically in terms of papers

published and citations received at the

time they're hired for certain

positions. Now, first of all, this is a

laughably narrow examination, one that

ignores all of the other possible

sources of bias and discrimination in

the field, but also because your number

of papers published or citations

received is not necessarily an indicator

of the quality of your work, is it? This

would be like judging who is the best

fiction author by only considering the

amount of books they'd written or

something. Dan Brown is a better writer

than James Joyce by that metric. Also,

while you might get citations for good

work, you might get citations for bad

work, too. If you write a bad paper with

errors that someone takes the time to

refute, you got a citation there, didn't

you? Is that good? Does that speak to

your ability as a scientist? Dumia's

idea is also flawed here because how

often men and women are cited or chosen

to be included as co-authors on papers

is not a process that would be

unaffected by misogyny in the sciences.

Strumia is picking one moment in time to

do his comparison here, but he's not

considering that what he's looking to

find or not find in this case misogyny

would, if it exists, have made it harder

for women to get a lot of citations in

the first place. Now, unfortunately,

Struia didn't just keep all of his

amazing arguments to himself. He applied

to give a talk at this gender workshop,

and he did. And the slides for his talk

are available online and I'm going to

show some of them to you now and you're

not going to believe them.

Discrimination against women physics

invented and built by men. It's not by

invitation. Cury etc. Welcomed after

showing what they can do. Got nobles

quotas in best jobs only is not

equality. Men make worst jobs and 95% of

work deaths. I said fort crime according

to Minister of Truth and PC Fort Police.

I trust you noticed the anti-feminist

memes and cartoons in there. I had a

click through the videos of the rest of

the presentations at this workshop at

CERN, which are available online, and I

saw a series of rather sober and serious

academic types giving very professional

and rather dry presentations to a room

of their peers. And imagining this clown

getting up to show them his presentation

filled with anti-feminist 4chan memes is

one of the most embarrassing things I

can imagine. It makes me want to cringe

into a tiny little ball. There's

actually audio of him giving this

presentation online, but I can't listen

to it. I won't do it. It is simply too

embarrassing. The man has a PhD and his

presentation looks like it was made by a

13-year-old boy who watches too much

Andrew Tate. Now, the most telling slide

is this one where Struia complains about

a woman being hired to a position that

he applied to even though he has more

citations than her, which he thinks is

important. So, yes, that's where all

this seems to be coming from. Strumia

feels he was snubbed because of

political correctness or whatever. Can

you imagine how unprofessional it is to

actually publicly name a person who got

a job that you wanted and imply that

they only got it because they were a

woman? Like maybe she was just a better

fit for the role than you. Maybe part of

the job requirement was to not be a

gigantic Have you considered

that? I want to talk a bit more about a

couple of claims made in these slides.

And we'll start with the claim about

Marie Cury. Now, Struia later wrote a

blog about his presentation and in there

he tries to elaborate on the point he

was apparently making in this slide. He

says, "Nobody has privileged access.

Everybody is welcome to try and will be

appreciated based on achievements, not

based on gender, race, etc." Marie Cury

is an example of how successful women

have been appreciated in the physics

community since many years now. So,

let's respond to this with some Marie

Cury facts. Firstly, Cury had to attend

an illegal underground school, the

Flying University, so-called because it

had to regularly change locations to

avoid the authorities. One of the

reasons of which was because women were

banned from higher education at the

time. When Marie and her husband/colague

Pierre Cury traveled to share their

research into radium at the Royal

Institution in London, Pierre lectured

alone because the institute forbade

women from speaking at the time. And in

1903, although they shared their work

and research, of the two, only Pierre

Cury was nominated for a Nobel Prize for

their work with radiation, he had to

write and complain in order to get Marie

Cury added to the nomination. They

initially weren't even going to nominate

her for the Nobel Prize. And this is

Struia's example of how the physics

community is welcoming to women because

one very remarkable woman through

enormous effort and dedication and the

support of her husband managed to

somehow overcome the various

institutional barriers in the sciences

were now supposed to act like those

barriers don't exist. That's ludicrous.

Cury etc welcomed after showing what

they can do. Men of course are just

welcome by default. They built physics

after all. But women are welcome after

they show what they can do. Women have

to go the extra mile. They have to

overcome our prejudices. And if they

overcome our prejudices, we can just

say, "Well, our prejudices couldn't have

been all that bad then. They didn't stop

you, did they?" Now, this is ridiculous.

Obviously, it's like Struia is saying

women should be expected to have to

literally discover a new element just to

get their foot in the door. Anyway, next

I want to talk about a particular

sentence from this slide. In 2016, CERN

attacked as homophobic by big media for

nothing. What is behind this? Now, this

is a link which we can click and if we

do, we're taken to a news story in the

Independent titled CERN laboratory made

famous for work on Large Hadron Collider

embroiled in homophobia row. At least

one researcher is reported by the Sunday

Times to have been formally disciplined

after CCTV cameras caught them defacing

posters advertising CERN's lesbian, gay,

bisexual, and transgender club events.

LGBT CERN group members claim the abuse

has been ongoing for years with posters

defaced with words such as shvine,

German for pig, and Old Testament

biblical quotations describing sexual

relations between men as an abomination

for which they should be put to death.

Now, that's not nothing. Obviously,

that's quite serious, actually. That's a

hate crime which could be taken as a

death threat. I have absolutely no idea

why Struia decided to include a link to

this news article in his slide here

since it so clearly contradicts what he

says about it. I mean, I'm glad he did.

Usually, I have to go looking for it.

So, he saved me some time at least.

Strumia asks, "What is behind this?" And

then his next slide is about cultural

Marxism. Now, you might say, "Hang on a

minute. Isn't cultural Marxism a

far-right conspiracy theory? Surely

Aleandro Struia isn't promoting that

sort of thing. Now, being completely

serious here, when I saw this slide, I

thought, "Oh, I wonder if this guy is

just a fascist." And so, I went to his

Twitter page to investigate. And quite

genuinely, the first thing I saw was him

retweeting a video of Martin Selner, who

is an Austrian neo-Nazi. So, that

investigation didn't take very long. If

that's not enough for you to call

Strumia a bigot, though, and you need

another data point, I'll say that

Strumia has also tweeted in support of

law professor Amy Wax, who we're going

to have cause to talk about in a little

while. Now, this point probably doesn't

mean much to you right now, but trust

me, it will soon. Now, we've only talked

about a few contributors to the book so

far, but I must pause and say all of

this paints a pretty dim picture of

academia, doesn't it? If you were

working just from this sample, you'd

conclude the sciences were populated by

bigots, misogynists, and sexual

harassers, creepy old dinosaurs who

seemingly mainly view their fields as an

opportunity to pursue suspiciously

younger women. But that can't be right,

surely. Let's class things up a bit and

introduce a proper old-fashioned British

gentleman, Professor Richard Dawkins.

Now, to start here, let me clarify that

Professor Richard Dawkins is 84 years

old and his wife is 80 years old. So,

that's a much more appropriate sort of

age gap there. Oh, I'm sorry. I got

something mixed up there. That was his

first wife. His second wife is his

third. His fourth wife is 45 years his

junior. 45. That's the difficult thing,

isn't it, with looking for the one?

Sometimes you're 40 years old and

they've not been born yet. Anyway,

before Richard Dawkins ruins this joke

by getting married again, let's move on

and talk about his essay. Okay, so

Professor Richard Dawkins writes the

first and longest chapter of the book,

and he's also probably the most famous

person involved in the project. Lawrence

Krauss introduces Dawkins essay by

saying the section begins with a

wide-ranging essay by Richard Dawkins

describing the nature of science and

some classic examples of ideology

negatively impacting science and society

in the former Soviet Union under the

combined tyranny of the biologist

Lysenko and Stalin and then more recent

examples involving modern biology and

gender. Hell of a sentence there. Now,

wide-ranging essay here is a polite way

of saying a bunch of disconnected topics

stitched together from things Richard

Dawkins has said elsewhere. For example,

the 8,000 words of Dawkins essay that

follow the title, "Is sex a social

construct?" is just taken from Richard

Dawkins blog from a post titled, "Is the

male female divide a social construct or

scientific reality?" So his entry in the

book is less a considered piece on the

topics at hand and seemingly more

whatever he happened to have written

most recently when Lawrence Krauss

emailed him asking for an essay.

Although I will say this is true for

many of the chapters in the book, a lot of which were originally posted on blogs

of which were originally posted on blogs or as opinion pieces in newspapers. One

or as opinion pieces in newspapers. One of them we'll talk about later is a

of them we'll talk about later is a transcript of a podcast interview.

transcript of a podcast interview. Outside of Lawrence Krauss's

Outside of Lawrence Krauss's introduction, you're really not getting

introduction, you're really not getting that much book for your money here. For

that much book for your money here. For the most part, this project could have

the most part, this project could have been an email with a list of links in

been an email with a list of links in it. Before we get to the content of

it. Before we get to the content of Professor Richard Dawkins chapter, I

Professor Richard Dawkins chapter, I have a confession to make. I used to be

have a confession to make. I used to be a very big fan of Professor Richard

a very big fan of Professor Richard Dawkins. The God Delusion came out when

Dawkins. The God Delusion came out when I was a teenager and I read it and I

I was a teenager and I read it and I thought it was brilliant. At the time, I

thought it was brilliant. At the time, I thought very highly of Dawkins and his

thought very highly of Dawkins and his skeptic colleagues in the new atheism

skeptic colleagues in the new atheism movement. I read their books and their

movement. I read their books and their blog posts and thoroughly enjoyed the

blog posts and thoroughly enjoyed the content made by the atheist YouTubers,

content made by the atheist YouTubers, skewering creationists and flatearthers

skewering creationists and flatearthers and so on. Religion seemed to me to

and so on. Religion seemed to me to epitomize illogical thinking and false

epitomize illogical thinking and false belief. Organized religion was obviously

belief. Organized religion was obviously corrupt and institutionally bigoted, but

corrupt and institutionally bigoted, but here are some people speaking out for

here are some people speaking out for science and rationality. And at the head

science and rationality. And at the head of the pack is Professor Richard

of the pack is Professor Richard Dawkins. Intelligent, uncompromising,

Dawkins. Intelligent, uncompromising, bravely stating outright that belief in

bravely stating outright that belief in God is a delusion. Exciting times and an

God is a delusion. Exciting times and an exciting movement to be a part of if you

exciting movement to be a part of if you were an obnoxious know-it-all teenager

were an obnoxious know-it-all teenager like I was at the time. Now I'm in my

like I was at the time. Now I'm in my 30s. I'm not such a big fan of Professor

30s. I'm not such a big fan of Professor Richard Dawkins, to put it mildly. And

Richard Dawkins, to put it mildly. And Richard Dawkins, who calls himself a

Richard Dawkins, who calls himself a cultural Christian, now is publishing a

cultural Christian, now is publishing a chapter in a book put out by a deeply

chapter in a book put out by a deeply religious publisher alongside not just

religious publisher alongside not just Jeffrey Epstein associate Lawrence

Jeffrey Epstein associate Lawrence Krauss, but as we'll see later, a bunch

Krauss, but as we'll see later, a bunch of unrepentant racists and bigots. How

of unrepentant racists and bigots. How the mighty have fallen, eh? So, what

the mighty have fallen, eh? So, what happened to Professor Richard Dawkins?

happened to Professor Richard Dawkins? And what happened to the skeptic atheist

And what happened to the skeptic atheist movement that he was a part of? Well, if

movement that he was a part of? Well, if I was being dramatic here, I'd say that

I was being dramatic here, I'd say that it died in 2011 in an elevator in

it died in 2011 in an elevator in Ireland. Now, that's not true. That's

Ireland. Now, that's not true. That's oversimplifying things. But Elevator

oversimplifying things. But Elevator Gate, which I'm going to talk about in a

Gate, which I'm going to talk about in a moment, really did expose a lot of

moment, really did expose a lot of misogyny, harassment, bigotry, and just

misogyny, harassment, bigotry, and just lazy thinking in the skeptic/ atheist

lazy thinking in the skeptic/ atheist community in general. It's also

community in general. It's also emblematic of the shift into

emblematic of the shift into anti-feminist content being produced by

anti-feminist content being produced by people online who were previously

people online who were previously producing skeptic and atheist content.

producing skeptic and atheist content. So, for those who don't know, in 2011,

So, for those who don't know, in 2011, feminist and atheist Rebecca Watson, who

feminist and atheist Rebecca Watson, who we mentioned earlier, by the way, she

we mentioned earlier, by the way, she runs the skeptic blog that Lawrence

runs the skeptic blog that Lawrence Krauss commented about Jeffrey Epstein

Krauss commented about Jeffrey Epstein on. Uh, anyway, in 2011, Rebecca Watson

on. Uh, anyway, in 2011, Rebecca Watson spoke on a panel at the World Atheist

spoke on a panel at the World Atheist Convention in Ireland. One of the things

Convention in Ireland. One of the things she spoke about was the sexual

she spoke about was the sexual objectification of women in the atheist

objectification of women in the atheist community and how that makes her

community and how that makes her uncomfortable. Later that night, she was

uncomfortable. Later that night, she was heading back to her hotel room when a

heading back to her hotel room when a man followed her into an elevator and

man followed her into an elevator and propositioned her, saying, "I find you

propositioned her, saying, "I find you very interesting. Would you like to come

very interesting. Would you like to come back to my room?" Now, when Rebecca

back to my room?" Now, when Rebecca Watson later relays this story in a

Watson later relays this story in a YouTube video, she tells it partly like

YouTube video, she tells it partly like it was a funny anecdote, right? Which it

it was a funny anecdote, right? Which it is in the sense that it resembles a

is in the sense that it resembles a joke. like, "Hey babe, nice talk about

joke. like, "Hey babe, nice talk about not wanting to be objectified. Do you

not wanting to be objectified. Do you want to come back to my place?" That's

want to come back to my place?" That's ridiculous, right? It's like a cartoon.

ridiculous, right? It's like a cartoon. But Rebecca Watson also gives a little

But Rebecca Watson also gives a little free advice to the men in the atheist

free advice to the men in the atheist community, which they apparently needed,

community, which they apparently needed, and says, "Don't do things like that.

and says, "Don't do things like that. That made me uncomfortable." She says

That made me uncomfortable." She says she was a woman alone in a foreign

she was a woman alone in a foreign country in an enclosed space with

country in an enclosed space with someone she doesn't know. So, don't

someone she doesn't know. So, don't proposition someone under those

proposition someone under those circumstances. That seems fair. All that

circumstances. That seems fair. All that said, Rebecca Watson didn't start a

said, Rebecca Watson didn't start a campaign to try to ruin this guy's life

campaign to try to ruin this guy's life or anything. She didn't name him. She

or anything. She didn't name him. She didn't film him and put it all over

didn't film him and put it all over social media. She just off-handedly told

social media. She just off-handedly told the anecdote in the middle of a vlog she

the anecdote in the middle of a vlog she was doing. Now, if you're unfamiliar

was doing. Now, if you're unfamiliar with this incident, you're probably

with this incident, you're probably wondering how such a minor event could

wondering how such a minor event could possibly have any ramifications at all,

possibly have any ramifications at all, let alone be enough of a contentious

let alone be enough of a contentious issue to earn its own gate suffix. What

issue to earn its own gate suffix. What happened here to take this minor

happened here to take this minor incident and blow it up? And the answer

incident and blow it up? And the answer to that is Professor Richard Dawkins

to that is Professor Richard Dawkins happened. So, after Watson posted her

happened. So, after Watson posted her video about the conference, she got an

video about the conference, she got an array of responses from various people.

array of responses from various people. Some people were criticizing Watson.

Some people were criticizing Watson. Other people like biologist PZ Meyers

Other people like biologist PZ Meyers posted in defense of her. And of course,

posted in defense of her. And of course, since it's the internet, there were more

since it's the internet, there were more than a few juvenile trolls who sent her

than a few juvenile trolls who sent her nasty ignorant messages filled with

nasty ignorant messages filled with insults and violent imagery and so on.

insults and violent imagery and so on. And one of those nasty ignorant messages

And one of those nasty ignorant messages was sent, strangely enough, by Professor

was sent, strangely enough, by Professor Richard Dawkins. So, in the comments of

Richard Dawkins. So, in the comments of PZ Meyers's blog post defending Rebecca

PZ Meyers's blog post defending Rebecca Watson, Richard Dawkins wrote the

Watson, Richard Dawkins wrote the following. Dear Muslimr, off to a weird

following. Dear Muslimr, off to a weird start here. Stop whining, will you? Yes,

start here. Stop whining, will you? Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals

yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade. And yawn,

mutilated with a razor blade. And yawn, don't tell me again. I know you aren't

don't tell me again. I know you aren't allowed to drive a car and you can't

allowed to drive a car and you can't leave the house without a male relative

leave the house without a male relative and your husband is allowed to beat you

and your husband is allowed to beat you and you'll be stoned to death if you

and you'll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will

commit adultery. But stop whining, will you? Think of the suffering your poor

you? Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.

American sisters have to put up with. Only this week I heard of one. She calls

Only this week I heard of one. She calls herself Scpp Chick. And do you know what

herself Scpp Chick. And do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel

happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room

elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I'm not exaggerating. He

for coffee. I'm not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his

really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course, she said no.

room for coffee. Of course, she said no. And of course, he didn't lay a finger on

And of course, he didn't lay a finger on her, but even so. And you, Muslim, think

her, but even so. And you, Muslim, think you have misogyny to complain about. For

you have misogyny to complain about. For goodness sake, grow up. Or at least grow

goodness sake, grow up. Or at least grow a thicker skin. Now then, what the

a thicker skin. Now then, what the bloody hell was all that about? That's a

bloody hell was all that about? That's a bit of an escalation there, isn't it?

bit of an escalation there, isn't it? Where do we begin with this? Well, to

Where do we begin with this? Well, to start with, Richard Dawkins is employing

start with, Richard Dawkins is employing a very childish argument, which is that

a very childish argument, which is that if someone somewhere has it worse than

if someone somewhere has it worse than you, then you never get to complain

you, then you never get to complain about anything. You can't get mad at me

about anything. You can't get mad at me for forgetting your birthday, darling,

for forgetting your birthday, darling, because there's a war going on

because there's a war going on somewhere. That sort of thing. This

somewhere. That sort of thing. This argument would only make sense if

argument would only make sense if Rebecca Watson had declared that the

Rebecca Watson had declared that the elevator incident was the most important

elevator incident was the most important thing to ever happen in the entire

thing to ever happen in the entire world, which of course she did not do.

world, which of course she did not do. The second ridiculous thing about this

The second ridiculous thing about this argument is that Richard Dawkins doesn't

argument is that Richard Dawkins doesn't apply the argument to himself. He

apply the argument to himself. He complains about trivial things on his

complains about trivial things on his social media all the time. For instance,

social media all the time. For instance, Bin Laden has won in airports of the

Bin Laden has won in airports of the world every day. I had a little jar of

world every day. I had a little jar of honey now thrown away by rulebound

honey now thrown away by rulebound dundrriges. Stupid waste. So why does

dundrriges. Stupid waste. So why does Richard Dawkins get to use the internet

Richard Dawkins get to use the internet to complain about his little lost jar of

to complain about his little lost jar of honey? Surely there are worse things

honey? Surely there are worse things going on in the world, right? Getting

going on in the world, right? Getting shot with a rocket launcher, for

shot with a rocket launcher, for instance. So, could I say, "Why are you

instance. So, could I say, "Why are you complaining about losing a jar of honey,

complaining about losing a jar of honey, Richard Dawkins, when it's not as bad as

Richard Dawkins, when it's not as bad as being shot with a rocket launcher?" Of

being shot with a rocket launcher?" Of course not. That would be ridiculous.

course not. That would be ridiculous. But that is the same argument he's using

But that is the same argument he's using with regards to Rebecca Watson. Do you

with regards to Rebecca Watson. Do you idiots think I give a damn about my

idiots think I give a damn about my stupid honey? It's the principle I care

stupid honey? It's the principle I care about. Get it? Principle, not honey.

about. Get it? Principle, not honey. Principle. So with his own complaint

Principle. So with his own complaint here, Richard Dawkins is able to

here, Richard Dawkins is able to extrapolate from a single incident into

extrapolate from a single incident into making a wider point about the principle

making a wider point about the principle of overzealous airport security or

of overzealous airport security or something. But he is much less generous

something. But he is much less generous to Rebecca Watson who was of course

to Rebecca Watson who was of course using a single incident to make a wider

using a single incident to make a wider point about the treatment of women in

point about the treatment of women in the atheist community. But Richard

the atheist community. But Richard Dawkins in his dear Muslimmer post comes

Dawkins in his dear Muslimmer post comes across as very dismissive about any

across as very dismissive about any possible negative treatment of women in

possible negative treatment of women in the atheist community. He seems to be

the atheist community. He seems to be saying that as long as women aren't

saying that as long as women aren't literally being mutilated and beaten to

literally being mutilated and beaten to death at atheist conferences, then they

death at atheist conferences, then they should just shut up. Ultimately, the

should just shut up. Ultimately, the actual circumstances of the elevator

actual circumstances of the elevator incident don't really matter all that

incident don't really matter all that much, to be honest. The problem is that

much, to be honest. The problem is that Rebecca Watson said, "Men, don't do that

Rebecca Watson said, "Men, don't do that in reference to anything." She is a

in reference to anything." She is a woman and she's telling men what to do.

woman and she's telling men what to do. And Richard Dawkins is a then

And Richard Dawkins is a then 70-year-old man who apparently does not

70-year-old man who apparently does not respond well to seeing women telling men

respond well to seeing women telling men what to do. And seeing it made him

what to do. And seeing it made him imagine and write about women being

imagine and write about women being brutalized and murdered. Listen up,

brutalized and murdered. Listen up, sweetheart. Some men beat women to

sweetheart. Some men beat women to death, so keep it zipped and count your

death, so keep it zipped and count your blessings. We could be treating you a

blessings. We could be treating you a lot worse. Now, a lot of people found

lot worse. Now, a lot of people found this very disappointing, myself

this very disappointing, myself included. One of the reasons I was

included. One of the reasons I was excited about the increasing popularity

excited about the increasing popularity of skepticism and atheism is because I

of skepticism and atheism is because I saw it as a challenge to the

saw it as a challenge to the institutional bigotries present in

institutional bigotries present in organized religion. So it was an

organized religion. So it was an enormous letdown to see one of the

enormous letdown to see one of the prominent figures of the movement so

prominent figures of the movement so dismissive of women talking about

dismissive of women talking about misogyny and objectification in his

misogyny and objectification in his community. He came across as only being

community. He came across as only being interested in those things in so far as

interested in those things in so far as he could use them to attack religion or

he could use them to attack religion or more specifically and suspiciously just

more specifically and suspiciously just Islam. It's also a huge strategic

Islam. It's also a huge strategic blunder, of course, since a lot of

blunder, of course, since a lot of religions are institutionally biased

religions are institutionally biased against women. If you're interested in

against women. If you're interested in growing an atheist movement, you should

growing an atheist movement, you should really go to lengths to demonstrate that

really go to lengths to demonstrate that you are welcoming of women. Dawkins

you are welcoming of women. Dawkins using his position at the head of the

using his position at the head of the movement to so publicly and strangely

movement to so publicly and strangely attack a prominent feminist within the

attack a prominent feminist within the movement is very shortsighted and

movement is very shortsighted and self-destructive to say the least.

self-destructive to say the least. Whether he meant to or not, with this

Whether he meant to or not, with this comment and some of his other actions,

comment and some of his other actions, he gave his seal of approval for the

he gave his seal of approval for the movement to add feminists to their list

movement to add feminists to their list of targets. Now, if you listen to the

of targets. Now, if you listen to the anti-feminist communicators online, they

anti-feminist communicators online, they say that feminism destroyed their

say that feminism destroyed their skeptic new atheist movement. And

skeptic new atheist movement. And they're right, it did. But while they

they're right, it did. But while they mean that in the sense that feminism

mean that in the sense that feminism actively infiltrated and nefariously

actively infiltrated and nefariously poisoned the movement, it's more true to

poisoned the movement, it's more true to say that they ran headfirst into

say that they ran headfirst into feminism, bounced off it, and shattered

feminism, bounced off it, and shattered apart. One problem was that many

apart. One problem was that many anti-feminist skeptics were used to

anti-feminist skeptics were used to arguing with soft targets. It's very

arguing with soft targets. It's very easy to disprove, say, creationism by

easy to disprove, say, creationism by simply citing basic facts and evidence

simply citing basic facts and evidence and so on. They were used to opponents

and so on. They were used to opponents who had a core pillar of their ideology

who had a core pillar of their ideology being an easily disprovable falsehood.

being an easily disprovable falsehood. And it turns out nearly anyone can sound

And it turns out nearly anyone can sound smart when they're arguing with easily

smart when they're arguing with easily disprovable falsehoods. There's a

disprovable falsehoods. There's a tendency for some people, and this

tendency for some people, and this definitely happened to Richard Dawkins,

definitely happened to Richard Dawkins, to get used to characterizing their

to get used to characterizing their ideological opponents as being on the

ideological opponents as being on the side of a rationality, delusion, and

side of a rationality, delusion, and subjective emotion. Whereas science is

subjective emotion. Whereas science is supposedly driven by logic and objective

supposedly driven by logic and objective rationality. And since I like science,

rationality. And since I like science, that means I must be logical and

that means I must be logical and rational and objective, too. And

rational and objective, too. And therefore, I don't think it sounds very

therefore, I don't think it sounds very likely for me to ever be wrong, which is

likely for me to ever be wrong, which is a flaw that is probably not going to be

a flaw that is probably not going to be exposed when you're arguing with people

exposed when you're arguing with people who think the devil put dinosaur bones

who think the devil put dinosaur bones underground to trick us into doubting

underground to trick us into doubting the Bible. But it might get you into

the Bible. But it might get you into trouble if you try to argue with anyone

trouble if you try to argue with anyone who isn't completely delusional. When it

who isn't completely delusional. When it comes to feminism, for example, if we

comes to feminism, for example, if we were to boil feminism down to just one

were to boil feminism down to just one core idea, it would be something like

core idea, it would be something like women are often treated unfairly

women are often treated unfairly compared to men in society. And that's

compared to men in society. And that's just true. Or at the very least, it is a

just true. Or at the very least, it is a hell of a lot harder to argue with than

hell of a lot harder to argue with than someone who thinks the world is flat or

someone who thinks the world is flat or whatever. The anti-feminist skeptics

whatever. The anti-feminist skeptics were used to first round knockouts.

were used to first round knockouts. They'd never really had to go the

They'd never really had to go the distance before, and they just simply

distance before, and they just simply couldn't hack it, to be honest. They

couldn't hack it, to be honest. They ended up employing the same lazy

ended up employing the same lazy arguments and mischaracterizations they

arguments and mischaracterizations they were more used to seeing from people who

were more used to seeing from people who they were arguing against. And of

they were arguing against. And of course, by relentlessly arguing with and

course, by relentlessly arguing with and criticizing women in the movement, most

criticizing women in the movement, most of whom were saying perfectly reasonable

of whom were saying perfectly reasonable things, they were scaring away the

things, they were scaring away the ladies. They basically filtered their

ladies. They basically filtered their audiences down to men for whom they're

audiences down to men for whom they're criticizing women was the main draw for

criticizing women was the main draw for them to be there. And so a lot of

them to be there. And so a lot of YouTube channels who got their start

YouTube channels who got their start talking about religion and science ended

talking about religion and science ended up criticizing Anita Archkeesian and

up criticizing Anita Archkeesian and wokeness for the next decade. The result

wokeness for the next decade. The result of all this is that the movement

of all this is that the movement steadily shed feminists, progressives,

steadily shed feminists, progressives, minorities, and anyone who was all

minorities, and anyone who was all right. And as a result, it drifted to

right. And as a result, it drifted to the right. The people who stuck around

the right. The people who stuck around were more conservative and increasingly

were more conservative and increasingly likely to be there for the

likely to be there for the anti-feminism. Anyway, apologies. We're

anti-feminism. Anyway, apologies. We're supposed to be talking about the war on

supposed to be talking about the war on science today. I've explained how I

science today. I've explained how I think Richard Dawkins got here. But what

think Richard Dawkins got here. But what is he actually here to say? Let's take a

is he actually here to say? Let's take a look at his essay. First of all, after

look at his essay. First of all, after his introduction, Dawkins spends a lot

his introduction, Dawkins spends a lot of time talking about Troffim Lysenko.

of time talking about Troffim Lysenko. Lysenko was a Soviet agriculturalist and

Lysenko was a Soviet agriculturalist and scientist who rejected natural selection

scientist who rejected natural selection and gene theory in favor of his own

and gene theory in favor of his own pseudocientific views. But since Joseph

pseudocientific views. But since Joseph Stalin liked him, Lysenko rose to a

Stalin liked him, Lysenko rose to a position of power, becoming director of

position of power, becoming director of the Institute of Genetics of the Soviet

the Institute of Genetics of the Soviet Academy of Sciences in 1940. And Lysenko

Academy of Sciences in 1940. And Lysenko used this position to suppress

used this position to suppress scientists with views that contradicted

scientists with views that contradicted his own. Now, why is Richard Dawkins

his own. Now, why is Richard Dawkins talking about Trofim Lysenko, you might

talking about Trofim Lysenko, you might ask? and I quote, "But the still

ask? and I quote, "But the still disturbing aspect of the Lysenko affair

disturbing aspect of the Lysenko affair is not the now dead bad science so much

is not the now dead bad science so much as the bossy despotic manner with which

as the bossy despotic manner with which it was put across, the elevation of

it was put across, the elevation of politics over scientific truth, and the

politics over scientific truth, and the intolerance summarily displayed towards

intolerance summarily displayed towards dissent. This brings me to the second of

dissent. This brings me to the second of my specimens of science denial. The

my specimens of science denial. The presumptuous elevation of personal

presumptuous elevation of personal feelings, in particular, the hubristic

feelings, in particular, the hubristic assertion that the scientific reality of

assertion that the scientific reality of the sex of our birth can be overruled by

the sex of our birth can be overruled by human psychology and legislation. So,

human psychology and legislation. So, Dawkins is using Lysenko as an example

Dawkins is using Lysenko as an example of a time that someone with incorrect

of a time that someone with incorrect views put politics before science and

views put politics before science and bossily insisted on their version of the

bossily insisted on their version of the truth. And he's doing this as to set up

truth. And he's doing this as to set up to the next section of his essay where

to the next section of his essay where he's going to make the comparison to

he's going to make the comparison to scientists and health care professionals

scientists and health care professionals who are advocates for trans rights.

who are advocates for trans rights. Before we talk about that though, there

Before we talk about that though, there is a problem with this Lysenko

is a problem with this Lysenko comparison. Unfortunately for Richard

comparison. Unfortunately for Richard Dawkins and the other writers in the

Dawkins and the other writers in the book who talk about Lysenko, he's a very

book who talk about Lysenko, he's a very poor comparison to the sorts of things

poor comparison to the sorts of things that they are criticizing. They are

that they are criticizing. They are trying to compare an authoritarian

trying to compare an authoritarian leader elevating a single individual

leader elevating a single individual with incorrect beliefs into an unearned

with incorrect beliefs into an unearned position of power to a broad

position of power to a broad decentralized international social

decentralized international social movement whose ideas they just happen to

movement whose ideas they just happen to disagree with. It's a comparison which

disagree with. It's a comparison which is as useless as saying Lysenko was

is as useless as saying Lysenko was wrong and I think you're wrong too. But

wrong and I think you're wrong too. But the really big problem for this

the really big problem for this comparison is that Donald Trump recently

comparison is that Donald Trump recently won the presidential election again and

won the presidential election again and then he made an antivaccine conspiracy

then he made an antivaccine conspiracy theorist the United States Secretary of

theorist the United States Secretary of Health. A situation which is so much

Health. A situation which is so much closer to Stalin's promotion of Lysenko

closer to Stalin's promotion of Lysenko that it makes it look utterly ridiculous

that it makes it look utterly ridiculous that anyone would subsequently aim that

that anyone would subsequently aim that comparison at the left. Because this

comparison at the left. Because this book is so incredibly out ofdate, a much

book is so incredibly out ofdate, a much better comparison to Lysenko came along

better comparison to Lysenko came along and they've missed it, making them look

and they've missed it, making them look like partisan cowards who are too scared

like partisan cowards who are too scared to criticize Donald Trump, which they

to criticize Donald Trump, which they might be. But of course, the more

might be. But of course, the more important reason is that the bulk of

important reason is that the bulk of this book was written years ago, and

this book was written years ago, and it's not relevant to anything that's

it's not relevant to anything that's happening now. Anyway, the next section

happening now. Anyway, the next section of Richard Dawan's essay is all about

of Richard Dawan's essay is all about trans issues. Now, there are multiple

trans issues. Now, there are multiple essays in the book which are either

essays in the book which are either wholly or in part about trans issues.

wholly or in part about trans issues. Lawrence Krauss talks about them in his

Lawrence Krauss talks about them in his introduction, of course, but there's

introduction, of course, but there's also gender affirming care, the

also gender affirming care, the abandonment of medical and academic

abandonment of medical and academic standards by Schwartz and Russo, a

standards by Schwartz and Russo, a deafening silence, bioeththics and

deafening silence, bioeththics and gender affirming health care by Burn and

gender affirming health care by Burn and Gorin. Carlen Gribble writes a piece

Gorin. Carlen Gribble writes a piece about the quote desexing of language in

about the quote desexing of language in women's healthcare. Biologist Jerry Coin

women's healthcare. Biologist Jerry Coin writes an essay which is very similar to

writes an essay which is very similar to Richard Dawkins chapter being largely

Richard Dawkins chapter being largely about

about uh trans issues. Hang on. Jerry Coin.

uh trans issues. Hang on. Jerry Coin. That name sounds familiar. Did I say

That name sounds familiar. Did I say Jerry Coin earlier today? Jerry Coin. So

Jerry Coin earlier today? Jerry Coin. So you can throw the free extra allegations

you can throw the free extra allegations dug up by Jerry Coin on top of the

dug up by Jerry Coin on top of the mountain of allegations. I did. Is this

mountain of allegations. I did. Is this the Jerry Coin? The Jerry Coin who

the Jerry Coin? The Jerry Coin who publicly disavowed Lawrence Krauss and

publicly disavowed Lawrence Krauss and said he engages in sexual misconduct and

said he engages in sexual misconduct and called his behavior reprehensible. It

called his behavior reprehensible. It is. What's he doing in Lawrence Krauss's

is. What's he doing in Lawrence Krauss's book? What about the blog post where he

book? What about the blog post where he said he disavows the man? Oh, he deleted

said he disavows the man? Oh, he deleted that. Oops. That page can't be found

that. Oops. That page can't be found except on the internet archive.

except on the internet archive. Absolutely Titanic display of integrity

Absolutely Titanic display of integrity here from Mr. Jerry Coin. Titanic and

here from Mr. Jerry Coin. Titanic and that it sank, I guess. Okay. Anyway, so

that it sank, I guess. Okay. Anyway, so Jerry Coin, like Richard Dawkins, is

Jerry Coin, like Richard Dawkins, is here primarily to be transphobic, a

here primarily to be transphobic, a cause obviously of such importance that

cause obviously of such importance that it's valid to throw all of your other

it's valid to throw all of your other principles out the window in aid of it.

principles out the window in aid of it. There's a lot of that going around. And

There's a lot of that going around. And we will talk about that transphobia in

we will talk about that transphobia in just a second. But first, I need to

just a second. But first, I need to introduce another character here, the

introduce another character here, the person who writes the essay after

person who writes the essay after Richard Dawkins in the book, and that is

Richard Dawkins in the book, and that is Alan SoCal. Lawrence Krauss introduces

Alan SoCal. Lawrence Krauss introduces Alan SoCal in the following way. In

Alan SoCal in the following way. In 1996, the US mathematical physicist Alan

1996, the US mathematical physicist Alan SoCal published a famous spoof paper in

SoCal published a famous spoof paper in the social science journal social text.

the social science journal social text. The paper was entitled transgressing the

The paper was entitled transgressing the boundaries towards a transformative

boundaries towards a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity. The

hermeneutics of quantum gravity. The paper made no sense scientifically, but

paper made no sense scientifically, but his purpose at the time was to

his purpose at the time was to demonstrate how low the scholarly

demonstrate how low the scholarly standards of post-modern scholarship in

standards of post-modern scholarship in the humanities had become. Now, I have

the humanities had become. Now, I have another confession to make here. Back

another confession to make here. Back around the time I was a big fan of

around the time I was a big fan of Richard Dawkins, I thought the SoCal

Richard Dawkins, I thought the SoCal hoax, the event Krauss is referring to

hoax, the event Krauss is referring to here, was genius. So, let me explain

here, was genius. So, let me explain that to you in the way that teenage Sha

that to you in the way that teenage Sha would have explained it to you. Okay, so

would have explained it to you. Okay, so back in the day, science was under

back in the day, science was under attack by scheming postmodern

attack by scheming postmodern philosophers who were trying to destroy

philosophers who were trying to destroy the notion of objective truth. They were

the notion of objective truth. They were claiming that science is fake because

claiming that science is fake because it's impossible to ever really know

it's impossible to ever really know anything for certain. But they were all

anything for certain. But they were all talking rubbish. The papers they

talking rubbish. The papers they published were nonsense. They were just

published were nonsense. They were just jealous of scientists because the

jealous of scientists because the scientists were so much smarter and

scientists were so much smarter and their jobs were more important and their

their jobs were more important and their wives were so much younger. Enter Alan

wives were so much younger. Enter Alan SoCal. SoCal sought to show up these

SoCal. SoCal sought to show up these pompous philosopher types by submitting

pompous philosopher types by submitting a fake article to an important academic

a fake article to an important academic journal of social studies. SoCal wanted

journal of social studies. SoCal wanted to test if the journal would publish an

to test if the journal would publish an article quote liberally salted with

article quote liberally salted with nonsense if a it sounded good and b it

nonsense if a it sounded good and b it flattered the editor's ideological

flattered the editor's ideological preconceptions. And of course, the silly

preconceptions. And of course, the silly Marxists at the social journal fell for

Marxists at the social journal fell for his hoax, Hook, Line, and Sinker. And

his hoax, Hook, Line, and Sinker. And thrilled to have an actual scientist

thrilled to have an actual scientist agree with them, they rushed to publish

agree with them, they rushed to publish his piece. Alan SoCal then revealed his

his piece. Alan SoCal then revealed his hoax ended postmodernism forever and has

hoax ended postmodernism forever and has been deservedly getting tugged off by a

been deservedly getting tugged off by a procession of crusty old scientists ever

procession of crusty old scientists ever since. Now, unfortunately for teenage

since. Now, unfortunately for teenage Sha, uh, that story is a load of

Sha, uh, that story is a load of rubbish. Now, the channel Dr. Fatima has

rubbish. Now, the channel Dr. Fatima has put out an excellent video about the

put out an excellent video about the socalifair titled the physicist who

socalifair titled the physicist who tried to debunk postmodernism and I will

tried to debunk postmodernism and I will link that below in the description if

link that below in the description if you'd like to hear about all of this in

you'd like to hear about all of this in more detail. I'll give you the short

more detail. I'll give you the short version here though. Firstly, social

version here though. Firstly, social text the journal that Alan SoCal sent

text the journal that Alan SoCal sent his hoax article to was not an important

his hoax article to was not an important peer-reviewed journal. It was a

peer-reviewed journal. It was a self-published journal at the time.

self-published journal at the time. Alongside academic work, it published

Alongside academic work, it published opinion pieces and fiction pieces.

opinion pieces and fiction pieces. Secondly, they didn't rush to publish

Secondly, they didn't rush to publish the work of a scientist just because he

the work of a scientist just because he supposedly agreed with them. They said

supposedly agreed with them. They said the article wasn't their cup of tea and

the article wasn't their cup of tea and asked him to revise it and take out

asked him to revise it and take out quote a good deal of the philosophical

quote a good deal of the philosophical speculation, which is quite funny. And

speculation, which is quite funny. And when SoCal refused, they didn't publish

when SoCal refused, they didn't publish the piece. They sat on it until a later

the piece. They sat on it until a later date when they put it out as part of a

date when they put it out as part of a special issue on science studies. And

special issue on science studies. And when they did put it out, it was not as

when they did put it out, it was not as a celebration of famous scientist Alan

a celebration of famous scientist Alan SoCal agreeing with the editors of

SoCal agreeing with the editors of Social Text. They put it out as a

Social Text. They put it out as a non-per reviewed journal that publishes

non-per reviewed journal that publishes opinion pieces, saying, "Here's what

opinion pieces, saying, "Here's what Alan SoCal told us his opinion is."

Alan SoCal told us his opinion is." Honestly, for Social Text, it seems like

Honestly, for Social Text, it seems like publishing SoCal's piece was a good

publishing SoCal's piece was a good faith inclusion of an article by someone

faith inclusion of an article by someone who they thought was a little bit

who they thought was a little bit strange. The problem with the SoCal

strange. The problem with the SoCal affair is that if you're of a mind to

affair is that if you're of a mind to think the hard sciences are the truth

think the hard sciences are the truth and the rest of academia is made up of

and the rest of academia is made up of jealous buffoons wasting their time,

jealous buffoons wasting their time, then it's a really good story. Because

then it's a really good story. Because ironically, it flatters your existing

ironically, it flatters your existing ideological preconceptions. Those

ideological preconceptions. Those philosophers don't even know what

philosophers don't even know what they're talking about. They'll publish

they're talking about. They'll publish any old nonsense. And SoCal proved it.

any old nonsense. And SoCal proved it. It turns out though that again,

It turns out though that again, unfortunately for teenage Sha, certain

unfortunately for teenage Sha, certain popular science communicators had been

popular science communicators had been shining me on a bit. Not just in the

shining me on a bit. Not just in the deceptive way they relayed the SoCal

deceptive way they relayed the SoCal affair, but also in the way they

affair, but also in the way they presented the wider criticism and

presented the wider criticism and examination of the sciences that was

examination of the sciences that was increasingly happening at the time. They

increasingly happening at the time. They were only presenting the most extreme

were only presenting the most extreme version of the least charitable

version of the least charitable interpretation of the opposing side of

interpretation of the opposing side of the argument. And if you only read their

the argument. And if you only read their books, that's the only side you would

books, that's the only side you would see. The truth, though, is that flat

see. The truth, though, is that flat denials of the existence of any possible

denials of the existence of any possible objective reality were few and far

objective reality were few and far between. And much more common were

between. And much more common were perfectly reasonable examinations of

perfectly reasonable examinations of science as a social construct, one

science as a social construct, one influenced by various social forces,

influenced by various social forces, economics, politics, culture, and so on.

economics, politics, culture, and so on. It's easy to present logical, rational

It's easy to present logical, rational arguments as to how economics, for

arguments as to how economics, for instance, might influence scientific

instance, might influence scientific research. In our societies, scientists

research. In our societies, scientists need to pay the bills. Scientific

need to pay the bills. Scientific institutions and experiments need

institutions and experiments need funding. So, there will always be a

funding. So, there will always be a possibility of systemic bias in favor of

possibility of systemic bias in favor of the existing economic power structure.

the existing economic power structure. Both in terms of what gets funding to be

Both in terms of what gets funding to be researched in the first place and also

researched in the first place and also what that research might find. Think

what that research might find. Think tobacco companies paying scientists who

tobacco companies paying scientists who were willing to discover scientifically

were willing to discover scientifically that cigarettes were healthy for you.

that cigarettes were healthy for you. Now you can say but that's not real

Now you can say but that's not real science. That's a perversion of science.

science. That's a perversion of science. The scientific process twisted to a

The scientific process twisted to a particular end by economic influences

particular end by economic influences which is of course the whole point right

which is of course the whole point right science is not taking place in a bubble.

science is not taking place in a bubble. It can be influenced by all sorts of

It can be influenced by all sorts of things. For another example, we can

things. For another example, we can think about the socal affair in

think about the socal affair in comparison to another much less famous

comparison to another much less famous academic hoax. This is who's afraid of

academic hoax. This is who's afraid of peer review of you? And I'll just quote

peer review of you? And I'll just quote from the Wikipedia description here for

from the Wikipedia description here for brevity. Who's afraid of peer review is

brevity. Who's afraid of peer review is an article written by science

an article written by science correspondent John Bohannan that

correspondent John Bohannan that describes his investigation of peer

describes his investigation of peer review among feech charging open access

review among feech charging open access journals. Between January and August

journals. Between January and August 2013, Bohannan submitted fake scientific

2013, Bohannan submitted fake scientific papers to 304 journals owned by fee

papers to 304 journals owned by fee charging open access publishers. The

charging open access publishers. The papers, writes Bohannan, were designed

papers, writes Bohannan, were designed with such grave and obvious scientific

with such grave and obvious scientific flaws that they should have been

flaws that they should have been rejected immediately by editors and peer

rejected immediately by editors and peer reviewers, but 60% of the journals

reviewers, but 60% of the journals accepted them. Bohannan used Python to

accepted them. Bohannan used Python to create a scientific version of Mad Libs.

create a scientific version of Mad Libs. The paper's template is molecule X from

The paper's template is molecule X from lykan species Y inhibits the growth of

lykan species Y inhibits the growth of cancer cell Z. He created a database of

cancer cell Z. He created a database of molecules lychans and cancer cells to

molecules lychans and cancer cells to substitute for X, Y, and Z. The data and

substitute for X, Y, and Z. The data and conclusions were identical in every

conclusions were identical in every paper. The authors and their

paper. The authors and their affiliations were also unique and fake.

affiliations were also unique and fake. The papers all described the discovery

The papers all described the discovery of a new cancer drug extracted from a

of a new cancer drug extracted from a lyken, but the data did not support that

lyken, but the data did not support that conclusion and the papers had

conclusion and the papers had intentionally obvious flaws and more

intentionally obvious flaws and more than 150 scientific journals accepted

than 150 scientific journals accepted these fake papers. Now, obviously, if a

these fake papers. Now, obviously, if a single fake paper being accepted by one

single fake paper being accepted by one not peer-reviewed social journal is

not peer-reviewed social journal is supposed to inform us, as Lawrence

supposed to inform us, as Lawrence Krauss put it, about how low the

Krauss put it, about how low the scholarly standards of postmodern

scholarly standards of postmodern scholarship in the humanities had

scholarship in the humanities had become, what are we to say of more than

become, what are we to say of more than 150 fake biology papers being accepted

150 fake biology papers being accepted by scientific journals? This is what

by scientific journals? This is what SoCal should have done really if he

SoCal should have done really if he wanted to prove some point about the

wanted to prove some point about the relative academic standards of the

relative academic standards of the sciences versus the humanities. He

sciences versus the humanities. He should have done science. Submit a lot

should have done science. Submit a lot of fake papers to a lot of journals in

of fake papers to a lot of journals in various disciplines to test which of

various disciplines to test which of those disciplines, if any, are more

those disciplines, if any, are more likely to publish a fake paper. But he

likely to publish a fake paper. But he didn't do that. He got one single data

didn't do that. He got one single data point and then jumped straight to his

point and then jumped straight to his conclusion. Now, I'll be the first to

conclusion. Now, I'll be the first to admit that sometimes certain

admit that sometimes certain philosophers, academics, and the

philosophers, academics, and the humanities and so on do write and

humanities and so on do write and publish a load of old rubbish. But

publish a load of old rubbish. But firstly, as we've seen, it is trivial to

firstly, as we've seen, it is trivial to show similar examples of science

show similar examples of science journals publishing fake or flawed

journals publishing fake or flawed papers. And secondly, when a social

papers. And secondly, when a social journal publishes a paper full of

journal publishes a paper full of philosophical nonsense, that's a funny

philosophical nonsense, that's a funny water cooler story. But what about when

water cooler story. But what about when a medical journal publishes a fraudulent

a medical journal publishes a fraudulent scientific research paper? For instance,

scientific research paper? For instance, when the Lancet published a paper by

when the Lancet published a paper by Andrew Wakefield that falsely claimed

Andrew Wakefield that falsely claimed links between vaccines and autism, that

links between vaccines and autism, that caused a major medical scandal, damaged

caused a major medical scandal, damaged the public's trust in vaccination

the public's trust in vaccination programs, and directly led to a drop in

programs, and directly led to a drop in the amount of people being vaccinated.

the amount of people being vaccinated. This got people killed and injured, but

This got people killed and injured, but it also probably got Andrew Wakefield a

it also probably got Andrew Wakefield a lot of citations. So, that must mean

lot of citations. So, that must mean he's actually a good scientist, I

he's actually a good scientist, I suppose. I will link to a very good

suppose. I will link to a very good video by H Bomber Guy about that paper

video by H Bomber Guy about that paper in this video's description if you would

in this video's description if you would like to learn more about it. And I'd

like to learn more about it. And I'd like to make one more point in response

like to make one more point in response to the SoCal affair. In 2019, I made a

to the SoCal affair. In 2019, I made a video about the bell curve, a 1994 book

video about the bell curve, a 1994 book by Richard Hernstein and Charles Murray.

by Richard Hernstein and Charles Murray. I will link that below, too, but I'll

I will link that below, too, but I'll briefly run through a few points from

briefly run through a few points from that video that are relevant for us

that video that are relevant for us today. In 1937, some pro-Nazi

today. In 1937, some pro-Nazi eugenicists set up the Pioneer Fund, a

eugenicists set up the Pioneer Fund, a white supremacist organization which had

white supremacist organization which had the aim of encouraging the propagation

the aim of encouraging the propagation of those quote descended predominantly

of those quote descended predominantly from white persons who settled in the

from white persons who settled in the original 13 states prior to the adoption

original 13 states prior to the adoption of the Constitution. The Pioneer Fund

of the Constitution. The Pioneer Fund distributed Nazi propaganda films to

distributed Nazi propaganda films to American high schools. By the way, when

American high schools. By the way, when I say Nazi here, that's not me making

I say Nazi here, that's not me making some sort of personal moral judgment.

some sort of personal moral judgment. I'm talking about the actual Nazi party.

I'm talking about the actual Nazi party. They showed actual Nazi party films in

They showed actual Nazi party films in American high schools. The Pioneer Fund

American high schools. The Pioneer Fund funded the launch of Mankind Quarterly,

funded the launch of Mankind Quarterly, a racist pseudocientific publication

a racist pseudocientific publication which was founded again by actual

which was founded again by actual fascists and Nazi eugenicists. The

fascists and Nazi eugenicists. The Pioneer Fund also funded American

Pioneer Fund also funded American Renaissance, a racist white nationalist

Renaissance, a racist white nationalist publication founded and edited by a man

publication founded and edited by a man called Jared Taylor. American

called Jared Taylor. American Renaissance conferences are attended by

Renaissance conferences are attended by neo-Nazis, white supremacists, Holocaust

neo-Nazis, white supremacists, Holocaust deniers, members of the KKK, and other

deniers, members of the KKK, and other such types, racists, you know. Among the

such types, racists, you know. Among the Pioneer Fund's leaders were Jay Phipe

Pioneer Fund's leaders were Jay Phipe Rushton, a widely discredited Canadian

Rushton, a widely discredited Canadian psychologist who had very strange ideas

psychologist who had very strange ideas about different races genitals that he

about different races genitals that he sourced from pornography magazines.

sourced from pornography magazines. Another of the Pioneer Funds leaders was

Another of the Pioneer Funds leaders was widely discredited English psychologist

widely discredited English psychologist and self-described racist Richard Lynn,

and self-described racist Richard Lynn, infamous for trying to present

infamous for trying to present incredibly biased and flawed test data

incredibly biased and flawed test data collected in apartheid South Africa as a

collected in apartheid South Africa as a legitimate source to teach us about

legitimate source to teach us about supposed racial differences. And the

supposed racial differences. And the bell curve bases many of its conclusions

bell curve bases many of its conclusions about racial differences in IQ on

about racial differences in IQ on Richard Lynn's terrible research. They

Richard Lynn's terrible research. They cite him over and over again and talk

cite him over and over again and talk about him in the text and thank him

about him in the text and thank him specifically in the acknowledgements. In

specifically in the acknowledgements. In the Bell Curve video, I said that

the Bell Curve video, I said that Richard Lim was still the head of the

Richard Lim was still the head of the Pioneer Fund and alive, which he was at

Pioneer Fund and alive, which he was at the time, but he has since died. He died

the time, but he has since died. He died a couple of years ago. Now, the point I

a couple of years ago. Now, the point I want to make here is that all of these

want to make here is that all of these men were carrying out what they would

men were carrying out what they would call science. If you asked them, they

call science. If you asked them, they would tell you they were hosting

would tell you they were hosting scientific conferences and publishing

scientific conferences and publishing scientific papers in scientific

scientific papers in scientific journals. Richard Lynn could look at

journals. Richard Lynn could look at biased academic test data collected in a

biased academic test data collected in a racially segregated state and claim that

racially segregated state and claim that it supports a scientific conclusion

it supports a scientific conclusion about inherent racial differences. And

about inherent racial differences. And both Jfy Brushton and Richard Lim were

both Jfy Brushton and Richard Lim were educated in some of the most prestigious

educated in some of the most prestigious academic institutions in the world. They

academic institutions in the world. They had PhDs. They were professors who

had PhDs. They were professors who taught in universities. They just also

taught in universities. They just also happened to be racists who were willing

happened to be racists who were willing to manipulate data to fit a racist

to manipulate data to fit a racist worldview. Now, does all of this

worldview. Now, does all of this discredit biology or psychology or the

discredit biology or psychology or the study of genetics because flawed or

study of genetics because flawed or biased papers have been published in

biased papers have been published in those disciplines? Of course not. If one

those disciplines? Of course not. If one bad paper is supposed to invalidate an

bad paper is supposed to invalidate an entire field, what are we to do with the

entire field, what are we to do with the whole sorded history of scientific

whole sorded history of scientific racism? Anyway, I want to move on now

racism? Anyway, I want to move on now and talk about the transphobic parts of

and talk about the transphobic parts of the book, but I thought it was important

the book, but I thought it was important to first introduce Alan SoCal and what

to first introduce Alan SoCal and what he is known for because figures like

he is known for because figures like Dawkins, Coin, and SoCal see the wider

Dawkins, Coin, and SoCal see the wider scientific and healthcare community's

scientific and healthcare community's acceptance of trans identities and

acceptance of trans identities and understanding that sex and gender are

understanding that sex and gender are not strict binaries as being rooted in

not strict binaries as being rooted in that same post-modern Marxist

that same post-modern Marxist philosophical movement that supposedly

philosophical movement that supposedly seeks to deny objective reality. Trans

seeks to deny objective reality. Trans acceptance is a post-modernist trick to

acceptance is a post-modernist trick to them, a way to smuggle a denial of

them, a way to smuggle a denial of reality into mainstream acceptance. And

reality into mainstream acceptance. And to start us off here, we'll quote from

to start us off here, we'll quote from SoCal's essay where he criticizes the

SoCal's essay where he criticizes the editors of the journal Nature, for

editors of the journal Nature, for insisting that quote, "Sex, as defined

insisting that quote, "Sex, as defined by gameamtes and chromosomes, the

by gameamtes and chromosomes, the wellestablished biological

wellestablished biological understanding, has no foundation in

understanding, has no foundation in science. that sex is more complex than

science. that sex is more complex than male and female, and that the now

male and female, and that the now outdated, according to them, biological

outdated, according to them, biological view would undermine efforts to reduce

view would undermine efforts to reduce discrimination against transgender

discrimination against transgender people and those who do not fall into

people and those who do not fall into the binary categories of male or female.

the binary categories of male or female. Now, I hate to start off with such a

Now, I hate to start off with such a strong accusation, but Alan SoCal is

strong accusation, but Alan SoCal is lying here. He is quoting from a Nature

lying here. He is quoting from a Nature editorial published on the 30th of

editorial published on the 30th of October 2018 titled US proposal for

October 2018 titled US proposal for defining gender has no basis in science.

defining gender has no basis in science. This editorial was posted in response to

This editorial was posted in response to a Trump administration memo that was

a Trump administration memo that was leaked to the New York Times. The Times

leaked to the New York Times. The Times reported on this memo by saying the

reported on this memo by saying the Trump administration is considering

Trump administration is considering narrowly defining gender as a biological

narrowly defining gender as a biological immutable condition determined by

immutable condition determined by genitalia at birth. Alan SoCal quoted

genitalia at birth. Alan SoCal quoted nature as saying sex as defined by

nature as saying sex as defined by gameamtes and chromosomes has no

gameamtes and chromosomes has no foundation in science. But where he's

foundation in science. But where he's quoting from is talking about gender

quoting from is talking about gender being defined by genitals having no

being defined by genitals having no foundation in science which is a very

foundation in science which is a very different thing. He also says that the

different thing. He also says that the quote now outdated according to them

quote now outdated according to them biological view would undermine efforts

biological view would undermine efforts to reduce discrimination. But that is

to reduce discrimination. But that is not the context of that quote at all.

not the context of that quote at all. They aren't offering a general opinion

They aren't offering a general opinion on some supposed biological view of sex.

on some supposed biological view of sex. They're talking about a specific

They're talking about a specific political proposal undermining efforts

political proposal undermining efforts to reduce discrimination. All of this

to reduce discrimination. All of this context is excised by SoCal precisely

context is excised by SoCal precisely because it would weaken his argument to

because it would weaken his argument to include it. If you know that the Nature

include it. If you know that the Nature editorial is talking about gender in

editorial is talking about gender in addition to sex and that it's responding

addition to sex and that it's responding to a Trump administration proposal to

to a Trump administration proposal to change government policy, the quotes

change government policy, the quotes seem much more reasonable. Moving on, we

seem much more reasonable. Moving on, we saw SoCal there criticizing the Nature

saw SoCal there criticizing the Nature editorial for saying that sex is more

editorial for saying that sex is more complicated than male and female. And

complicated than male and female. And this is going to be important going

this is going to be important going forward. So let's ask, is human sex

forward. So let's ask, is human sex binary? Is there a way to classify sex

binary? Is there a way to classify sex as binary where every single person in

as binary where every single person in human history falls into one category or

human history falls into one category or the other? Now to answer that question,

the other? Now to answer that question, we first need to clarify how we are

we first need to clarify how we are judging someone to be one sex or the

judging someone to be one sex or the other. So, let's go through that again

other. So, let's go through that again once more for old times sake. First up,

once more for old times sake. First up, genitals. If I have a penis and

genitals. If I have a penis and testicles and I lose them in an

testicles and I lose them in an accident, would I cease to be a male?

accident, would I cease to be a male? Would I become a female? No to both of

Would I become a female? No to both of those, obviously. But we can say that's

those, obviously. But we can say that's an accident. What about the genitals

an accident. What about the genitals you're born with? Is everyone on Earth

you're born with? Is everyone on Earth born with clearly defined male or female

born with clearly defined male or female genitals? And no. Interex people with

genitals? And no. Interex people with ambiguous genitalia exist. You can have

ambiguous genitalia exist. You can have people who have genitals with a whole

people who have genitals with a whole range of different characteristics.

range of different characteristics. People who have both ovarian and

People who have both ovarian and testicular tissue. Every so often

testicular tissue. Every so often doctors find that someone with a penis

doctors find that someone with a penis and testicles has ovaries and or a

and testicles has ovaries and or a uterus inside them that they didn't know

uterus inside them that they didn't know about. Just going by genitals. There's

about. Just going by genitals. There's no clear binary here to sort those

no clear binary here to sort those people into. Okay. So, what about

people into. Okay. So, what about hormones? Well, hormone levels vary by

hormones? Well, hormone levels vary by individual. They fluctuate over time.

individual. They fluctuate over time. Certain medical conditions can cause

Certain medical conditions can cause hormone levels to be well outside the

hormone levels to be well outside the norm. Hormone levels are also something

norm. Hormone levels are also something an individual can influence themselves

an individual can influence themselves by taking particular hormones. So, they

by taking particular hormones. So, they obviously can't be used to draw a

obviously can't be used to draw a distinct binary. So, what about

distinct binary. So, what about chromosomes? Does everyone on Earth fall

chromosomes? Does everyone on Earth fall into one of two groups with regards to

into one of two groups with regards to the chromosomes they have? And the

the chromosomes they have? And the answer there is no. Not everyone has

answer there is no. Not everyone has either XX or XY chromosomes. Uh most

either XX or XY chromosomes. Uh most people do, but not everyone. And it has

people do, but not everyone. And it has to be everyone for it to be a binary

to be everyone for it to be a binary classification. The problem I hope you

classification. The problem I hope you can see here is that whatever sex

can see here is that whatever sex classification you use, you run into

classification you use, you run into problems when you attempt to make it

problems when you attempt to make it strictly binary down to an individual

strictly binary down to an individual level. But many of the authors in the

level. But many of the authors in the War on Science do claim that human sex

War on Science do claim that human sex is strictly binary. So what

is strictly binary. So what categorization are they using? To quote

categorization are they using? To quote Richard Dawkins, I shall advocate

Richard Dawkins, I shall advocate instead what I shall call the universal

instead what I shall call the universal biological definition based on gameamt

biological definition based on gameamt size. Gameamtes come in two radically

size. Gameamtes come in two radically different sizes. The phenomenon of a

different sizes. The phenomenon of a nizogamy. Female gameamtes are very much

nizogamy. Female gameamtes are very much larger than male gameamtes. Gameamtes

larger than male gameamtes. Gameamtes are sex cells by the way. So by female

are sex cells by the way. So by female and male gameamtes he's talking about

and male gameamtes he's talking about egg cells and sperm cells. We've already

egg cells and sperm cells. We've already seen Alan SoCal talk about gameamtes. Uh

seen Alan SoCal talk about gameamtes. Uh this is the definition that Jerry Coin

this is the definition that Jerry Coin uses as well. And the essay by Judith

uses as well. And the essay by Judith Swisser and Alf Sullivan says females

Swisser and Alf Sullivan says females are the sex that produces large im

are the sex that produces large im mobile gametes called over. Males are

mobile gametes called over. Males are the sex that produces small mobile

the sex that produces small mobile gametes called sperm. So let's try out

gametes called sperm. So let's try out this classification of sex. Is this a

this classification of sex. Is this a binary? Well, firstly, we can see it

binary? Well, firstly, we can see it shares many of the same problems with

shares many of the same problems with the genital classification given the

the genital classification given the obvious connection between genitals and

obvious connection between genitals and sex cells. Firstly, let's consider this

sex cells. Firstly, let's consider this definition. Males are the sex that

definition. Males are the sex that produces small mobile gametes called

produces small mobile gametes called sperm. Now, is a prepubescent male child

sperm. Now, is a prepubescent male child a male? By this definition, let's say a

a male? By this definition, let's say a male child is born, lives to be five,

male child is born, lives to be five, say, and then dies for whatever reason.

say, and then dies for whatever reason. That's a sad story, eh? Uh but what was

That's a sad story, eh? Uh but what was that person? A male because he never

that person? A male because he never produced a gameamt in his whole life. So

produced a gameamt in his whole life. So what are children here? Just some sort

what are children here? Just some sort of sexless third category of person. In

of sexless third category of person. In the same vein here, females are the sex

the same vein here, females are the sex that produces larger mobile gametes

that produces larger mobile gametes called over. So post-menopausal females

called over. So post-menopausal females are what here exactly? Because they're

are what here exactly? Because they're not producing gameamtes. So are they

not producing gameamtes. So are they females according to this definition?

females according to this definition? The problem with trying to use gameamt

The problem with trying to use gameamt production as a binary classification is

production as a binary classification is that some people do not produce or never

that some people do not produce or never have produced or never will produce

have produced or never will produce gameamtes. But Richard Dawkins attempts

gameamtes. But Richard Dawkins attempts to account for this when he says

to account for this when he says admittedly not all individuals produce

admittedly not all individuals produce gameamtes at all or throughout their

gameamtes at all or throughout their life. Worker bees are sterile females.

life. Worker bees are sterile females. We call them female because they have

We call them female because they have the potential to produce macro

the potential to produce macro gameamtes. Every worker would have

gameamtes. Every worker would have turned out as a queen if she'd been fed

turned out as a queen if she'd been fed differently as a lava. That's potential.

differently as a lava. That's potential. A human male baby or fetus has the

A human male baby or fetus has the potential to produce microamtes for all

potential to produce microamtes for all that he doesn't produce any yet. An

that he doesn't produce any yet. An older woman remains female, though she

older woman remains female, though she has ceased to produce over. So this is

has ceased to produce over. So this is interesting, isn't it? To bridge the

interesting, isn't it? To bridge the gaps in the gamet binary here, we need

gaps in the gamet binary here, we need to use potential. Individuals are being

to use potential. Individuals are being sorted into sex categories here, not

sorted into sex categories here, not according to what gameamtes they

according to what gameamtes they actually produce, but what gameamtes

actually produce, but what gameamtes they may produce in the future or have

they may produce in the future or have produced in the past or that they could

produced in the past or that they could have produced in an alternate timeline

have produced in an alternate timeline of history where they were subject to

of history where they were subject to different environmental conditions. So

different environmental conditions. So for instance, if you're someone who

for instance, if you're someone who because of a medical condition does not

because of a medical condition does not produce gameamtes at all and never will,

produce gameamtes at all and never will, we can still use gameamtes in order to

we can still use gameamtes in order to sort you into a binary sex category by

sort you into a binary sex category by simply imagining an alternate universe

simply imagining an alternate universe in which you did not have that medical

in which you did not have that medical condition and did produce gameamtes. And

condition and did produce gameamtes. And then we copy paste your sex from that

then we copy paste your sex from that alternate timeline onto this one. That's

alternate timeline onto this one. That's simple, eh? So, our imaginary 5-year-old

simple, eh? So, our imaginary 5-year-old male who died is a male not because of

male who died is a male not because of any characteristics he possesses at the

any characteristics he possesses at the time, but because in an alternate

time, but because in an alternate reality where he did not die at some

reality where he did not die at some point in the future, he could have gone

point in the future, he could have gone through puberty and produced gameamtes.

through puberty and produced gameamtes. So, gametes transcend time, causality,

So, gametes transcend time, causality, and the barrier between life and death.

and the barrier between life and death. I suppose Jerry Coin opts for a simpler

I suppose Jerry Coin opts for a simpler definition and simply says that your

definition and simply says that your body is designed to make larger mobile

body is designed to make larger mobile gametes or your body is designed to make

gametes or your body is designed to make small and mobile gametes. Now designed

small and mobile gametes. Now designed is an interesting choice of word there.

is an interesting choice of word there. Designed by who? And what does this mean

for people who do not produce gameamtes? Are they still designed to do it even

Are they still designed to do it even though they don't? I hesitate to say it,

though they don't? I hesitate to say it, but we're beginning to sound a little

but we're beginning to sound a little like creationists now. God made us into

like creationists now. God made us into men and women, and that's the way things

men and women, and that's the way things are supposed to be. It is strange to

are supposed to be. It is strange to criticize Dawkins and Coin over this.

criticize Dawkins and Coin over this. They are biologists and famous critics

They are biologists and famous critics of intelligent design. But they write

of intelligent design. But they write here about biological processes as if

here about biological processes as if they are God and have a will and are

they are God and have a will and are attempting to do particular things.

attempting to do particular things. Biology is trying to design people to

Biology is trying to design people to produce gameamtes and if it produces a

produce gameamtes and if it produces a person who does not produce gameamtes

person who does not produce gameamtes then that is a failure that we can

then that is a failure that we can ignore because it falls outside the

ignore because it falls outside the norm. This is particularly frustrating

norm. This is particularly frustrating because the occurrence of random genetic

because the occurrence of random genetic mutations that produce different sorts

mutations that produce different sorts of biological beings is the engine of

of biological beings is the engine of the evolutionary process. You would

the evolutionary process. You would expect Dawkins and coin to understand

expect Dawkins and coin to understand this. Why are we considering the process

this. Why are we considering the process of gameamt production to be a biological

of gameamt production to be a biological design but random mutations that might

design but random mutations that might produce people who do not make

produce people who do not make gameamtes? That process does not count

gameamtes? That process does not count as a biological design. What is it then?

as a biological design. What is it then? Trying to so strictly define groups and

Trying to so strictly define groups and cross out anything that falls outside of

cross out anything that falls outside of those groups as a mistake. That feels

those groups as a mistake. That feels like a creationist denial of evolution

like a creationist denial of evolution to me. Regardless, we have introduced

to me. Regardless, we have introduced their standard for biological sex, the

their standard for biological sex, the gameamt binary. But hang on, you might

gameamt binary. But hang on, you might say, what about interex people? They

say, what about interex people? They still exist, right? How do interex

still exist, right? How do interex people fit into this binary? Richard

people fit into this binary? Richard Dawkins says, non-binary advocates are

Dawkins says, non-binary advocates are very fond of interexes, and they often

very fond of interexes, and they often quote a figure of 1.7% as the frequency

quote a figure of 1.7% as the frequency of interexes in the human population.

of interexes in the human population. Even if that figure were true, it's

Even if that figure were true, it's still a remarkably low percentage on

still a remarkably low percentage on which to build an ideology. Now, I have

which to build an ideology. Now, I have to pause here and get mildly frustrated.

to pause here and get mildly frustrated. It's a remarkably low percentage, is it?

It's a remarkably low percentage, is it? Not many interex people around

Not many interex people around relatively are there, compared to the

relatively are there, compared to the majority. Now, here's the thing. Binary

majority. Now, here's the thing. Binary means there's two mutually exclusive

means there's two mutually exclusive things. There's just two and that's it

things. There's just two and that's it ever binary code is called that because

ever binary code is called that because it's made of just ones and zeros and

it's made of just ones and zeros and that's all. Just those two. That is all

that's all. Just those two. That is all you get. You never get one of anything

you get. You never get one of anything else. Dawkins goes on to doubt this 1.7%

else. Dawkins goes on to doubt this 1.7% figure he cited and supports a lower

figure he cited and supports a lower estimate of less than 0.1% of the

estimate of less than 0.1% of the population being interex. But listen,

population being interex. But listen, Richard, for the purposes of

Richard, for the purposes of categorizing individual humans by sex,

categorizing individual humans by sex, it does not matter how many interex

it does not matter how many interex people there are, it would not matter if

people there are, it would not matter if there had only been a single interex

there had only been a single interex person in the whole history of the

person in the whole history of the world. It would not matter if you lined

world. It would not matter if you lined up a 100,000 quadrillion people and

up a 100,000 quadrillion people and every single one of them except one fell

every single one of them except one fell neatly into one of two categories.

neatly into one of two categories. That's not binary because binary means

That's not binary because binary means there's only two things. I was losing my

there's only two things. I was losing my mind reading this book. Coin does it

mind reading this book. Coin does it too. He says sex in humans is not a

too. He says sex in humans is not a discrete and binary distribution of

discrete and binary distribution of males and females but a spectrum. This

males and females but a spectrum. This statement, one of the most common

statement, one of the most common political distortions of biology, is

political distortions of biology, is wrong because nearly every human on

wrong because nearly every human on Earth falls into one of two distinct

Earth falls into one of two distinct categories. Nearly every human falls

categories. Nearly every human falls into one of two categories. Now, that's

into one of two categories. Now, that's not binary. If not everyone falls into

not binary. If not everyone falls into one of two categories, that's not

one of two categories, that's not binary. If we're categorizing people

binary. If we're categorizing people according to which of two gametes they

according to which of two gametes they produce, and there's ever been anyone

produce, and there's ever been anyone who produces neither, or there's ever

who produces neither, or there's ever been anyone who produces both, which

been anyone who produces both, which there has been, by the way, that's your

there has been, by the way, that's your binary system shafted. The problem here

binary system shafted. The problem here is that Dawkins and Coin want to be able

is that Dawkins and Coin want to be able to sort individuals into two binary sex

to sort individuals into two binary sex categories. And so they're attempting to

categories. And so they're attempting to use asexual binary gameamt size in order

use asexual binary gameamt size in order to do that even though it doesn't

to do that even though it doesn't actually apply in many cases on an

actually apply in many cases on an individual level. Microamtes and

individual level. Microamtes and macroamtes is a binary categorization.

macroamtes is a binary categorization. But how gameamt production manifests in

But how gameamt production manifests in individual humans or if it manifests at

individual humans or if it manifests at all is not a binary. And the individual

all is not a binary. And the individual level is what is important here. Of

level is what is important here. Of course, Dawkins and Coin are saying all

course, Dawkins and Coin are saying all of this in the context of talking about

of this in the context of talking about trans rights which are important on an

trans rights which are important on an individual level. You can say males

individual level. You can say males produce microamtes and females produce

produce microamtes and females produce macroamtes and that is generally true.

macroamtes and that is generally true. It's a useful general categorization,

It's a useful general categorization, but on an individual level it is not

but on an individual level it is not true. It is a false statement and we

true. It is a false statement and we can't start basing human rights on it.

can't start basing human rights on it. When we're classifying humans, we can't

When we're classifying humans, we can't just go off what is generally true.

just go off what is generally true. Otherwise, we'd say things like humans

Otherwise, we'd say things like humans walk on two legs, which again is

walk on two legs, which again is generally true. It's a useful general

generally true. It's a useful general statement. The majority of humans do

statement. The majority of humans do walk on two legs, but not everyone does.

walk on two legs, but not everyone does. Not everyone walks. Not everyone has two

Not everyone walks. Not everyone has two legs, but they are still humans. We

legs, but they are still humans. We can't take the general statement to be a

can't take the general statement to be a universal individual truth. And if you

universal individual truth. And if you attempt to tie all observed sexual

attempt to tie all observed sexual characteristics back to this division of

characteristics back to this division of gameamtes, you pretty quickly end up

gameamtes, you pretty quickly end up sounding rather silly. Dawkins, for

sounding rather silly. Dawkins, for instance, says, "If you define females

instance, says, "If you define females as macroamt producers and males as

as macroamt producers and males as microamt producers, you can immediately

microamt producers, you can immediately account for the following facts. One, in

account for the following facts. One, in mammals, it's the females that gestate

mammals, it's the females that gestate the young and secrete milk." Now, first

the young and secrete milk." Now, first of all, here I'll say that Dawkins has

of all, here I'll say that Dawkins has already put his finger on the scale by

already put his finger on the scale by saying in mammals. He can't say in

saying in mammals. He can't say in animals because then the species of fish

animals because then the species of fish where the males get pregnant would make

where the males get pregnant would make this statement untrue. Even so, there

this statement untrue. Even so, there are several mammal species in which we

are several mammal species in which we do see paternal lactation. The diac

do see paternal lactation. The diac fruit bat, the lesser short-nosed fruit

fruit bat, the lesser short-nosed fruit bat, the bismar masked flying fox.

bat, the bismar masked flying fox. Mainly flying mammals it seems to be. I

Mainly flying mammals it seems to be. I wonder why that is. I've not got a clue,

wonder why that is. I've not got a clue, but it's interesting. Two, in those bird

but it's interesting. Two, in those bird species where only one sex incubate the

species where only one sex incubate the eggs or only one sex feeds the young,

eggs or only one sex feeds the young, it's nearly always the females. So,

it's nearly always the females. So, there's a couple of things to say about

there's a couple of things to say about this one. Firstly, Dawkins can't just

this one. Firstly, Dawkins can't just say female birds incubate the eggs

say female birds incubate the eggs because a lot of bird species share the

because a lot of bird species share the incubation of their eggs. So, he has to

incubation of their eggs. So, he has to again put his finger on the scale by

again put his finger on the scale by saying where only one sex incubates the

saying where only one sex incubates the eggs. But even then, he still has to say

eggs. But even then, he still has to say it's nearly always the females. Because

it's nearly always the females. Because of course, sometimes it is just the

of course, sometimes it is just the males who incubate the eggs. For

males who incubate the eggs. For example, male emperor penguins incubate

example, male emperor penguins incubate their eggs. We see Dawkins leaning on

their eggs. We see Dawkins leaning on these qualifiers over and over. Nearly

these qualifiers over and over. Nearly always, usually more common. This does

always, usually more common. This does not sound like a very strict binary,

not sound like a very strict binary, does it? Where one sex is larger than

does it? Where one sex is larger than the other, it is usually the males.

the other, it is usually the males. usually, except of course for a lot of

usually, except of course for a lot of species of fish and spiders and whales

species of fish and spiders and whales and hyenas and bats and snakes and birds

and hyenas and bats and snakes and birds of prey and rabbits, manatees, some

of prey and rabbits, manatees, some turtles and many insects. Uh but except

turtles and many insects. Uh but except for those species and some others, uh

for those species and some others, uh males are usually larger. So it's a

males are usually larger. So it's a binary apparently. Before we move on

binary apparently. Before we move on from this list, I want to highlight

from this list, I want to highlight something. Dawkins makes the claims here

something. Dawkins makes the claims here that males are larger. Males are more

that males are larger. Males are more prone to fighting over possession of the

prone to fighting over possession of the other sex. Males are more prone to

other sex. Males are more prone to forcing the other sex into population.

forcing the other sex into population. And as I said, he's talking about all of

And as I said, he's talking about all of this in the context of criticizing trans

this in the context of criticizing trans rights. He claims that believing trans

rights. He claims that believing trans women are women, for instance, can quote

women are women, for instance, can quote infringe on the rights of other people,

infringe on the rights of other people, especially women. It logically entails

especially women. It logically entails the right to enter women's sporting

the right to enter women's sporting events, women's changing rooms, women's

events, women's changing rooms, women's prisons, and so on. So, since males are

prisons, and so on. So, since males are often larger and potentially violent or

often larger and potentially violent or even sexually violent, of course, it's

even sexually violent, of course, it's logical for females to perhaps feel

logical for females to perhaps feel uncomfortable encountering a male they

uncomfortable encountering a male they do not know in close proximity in an

do not know in close proximity in an enclosed space. Unless, of course, that

enclosed space. Unless, of course, that space is an elevator, in which case

space is an elevator, in which case she's just being hysterical and she

she's just being hysterical and she should zip it. Yes, that's right. Sound

should zip it. Yes, that's right. Sound the contradiction alarm. We got one.

the contradiction alarm. We got one. Richard Dawkins thinks that males, by

Richard Dawkins thinks that males, by which he means trans women, are sort of

which he means trans women, are sort of inherently threatening and thus it makes

inherently threatening and thus it makes sense for sis women to be afraid of them

sense for sis women to be afraid of them just minding their own business existing

just minding their own business existing in a place. But Richard Dawkins also

in a place. But Richard Dawkins also thinks that males, by which he means

thinks that males, by which he means nice scientists like me, are harmless

nice scientists like me, are harmless and they should get to actively

and they should get to actively proposition whichever woman they like in

proposition whichever woman they like in whatever context they like without

whatever context they like without complaint. Back to this list. While I'll

complaint. Back to this list. While I'll say that I think Richard Dawkins sounds

say that I think Richard Dawkins sounds very silly attempting to evidence his

very silly attempting to evidence his strict sexual binary with a list of

strict sexual binary with a list of usually and more often. The other option

usually and more often. The other option is to omit the qualifiers and sound more

is to omit the qualifiers and sound more confident at the expense of just being

confident at the expense of just being wrong. For instance, Jerry Coin says

wrong. For instance, Jerry Coin says things such as this puts the burden of

things such as this puts the burden of parental care on females. Not this often

parental care on females. Not this often puts the majority of the burden of

puts the majority of the burden of parental care on females. just a

parental care on females. just a straightforward declarative sentence

straightforward declarative sentence there. The burden of parental care is on

there. The burden of parental care is on females. He also talks about the color,

females. He also talks about the color, ornamentation, and weapons of males

ornamentation, and weapons of males compared to their absence in females. A

compared to their absence in females. A difference seen in species such as deer,

difference seen in species such as deer, birds. No, I'll stop you there. The

birds. No, I'll stop you there. The Eurasian daughter is a species of bird

Eurasian daughter is a species of bird where the females are more colorful than

where the females are more colorful than the males and the males incubate the

the males and the males incubate the eggs. Likewise, the free faller species

eggs. Likewise, the free faller species are birds where the females are larger

are birds where the females are larger and more colorful than the males and the

and more colorful than the males and the females actually pursue and fight over

females actually pursue and fight over males. They also engage in polyandry

males. They also engage in polyandry where one female will take multiple male

where one female will take multiple male mates and the males perform the

mates and the males perform the incubation and the chick care. You see,

incubation and the chick care. You see, the problem with just saying the color

the problem with just saying the color ornamentation and weapons of males

ornamentation and weapons of males compared to their absence in females is

compared to their absence in females is that this is just often the case. But it

that this is just often the case. But it isn't always. The world is more varied

isn't always. The world is more varied than your imposed binaries. There are

than your imposed binaries. There are more things in heaven and earth, Jerry

more things in heaven and earth, Jerry Coin, than are dreamt of in your

Coin, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Now, you might notice that

philosophy. Now, you might notice that we've mainly been talking about sex

we've mainly been talking about sex rather than gender here. I can only

rather than gender here. I can only speculate, but I imagine the authors in

speculate, but I imagine the authors in the book, like Dawkins Coin, feel it's

the book, like Dawkins Coin, feel it's easier for them to win the sex argument

easier for them to win the sex argument rather than the gender argument. So,

rather than the gender argument. So, they seem much less keen to talk about

they seem much less keen to talk about it. When they do talk about it though,

it. When they do talk about it though, it's clear that they are either

it's clear that they are either incredibly unfamiliar with what they're

incredibly unfamiliar with what they're talking about or they're pretending to

talking about or they're pretending to be. Not that I'm some expert or

be. Not that I'm some expert or anything, but they are literally decades

anything, but they are literally decades out of touch with current medical

out of touch with current medical understanding. For example, here, let's

understanding. For example, here, let's quote Richard Dawkins. Gender. A watered

quote Richard Dawkins. Gender. A watered down version of this ideology concedes

down version of this ideology concedes that sex may be binary, but gender is

that sex may be binary, but gender is not. The word gender enters the

not. The word gender enters the discourse, trailing clouds of confusion.

discourse, trailing clouds of confusion. Does it really for you? Maybe Dawkins is

Does it really for you? Maybe Dawkins is engaging with the idea of gender here as

engaging with the idea of gender here as if it is solely a lesser version of this

if it is solely a lesser version of this perceived postmodernist attack on

perceived postmodernist attack on science he's been talking about. And

science he's been talking about. And when he gets into it, his understanding

when he gets into it, his understanding of gender is overly medicalized and

of gender is overly medicalized and outofdate and just embarrassing to read.

outofdate and just embarrassing to read. For example, a feeling of being in a

For example, a feeling of being in a body of the wrong sex seems to be a real

body of the wrong sex seems to be a real psychological condition. Such dysphorics

psychological condition. Such dysphorics can feel genuine distress. When

can feel genuine distress. When anorexics look in the mirror, they see

anorexics look in the mirror, they see an emaciated body that they think is too

an emaciated body that they think is too fat. Gender dysphorics look in the

fat. Gender dysphorics look in the mirror and see the wrong genitals. Now,

mirror and see the wrong genitals. Now, firstly, here it seems like Dawkins has

firstly, here it seems like Dawkins has an overly simplistic view of anorexia

an overly simplistic view of anorexia for a start. Uh, but even setting that

for a start. Uh, but even setting that aside, this comparison doesn't make any

aside, this comparison doesn't make any sense. Dawkins is trying to compare

sense. Dawkins is trying to compare someone looking into a mirror and seeing

someone looking into a mirror and seeing something different to reality and

something different to reality and feeling distress about that to someone

feeling distress about that to someone looking into a mirror and accurately

looking into a mirror and accurately seeing reality and feeling distress

seeing reality and feeling distress about that. Also, he's very focused on

about that. Also, he's very focused on genitals, of course, but gender

genitals, of course, but gender dysphoria does not have to include a

dysphoria does not have to include a dissatisfaction with one's genitals. A

dissatisfaction with one's genitals. A trans person could be perfectly content

trans person could be perfectly content with their genitals, but feel dysphoria

with their genitals, but feel dysphoria related to other things about their

related to other things about their body. or they could be perfectly content

body. or they could be perfectly content with their body but feel dysphoria

with their body but feel dysphoria related to behavior or social

related to behavior or social interaction or any number of other

interaction or any number of other things. Also, not all trans people say

things. Also, not all trans people say they experience dysphoria, and many do

they experience dysphoria, and many do not consider dysphoria to be a

not consider dysphoria to be a prerequisite for being trans. Dawkins

prerequisite for being trans. Dawkins could know all of this, of course, but

could know all of this, of course, but he's choosing not to. Before we move on,

he's choosing not to. Before we move on, I'll say we can get so caught up in

I'll say we can get so caught up in arguing the definition of words like

arguing the definition of words like binary and talking about the difference

binary and talking about the difference between sex and gender that we can

between sex and gender that we can overlook what the actual problem is

overlook what the actual problem is supposed to be here for the authors in

supposed to be here for the authors in the war on science. Personally, I don't

the war on science. Personally, I don't see at all how the acknowledgement that

see at all how the acknowledgement that not everyone fits neatly into one of two

not everyone fits neatly into one of two boxes harms our ability to talk about or

boxes harms our ability to talk about or teach people about gameamtes or

teach people about gameamtes or chromosomes or any other sexual

chromosomes or any other sexual characteristics. You can say sex is

characteristics. You can say sex is generally this or that. But remember

generally this or that. But remember that whatever classification we use, it

that whatever classification we use, it won't account for all people everywhere.

won't account for all people everywhere. That sounds okay, right? What's wrong

That sounds okay, right? What's wrong with that? What is the actual practical

with that? What is the actual practical issue supposed to be here? Where is the

issue supposed to be here? Where is the threat to science? Let's try to find

threat to science? Let's try to find that threat to science now by focusing

that threat to science now by focusing on a particular example of how this

on a particular example of how this apparently dangerous ideology is

apparently dangerous ideology is supposed to manifest in a harmful way.

supposed to manifest in a harmful way. Let's talk about Carlen Gribble's

Let's talk about Carlen Gribble's chapter. Lawrence Krauss introduces

chapter. Lawrence Krauss introduces Carlen Gribble by saying, "Carleen

Carlen Gribble by saying, "Carleen Gribble explores the implications of the

Gribble explores the implications of the desexing of language in women's healthc

desexing of language in women's healthc care, such as replacing women with terms

care, such as replacing women with terms such as people who menstruate and so

such as people who menstruate and so on." Gribble's chapter is the desexing

on." Gribble's chapter is the desexing of language in women's health research

of language in women's health research and care, a story of marginalization of

and care, a story of marginalization of science, cultural imperialism, and abuse

science, cultural imperialism, and abuse of power. A rather dramatic title there

of power. A rather dramatic title there to start here. Krauss in his

to start here. Krauss in his introduction says replacing women with

introduction says replacing women with terms such as people who menstruate. The

terms such as people who menstruate. The implication being here that women and

implication being here that women and people who menstruate are synonymous.

people who menstruate are synonymous. But is that the case? Firstly, and quite

But is that the case? Firstly, and quite obviously, not all women menstruate, do

obviously, not all women menstruate, do they? For instance, post-menopausal

they? For instance, post-menopausal women do not menstruate, but they're

women do not menstruate, but they're still women. Women who've had certain

still women. Women who've had certain medical procedures, hysterctomies and so

medical procedures, hysterctomies and so on might not menstruate. Some women who

on might not menstruate. Some women who have certain medical conditions or who

have certain medical conditions or who take certain medications might not

take certain medications might not menstruate, but they don't stop being

menstruate, but they don't stop being women because of that, do they?

women because of that, do they? Likewise, not everyone who menstruates

Likewise, not everyone who menstruates is a woman. Some 10-year-old girls

is a woman. Some 10-year-old girls menstruate, but they are not women

menstruate, but they are not women legally. And these legal definitions

legally. And these legal definitions matter, especially when you're talking

matter, especially when you're talking about healthcare. Giving inaccurate

about healthcare. Giving inaccurate medical advice can hurt people, make

medical advice can hurt people, make people sick, and then even worse, they

people sick, and then even worse, they can sue you. As an example here, let's

can sue you. As an example here, let's say that you're a health care

say that you're a health care professional and you need to communicate

professional and you need to communicate with the public that all people who

with the public that all people who menstruate need to do a particular

menstruate need to do a particular thing, avoid a certain product, come in

thing, avoid a certain product, come in for a test, whatever. But you don't want

for a test, whatever. But you don't want to say people who menstruate because you

to say people who menstruate because you think that's erasing women in language.

think that's erasing women in language. So instead, you just say women. Now,

So instead, you just say women. Now, what's going to happen there? Well, you

what's going to happen there? Well, you have not properly communicated with the

have not properly communicated with the group you were targeting. You're going

group you were targeting. You're going to get 70year-old women turning up for

to get 70year-old women turning up for tests they don't need, 12-year-old girls

tests they don't need, 12-year-old girls not turning up for tests they do need,

not turning up for tests they do need, and so on. Now, I haven't even mentioned

and so on. Now, I haven't even mentioned trans people yet. You will notice even

trans people yet. You will notice even before we get to trans people, these

before we get to trans people, these sorts of complaints do not make sense to

sorts of complaints do not make sense to me. Of course, these language issues are

me. Of course, these language issues are made by conservatives and bigots into a

made by conservatives and bigots into a culture war battle and blamed on trans

culture war battle and blamed on trans people, but to me, it's always seemed

people, but to me, it's always seemed that it's more about not publishing

that it's more about not publishing inaccurate medical information. But yes,

inaccurate medical information. But yes, of course, some non-binary people will

of course, some non-binary people will menstruate, some trans people who are

menstruate, some trans people who are not women will menstruate, some interex

not women will menstruate, some interex people who are not women will

people who are not women will menstruate. So, for those reasons, as

menstruate. So, for those reasons, as well as the reasons we listed before,

well as the reasons we listed before, you may as well just use the more

you may as well just use the more accurate term. With that said, let's

accurate term. With that said, let's check out an example of the desexing of

check out an example of the desexing of language that Carlen Gribble mentions in

language that Carlen Gribble mentions in her essay. Let's see how it works in

her essay. Let's see how it works in practice. As an aside here, Gribble's

practice. As an aside here, Gribble's chapter is an example of very bad

chapter is an example of very bad academic essay writing. By the way, we

academic essay writing. By the way, we have to slog through page after page of

have to slog through page after page of dry documentation of these sorts of

dry documentation of these sorts of language changes occurring before she

language changes occurring before she finally lets us in on why she thinks any

finally lets us in on why she thinks any of it is supposed to matter at all.

of it is supposed to matter at all. Anyway, the example I want to focus on

Anyway, the example I want to focus on concerns evolutionary biologist Natalie

concerns evolutionary biologist Natalie Dinsdale. And I quote, "Natalie Dinsdale

Dinsdale. And I quote, "Natalie Dinsdale was repeatedly requested by her

was repeatedly requested by her university ethics committee to desex the

university ethics committee to desex the language of her study on female

language of her study on female reproductive anatomy and function.

reproductive anatomy and function. Dinsdale 2023. Over three rounds of

Dinsdale 2023. Over three rounds of revision, the ethics committee

revision, the ethics committee questioned the use of women and female

questioned the use of women and female in study materials, while Dr. Dinsdale

in study materials, while Dr. Dinsdale defended her use of sexed language. In

defended her use of sexed language. In the final revision request, the

the final revision request, the direction was to remove the references

direction was to remove the references to women, which was rejected by Dr.

to women, which was rejected by Dr. Dinsdale, who informed the ethics

Dinsdale, who informed the ethics committee their requests were

committee their requests were inappropriate, and the study was finally

inappropriate, and the study was finally approved. Now, this is a load of

approved. Now, this is a load of rubbish, and I know that because Natalie

rubbish, and I know that because Natalie Dinsdale documented this exchange on her

Dinsdale documented this exchange on her blog. So, let's read that. In March, I

blog. So, let's read that. In March, I submitted the first draft of an ethics

submitted the first draft of an ethics application to conduct a study that will

application to conduct a study that will mostly occur online. Women will be

mostly occur online. Women will be invited to measure different parts of

invited to measure different parts of their bodies, including their genitalia,

their bodies, including their genitalia, which is relevant, answer questions

which is relevant, answer questions about their medical history,

about their medical history, personality, menstrual cycles, and

personality, menstrual cycles, and perform a few cognitive tests that

perform a few cognitive tests that involve spatial and social reasoning.

involve spatial and social reasoning. However, the ethics board repeatedly

However, the ethics board repeatedly took issue with my choice of language in

took issue with my choice of language in describing my study population, women.

describing my study population, women. Then she gives Dr. Gribble a shout out

Then she gives Dr. Gribble a shout out and goes on to describe her exchange

and goes on to describe her exchange with the ethics board. Ethics Board,

with the ethics board. Ethics Board, please ensure that it is clear in the

please ensure that it is clear in the recruitment and consent form that you're

recruitment and consent form that you're recruiting biological female

recruiting biological female participants. My response, all relevant

participants. My response, all relevant documents state we are recruiting

documents state we are recruiting females for this project. Female is the

females for this project. Female is the term that describes members belonging to

term that describes members belonging to the sex class that produces eggs and

the sex class that produces eggs and gestates offspring brackets, also called

gestates offspring brackets, also called women. Biological female is redundant.

women. Biological female is redundant. There is no such thing as non-biological

There is no such thing as non-biological females. females is clear and precise

females. females is clear and precise terminology for this project. You can

terminology for this project. You can probably tell how the rest of this

probably tell how the rest of this conversation is going to go, right?

conversation is going to go, right? Ethics board. The reviewers noted that

Ethics board. The reviewers noted that the term biological female is used by

the term biological female is used by the study team several times in this

the study team several times in this application. The social media

application. The social media recruitment uses biological female and

recruitment uses biological female and it's in the application form. Now, I

it's in the application form. Now, I have no idea why Dinsdale would include

have no idea why Dinsdale would include this message in her transcript of the

this message in her transcript of the conversation, by the way. like she just

conversation, by the way. like she just said biological female is redundant and

said biological female is redundant and the ethics board totally dunks on her by

the ethics board totally dunks on her by saying, "Well, you used it several

saying, "Well, you used it several times." I would have left this bit out

times." I would have left this bit out personally. Anyway, the terms female and

personally. Anyway, the terms female and woman are used in the poster

woman are used in the poster recruitment, but do not make it clear

recruitment, but do not make it clear that they're intending to recruit

that they're intending to recruit individuals with typical female external

individuals with typical female external genitalia. This may not be true for all

genitalia. This may not be true for all individuals who identify as

individuals who identify as female/woman. My response. Thank you for

female/woman. My response. Thank you for drawing my attention to where I have

drawing my attention to where I have used redundant language. I have revised

used redundant language. I have revised these places in my application. Oof. The

these places in my application. Oof. The language in the recruitment materials

language in the recruitment materials and study forms is now clear and

and study forms is now clear and consistent in the use of the term

consistent in the use of the term female. We are not recruiting people

female. We are not recruiting people with typical female external genitalia.

with typical female external genitalia. We are recruiting females. We

We are recruiting females. We respectfully point out that female is

respectfully point out that female is not an identity, but rather an objective

not an identity, but rather an objective and verifiable state. Ethics board.

and verifiable state. Ethics board. There is continued concerns around the

There is continued concerns around the terminology used in the study. You state

terminology used in the study. You state you are using female to describe the

you are using female to describe the participants, but throughout the online

participants, but throughout the online document and even in the title of the

document and even in the title of the study, the term used is women. There is

study, the term used is women. There is still one use of the term women in the

still one use of the term women in the consent document. Given the nature of

consent document. Given the nature of the research question, the distinction

the research question, the distinction here is important. It's clear that

here is important. It's clear that you're planning to recruit females, but

you're planning to recruit females, but this isn't clear based on the study

this isn't clear based on the study details, which consistently refers to

details, which consistently refers to women without acknowledging that not all

women without acknowledging that not all individuals who identify as women would

individuals who identify as women would qualify for the study. The ethics board

qualify for the study. The ethics board then goes on to bring up the point I

then goes on to bring up the point I mentioned earlier that if you're not

mentioned earlier that if you're not clear about what group you're actually

clear about what group you're actually targeting, you might end up with people

targeting, you might end up with people applying to the study who are not

applying to the study who are not actually eligible for the study. You can

actually eligible for the study. You can feel the AICS board starting to get

feel the AICS board starting to get quite a bit frustrated with Dinsdale

quite a bit frustrated with Dinsdale here. You know, if you mean women, just

here. You know, if you mean women, just say women. But if you mean something

say women. But if you mean something other than women, then say that instead.

other than women, then say that instead. Stop wasting everyone's time by trying

Stop wasting everyone's time by trying to make some point by using a bunch of

to make some point by using a bunch of different terms interchangeably. My

different terms interchangeably. My response, your concern that people who

response, your concern that people who do not qualify for the study might

do not qualify for the study might contact us to participate is noted. All

materials visible to prospective participants, recruitment materials, and

participants, recruitment materials, and consent forms now only say female. We

consent forms now only say female. We revised the one place in the consent

revised the one place in the consent from where women was used in describing

from where women was used in describing the study aims to clarify the other

the study aims to clarify the other documents for your team. We've now

documents for your team. We've now updated the application and the attached

updated the application and the attached ethics validation form to include a

ethics validation form to include a definition of women, adult human females

definition of women, adult human females used in this project. So, she's backed

used in this project. So, she's backed down a bit and changed some of the

down a bit and changed some of the language to just say females, but is

language to just say females, but is refusing to change some other instances

refusing to change some other instances of the word woman inside the project.

of the word woman inside the project. Like, how tedious. Instead of just

Like, how tedious. Instead of just changing the other instances of the word

changing the other instances of the word woman, she opts instead to include an

woman, she opts instead to include an explanatory note clarifying that when

explanatory note clarifying that when she says woman in the project, she means

she says woman in the project, she means female. And then the ethics board asks

female. And then the ethics board asks her to also change the other instances

her to also change the other instances and she says no. She goes on to say that

and she says no. She goes on to say that when I received the most recent

when I received the most recent requested revisions, I was lied.

requested revisions, I was lied. Thankfully, I'd spent the morning

Thankfully, I'd spent the morning relaxing on my favorite tree, so I was

relaxing on my favorite tree, so I was calm and collected when I received the

calm and collected when I received the feedback. I don't know why I find that

feedback. I don't know why I find that funny. Is she an elf? Then, after

funny. Is she an elf? Then, after another round of revisions, her project

another round of revisions, her project was accepted. Now, here's the problem

was accepted. Now, here's the problem with this story. Gribble says, "Over

with this story. Gribble says, "Over three rounds of revision, the ethics

three rounds of revision, the ethics committee questioned the use of woman

committee questioned the use of woman and female in study materials." Gribble

and female in study materials." Gribble is trying to imply here that the ethics

is trying to imply here that the ethics committee was questioning the use of the

committee was questioning the use of the words women and female at all, which is

words women and female at all, which is not the case. They took issue with the

not the case. They took issue with the inconsistent use of those words. I think

inconsistent use of those words. I think it's worth asking what actually happened

it's worth asking what actually happened here. Someone had to append a note to

here. Someone had to append a note to their study, they wrote clarifying what

their study, they wrote clarifying what some of the language in the study meant,

some of the language in the study meant, and then the study was approved. It's

and then the study was approved. It's hardly the climax to 1984, is it? The

hardly the climax to 1984, is it? The fork police kick the door in and ask for

fork police kick the door in and ask for a language clarification. It's a

a language clarification. It's a repeated theme in the book where the

repeated theme in the book where the first few pages of an essay imply

first few pages of an essay imply whichever minor workplace quibble the

whichever minor workplace quibble the author has to be of some monumental

author has to be of some monumental society shaking importance and then you

society shaking importance and then you get to the actual consequences and it's

get to the actual consequences and it's something like I had to have an annoying

something like I had to have an annoying email exchange with the ethics committee

email exchange with the ethics committee which I mean that's just you complaining

which I mean that's just you complaining about your job. I'm afraid that doesn't

about your job. I'm afraid that doesn't matter at all to society. I remain

matter at all to society. I remain unmoved that any of this is a real

unmoved that any of this is a real problem, much less some sort of grave

problem, much less some sort of grave threat to science, especially considered

threat to science, especially considered in the context of everything that Donald

in the context of everything that Donald Trump's administration has been doing.

Trump's administration has been doing. The idea that acknowledging not everyone

The idea that acknowledging not everyone easily fits into a sex or gender binary

easily fits into a sex or gender binary is supposed to be some thin end of the

is supposed to be some thin end of the wedge designed to destroy science with

wedge designed to destroy science with denials of reality just sounds like a

denials of reality just sounds like a wild conspiracy theory. two Dawkins and

wild conspiracy theory. two Dawkins and Coin and the others hung up on these

Coin and the others hung up on these binaries. I will say that you should

binaries. I will say that you should consider an alternate possibility that

consider an alternate possibility that you are out of step with modern

you are out of step with modern scientific and medical understanding.

scientific and medical understanding. Not because those institutions have been

Not because those institutions have been captured by Stalinist infiltrators, but

captured by Stalinist infiltrators, but simply because the people there disagree

simply because the people there disagree with you, possibly even that they

with you, possibly even that they disagree with you because you are wrong.

disagree with you because you are wrong. Anyway, I'm going to move on now and

Anyway, I'm going to move on now and talk about the parts of the book that

talk about the parts of the book that talk about race. Now, if you're a

talk about race. Now, if you're a canceled scientist or science

canceled scientist or science communicator drifting to the right,

communicator drifting to the right, making common cause with other such

making common cause with other such canceled scientists and communicators,

canceled scientists and communicators, you will eventually bump into scientific

you will eventually bump into scientific racists and eugenicists. People who use

racists and eugenicists. People who use pseudo science to sort groups of people

pseudo science to sort groups of people into inherent hierarchies of worth and

into inherent hierarchies of worth and ability. And we'll have cause to talk

ability. And we'll have cause to talk about a fair amount of that later on.

about a fair amount of that later on. For now though, we'll start with

For now though, we'll start with arguably the least racist chapter

arguably the least racist chapter concerning race in the book, which is

concerning race in the book, which is about blackface. So that should tell you

about blackface. So that should tell you how bad things get going forward. This

how bad things get going forward. This chapter is written by a professor of

chapter is written by a professor of social and natural science at Yale

social and natural science at Yale University called Nicholas Kristakis.

University called Nicholas Kristakis. Krauss introduces Kristakis by saying,

Krauss introduces Kristakis by saying, "Nicholas Kristakis, whose own work span

"Nicholas Kristakis, whose own work span social science, biology, statistics, and

social science, biology, statistics, and public health, describes in extracts

public health, describes in extracts from an interview he did with Sam Harris

from an interview he did with Sam Harris both his general, deeply considered

both his general, deeply considered views about free expression at

views about free expression at universities, as well as his own less

universities, as well as his own less than optimal experience at Yale." So,

than optimal experience at Yale." So, what happened to Nicholas Kristakis at

what happened to Nicholas Kristakis at Yale? Well, back in October of 2015, in

Yale? Well, back in October of 2015, in the run-up to Halloween, Yale's admin

the run-up to Halloween, Yale's admin sent an email to the student body

sent an email to the student body informing them of upcoming Halloween

informing them of upcoming Halloween events, a costume ball, a cemetery tour,

events, a costume ball, a cemetery tour, things like that. But the email goes on

things like that. But the email goes on to say, "However, Halloween is also

to say, "However, Halloween is also unfortunately a time when the normal

unfortunately a time when the normal thoughtfulness and sensitivity of most

thoughtfulness and sensitivity of most Yale students can sometimes be

Yale students can sometimes be forgotten, and some poor decisions can

forgotten, and some poor decisions can be made, including wearing feathered

be made, including wearing feathered headdresses, turbons, wearing war paint,

headdresses, turbons, wearing war paint, or modifying skin tone, or wearing black

or modifying skin tone, or wearing black face or red face. These same issues and

face or red face. These same issues and examples of cultural appropriation

examples of cultural appropriation and/or misrepresentation are

and/or misrepresentation are increasingly surfacing with

increasingly surfacing with representations of Asians and Latinos.

representations of Asians and Latinos. Yale is a community that values free

Yale is a community that values free expression as well as inclusivity. And

expression as well as inclusivity. And while students, undergraduate and

while students, undergraduate and graduate, definitely have a right to

graduate, definitely have a right to express themselves, we would hope that

express themselves, we would hope that people would actively avoid those

people would actively avoid those circumstances that threaten our sense of

circumstances that threaten our sense of community or disrespects, alienates, or

community or disrespects, alienates, or ridicules segments of our population

ridicules segments of our population based on race, nationality, religious

based on race, nationality, religious belief, or gender expression. They go on

belief, or gender expression. They go on to give some more examples of ways

to give some more examples of ways costumes could be disrespectful or

costumes could be disrespectful or offensive. And then they say, "We are

offensive. And then they say, "We are one Yale, and the actions of one affect

one Yale, and the actions of one affect us all. So, in whatever fashion you

us all. So, in whatever fashion you choose to participate in Halloween

choose to participate in Halloween activities, we encourage everyone to be

activities, we encourage everyone to be safe and thoughtful during your

safe and thoughtful during your celebration. So, they've sent an email

celebration. So, they've sent an email saying, "Please think a bit before you

saying, "Please think a bit before you dress up as a racist stereotype for

dress up as a racist stereotype for Halloween." Now, again, if you're a

Halloween." Now, again, if you're a somewhat sensible person, you're

somewhat sensible person, you're probably wondering how this story could

probably wondering how this story could possibly go anywhere else, right? Who's

possibly go anywhere else, right? Who's going to get upset about the university

going to get upset about the university asking students not to black up on

asking students not to black up on campus? Well, on the 30th of October

campus? Well, on the 30th of October 2015, the day before Halloween, Erica

2015, the day before Halloween, Erica Kristakis, wife of Nicholas Kristakis

Kristakis, wife of Nicholas Kristakis and also then a teacher at Yale

and also then a teacher at Yale University, responded to the email with

University, responded to the email with an email of her own that was sent to the

an email of her own that was sent to the entire student body of the Yale College

entire student body of the Yale College that she was a part of. And let me read

that she was a part of. And let me read you some quotes from that email.

you some quotes from that email. Nicholas and I have heard from a number

Nicholas and I have heard from a number of students who were frustrated by the

of students who were frustrated by the mass email sent to the student body

mass email sent to the student body about appropriate Halloween wear. I've

about appropriate Halloween wear. I've always found Halloween an interesting

always found Halloween an interesting embodiment of more general adult worries

embodiment of more general adult worries about young people. As some of you may

about young people. As some of you may be aware, I teach a class on the concept

be aware, I teach a class on the concept of the problem child. And I was speaking

of the problem child. And I was speaking with some of my students yesterday about

with some of my students yesterday about the ways in which Halloween,

the ways in which Halloween, traditionally a day of subversion for

traditionally a day of subversion for children and young people, is also an

children and young people, is also an occasion for adults to exert their

occasion for adults to exert their control. As a former preschool teacher,

control. As a former preschool teacher, for example, it's hard for me to give

for example, it's hard for me to give credence to a claim that there's

credence to a claim that there's something objectionably appropriative

something objectionably appropriative about a blondhaired child's wanting to

about a blondhaired child's wanting to be Milan for a day. Pretend play is the

be Milan for a day. Pretend play is the foundation of most cognitive tasks. And

foundation of most cognitive tasks. And it seems to me that we want to be in the

it seems to me that we want to be in the business of encouraging the exercise of

business of encouraging the exercise of imagination, not constraining it. Is

imagination, not constraining it. Is there no room anymore for a child or

there no room anymore for a child or young person to be a little bit

young person to be a little bit obnoxious, a little bit inappropriate or

obnoxious, a little bit inappropriate or provocative or yes, racist? Sorry, I

provocative or yes, racist? Sorry, I mean offensive. American universities

mean offensive. American universities were once a safe space not only for

were once a safe space not only for maturation but also for a certain

maturation but also for a certain regressive or even transgressive

regressive or even transgressive experience. Increasingly it seems they

experience. Increasingly it seems they have become places of censure and

have become places of censure and prohibition and the censure and

prohibition and the censure and prohibition come from above not from

prohibition come from above not from yourselves. Are we all okay with this

yourselves. Are we all okay with this transfer of power? Have we lost faith in

transfer of power? Have we lost faith in young people's capacity in your capacity

young people's capacity in your capacity to exercise self centure through social

to exercise self centure through social norming and also in your capacity to

norming and also in your capacity to ignore or reject things that trouble

ignore or reject things that trouble you? Nicholas says if you don't like a

you? Nicholas says if you don't like a costume someone's wearing, look away or

costume someone's wearing, look away or tell them you're offended. Talk to each

tell them you're offended. Talk to each other. Free speech and the ability to

other. Free speech and the ability to tolerate offense are hallmarks of a free

tolerate offense are hallmarks of a free and open society. So I have a few things

and open society. So I have a few things to say about this. Firstly, this seems

to say about this. Firstly, this seems to be an example of an academic who

to be an example of an academic who knows a lot about one particular thing.

knows a lot about one particular thing. And that's the end of that sentence.

And that's the end of that sentence. Erica Kristakis is seeing all of this

Erica Kristakis is seeing all of this through the lens of her particular area

through the lens of her particular area of expertise, which is early childhood

of expertise, which is early childhood development and psychology. But

development and psychology. But obviously, and this should go without

obviously, and this should go without saying, an 8-year-old white girl who

saying, an 8-year-old white girl who wants to dress up as Disney's Mulan or

wants to dress up as Disney's Mulan or Pocahontas or whatever is very different

Pocahontas or whatever is very different from an adult at university wearing

from an adult at university wearing blackface, which is what we're actually

blackface, which is what we're actually talking about. That is not an example of

talking about. That is not an example of childhood pretend play. That is a racial

childhood pretend play. That is a racial caricature that is widely considered by

caricature that is widely considered by the society the students live in to be

the society the students live in to be racist, making it a racist thing to do.

racist, making it a racist thing to do. Erica Kristakis, though, doesn't

Erica Kristakis, though, doesn't directly talk about blackface in her

directly talk about blackface in her email. It seems like she'd rather be

email. It seems like she'd rather be talking about free expression, cultural

talking about free expression, cultural appropriation, and how those things

appropriation, and how those things should be considered in the context of

should be considered in the context of childhood imaginative play. And so she's

childhood imaginative play. And so she's responding as though cultural

responding as though cultural appropriation was all the email from the

appropriation was all the email from the Yale admin was about. But it wasn't, was

Yale admin was about. But it wasn't, was it? It was also about blackface and

it? It was also about blackface and other racist caricatures. Which means

other racist caricatures. Which means that when you're responding to it, that

that when you're responding to it, that is what you're talking about, regardless

is what you're talking about, regardless of whether or not you want to. Before we

of whether or not you want to. Before we get too far away from this email here, I

get too far away from this email here, I have to mention that at one point she

have to mention that at one point she says, "Why do we dress up on Halloween

says, "Why do we dress up on Halloween anyway? Should we start explaining that

anyway? Should we start explaining that to? I've always been a good mimic and I

to? I've always been a good mimic and I enjoy accents. I am simultaneously

enjoy accents. I am simultaneously intrigued and filled with dread at the

intrigued and filled with dread at the implications of that one. Which accents

implications of that one. Which accents does she do? The other funny thing here

does she do? The other funny thing here is that I like to imagine she didn't

is that I like to imagine she didn't talk this email through with her husband

talk this email through with her husband Nicholas Kristakis and unbeknownsted to

Nicholas Kristakis and unbeknownsted to him dumped him right in it by quoting

him dumped him right in it by quoting him saying something completely

him saying something completely ridiculous and then emailing it to the

ridiculous and then emailing it to the entire student body. Uh but I just think

entire student body. Uh but I just think that's funny. I have no idea if that's

that's funny. I have no idea if that's true. In the section of the war on

true. In the section of the war on science where Nicholas Kristakis

science where Nicholas Kristakis released this email exchange and the

released this email exchange and the subsequent fallout, he begins by saying

subsequent fallout, he begins by saying that there had been to my knowledge no

that there had been to my knowledge no episodes of students wearing blackface

episodes of students wearing blackface at Yale or pushing the boundaries in

at Yale or pushing the boundaries in such an extreme way in the past 10

such an extreme way in the past 10 years. Nevertheless, this email was sent

years. Nevertheless, this email was sent out and it was subsequently very

out and it was subsequently very strongly endorsed by the dean of Yale

strongly endorsed by the dean of Yale College. So, okay, this email was sent

College. So, okay, this email was sent in 2015. So 10 years prior would be

in 2015. So 10 years prior would be 2005. Let's do a search on the Yale

2005. Let's do a search on the Yale Daily News website for the word

Daily News website for the word blackface. Whiteies in blackface reveal

blackface. Whiteies in blackface reveal races among campus. This is from 2007.

races among campus. This is from 2007. There happily walking around in our

There happily walking around in our respective Halloween costumes during

respective Halloween costumes during this week's festivities. We were

this week's festivities. We were mortified to see several white people

mortified to see several white people whose costumes included blackface. They

whose costumes included blackface. They sought to mimic various black figures

sought to mimic various black figures and decided that in addition to their

and decided that in addition to their garments and props, painting their faces

garments and props, painting their faces jet black was a great way to complete

jet black was a great way to complete their costumes. And we can find some

their costumes. And we can find some other articles. I dawned blackface as

other articles. I dawned blackface as part of my costume. Blackface offendes

part of my costume. Blackface offendes should understand their framework for

should understand their framework for interpretation is not the only one.

interpretation is not the only one. Anti-lackface columnists lacked rational

Anti-lackface columnists lacked rational argument. So, we've got people taking

argument. So, we've got people taking issue with the articles criticizing

issue with the articles criticizing blackface. There's also emails reported

blackface. There's also emails reported going out asking students to avoid

going out asking students to avoid blackface back in 2008. There's an

blackface back in 2008. There's an article titled Yale professors discuss

article titled Yale professors discuss cultural basis of hatred which says in

cultural basis of hatred which says in November dining hall workers discovered

November dining hall workers discovered racially inflammatory graffiti spray

racially inflammatory graffiti spray painted on a wall outside Pearson

painted on a wall outside Pearson College. Someone had spray painted nword

College. Someone had spray painted nword school on the building. That incident

school on the building. That incident paired with allegations that some

paired with allegations that some students wore blackface costumes on

students wore blackface costumes on Halloween prompted an outcry on campus

Halloween prompted an outcry on campus and a rally and vigil. You see, there's

and a rally and vigil. You see, there's a history of not just students doing

a history of not just students doing blackface at Yale, but there's a history

blackface at Yale, but there's a history of racist incidents in general at Yale.

of racist incidents in general at Yale. For instance, in 2015, the year in

For instance, in 2015, the year in question here, 2 days before Erica

question here, 2 days before Erica Kristakis sent her email, at a Halloween

Kristakis sent her email, at a Halloween party, this happened. Yale Frat's

party, this happened. Yale Frat's Halloween party allegedly refused to

Halloween party allegedly refused to admit minority women. Students accused

admit minority women. Students accused Sigma Alphaepsilon of making racist

Sigma Alphaepsilon of making racist remarks while rejecting women of color

remarks while rejecting women of color from house party in favor of white

from house party in favor of white women. Some questioned why the

women. Some questioned why the fraternity was allowed to throw the

fraternity was allowed to throw the party. The fraternity has been banned

party. The fraternity has been banned from campus activities until 2016 for

from campus activities until 2016 for violating the university's sexual

violating the university's sexual misconduct policy. Real charm is that

misconduct policy. Real charm is that lot. So this is the environment into

lot. So this is the environment into which Erica Kristakis decided to release

which Erica Kristakis decided to release her husband's advice to just ignore

her husband's advice to just ignore offensive racism you see on campus. And

offensive racism you see on campus. And subsequently they were inevitably

subsequently they were inevitably criticized and called racist. And there

criticized and called racist. And there were news stories about it and calls for

were news stories about it and calls for their dismissal and so on. It was a

their dismissal and so on. It was a whole thing. Now for what it's worth,

whole thing. Now for what it's worth, from the things I've seen them say, I

from the things I've seen them say, I don't think Nicholas or Erica Kristakis

don't think Nicholas or Erica Kristakis are motivated by some conscious racial

are motivated by some conscious racial hatred. I think they are being racist.

hatred. I think they are being racist. to be clear, but that's seemingly

to be clear, but that's seemingly stemming from the fact that they're very

stemming from the fact that they're very ignorant is the word I'd say to avoid

ignorant is the word I'd say to avoid saying something mean. Being as fair as

saying something mean. Being as fair as I can to them, they seem to be beholden

I can to them, they seem to be beholden to a false idea, which is one we see

to a false idea, which is one we see over and over again in this book, which

over and over again in this book, which is that of the university as a place

is that of the university as a place disconnected from the rest of society,

disconnected from the rest of society, where people should be free to say and

where people should be free to say and argue anything they like. The rest of

argue anything they like. The rest of the world might get up in arms about

the world might get up in arms about bigotry, politics, racism, religion, or

bigotry, politics, racism, religion, or whatever else. But here in our ivory

whatever else. But here in our ivory tower, we are above that sort of thing.

tower, we are above that sort of thing. We are academics. We are philosophers,

We are academics. We are philosophers, and we discuss everything neutrally and

and we discuss everything neutrally and philosophically and academically. Now,

philosophically and academically. Now, of course, a lot of bigots use this

of course, a lot of bigots use this framework solely to advance their

framework solely to advance their bigotry, but Mr. and Mrs. Chrisakis

bigotry, but Mr. and Mrs. Chrisakis appear to be genuine believers in it.

appear to be genuine believers in it. Everyone has an equal voice in our

Everyone has an equal voice in our magical wizard city cloistered from the

magical wizard city cloistered from the outside world where we discuss ideas as

outside world where we discuss ideas as if they're completely untethered from

if they're completely untethered from reality. And this point of view gives

reality. And this point of view gives rise to them saying things that are

rise to them saying things that are completely untethered from reality. For

completely untethered from reality. For example, if you're a black student and

example, if you're a black student and you see the white members of a

you see the white members of a fraternity dressed in blackface and

fraternity dressed in blackface and acting like racist stereotypes and that

acting like racist stereotypes and that offends you, you should just look away.

offends you, you should just look away. which for that to be offered as genuine

which for that to be offered as genuine advice is ridiculous, right? It's so

advice is ridiculous, right? It's so sheltered and naive that I confess to

sheltered and naive that I confess to finding it almost sweet in a way. The

finding it almost sweet in a way. The world would be a lot simpler if that was

world would be a lot simpler if that was how things worked, wouldn't it? But it's

how things worked, wouldn't it? But it's not. So for Mr. and Mrs. Chrisakis here,

not. So for Mr. and Mrs. Chrisakis here, I will do you both a favor and offer you

I will do you both a favor and offer you two free belated bites of the reality

two free belated bites of the reality sandwich. Now, you were both old enough

sandwich. Now, you were both old enough that when you went through university,

that when you went through university, we didn't have social media and we

we didn't have social media and we didn't have smartphone cameras. Back in

didn't have smartphone cameras. Back in your day, the idea of the university as

your day, the idea of the university as this sequestered, sheltered place was

this sequestered, sheltered place was more true than it is now. But these

more true than it is now. But these days, if a fraternity decides to do

days, if a fraternity decides to do blackface for like an offensive party

blackface for like an offensive party they're throwing or something, people

they're throwing or something, people will take pictures of it and it will be

will take pictures of it and it will be posted on social media and it will make

posted on social media and it will make the news and that will make the

the news and that will make the university look bad. And the university

university look bad. And the university doesn't want to look bad because it

doesn't want to look bad because it isn't actually disconnected from

isn't actually disconnected from society. Universities more so than ever

society. Universities more so than ever have to be concerned about their public

have to be concerned about their public image. They want to attract funding.

image. They want to attract funding. They want to attract the best staff.

They want to attract the best staff. They want to attract the best students.

They want to attract the best students. Sometimes wealthy foreign students,

Sometimes wealthy foreign students, maybe from places they don't want the

maybe from places they don't want the white American students making fun of.

white American students making fun of. For a variety of financial reasons,

For a variety of financial reasons, their reputation is very important, and

their reputation is very important, and it's never been easier for a random

it's never been easier for a random member of the student body to do

member of the student body to do something that harms that reputation.

something that harms that reputation. The Yale admin sent that email not to

The Yale admin sent that email not to crack down on freedom of expression or

crack down on freedom of expression or stifle free speech. They sent it because

stifle free speech. They sent it because they don't want to be fielding questions

they don't want to be fielding questions from journalists asking why there are

from journalists asking why there are students walking around on campus

students walking around on campus dressed as racial caricatures. They

dressed as racial caricatures. They don't want controversial press coverage.

don't want controversial press coverage. But that's too complicated for you two

But that's too complicated for you two to understand clearly because you went

to understand clearly because you went and became the controversial news story

and became the controversial news story yourselves. And yes, subsequently the

yourselves. And yes, subsequently the university was hesitant to defend you

university was hesitant to defend you against criticisms you were receiving.

against criticisms you were receiving. But that's got nothing to do with

But that's got nothing to do with freedom of expression or your ideas

freedom of expression or your ideas about freedom of speech. It's that the

about freedom of speech. It's that the university exists in a socioeconomic

university exists in a socioeconomic reality where they have to weigh the

reality where they have to weigh the benefits of supporting you two clowns

benefits of supporting you two clowns against the inevitable reputational hit

against the inevitable reputational hit they would take from putting out a

they would take from putting out a statement in defense of the blackface

statement in defense of the blackface professors. because ultimately that is

professors. because ultimately that is what the conversation was about. Really,

what the conversation was about. Really, I think the problem is that the

I think the problem is that the Christristases went off halfcocked here.

Christristases went off halfcocked here. They picked entirely the wrong time and

They picked entirely the wrong time and situation to try to make the point they

situation to try to make the point they wanted to make. They acted like the

wanted to make. They acted like the university email was some sort of

university email was some sort of dictatorial decree when it wasn't. It

dictatorial decree when it wasn't. It was just a polite advisory note. They

was just a polite advisory note. They acted like the email was solely

acted like the email was solely concerned with potential cultural

concerned with potential cultural appropriation and not outright racist

appropriation and not outright racist caricaturures like blackface. and they

caricaturures like blackface. and they did this apparently ignorant of Yale's

did this apparently ignorant of Yale's problems with racism and black face on

problems with racism and black face on campus in the past. Before we move on, I

campus in the past. Before we move on, I want to make a note of the various

want to make a note of the various arguments in favor of defending free

arguments in favor of defending free speech that we've seen in this chapter,

speech that we've seen in this chapter, illtimed and ill applied though they

illtimed and ill applied though they were. There should be no censorship of

were. There should be no censorship of ideas on campus. Freedom of expression

ideas on campus. Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society.

is the cornerstone of a free society. You can't have people going around

You can't have people going around worried they're going to get fired or

worried they're going to get fired or cancel cultured just for speaking an

cancel cultured just for speaking an opinion. And to quote Nicholas

opinion. And to quote Nicholas Kristakis, I think all of us together

Kristakis, I think all of us together need to work to create a culture of open

need to work to create a culture of open discourse, certainly within our

discourse, certainly within our universities and hopefully in the

universities and hopefully in the broader society. So keeping all of those

broader society. So keeping all of those pro- free speech arguments in mind, I

pro- free speech arguments in mind, I want to move on and talk about another

want to move on and talk about another essay from the same section of the book

essay from the same section of the book as Nicholas Kristakis'. His essay is

as Nicholas Kristakis'. His essay is found in section one, free speech,

found in section one, free speech, victimhood, and ideology. And the other

victimhood, and ideology. And the other essay I want to talk about in this

essay I want to talk about in this section is the two universities redux by

section is the two universities redux by Abigail Thompson. So this essay starts

Abigail Thompson. So this essay starts out by declaring that two universities

out by declaring that two universities coexist on campuses across America.

coexist on campuses across America. These two universities are knowledge.

These two universities are knowledge. These are the good guys. They're clever.

These are the good guys. They're clever. They're apolitical. They do science and

They're apolitical. They do science and maths and that. The other university is

maths and that. The other university is Dogma U. And these are the baddies.

Dogma U. And these are the baddies. They're political. They do activism and

They're political. They do activism and they have the red laser swords. Thompson

they have the red laser swords. Thompson then goes on to apply this childish

then goes on to apply this childish sorting hat morality to actual realworld

sorting hat morality to actual realworld events. Something which comes across as

events. Something which comes across as very crass, I must say. For example, the

very crass, I must say. For example, the reaction on campus to the Hamas massacre

reaction on campus to the Hamas massacre of October 7th, 2023 revealed the depth

of October 7th, 2023 revealed the depth of the dogma corruption. Yes, this is a

of the dogma corruption. Yes, this is a complaining about anti-Zionism on campus

complaining about anti-Zionism on campus essay. And we know the routine here,

essay. And we know the routine here, don't we? Claiming that there's rampant

don't we? Claiming that there's rampant anti-semitism, but then citing examples

anti-semitism, but then citing examples of anti-zionism.

of anti-zionism. Ironically, this conflation of Judaism

Ironically, this conflation of Judaism with a genocidal state is itself

with a genocidal state is itself extremely anti-semitic. The one actual

extremely anti-semitic. The one actual example of anti-semitism offered here is

example of anti-semitism offered here is a December 2023 Harvard Harris poll. And

a December 2023 Harvard Harris poll. And I quote, and then we get to frank

I quote, and then we get to frank anti-semitism.

anti-semitism. 67% of 18 to 24 year olds think that

67% of 18 to 24 year olds think that Jews as a class are oppressors and

Jews as a class are oppressors and should be treated as oppressors. Now,

should be treated as oppressors. Now, let me start here by saying that

let me start here by saying that anti-semitism is obviously wrong and

anti-semitism is obviously wrong and awful and should be treated very

awful and should be treated very seriously. And any rise in anti-semitism

seriously. And any rise in anti-semitism either on university campuses or in a

either on university campuses or in a particular age group should also be

particular age group should also be treated very seriously. That said, this

treated very seriously. That said, this survey does not show that. This survey

survey does not show that. This survey has several glaring design flaws which

has several glaring design flaws which unfortunately or fortunately in this

unfortunately or fortunately in this case I suppose mean we cannot take its

case I suppose mean we cannot take its results seriously. For example, if we

results seriously. For example, if we read the other questions in the survey,

read the other questions in the survey, we see some extremely confusing results.

we see some extremely confusing results. Of that 18 to 24 year old age group, a

Of that 18 to 24 year old age group, a majority believe that Israel is

majority believe that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza and a

committing genocide in Gaza and a majority believe that Israel is trying

majority believe that Israel is trying to avoid civilian casualties in Gaza. A

to avoid civilian casualties in Gaza. A majority believe that Hamas should be

majority believe that Hamas should be removed from power in Gaza, but a

removed from power in Gaza, but a majority also believe that Israel should

majority also believe that Israel should be surrendered to Hamas. And a majority

be surrendered to Hamas. And a majority also believe Israel has a right to exist

also believe Israel has a right to exist as the homeland of the Jewish people.

as the homeland of the Jewish people. That's an interesting crossover of

That's an interesting crossover of opinions there, isn't it? I haven't met

opinions there, isn't it? I haven't met anyone who thinks all those things

anyone who thinks all those things before. Hamas should lose power in Gaza,

before. Hamas should lose power in Gaza, take over Israel, and then run it as a

take over Israel, and then run it as a Jewish state. That would be a very

Jewish state. That would be a very bizarre sequence of events. So where are

bizarre sequence of events. So where are these confusing results coming from?

these confusing results coming from? Well, firstly, this questionnaire is

Well, firstly, this questionnaire is flawed because there is no way to

flawed because there is no way to express ignorance. If you're not

express ignorance. If you're not interested in politics or current

interested in politics or current events, you are frankly in no position

events, you are frankly in no position to offer an opinion on whether, for

to offer an opinion on whether, for instance, Hamas is acting alone or with

instance, Hamas is acting alone or with the support of Iran because you don't

the support of Iran because you don't have a clue either way, do you? But

have a clue either way, do you? But since there's no option to say I do not

since there's no option to say I do not know, the data is being muddied by all

know, the data is being muddied by all the people who are just clicking at

the people who are just clicking at random on one of the only two available

random on one of the only two available options. So they can get to the end of

options. So they can get to the end of the questionnaire and be given a gift

the questionnaire and be given a gift card or whatever. The question itself is

card or whatever. The question itself is also flawed. It asks about multiple

also flawed. It asks about multiple different things at the same time. It

different things at the same time. It talks about Jews as a class, which is an

talks about Jews as a class, which is an odd concept. It contains words like

odd concept. It contains words like oppressors and ideology which are going

oppressors and ideology which are going to be confusing to people who don't know

to be confusing to people who don't know much about politics but of course

much about politics but of course they're still forced to pick one of the

they're still forced to pick one of the only two available options. So again,

only two available options. So again, not that anti-semitism is not a problem

not that anti-semitism is not a problem because it is. But the extreme and

because it is. But the extreme and bizarre results reported by this survey

bizarre results reported by this survey are thankfully nonsense. Even though

are thankfully nonsense. Even though they are nonsense though, I want to talk

they are nonsense though, I want to talk about how Thompson uses them. She says

about how Thompson uses them. She says that quote one might think these

that quote one might think these appalling results represent a failure of

appalling results represent a failure of higher education. In fact, they

higher education. In fact, they represent dogma youu succeeding as

represent dogma youu succeeding as knowledge u retreats. Now even if the

knowledge u retreats. Now even if the survey results were accurate, why on

survey results were accurate, why on earth would you draw this conclusion?

earth would you draw this conclusion? This survey wasn't conducted on college

This survey wasn't conducted on college campuses. It was a general poll of

campuses. It was a general poll of registered voters. Why would a rise in

registered voters. Why would a rise in anti-semitism in society necessarily

anti-semitism in society necessarily have to be occurring because of the

have to be occurring because of the actions of some progressive lefty

actions of some progressive lefty college professors? What about potential

college professors? What about potential anti-semitism originating from elsewhere

anti-semitism originating from elsewhere in society or elsewhere on the political

in society or elsewhere on the political spectrum? Now, I'd need to check my

spectrum? Now, I'd need to check my history books, but I'm fairly sure I

history books, but I'm fairly sure I remember a few examples of right-wing

remember a few examples of right-wing anti-semitism. For example, in November

anti-semitism. For example, in November of 2023, just prior to that Harvard

of 2023, just prior to that Harvard Harris poll being published, Elon Musk,

Harris poll being published, Elon Musk, shown here doing a Hitler salute,

shown here doing a Hitler salute, responded, "You have said the actual

responded, "You have said the actual truth to an account which stated that

truth to an account which stated that Jewish communities push hatred against

Jewish communities push hatred against white people." Sorry, that's Jewish

white people." Sorry, that's Jewish communant push hatred against white

communant push hatred against white people. Elon Musk is a billionaire and

people. Elon Musk is a billionaire and the owner of one of the world's largest

the owner of one of the world's largest communication platforms, and he

communication platforms, and he regularly shares bigoted, racist,

regularly shares bigoted, racist, anti-semitic ideas. I'm not sure why

anti-semitic ideas. I'm not sure why we'd be ascribing any potential rise in

we'd be ascribing any potential rise in anti-semitism to college campus protests

anti-semitism to college campus protests and not people on the right like Elon

and not people on the right like Elon Musk and his supporters. Anyway, Abigail

Musk and his supporters. Anyway, Abigail Thompson is sick of all these dogma

Thompson is sick of all these dogma faculty and students saying things that

faculty and students saying things that she dislikes. So what is her proposed

she dislikes. So what is her proposed solution? Can anything be done? The

solution? Can anything be done? The first step is for members and advocates

first step is for members and advocates of knowledge you to acknowledge that

of knowledge you to acknowledge that there is a significant problem currently

there is a significant problem currently being manifested as virulent virolent

being manifested as virulent virolent anti-semitism. The next is to understand

anti-semitism. The next is to understand that the problem is systemic. Too many

that the problem is systemic. Too many activists pretending to be scholars are

activists pretending to be scholars are tenured and too great a proportion of

tenured and too great a proportion of the administration views their role as

the administration views their role as supporting them. Changing this

supporting them. Changing this trajectory of decline is a daunting

trajectory of decline is a daunting task. We must dismantle DEI

task. We must dismantle DEI bureaucracies, eliminate or reform

bureaucracies, eliminate or reform politicized departments, significantly

politicized departments, significantly reduce the size of university

reduce the size of university administrations, and vigorously defend

administrations, and vigorously defend free speech and academic freedom all

free speech and academic freedom all simultaneously. We need to point out

simultaneously. We need to point out clearly that departments focused on

clearly that departments focused on social justice activism are not

social justice activism are not legitimate participants in academia

legitimate participants in academia anymore than departments of astrology,

anymore than departments of astrology, witchcraft, or homeopathy. Now then,

witchcraft, or homeopathy. Now then, you've probably already seen the problem

you've probably already seen the problem here, right? We need to defend free

here, right? We need to defend free speech and academic freedom while firing

speech and academic freedom while firing people and eliminating entire

people and eliminating entire departments for saying things that we

departments for saying things that we don't like. Thompson calls this a

don't like. Thompson calls this a daunting task, as if it's just difficult

daunting task, as if it's just difficult to do instead of something that's

to do instead of something that's fundamentally contradictory. This essay

fundamentally contradictory. This essay is hypocritical in the exact same way

is hypocritical in the exact same way that many supposed free speech advocates

that many supposed free speech advocates are hypocritical, which is when they say

are hypocritical, which is when they say free speech, they mean what they

free speech, they mean what they consider free speech, and anything else

consider free speech, and anything else gets classified differently. Of course,

gets classified differently. Of course, I support academic freedom, but those

I support academic freedom, but those departments I subjectively consider to

departments I subjectively consider to be politicized are not legitimate

be politicized are not legitimate participants in academia, so they should

participants in academia, so they should be eliminated. That sort of thing. Now,

be eliminated. That sort of thing. Now, while this essay is hypocritical all by

while this essay is hypocritical all by itself, it is a very strange inclusion

itself, it is a very strange inclusion in the war on science, especially placed

in the war on science, especially placed in the same section of the book as the

in the same section of the book as the essay we just talked about concerning

essay we just talked about concerning blackface. In that case, the advice for

blackface. In that case, the advice for people who saw things that offended them

people who saw things that offended them on campus was just look away. It's just

on campus was just look away. It's just freedom of expression. Why is that

freedom of expression. Why is that advice not applied here? If you see

advice not applied here? If you see campus protesters call Israel a colonial

campus protesters call Israel a colonial state or criticize the IDF or say that

state or criticize the IDF or say that Zionism is bad and any of that offends

Zionism is bad and any of that offends you, just ignore it, right? It's their

you, just ignore it, right? It's their freedom of expression surely. But no,

freedom of expression surely. But no, here whole departments have to be

here whole departments have to be dismantled. Now, this is a double

dismantled. Now, this is a double standard so obvious that I don't think I

standard so obvious that I don't think I need to keep going on about it really.

need to keep going on about it really. I'll just say that it makes it very

I'll just say that it makes it very obvious that it's not really about free

obvious that it's not really about free speech. It's not really about being

speech. It's not really about being apolitical. It's about supporting the

apolitical. It's about supporting the speech they like and the politics they

speech they like and the politics they like and suppressing the kinds they

like and suppressing the kinds they don't. I'd like to move on now and talk

don't. I'd like to move on now and talk about Amy Wax. Amy Wax is a law

about Amy Wax. Amy Wax is a law professor at the University of

professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and she writes

Pennsylvania Law School and she writes the essay DEI in science and medicine

the essay DEI in science and medicine missing metrics and measures and she

missing metrics and measures and she writes that alongside her husband Roger

writes that alongside her husband Roger Cohen. And I have one or two things I'd

Cohen. And I have one or two things I'd like to say about Amy Wax. Firstly

like to say about Amy Wax. Firstly though, I'm going to take a while to

though, I'm going to take a while to read selections of a letter sent in June

read selections of a letter sent in June of 2022 by the dean of Penn Law School,

of 2022 by the dean of Penn Law School, Theodore Ruger, to Vivien Gadston, the

Theodore Ruger, to Vivien Gadston, the chair of the faculty senate. Dear Viven,

chair of the faculty senate. Dear Viven, I write to ask that you, in your

I write to ask that you, in your capacity as chair of the faculty senate,

capacity as chair of the faculty senate, convene a hearing board to review

convene a hearing board to review whether Professor Amy Wax's conduct

whether Professor Amy Wax's conduct constitutes a major infraction of

constitutes a major infraction of university standards under the faculty

university standards under the faculty handbook. I am initiating this

handbook. I am initiating this disciplinary action because for several

disciplinary action because for several years and in multiple instances, WAX has

years and in multiple instances, WAX has shown a callous and flagrant disregard

shown a callous and flagrant disregard for our university community, including

for our university community, including students, faculty, and staff who have

students, faculty, and staff who have been repeatedly subjected to WAX's

been repeatedly subjected to WAX's intentional and incessant racist,

intentional and incessant racist, sexist, xenophobic, and homophobic

sexist, xenophobic, and homophobic actions and statements. Wax's conduct

actions and statements. Wax's conduct inflicts harm on them and the

inflicts harm on them and the institution and undermines the

institution and undermines the university's core values. Wax has made

university's core values. Wax has made these statements in the classroom and on

these statements in the classroom and on campus. in other academic settings and

campus. in other academic settings and in public forums in which she was

in public forums in which she was identified as a University of

identified as a University of Pennsylvania professor. Her statements

Pennsylvania professor. Her statements are antithetical to the university's

are antithetical to the university's mission to foster a diverse and

mission to foster a diverse and inclusive community and have led

inclusive community and have led students and faculty to reasonably

students and faculty to reasonably believe they will be subjected to

believe they will be subjected to discriminatory animus if they come into

discriminatory animus if they come into contact with her. That eminently

contact with her. That eminently reasonable concern has led students to

reasonable concern has led students to conclude that they cannot take Wax's

conclude that they cannot take Wax's classes and faculty to call her presence

classes and faculty to call her presence demoralizing and disruptive. Moreover,

demoralizing and disruptive. Moreover, in public discussions about law students

in public discussions about law students academic performance, Wax has

academic performance, Wax has disseminated false information about

disseminated false information about segments of the university community.

segments of the university community. She has exploited access to students

She has exploited access to students confidential grade information and

confidential grade information and mischaracterized law school policies in

mischaracterized law school policies in extensible support of derogatory and

extensible support of derogatory and inaccurate statements made about the

inaccurate statements made about the characteristics, attitudes, and

characteristics, attitudes, and abilities of her students. Examples of

abilities of her students. Examples of Wax's discriminatory conduct on campus

Wax's discriminatory conduct on campus include, but are not limited to, telling

include, but are not limited to, telling black student Ayana Lewis, who asked

black student Ayana Lewis, who asked whether Wax agreed with panelist John

whether Wax agreed with panelist John Darbish's statements that black people

Darbish's statements that black people are inherently inferior to white people,

are inherently inferior to white people, that you can have two plants that grow

that you can have two plants that grow under the same conditions and one will

under the same conditions and one will just grow higher than the other. As an

just grow higher than the other. As an aside here, this is a misunderstanding

aside here, this is a misunderstanding of a fourth experiment by biologist

of a fourth experiment by biologist Richard Lewanton that I talked about in

Richard Lewanton that I talked about in the Bell Curve video, if you remember

the Bell Curve video, if you remember that. Telling black student Lauren Ogaro

that. Telling black student Lauren Ogaro Moore that she had only become a double

Moore that she had only become a double Ivy because of affirmative action.

Ivy because of affirmative action. Telling Jaime Gallon that black students

Telling Jaime Gallon that black students don't perform as well as white students

don't perform as well as white students because they are less wellprepared and

because they are less wellprepared and that they are less wellprepared because

that they are less wellprepared because of affirmative action. emailing Gregory

of affirmative action. emailing Gregory Bry, a black student, that if blacks

Bry, a black student, that if blacks really and sincerely wanted to be equal,

really and sincerely wanted to be equal, they would make a lot of changes in

they would make a lot of changes in their own conduct and communities,

their own conduct and communities, commenting in class that gay couples are

commenting in class that gay couples are not fit to raise children and making

not fit to raise children and making other references to LGBTQ people that a

other references to LGBTQ people that a student reported against a pattern of

student reported against a pattern of homophobia. In addition to the

homophobia. In addition to the statements Wax has made directly to

statements Wax has made directly to students or in class, her public

students or in class, her public commentary espousing derogatory and

commentary espousing derogatory and hateful stereotypes has led students to

hateful stereotypes has led students to reasonably conclude that she is unable

reasonably conclude that she is unable to evaluate them fairly based on their

to evaluate them fairly based on their individualized merit rather than on

individualized merit rather than on unmistakable biases she possesses

unmistakable biases she possesses related to race, sex, national origin,

related to race, sex, national origin, and socioeconomic class. Wax has

and socioeconomic class. Wax has repeatedly made public bigoted

repeatedly made public bigoted statements against women, black people,

statements against women, black people, Asian people, immigrants, and members of

Asian people, immigrants, and members of the LGBTQ community, including, but not

the LGBTQ community, including, but not limited to, stating that our country

limited to, stating that our country will be better off with more whites and

will be better off with more whites and fewer non-whites. Stating that some of

fewer non-whites. Stating that some of them shouldn't even go to college in

them shouldn't even go to college in reference to black students who attend

reference to black students who attend pen law and its peer schools. stating

pen law and its peer schools. stating that Asians have an indifference to

that Asians have an indifference to liberty, lack thoughtful and audacious

liberty, lack thoughtful and audacious individualism, and that the United

individualism, and that the United States is better off with fewer Asians

States is better off with fewer Asians and less Asian immigration, stating that

and less Asian immigration, stating that immigrants with brown faces, Asian

immigrants with brown faces, Asian faces, feel anger, envy, and shame, and

faces, feel anger, envy, and shame, and expressing her disbelief that they would

expressing her disbelief that they would criticize the United States when on some

criticize the United States when on some level their country is a hole.

level their country is a hole. stating that there were some very smart

stating that there were some very smart Jews among her past students, but that

Jews among her past students, but that Ashkenazi Jews are diluting their brand

Ashkenazi Jews are diluting their brand like crazy because they are intermaring,

like crazy because they are intermaring, stating that students at the law school

stating that students at the law school are cowed benited sheeples who are

are cowed benited sheeples who are ignorant and know nothing. Finally,

ignorant and know nothing. Finally, Wax's decision in 2021 to invite a

Wax's decision in 2021 to invite a renowned white supremacist, Jared

renowned white supremacist, Jared Taylor, to be the featured guest speaker

Taylor, to be the featured guest speaker in a regular meeting of her law school

in a regular meeting of her law school course and to have Taylor as her guest

course and to have Taylor as her guest at a lunch with her students who were

at a lunch with her students who were expected to attend crosses the line of

expected to attend crosses the line of what is acceptable in a university

what is acceptable in a university environment where principles of

environment where principles of non-discrimination apply. Although

non-discrimination apply. Although faculty members have broad discretion in

faculty members have broad discretion in their teaching and academic pursuits,

their teaching and academic pursuits, Taylor's explicit racism, hate speech,

Taylor's explicit racism, hate speech, and white supremacy contravenes the

and white supremacy contravenes the university's express policies and

university's express policies and mission. And his white supremacist

mission. And his white supremacist ideology has been associated closely

ideology has been associated closely with those perpetrating violence towards

with those perpetrating violence towards minorities in this country and others.

minorities in this country and others. To prepare for this class, Wax assigned

To prepare for this class, Wax assigned an interview with Enoch Powell, a man

an interview with Enoch Powell, a man who was ousted from his leadership role

who was ousted from his leadership role in the British Conservative Party over

in the British Conservative Party over 50 years ago for his inflammatory and

50 years ago for his inflammatory and racist public speeches, which today are

racist public speeches, which today are influential among violent white

influential among violent white supremacist groups and individuals

supremacist groups and individuals worldwide. Now then, where to start with

worldwide. Now then, where to start with all of that? Firstly, I'll say that I am

all of that? Firstly, I'll say that I am very happy that Amy Wax is included in

very happy that Amy Wax is included in the war on science because it makes my

the war on science because it makes my job a lot easier. Wax is such an

job a lot easier. Wax is such an obvious, open, and unapologetic racist

obvious, open, and unapologetic racist that her inclusion completely undermines

that her inclusion completely undermines the credibility of the entire project.

the credibility of the entire project. Krauss calls Wax part of a stellar group

Krauss calls Wax part of a stellar group of 39 distinguished scholars, but she's

of 39 distinguished scholars, but she's not. Obviously, she is a straightforward

not. Obviously, she is a straightforward far-right bigot. Every single complaint

far-right bigot. Every single complaint that the war on science aims at the

that the war on science aims at the left, everything to do with cancel

left, everything to do with cancel culture or affirmative action or

culture or affirmative action or language pleasing or whatever else, even

language pleasing or whatever else, even if we stretch to take all of that as

if we stretch to take all of that as seriously as we possibly can and view

seriously as we possibly can and view those arguments in the most favorable

those arguments in the most favorable possible light, all of it added together

possible light, all of it added together would pale in comparison to Wax's

would pale in comparison to Wax's explicit racism. It's very telling that

explicit racism. It's very telling that neither Krauss nor Wax actually mention

neither Krauss nor Wax actually mention any of the things that Wax is accused of

any of the things that Wax is accused of having done. Her essay is about

having done. Her essay is about something completely different. But Wax

something completely different. But Wax was suspended from teaching last year as

was suspended from teaching last year as a result of some of these horrible

a result of some of these horrible things she did, which means she was

things she did, which means she was cancelled, wasn't she? Why not include

cancelled, wasn't she? Why not include Wax as an example of a professor who was

Wax as an example of a professor who was viciously cancelled just for expressing

viciously cancelled just for expressing her opinions and exercising her free

her opinions and exercising her free speech? Well, it's because her opinions

speech? Well, it's because her opinions are completely toxic and indefensible.

are completely toxic and indefensible. Of course, if the list of things she's

Of course, if the list of things she's accused of having said and done is even

accused of having said and done is even half accurate, Amy Wax is just a white

half accurate, Amy Wax is just a white supremacist who's invited another

supremacist who's invited another prominent white supremacist to the

prominent white supremacist to the school. In his introduction, Lawrence

school. In his introduction, Lawrence Krauss, if you remember, questions the

Krauss, if you remember, questions the existence of racism in academic

existence of racism in academic institutions. Why do we need all these

institutions. Why do we need all these anti-racist measures when it's not even

anti-racist measures when it's not even been proven that there is racism to

been proven that there is racism to counter? You can't make that argument

counter? You can't make that argument and then bemoone Amy Wax being

and then bemoone Amy Wax being criticized for saying the United States

criticized for saying the United States needs fewer Asians or whatever. So, she

needs fewer Asians or whatever. So, she just gets to write an essay complaining

just gets to write an essay complaining about diversity programs. Crouch tried

about diversity programs. Crouch tried to sneak her in under the radar there.

to sneak her in under the radar there. Now, I'm not going to bother relaying

Now, I'm not going to bother relaying and responding to Amy Wax's essay here.

and responding to Amy Wax's essay here. She doesn't like diversity and inclusion

She doesn't like diversity and inclusion efforts, but we already know why, right?

efforts, but we already know why, right? I think this one speaks for itself. I

I think this one speaks for itself. I want to move on now and talk about a

want to move on now and talk about a particular type of racism that runs

particular type of racism that runs throughout the book. At the start of

throughout the book. At the start of this section, I imagined a canceled

this section, I imagined a canceled scientist or science communicator

scientist or science communicator drifting to the right and finding common

drifting to the right and finding common cause with race scientists and

cause with race scientists and eugenicists. And I think an additional

eugenicists. And I think an additional thing to consider is that it's easy to

thing to consider is that it's easy to imagine an incentive for certain

imagine an incentive for certain rightwards drifting science

rightwards drifting science communicators to perhaps ease up on the

communicators to perhaps ease up on the criticisms of Christianity and Christian

criticisms of Christianity and Christian creationism. A large part of the

creationism. A large part of the right-wing in the United States, for

right-wing in the United States, for instance, is Christian. And if you want

instance, is Christian. And if you want friends on the right, if you want an

friends on the right, if you want an audience on the right, you can't be

audience on the right, you can't be bashing Christianity all the time. But

bashing Christianity all the time. But if that's the case, what are you

if that's the case, what are you supposed to do with all of your

supposed to do with all of your anti-religious, anti-creationist

anti-religious, anti-creationist material you've acred over the years?

material you've acred over the years? That's your whole routine. Well, don't

That's your whole routine. Well, don't throw it away just yet, because with a

throw it away just yet, because with a little tweaking, we can simply find a

little tweaking, we can simply find a new, more acceptable target for it.

new, more acceptable target for it. Let's talk about the anti-indigenous

Let's talk about the anti-indigenous racism in the book. And the breadth and

racism in the book. And the breadth and consistency of this one really surprised

consistency of this one really surprised me. Lawrence Krauss talks about

me. Lawrence Krauss talks about indigenous issues in his introduction,

indigenous issues in his introduction, of course, but multiple other authors do

of course, but multiple other authors do too. At least 10 essays in here either

too. At least 10 essays in here either mention or are wholly about indigenous

mention or are wholly about indigenous issues. So to start off here, we'll talk

issues. So to start off here, we'll talk about an incident that Lawrence Krauss

about an incident that Lawrence Krauss describes in his introduction. He says

describes in his introduction. He says the effort to put indigenous science on

the effort to put indigenous science on the same par as western science in

the same par as western science in schools achieved its most significant

schools achieved its most significant advance in New Zealand in 2021. In that

advance in New Zealand in 2021. In that year, the Ministry of Education

year, the Ministry of Education implemented a policy that Mauy ways of

implemented a policy that Mauy ways of knowing would have equal standing with

knowing would have equal standing with western science in science classes. Two

western science in science classes. Two members of a group of scientists who

members of a group of scientists who publicly questioned the scientific

publicly questioned the scientific rationale for this policy were

rationale for this policy were investigated for removal by the Royal

investigated for removal by the Royal Society of New Zealand and two members

Society of New Zealand and two members were removed from teaching evolution

were removed from teaching evolution classes at the University of Oakland.

classes at the University of Oakland. What Krauss is describing here is the

What Krauss is describing here is the listener letter on science controversy

listener letter on science controversy and I want to talk about that now

and I want to talk about that now because something about it kind of blows

because something about it kind of blows my mind. This one is a little hard to

my mind. This one is a little hard to explain, but I think the instigating

explain, but I think the instigating event here might be fake. See if you can

event here might be fake. See if you can follow along with this. So, we'll start

follow along with this. So, we'll start by reading the listener letter published

by reading the listener letter published in July of 2021 in the New Zealand

in July of 2021 in the New Zealand Listener, which is a weekly current

Listener, which is a weekly current events magazine. It says a recent report

events magazine. It says a recent report from a government NCEA working group on

from a government NCEA working group on proposed changes to the Mauy school

proposed changes to the Mauy school curriculum aims to ensure par for

curriculum aims to ensure par for Mataranga Maui with the other bodies of

Mataranga Maui with the other bodies of knowledge credentialed by NCAA.

knowledge credentialed by NCAA. Mataranga Maui is the traditional

Mataranga Maui is the traditional knowledge system of the Mauy people for

knowledge system of the Mauy people for anyone who didn't know. It includes the

anyone who didn't know. It includes the following description as part of a new

following description as part of a new course. It promotes discussion and

course. It promotes discussion and analysis of the ways in which science

analysis of the ways in which science has been used to support the dominance

has been used to support the dominance of euroentric views among which its use

of euroentric views among which its use as a rationale for colonization of Maui

as a rationale for colonization of Maui and the suppression of Maui knowledge

and the suppression of Maui knowledge and the notion that science is a western

and the notion that science is a western European invention and itself evidence

European invention and itself evidence of European dominance over Maui and

of European dominance over Maui and other indigenous peoples. This

other indigenous peoples. This perpetuates disturbing misunderstandings

perpetuates disturbing misunderstandings of science emerging at all levels of

of science emerging at all levels of education and in science funding. These

education and in science funding. These encourage mistrust of science. Science

encourage mistrust of science. Science is universal, not especially western

is universal, not especially western European. It has origins in ancient

European. It has origins in ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, ancient Greece, and

Egypt, Mesopotamia, ancient Greece, and later India with significant

later India with significant contributions in mathematics, astronomy,

contributions in mathematics, astronomy, and physics from medieval Islam before

and physics from medieval Islam before developing in Europe and later the US

developing in Europe and later the US with a strong presence across Asia.

with a strong presence across Asia. Science itself does not colonize. It has

Science itself does not colonize. It has been used to aid colonization as have

been used to aid colonization as have literature and art. However, science

literature and art. However, science also provides immense good as well as

also provides immense good as well as greatly enhanced understanding of the

greatly enhanced understanding of the world. Science is helping us battle well

world. Science is helping us battle well by crises such as COVID, global warming,

by crises such as COVID, global warming, carbon pollution, biodiversity loss, and

carbon pollution, biodiversity loss, and environmental degradation. Such science

environmental degradation. Such science is informed by the united efforts of

is informed by the united efforts of many nations and cultures. We

many nations and cultures. We increasingly depend on science, perhaps

increasingly depend on science, perhaps for our very survival. The future of our

for our very survival. The future of our world and our species cannot afford

world and our species cannot afford mistrust of science. Indigenous

mistrust of science. Indigenous knowledge is critical for the

knowledge is critical for the preservation and perpetuation of culture

preservation and perpetuation of culture and local practices and plays key roles

and local practices and plays key roles in management and policy. However, in

in management and policy. However, in the discovery of empirical universal

the discovery of empirical universal truths, it falls far short of what we

truths, it falls far short of what we can define as science itself. To accept

can define as science itself. To accept it as the equivalent of science is to

it as the equivalent of science is to patronize and fail indigenous

patronize and fail indigenous populations, better to ensure that

populations, better to ensure that everyone participates in the world's

everyone participates in the world's scientific enterprises. indigenous

scientific enterprises. indigenous knowledge may indeed help advance

knowledge may indeed help advance scientific knowledge in some ways, but

scientific knowledge in some ways, but it is not science. And then it's signed

it is not science. And then it's signed by a bunch of professors. So this letter

by a bunch of professors. So this letter is responding to a report from a

is responding to a report from a government NCEA working group. NCEA here

government NCEA working group. NCEA here meaning national certificate of

meaning national certificate of educational achievement, which is a

educational achievement, which is a secondary school academic qualification

secondary school academic qualification in New Zealand. and they include a quote

in New Zealand. and they include a quote from the report that they are responding

from the report that they are responding to which they say is the description of

to which they say is the description of a new course but I don't think it

a new course but I don't think it actually is. Let's just go and look at

actually is. Let's just go and look at this report and here it is. And the

this report and here it is. And the supposedly offending passage says

supposedly offending passage says philosophy and history of science is a

philosophy and history of science is a unique strand in Putaya. That's the Maui

unique strand in Putaya. That's the Maui term for science there with no

term for science there with no equivalent in NZC. It promotes

equivalent in NZC. It promotes discussion and analysis of the ways in

discussion and analysis of the ways in which science has been used to support

which science has been used to support the dominance of euroentric views among

the dominance of euroentric views among which its use as a rationale for

which its use as a rationale for colonization of Maui and the suppression

colonization of Maui and the suppression of Maui knowledge and the notion that

of Maui knowledge and the notion that science is a western European invention

science is a western European invention and itself evidence of European

and itself evidence of European dominance over Maui and other indigenous

dominance over Maui and other indigenous peoples. So first things first here the

peoples. So first things first here the listener letter calls this course new,

listener letter calls this course new, but I can't find anything in the report

but I can't find anything in the report to say that this course is new. This

to say that this course is new. This quote is from a section of the report

quote is from a section of the report describing existing courses. Secondly,

describing existing courses. Secondly, the course is history and philosophy of

the course is history and philosophy of science. Something which is suspiciously

science. Something which is suspiciously not mentioned in the listener letter.

not mentioned in the listener letter. Because of course, philosophy and

Because of course, philosophy and history of science is a very appropriate

history of science is a very appropriate context to learn about the times in

context to learn about the times in history when people have tried to use

history when people have tried to use scientific justifications to do morally

scientific justifications to do morally questionable or outright evil things.

questionable or outright evil things. But that's just the beginning. The real

But that's just the beginning. The real problem here is that this quote doesn't

problem here is that this quote doesn't say what the listener letter thinks it

say what the listener letter thinks it does. The listener letter says in

does. The listener letter says in response to this quote, "Science is

response to this quote, "Science is universal, not especially Western

universal, not especially Western European." So, we can infer from that

European." So, we can infer from that that they think that this report says

that they think that this report says that the class teaches that science is a

that the class teaches that science is a Western European invention. But the

Western European invention. But the report does not say that. I'm going to

report does not say that. I'm going to have to bust out the colors to explain

have to bust out the colors to explain what happened here. Right. This quote

what happened here. Right. This quote says, "The class promotes discussion and

says, "The class promotes discussion and analysis of one, the ways in which

analysis of one, the ways in which science has been used to support the

science has been used to support the dominance of euroentric views, and two,

dominance of euroentric views, and two, the class promotes discussion and

the class promotes discussion and analysis of the notion that science is a

analysis of the notion that science is a western European invention and itself

western European invention and itself evidence of European dominance over Maui

evidence of European dominance over Maui and other indigenous peoples. So the

and other indigenous peoples. So the class promotes discussion and analysis

class promotes discussion and analysis of the notion that science is a western

of the notion that science is a western European invention. But the people who

European invention. But the people who wrote the listener letter misread this

wrote the listener letter misread this quote in the following way. They thought

quote in the following way. They thought it said the class promotes one the

it said the class promotes one the discussion and analysis of the ways in

discussion and analysis of the ways in which science has been used to support

which science has been used to support the dominance of euroentric views. And

the dominance of euroentric views. And two the class promotes the notion that

two the class promotes the notion that science is a western European invention.

science is a western European invention. They just didn't read it correctly. And

They just didn't read it correctly. And then they wrote this letter saying that

then they wrote this letter saying that science is not an exclusively Western

science is not an exclusively Western European invention and cited a bunch of

European invention and cited a bunch of examples in response to a point which

examples in response to a point which was never actually made. The point of

was never actually made. The point of the course is to question the idea that

the course is to question the idea that science is an exclusively Western

science is an exclusively Western European invention. Like they agree with

European invention. Like they agree with you. You are on the same side here. But

you. You are on the same side here. But because the authors of the listener

because the authors of the listener letter decided to sign off their very

letter decided to sign off their very public correspondence with such a

public correspondence with such a forceful and inflammatory denial that

forceful and inflammatory denial that any indigenous knowledge ever counts as

any indigenous knowledge ever counts as science. Their response became the

science. Their response became the story. And then came the response to

story. And then came the response to that response and the response to that

that response and the response to that response. And there was an investigation

response. And there was an investigation and people lost their jobs and there

and people lost their jobs and there were a bunch of news articles and

were a bunch of news articles and Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coin chimed

Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coin chimed in. and seemingly nobody at any point

in. and seemingly nobody at any point went back and just read the initial

went back and just read the initial report to discover that it didn't even

report to discover that it didn't even say the thing that everyone was arguing

say the thing that everyone was arguing about. You can see why this one winds me

about. You can see why this one winds me upright. It is a whole controversy built

upright. It is a whole controversy built on the inability of some scientists to

on the inability of some scientists to pass a sentence. Why do we need the

pass a sentence. Why do we need the humanities? Because somebody has to

humanities? Because somebody has to teach the scientists how to read. And

teach the scientists how to read. And they said I'd never use my English

they said I'd never use my English degree. Anyway, let's move on and talk

degree. Anyway, let's move on and talk about another chapter. This one by

about another chapter. This one by Francis Widowen. Lawrence Krauss

Francis Widowen. Lawrence Krauss introduces Francis Widowen in the

introduces Francis Widowen in the following way. In 2019, Francis Widowen,

following way. In 2019, Francis Widowen, then a professor at Mount Royal

then a professor at Mount Royal University in Alberta, attended a

University in Alberta, attended a lecture by Dr. Gregory Cahete, a

lecture by Dr. Gregory Cahete, a professor of Native American studies and

professor of Native American studies and education at the University of New

education at the University of New Mexico. In this talk, Cahete was

Mexico. In this talk, Cahete was discussing indigenous star knowledge and

discussing indigenous star knowledge and its importance for educational

its importance for educational institutions. Widowen asked about the

institutions. Widowen asked about the relevance of this for introductory

relevance of this for introductory astronomy classes. In October 2020, this

astronomy classes. In October 2020, this became the subject of a harassment

became the subject of a harassment complaint. Now, I'm sure it won't come

complaint. Now, I'm sure it won't come as a surprise here that Lawrence Krauss

as a surprise here that Lawrence Krauss is presenting an inaccurate and biased

is presenting an inaccurate and biased version of this event, which is in part

version of this event, which is in part because he has copypasted this

because he has copypasted this description of what happened from an

description of what happened from an article written by Francis Widowen. I

article written by Francis Widowen. I doubt Lawrence Krauss himself actually

doubt Lawrence Krauss himself actually has a clue what happened here. So very

has a clue what happened here. So very quick, a professor of Native American

quick, a professor of Native American studies gave a talk about indigenous

studies gave a talk about indigenous astronomy and understanding of the

astronomy and understanding of the stars. Now I personally think that's an

stars. Now I personally think that's an interesting subject. Different societies

interesting subject. Different societies had their own constellations with their

had their own constellations with their own meanings. There's interesting

own meanings. There's interesting petroglyphs where people carved

petroglyphs where people carved astronomical observations into rock

astronomical observations into rock faces. Cool subject, not necessarily a

faces. Cool subject, not necessarily a controversial subject, you might think.

controversial subject, you might think. Anyway, at the end of this talk, Francis

Anyway, at the end of this talk, Francis Widowen gets up and she says that since

Widowen gets up and she says that since these societies didn't have telescopes,

these societies didn't have telescopes, quote, I'm not sure how these stories

quote, I'm not sure how these stories would be able to contribute to the

would be able to contribute to the courses in the actual sciences. Now, I

courses in the actual sciences. Now, I don't want to spend too long on Widowen,

don't want to spend too long on Widowen, so I'll just say that at this point in

so I'll just say that at this point in time, she was a just asking questions

time, she was a just asking questions sort of racist. She would go around

sort of racist. She would go around wasting people's time with ignorant

wasting people's time with ignorant juvenile questions designed to insult.

juvenile questions designed to insult. So you go to a talk on the history of

So you go to a talk on the history of Native American astronomy and ask a

Native American astronomy and ask a question which has the subtext, this is

question which has the subtext, this is all pointless since we've got telescopes

all pointless since we've got telescopes now. It's embarrassing that she was

now. It's embarrassing that she was doing this. It's extra embarrassing that

doing this. It's extra embarrassing that she thought she was getting away with

she thought she was getting away with it, but everyone needs a hobby, I

it, but everyone needs a hobby, I suppose. Krauss details another incident

suppose. Krauss details another incident where Widowen was criticized for asking

where Widowen was criticized for asking a silly annoying question in a meeting

a silly annoying question in a meeting and then says Mr. listed the incident as

and then says Mr. listed the incident as one of the examples for why she should

one of the examples for why she should be fired. Your conduct at a meeting in

be fired. Your conduct at a meeting in the spring of 2021 was so disruptive

the spring of 2021 was so disruptive that it was a significant contributing

that it was a significant contributing factor to the development of new

factor to the development of new procedures at arts faculty council

procedures at arts faculty council meetings as well as the disabling of the

meetings as well as the disabling of the chat function during those meetings.

chat function during those meetings. Widowen was subsequently fired from her

Widowen was subsequently fired from her tenur position in December 2021. Now,

tenur position in December 2021. Now, all of this is one big lie by emission

all of this is one big lie by emission because annoying people by asking silly

because annoying people by asking silly questions in meetings is only one of the

questions in meetings is only one of the reasons that Widowen was fired. And

reasons that Widowen was fired. And since it's the most defensible one, it's

since it's the most defensible one, it's the only one that Krauss is going to

the only one that Krauss is going to tell you about. I will happily share the

tell you about. I will happily share the others, though. Widowen was also posting

others, though. Widowen was also posting the N-word on Twitter and posting

the N-word on Twitter and posting pictures with the N-word in them and

pictures with the N-word in them and continuing to post them and making

continuing to post them and making bizarre lists of people who liked tweets

bizarre lists of people who liked tweets criticizing her for saying the N-word

criticizing her for saying the N-word and whatever this is and so on. She's

and whatever this is and so on. She's clearly gone a little bit. She's gone.

clearly gone a little bit. She's gone. She's gone. Look, the COVID lockdown was

She's gone. Look, the COVID lockdown was a difficult time for a lot of people. I

a difficult time for a lot of people. I understand that. But she's making weird

understand that. But she's making weird lists of her colleagues and ranking them

lists of her colleagues and ranking them by oppression points and tagging the

by oppression points and tagging the president of the university. You can't

president of the university. You can't really be expecting me to be surprised

really be expecting me to be surprised that this person ends up fired, right?

that this person ends up fired, right? And she announced this list by writing a

And she announced this list by writing a letter to her colleagues that starts

letter to her colleagues that starts out, "Dear colleagues, last night,

out, "Dear colleagues, last night, George Orwell came to me in a dream."

George Orwell came to me in a dream." After seeing an open letter to Mount

After seeing an open letter to Mount Royal University and being visited by

Royal University and being visited by George Orwell, I recant my though

George Orwell, I recant my though crimes. Now, I can't give an actual

crimes. Now, I can't give an actual diagnosis here obviously, but Francis

diagnosis here obviously, but Francis Widowen appears to have lost her mind to

Widowen appears to have lost her mind to some degree. I worry that by showing you

some degree. I worry that by showing you all of this, you'll think something

all of this, you'll think something like, "Oh, this person clearly just has

like, "Oh, this person clearly just has undiagnosed schizophrenia or something

undiagnosed schizophrenia or something similar, and that's why she must be

similar, and that's why she must be acting so bigoted." Uh, but no, I want

acting so bigoted." Uh, but no, I want to point out that she was already

to point out that she was already bigoted before whatever all of this was.

bigoted before whatever all of this was. Reading her Twitter feed, I was struck

Reading her Twitter feed, I was struck by one post she made back in 2019 when

by one post she made back in 2019 when she defended the ideas of Ricardo

she defended the ideas of Ricardo Duchain, who is a racist. Now, he says

Duchain, who is a racist. Now, he says he's not a racist. He says he quote

he's not a racist. He says he quote questions the ideology of diversity

questions the ideology of diversity while advocating white identity

while advocating white identity politics. So he's a racist. He's written

politics. So he's a racist. He's written for the Nazi journal Mankind Quarterly

for the Nazi journal Mankind Quarterly if you need a concrete racist data point

if you need a concrete racist data point to latch on to there. In her Twitter

to latch on to there. In her Twitter post, Widowen shares a defense of

post, Widowen shares a defense of Duchain and his ideas, saying, quote,

Duchain and his ideas, saying, quote, "It is the right to be able to explore

"It is the right to be able to explore ideas at universities that is worth

ideas at universities that is worth defending." So when scientific racism

defending." So when scientific racism comes to campus, Widowen pipes up to

comes to campus, Widowen pipes up to defend the right to explore ideas at

defend the right to explore ideas at universities. But when, for instance,

universities. But when, for instance, the Canadian Association of University

the Canadian Association of University Teachers posts about supporting

Teachers posts about supporting decolonization, Widowen pipes up to say

decolonization, Widowen pipes up to say something very different. Indigenous

something very different. Indigenous knowledge is unscientific and undermines

knowledge is unscientific and undermines academic standards. Speaking of

academic standards. Speaking of standards, this is a double one.

standards, this is a double one. Obviously, racism is an idea worth

Obviously, racism is an idea worth exploring. Indigenous knowledge is

exploring. Indigenous knowledge is unscientific and undermines academic

unscientific and undermines academic standards. Now, to make an obvious point

standards. Now, to make an obvious point again here, imagine how all this looks

again here, imagine how all this looks for the university. Imagine you're

for the university. Imagine you're applying to go and study at this

applying to go and study at this university and you decide to Google it

university and you decide to Google it and you see one of your future

and you see one of your future professors posting slurs and conspiracy

professors posting slurs and conspiracy theories and bizarre racist nonsense all

theories and bizarre racist nonsense all over Twitter. It's an old point by now,

over Twitter. It's an old point by now, but she's obviously a liability for the

but she's obviously a liability for the institution, right? She is not a good

institution, right? She is not a good employee. Rouse is ignoring all of this

employee. Rouse is ignoring all of this and trying to make it look like Widowen

and trying to make it look like Widowen was fired just for bravely speaking

was fired just for bravely speaking truth to power by being annoying in

truth to power by being annoying in meetings or something. The only other

meetings or something. The only other thing I have to say about Widowen's

thing I have to say about Widowen's chapter is that she engages in genocide

chapter is that she engages in genocide denialism. talking about Canada's

denialism. talking about Canada's residential school system, she supports

residential school system, she supports a claim that the system did not count as

a claim that the system did not count as genocidal because quote attempts to

genocidal because quote attempts to assimilate are actually contrary to a

assimilate are actually contrary to a planned extermination. Now, there's

planned extermination. Now, there's multiple things wrong with this

multiple things wrong with this statement. Firstly, it considers the

statement. Firstly, it considers the residential schools in isolation and not

residential schools in isolation and not in the context of a wider oppression of

in the context of a wider oppression of indigenous peoples, but also because

indigenous peoples, but also because forced assimilation is a genocidal act.

forced assimilation is a genocidal act. This assimilation was not voluntary.

This assimilation was not voluntary. Attendance at these schools was

Attendance at these schools was compulsory. Children were forbidden from

compulsory. Children were forbidden from speaking their own languages or

speaking their own languages or practicing their own faiths. And they

practicing their own faiths. And they were often punished or physically abused

were often punished or physically abused for doing so. Some children were also

for doing so. Some children were also subjected unknowingly to medical

subjected unknowingly to medical experimentation. And some children were

experimentation. And some children were even intentionally starved to test the

even intentionally starved to test the effects of malnourishment. Any attempt

effects of malnourishment. Any attempt to pass this sort of system off as just

to pass this sort of system off as just regular social assimilation is

regular social assimilation is disgusting and horrible and anyone

disgusting and horrible and anyone trying it should be ashamed. Obviously,

trying it should be ashamed. Obviously, I want to move on now and talk about yet

I want to move on now and talk about yet another example of a time the book

another example of a time the book misrepresents what someone did to get

misrepresents what someone did to get themselves in trouble. The person I want

themselves in trouble. The person I want to talk about this time is Elizabeth

to talk about this time is Elizabeth Weiss, the author of the chapter Burying

Weiss, the author of the chapter Burying Science Under Indigenous Religion. But

Science Under Indigenous Religion. But Weiss also has a few mentions in the

Weiss also has a few mentions in the book before we get to her chapter.

book before we get to her chapter. Lawrence Krauss in his introduction

Lawrence Krauss in his introduction says, "In 2022, Weiss sued San Jose

says, "In 2022, Weiss sued San Jose State after being removed as curator of

State after being removed as curator of the university's collection of remains

the university's collection of remains and locked out of the research facility

and locked out of the research facility because she's opposed to the

because she's opposed to the repatriation of ancient bones based on

repatriation of ancient bones based on arguments from indigenous religious

arguments from indigenous religious creation myths instead of keeping them

creation myths instead of keeping them for scientific study." Jerry Coin also

for scientific study." Jerry Coin also covers this episode, describing it in

covers this episode, describing it in the following way. One victim of this

the following way. One victim of this undue respect for other ways of knowing

undue respect for other ways of knowing is physical anthropologist Elizabeth

is physical anthropologist Elizabeth Weiss. For simply studying 500 to

Weiss. For simply studying 500 to 3,000year-old bones from California,

3,000year-old bones from California, Weiss was demoted by her university and

Weiss was demoted by her university and banned from accessing her department's

banned from accessing her department's bone collection. She's not even allowed

bone collection. She's not even allowed to study X-rays of the remains or show a

to study X-rays of the remains or show a photograph of the boxes in which they

photograph of the boxes in which they are kept. Now, this account from Jerry

are kept. Now, this account from Jerry Coin here is especially slimy, and we'll

Coin here is especially slimy, and we'll see why in just a few minutes. So,

see why in just a few minutes. So, Weissa's chapter is about why she

Weissa's chapter is about why she opposes Nagpra. That's the Native

opposes Nagpra. That's the Native American Graves Protection and

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. So very quickly, back

Repatriation Act. So very quickly, back in the day, people would go around

in the day, people would go around looting various Native American burial

looting various Native American burial sites, and then they'd sell off the

sites, and then they'd sell off the artifacts and remains to museums,

artifacts and remains to museums, universities, private collectors, and so

universities, private collectors, and so on. And NAGPRA is basically the, hey,

on. And NAGPRA is basically the, hey, you have to give all of that back law.

you have to give all of that back law. It makes it an offense to traffic in

It makes it an offense to traffic in Native American human remains. If Native

Native American human remains. If Native American tribes or organizations ask for

American tribes or organizations ask for cultural items back from places that

cultural items back from places that have them, they have to be turned over,

have them, they have to be turned over, things like that. That's how it's

things like that. That's how it's supposed to work. Anyway, Elizabeth

supposed to work. Anyway, Elizabeth Weiss is an anthropologist who opposes

Weiss is an anthropologist who opposes this law because she allegedly views it

this law because she allegedly views it as burying history and preventing

as burying history and preventing scientific study. And she writes books

scientific study. And she writes books and articles and gives interviews

and articles and gives interviews saying, "Finders keepers. We've got the

saying, "Finders keepers. We've got the bones. We should get to keep the bones."

bones. We should get to keep the bones." She wrote, "Reying the past, the effects

She wrote, "Reying the past, the effects of repatriation and rearial on

of repatriation and rearial on scientific inquiry." In 2008, she wrote

scientific inquiry." In 2008, she wrote repatriation and erasing the past. In

repatriation and erasing the past. In 2020, and in 2024, she wrote On the War

2020, and in 2024, she wrote On the War Path: My Battles with Indians,

Path: My Battles with Indians, Pretendians, and Woke Warriors. You can

Pretendians, and Woke Warriors. You can track the descent into culture war

track the descent into culture war nonsense just by the titles there. Now,

nonsense just by the titles there. Now, if you read anything by Elizabeth Weiss,

if you read anything by Elizabeth Weiss, the main thing you will notice is a

the main thing you will notice is a consistent arrogance and condescension

consistent arrogance and condescension towards indigenous people and their

towards indigenous people and their cultures. This is most frequently and

cultures. This is most frequently and annoyingly expressed via sarcastic

annoyingly expressed via sarcastic quotation marks. Just in this essay, she

quotation marks. Just in this essay, she uses them for Native American knowledge,

uses them for Native American knowledge, which includes religious and spiritual

which includes religious and spiritual components. Native American expert

components. Native American expert opinion. When remains are buried, she

opinion. When remains are buried, she says funeral with quotes. At one point,

says funeral with quotes. At one point, she says tellingly, "Elder Gary Ochre."

she says tellingly, "Elder Gary Ochre." Now, why put them around the word elder?

Now, why put them around the word elder? What are you doubting there even? That

What are you doubting there even? That this person in particular is an elder

this person in particular is an elder that the role exists to begin with.

that the role exists to begin with. Weiss talks about Native American

Weiss talks about Native American culture as if it's a charade some people

culture as if it's a charade some people are putting on in order to be annoying

are putting on in order to be annoying and make her job more difficult. At no

and make her job more difficult. At no point do you get the sense that she

point do you get the sense that she thinks she is dealing with people who

thinks she is dealing with people who are her equals. Now, let me say that I

are her equals. Now, let me say that I do not believe that Elizabeth Weiss is a

do not believe that Elizabeth Weiss is a scientist who is genuinely motivated by

scientist who is genuinely motivated by concern for the effects the repatriation

concern for the effects the repatriation of human remains could have upon

of human remains could have upon scientific inquiry. I think that

scientific inquiry. I think that Elizabeth Weiss is a bigot who is

Elizabeth Weiss is a bigot who is motivated by racial hatred. Now, that's

motivated by racial hatred. Now, that's a very strong claim. So, let me say that

a very strong claim. So, let me say that I think that for four reasons. That's

I think that for four reasons. That's right. I've got a list. First up is a

right. I've got a list. First up is a particularly egregious double standard

particularly egregious double standard concerning museum exhibitions. Weiss

concerning museum exhibitions. Weiss says, "Changes that revolve around

says, "Changes that revolve around consultation on objects held in museums

consultation on objects held in museums have led to widespread closure of

have led to widespread closure of exhibits across the nation. Museums will

exhibits across the nation. Museums will reopen their exhibits after tribal

reopen their exhibits after tribal consultations, likely with far fewer

consultations, likely with far fewer objects to display and featuring Native

objects to display and featuring Native American narratives instead of factual

American narratives instead of factual scientific evidence. A good example of

scientific evidence. A good example of such an exhibit is the American Museum

such an exhibit is the American Museum of Natural History's Northwest Coast

of Natural History's Northwest Coast Hall. After 19 million spent in five

Hall. After 19 million spent in five years of work, the exhibit has fewer

years of work, the exhibit has fewer artifacts, promotes religious beliefs

artifacts, promotes religious beliefs such as warnings that some objects may

such as warnings that some objects may contain powers that can be harmful, and

contain powers that can be harmful, and descriptions of historical events that

descriptions of historical events that include supernatural encounters with

include supernatural encounters with Thunderbirds. Lawrence Krauss also gets

Thunderbirds. Lawrence Krauss also gets in on this talking point in his

in on this talking point in his introduction, saying, "Indigenous myths

introduction, saying, "Indigenous myths are also treated as if they're to be

are also treated as if they're to be respected as factual in places such as

respected as factual in places such as the American Museum of Natural History."

the American Museum of Natural History." In its Northwest Coast Hall, which

In its Northwest Coast Hall, which reopened in 2022, there is a case with

reopened in 2022, there is a case with the warning label. This display case

the warning label. This display case contains items used in the practices of

contains items used in the practices of traditional Tlingit doctor. Some people

traditional Tlingit doctor. Some people may wish to avoid this area as Tlingit

may wish to avoid this area as Tlingit tradition holds that such belongings

tradition holds that such belongings contain powerful spirits. Now I fear

contain powerful spirits. Now I fear that by giving an exact quote here,

that by giving an exact quote here, Lawrence Krauss has inadvertently blown

Lawrence Krauss has inadvertently blown up Elizabeth Weiss's point. She says,

up Elizabeth Weiss's point. She says, "Warnings that some objects may contain

"Warnings that some objects may contain powers that can be harmful." But

powers that can be harmful." But Lawrence Krauss includes the part of the

Lawrence Krauss includes the part of the description which makes it clear that

description which makes it clear that Slingut tradition holds that such

Slingut tradition holds that such belongings contain powerful spirits.

belongings contain powerful spirits. Now, that quote provides the context

Now, that quote provides the context that said spirits are part of the

that said spirits are part of the traditional beliefs of the society in

traditional beliefs of the society in question. The museum is not announcing

question. The museum is not announcing the discovery of supernatural spirits.

the discovery of supernatural spirits. Well, I say Lawrence Krauss included an

Well, I say Lawrence Krauss included an exact quote, but he actually inserted a

exact quote, but he actually inserted a typo in that. It's doctors plural on the

typo in that. It's doctors plural on the actual display case. I have a picture of

actual display case. I have a picture of that quote because I asked Big Joel to

that quote because I asked Big Joel to pop along to the museum and check out

pop along to the museum and check out the exhibit for me. There he is there

the exhibit for me. There he is there looking lovely reading the text that

looking lovely reading the text that accompanies the exhibits in the hall

accompanies the exhibits in the hall which looks awesome by the way we

which looks awesome by the way we repeatedly see the context that what is

repeatedly see the context that what is being conveyed are particular people's

being conveyed are particular people's cultural and spiritual beliefs as

cultural and spiritual beliefs as Tlingit tradition holds a story recorded

Tlingit tradition holds a story recorded in the Chillcat Valley the story of Sidi

in the Chillcat Valley the story of Sidi and so ones went creeping around the

and so ones went creeping around the exhibit looking for any examples of

exhibit looking for any examples of particular sentences that have taken in

particular sentences that have taken in that context as read and neglected to

that context as read and neglected to include it. And then she's accused the

include it. And then she's accused the museum of declaring supernatural events

museum of declaring supernatural events to be factual. And I have two main

to be factual. And I have two main things to say in response. The first is

things to say in response. The first is that the inclusion of these supernatural

that the inclusion of these supernatural and spiritual beliefs and stories is

and spiritual beliefs and stories is science because anthropology is science.

science because anthropology is science. And the study of how people interpret

And the study of how people interpret the world around them and the stories

the world around them and the stories and mythologies they use to explain

and mythologies they use to explain natural events, that is all important

natural events, that is all important history. and it provides interesting and

history. and it provides interesting and useful context to the objects in the

useful context to the objects in the exhibits. The other thing I want to say

exhibits. The other thing I want to say is that there is a glaring double

is that there is a glaring double standard at play here. Elizabeth Weiss

standard at play here. Elizabeth Weiss restricts her cherry-picking to the

restricts her cherry-picking to the northwest coast hall of the museum, but

northwest coast hall of the museum, but we can just as easily apply it

we can just as easily apply it elsewhere. I'm going to quote now from

elsewhere. I'm going to quote now from the description of some other exhibits

the description of some other exhibits that have been at the museum. At a

that have been at the museum. At a glance, Pegasus. Pegasus was the son of

glance, Pegasus. Pegasus was the son of the monster Medusa and Poseidon, the god

the monster Medusa and Poseidon, the god of the seas and of horses. Was he?

of the seas and of horses. Was he? Pegasus was kind, helpful, and never

Pegasus was kind, helpful, and never greedy. The constellation named after

greedy. The constellation named after him even shares a star with the

him even shares a star with the constellation of Andromeda, a maiden he

constellation of Andromeda, a maiden he helped save. Did he? Is that true? Is

helped save. Did he? Is that true? Is the museum saying that Pegasus was real

the museum saying that Pegasus was real and that he was the son of Medusa and

and that he was the son of Medusa and Poseidon? No, of course not. Because

Poseidon? No, of course not. Because this quote is from an exhibit about

this quote is from an exhibit about ancient Greek myths, a context which

ancient Greek myths, a context which informs us that these events are from

informs us that these events are from myth. They don't have to say it every

myth. They don't have to say it every single sentence. Dragons in Europe can

single sentence. Dragons in Europe can slaughter people with their putrid

slaughter people with their putrid breath or spit fire and set cities

breath or spit fire and set cities ablaze. Oh, that's scary. Is the museum

ablaze. Oh, that's scary. Is the museum saying fireb breathing dragons are real,

saying fireb breathing dragons are real, too? No. I just again neglected to

too? No. I just again neglected to mention the context which makes it clear

mention the context which makes it clear that what is being described is a

that what is being described is a legend. So why the criticisms aimed at

legend. So why the criticisms aimed at exhibits concerning indigenous people's

exhibits concerning indigenous people's cultural beliefs and not say ancient

cultural beliefs and not say ancient Greek cultural beliefs? I'll leave that

Greek cultural beliefs? I'll leave that question hanging there awkwardly and

question hanging there awkwardly and move on to the second of my four points.

move on to the second of my four points. This one concerning the following quote.

This one concerning the following quote. Although Australian Aborigines claim

Although Australian Aborigines claim that it's important for their health,

that it's important for their health, safety, and well-being to return the

safety, and well-being to return the human remains to a final resting place,

human remains to a final resting place, whether that be a cave that is sealed

whether that be a cave that is sealed off with concrete or a burial ground

off with concrete or a burial ground that later becomes the site of one of

that later becomes the site of one of their casinos, as in the burial site for

their casinos, as in the burial site for over 80 human skeletons by the Laraka

over 80 human skeletons by the Laraka people in 2002. This process is not to

people in 2002. This process is not to be rushed according to the literature.

be rushed according to the literature. Yes, that's right. Elizabeth Weiss

Yes, that's right. Elizabeth Weiss doesn't restrict herself to looking down

doesn't restrict herself to looking down on indigenous people in North America.

on indigenous people in North America. She goes global with it. So, okay,

She goes global with it. So, okay, what's wrong with this then? The burial

what's wrong with this then? The burial site for over 80 human skeletons by the

site for over 80 human skeletons by the Laraka people in 2002. Let's find out

Laraka people in 2002. Let's find out about this. After a quick Google search,

about this. After a quick Google search, we can read this 2002 article by the

we can read this 2002 article by the Sydney Morning Herald. Stolen remains

Sydney Morning Herald. Stolen remains returned to rest. And this article talks

returned to rest. And this article talks about stolen remains being returned to

about stolen remains being returned to the Laraka people who were a group of

the Laraka people who were a group of Aboriginal Australian people in northern

Aboriginal Australian people in northern Australia in and around the city of

Australia in and around the city of Darwin. And I quote, "Most of the

Darwin. And I quote, "Most of the remains returned yesterday were

remains returned yesterday were collected by an Adelaide coroner,

collected by an Adelaide coroner, William Ramsey Smith, in the early

William Ramsey Smith, in the early 1900s, even then in the face of

1900s, even then in the face of criticism. In recent years, they've been

criticism. In recent years, they've been transferred to the National Museum from

transferred to the National Museum from the former Institute of Anatomy in

the former Institute of Anatomy in Canberra and Scotland's Edinburgh

Canberra and Scotland's Edinburgh University. Yesterday, eight large boxes

University. Yesterday, eight large boxes were taken from the museum to the

were taken from the museum to the smoking ceremony before being flown to

smoking ceremony before being flown to Darwin with the eight Laraka

Darwin with the eight Laraka representatives. They will be welcomed

representatives. They will be welcomed at a ceremony at Mindil Beach there

at a ceremony at Mindil Beach there today before being stored until a final

today before being stored until a final resting place is decided. An account of

resting place is decided. An account of this ceremony is relayed in the

this ceremony is relayed in the document, a repatriation handbook, a

document, a repatriation handbook, a guide to repatriating Australian

guide to repatriating Australian Aboriginal and tourist straight islander

Aboriginal and tourist straight islander ancestral remains. There's a picture of

ancestral remains. There's a picture of the event there and it says the

the event there and it says the ancestral remains of over 80 Laka people

ancestral remains of over 80 Laka people were returned in a ceremony at Mindil

were returned in a ceremony at Mindil Beach. The beach area, a traditional

Beach. The beach area, a traditional burial ground, is now home to a casino

burial ground, is now home to a casino and popular markets. So, okay, let's get

and popular markets. So, okay, let's get this up on Google Maps. That's Mindil

this up on Google Maps. That's Mindil Beach there. There's Mindil Beach Casino

Beach there. There's Mindil Beach Casino and Resort, which is on Mindil Beach,

and Resort, which is on Mindil Beach, obviously, and also is the only casino

obviously, and also is the only casino in Darwin. Now, the owner of Mindil

in Darwin. Now, the owner of Mindil Beach Casino and Resort is, if we scroll

Beach Casino and Resort is, if we scroll down their website here, we can see

down their website here, we can see Delaware North. Now, Delaware North is

Delaware North. Now, Delaware North is an American food service and hospitality

an American food service and hospitality company, but they only bought the casino

company, but they only bought the casino from the Sky City Entertainment Group in

from the Sky City Entertainment Group in 2019. And remember, the ceremony in

2019. And remember, the ceremony in question took place in 2002. Well, Sky

question took place in 2002. Well, Sky City bought the casino from MGM Grand in

City bought the casino from MGM Grand in 2004, and they had owned it since 1995,

2004, and they had owned it since 1995, making them the owners at the time of

making them the owners at the time of the repatriation ceremony. And MGM Grand

the repatriation ceremony. And MGM Grand is another American multinational

is another American multinational hospitality company. But Elizabeth Weiss

hospitality company. But Elizabeth Weiss said a burial ground that later becomes

said a burial ground that later becomes the site of one of their casinos. Weiss

the site of one of their casinos. Weiss is attempting to imply here that the

is attempting to imply here that the Laraka people don't really actually care

Laraka people don't really actually care about the cultural importance of one of

about the cultural importance of one of their traditional burial grounds because

their traditional burial grounds because they built a casino on it. But they

they built a casino on it. But they didn't build a casino on it. So what

didn't build a casino on it. So what happened here then? Well, Elizabeth

happened here then? Well, Elizabeth Weiss was reading a repatriation

Weiss was reading a repatriation handbook, and I know she's read it

handbook, and I know she's read it because she quotes from it elsewhere in

because she quotes from it elsewhere in her essay, and she got to the quote,

her essay, and she got to the quote, "The beach area, a traditional burial

"The beach area, a traditional burial ground, is now home to a casino, and she

ground, is now home to a casino, and she assumed that the casino was owned by the

assumed that the casino was owned by the Laraka people." Because she's a racist

Laraka people." Because she's a racist using lazy stereotypes about entirely

using lazy stereotypes about entirely different groups of indigenous people

different groups of indigenous people who live on another continent. as if

who live on another continent. as if indigenous people have some sort of

indigenous people have some sort of inherent casino building gene or

inherent casino building gene or something. I'm struck by both how racist

something. I'm struck by both how racist and Americarained you'd have to be to

and Americarained you'd have to be to make that assumption in the first place,

make that assumption in the first place, but also how lazy you'd have to be not

but also how lazy you'd have to be not to check before publishing it. This goes

to check before publishing it. This goes for Elizabeth Weiss, of course, but also

for Elizabeth Weiss, of course, but also what was Lawrence Krauss doing as the

what was Lawrence Krauss doing as the editor of this book here? I get the

editor of this book here? I get the sense he didn't even read some of these.

sense he didn't even read some of these. Okay, on to the third of my four points

Okay, on to the third of my four points here. And this one relates to what

here. And this one relates to what Elizabeth Weiss actually did in order to

Elizabeth Weiss actually did in order to piss off her university enough that they

piss off her university enough that they would remove her as curator of their

would remove her as curator of their collection of human remains. Lawrence

collection of human remains. Lawrence Krauss doesn't mention it. Elizabeth

Krauss doesn't mention it. Elizabeth Weiss doesn't mention it, but Jerry Coin

Weiss doesn't mention it, but Jerry Coin alludes to it when he says she's not

alludes to it when he says she's not even allowed to study X-rays of the

even allowed to study X-rays of the remains or show a photograph of the

remains or show a photograph of the boxes in which they are kept. Now,

boxes in which they are kept. Now, sorry, I'm smiling here because if you

sorry, I'm smiling here because if you know what she actually did, this is a

know what she actually did, this is a shameless attempt to sneak around

shameless attempt to sneak around actually saying it. Weiss didn't just

actually saying it. Weiss didn't just post a picture of the boxes of remains.

post a picture of the boxes of remains. She took a photograph of herself posing

She took a photograph of herself posing in front of the boxes while holding a

in front of the boxes while holding a child's skull in her bare hands. And

child's skull in her bare hands. And then she posted it on Twitter. Now, I'm

then she posted it on Twitter. Now, I'm about as far from a religious or

about as far from a religious or spiritual person as you can imagine, but

spiritual person as you can imagine, but I'm going to blank out the image of this

I'm going to blank out the image of this poor person's bones here. I wouldn't

poor person's bones here. I wouldn't want some racist waving my remains

want some racist waving my remains around after I was dead. So, yes, this

around after I was dead. So, yes, this is yet another example of someone in the

is yet another example of someone in the book doing something far, far worse than

book doing something far, far worse than it is initially implied they did. She

it is initially implied they did. She was demoted just for her free speech,

was demoted just for her free speech, and then you look it up and she's waving

and then you look it up and she's waving people's bones around like a cartoon

people's bones around like a cartoon villain. It's just ridiculous. It's also

villain. It's just ridiculous. It's also another example of a bad employee, of

another example of a bad employee, of course, because this example made the

course, because this example made the news and it made the university look bad

news and it made the university look bad and they had to put out a statement

and they had to put out a statement condemning Weiss's actions and outlining

condemning Weiss's actions and outlining new policies they were bringing in to

new policies they were bringing in to prevent people from doing what she did.

prevent people from doing what she did. Or I suppose more specifically to

Or I suppose more specifically to prevent Elizabeth Weiss from doing it

prevent Elizabeth Weiss from doing it again. I'll close out here with the last

again. I'll close out here with the last of my four reasons for thinking

of my four reasons for thinking Elizabeth Weiss is a racist. Do you

Elizabeth Weiss is a racist. Do you remember when we talked about Jay Phipe

remember when we talked about Jay Phipe Rushton, the former head of the Nazi

Rushton, the former head of the Nazi Eugenicist Pioneer Fund, who had a bunch

Eugenicist Pioneer Fund, who had a bunch of strange racial genital theories?

of strange racial genital theories? Well, Elizabeth Weiss is his wife.

Well, Elizabeth Weiss is his wife. That's a twist, eh? Moving on, I want to

That's a twist, eh? Moving on, I want to now talk about another type of bias that

now talk about another type of bias that can threaten science, one that we

can threaten science, one that we mentioned earlier today, and that is

mentioned earlier today, and that is financial bias. So, let's talk about

financial bias. So, let's talk about Sally Satel's chapter. Lawrence Krauss

Sally Satel's chapter. Lawrence Krauss introduces Sally Satell in the following

introduces Sally Satell in the following way. Sally Satel, a psychiatrist with

way. Sally Satel, a psychiatrist with part-time affiliation at the Yale

part-time affiliation at the Yale Medical School, describes within the

Medical School, describes within the context of her own near cancellation how

context of her own near cancellation how social justice medicine or

social justice medicine or indoctrinology as she calls it poses a

indoctrinology as she calls it poses a danger to open inquiry and scientific

danger to open inquiry and scientific rigor in academic medicine. So Sally

rigor in academic medicine. So Sally Satel is very concerned about scientific

Satel is very concerned about scientific rigor in academic medicine. Just fix

rigor in academic medicine. Just fix that in your mind and we'll move on to

that in your mind and we'll move on to read what Sally Satel has to say. Satell

read what Sally Satel has to say. Satell starts off by saying that on January

starts off by saying that on January 8th, 2021, I gave a departmentwide

8th, 2021, I gave a departmentwide lecture to the Yale Department of

lecture to the Yale Department of Psychiatry. I had once been a resident

Psychiatry. I had once been a resident there and then an assistant professor

there and then an assistant professor for 5 years. I left New Haven in 1993 to

for 5 years. I left New Haven in 1993 to pursue a health policy fellowship in

pursue a health policy fellowship in Washington DC and eventually joined a

Washington DC and eventually joined a think tank, but I remained a lecturer in

think tank, but I remained a lecturer in the department. My lecture was about the

the department. My lecture was about the year I spent from 2018 to 19 assisting

year I spent from 2018 to 19 assisting with treatment efforts in an embattled

with treatment efforts in an embattled small town in southeastern Ohio that was

small town in southeastern Ohio that was reeling from the opioid crisis. Satell

reeling from the opioid crisis. Satell then gives an overview of her lecture

then gives an overview of her lecture which as she describes it sounds

which as she describes it sounds perfectly normal and then the subsequent

perfectly normal and then the subsequent fallout. The other staff at the

fallout. The other staff at the department were offended and outraged by

department were offended and outraged by her talk. They called her bigoted and

her talk. They called her bigoted and classist and asked that she be kicked

classist and asked that she be kicked out of the department. That sounds like

out of the department. That sounds like an overblown reaction, doesn't it? To

an overblown reaction, doesn't it? To someone giving a perfectly normal talk.

someone giving a perfectly normal talk. Satell goes on in the rest of her essay

Satell goes on in the rest of her essay to attribute this reaction to a culture

to attribute this reaction to a culture of overly sensitive progressive ideology

of overly sensitive progressive ideology infecting university campuses. Social

infecting university campuses. Social justice warriors on a hair trigger

justice warriors on a hair trigger looking for microaggressions. That old

looking for microaggressions. That old story. However, this narrative is

story. However, this narrative is missing something, isn't it? Satell

missing something, isn't it? Satell doesn't specify what it is in her talk

doesn't specify what it is in her talk that the other staff were actually

that the other staff were actually objecting to. She just says I spoke

objecting to. She just says I spoke about these topics normally and then

about these topics normally and then everyone was offended at me and called

everyone was offended at me and called me names, which paints the offended

me names, which paints the offended party as being very unreasonable there.

party as being very unreasonable there. Now, if you're the sort of person who's

Now, if you're the sort of person who's happy to accept the sudden appearance in

happy to accept the sudden appearance in a story of a gang of overly sensitive,

a story of a gang of overly sensitive, woke progressives complaining about

woke progressives complaining about nothing whatsoever, I'm sure you'll give

nothing whatsoever, I'm sure you'll give Sally Satel the benefit of the doubt

Sally Satel the benefit of the doubt here and accept her framing. However, as

here and accept her framing. However, as someone who lives in reality, I want to

someone who lives in reality, I want to know what actually happened here. So,

know what actually happened here. So, let's investigate and see if we can find

let's investigate and see if we can find out. And we'll start with how Sally

out. And we'll start with how Sally Satel describes her talk, which was

Satel describes her talk, which was about the opioid crisis. and she says,

about the opioid crisis. and she says, "I discussed the deaths of despair

"I discussed the deaths of despair phenomenon first described by Princeton

phenomenon first described by Princeton economists Angus Deon and Anne Casease

economists Angus Deon and Anne Casease and showed photos of haunted industrial

and showed photos of haunted industrial landscapes and the lonely downtown area.

landscapes and the lonely downtown area. I presented national data on the

I presented national data on the characteristics of individuals who

characteristics of individuals who abused prescription pills and on the

abused prescription pills and on the frequency with which addiction develops.

frequency with which addiction develops. Brackets, it's far less common than

Brackets, it's far less common than you've been led to believe. Now,

you've been led to believe. Now, speaking as someone unfamiliar with the

speaking as someone unfamiliar with the US opioid crisis, this sentence in the

US opioid crisis, this sentence in the brackets here raised a minor red flag

brackets here raised a minor red flag for me. I haven't been led to believe

for me. I haven't been led to believe one way or the other how frequently

one way or the other how frequently addiction develops after using

addiction develops after using prescription pain medication. But the

prescription pain medication. But the sentence here tells me that Sally Satel

sentence here tells me that Sally Satel is used to talking to people who she

is used to talking to people who she thinks have been led to believe that

thinks have been led to believe that prescription painkiller addiction is

prescription painkiller addiction is more common than it actually is and that

more common than it actually is and that she's seeking to counter that idea,

she's seeking to counter that idea, which seems like a strange motive from

which seems like a strange motive from somebody also talking about the

somebody also talking about the embattled small town reeling from the

embattled small town reeling from the crisis. Right? Before we go on and talk

crisis. Right? Before we go on and talk about Sally Satel's lecture in more

about Sally Satel's lecture in more detail here, we first need to learn a

detail here, we first need to learn a little about the US opioid crisis. So,

little about the US opioid crisis. So, here we go. In the 1980s and '90s, a

here we go. In the 1980s and '90s, a pharmaceutical company called Perdu

pharmaceutical company called Perdu Pharma developed a drug named

Pharma developed a drug named Oxycontton. Oxycontton is an opioid

Oxycontton. Oxycontton is an opioid painkiller of the type more usually

painkiller of the type more usually given to people with terminal illnesses

given to people with terminal illnesses at the end of their lives or for

at the end of their lives or for short-term use in people recovering from

short-term use in people recovering from major surgeries, things like that.

major surgeries, things like that. They're not usually supposed to be

They're not usually supposed to be handed out for more general long-term

handed out for more general long-term use with relatively minor pains. And why

use with relatively minor pains. And why not? Well, because opioid painkillers

not? Well, because opioid painkillers are extremely addictive because they're

are extremely addictive because they're made of opium like heroin. So,

made of opium like heroin. So, Oxycontton was going to have fairly

Oxycontton was going to have fairly limited uses, right? End of life care,

limited uses, right? End of life care, major surgeries, specific things like

major surgeries, specific things like that. Except Perdu Pharma had an idea.

that. Except Perdu Pharma had an idea. Oxycontton pills came in a coating which

Oxycontton pills came in a coating which delayed the absorption of the drug into

delayed the absorption of the drug into the body. And what if that made them

the body. And what if that made them less addictive? In an application to the

less addictive? In an application to the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration,

FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, the company stated that delayed

the company stated that delayed absorption as provided by Oxycontton

absorption as provided by Oxycontton tablets is believed to reduce the abuse

tablets is believed to reduce the abuse liability of a drug is believed to. So

liability of a drug is believed to. So why did Perdu Pharma believe this you

why did Perdu Pharma believe this you might ask? That's a good question.

might ask? That's a good question. It doesn't have a good answer,

It doesn't have a good answer, unfortunately. But I can skip ahead in

unfortunately. But I can skip ahead in the narrative here and tell you that

the narrative here and tell you that years later, Perdu Farmer will plead

years later, Perdu Farmer will plead guilty to federal criminal charges and

guilty to federal criminal charges and be sued for billions of dollars for

be sued for billions of dollars for misleading people about the

misleading people about the addictiveness of Oxycontton. If that

addictiveness of Oxycontton. If that answers the question for you. But hang

answers the question for you. But hang on, how did this drug get FDA approval

on, how did this drug get FDA approval in the first place? You might be

in the first place? You might be wondering. Well, the FDA official

wondering. Well, the FDA official responsible for overseeing the

responsible for overseeing the application of Oxycontton was a chap

application of Oxycontton was a chap named Curtis Wright IVth. In 1995,

named Curtis Wright IVth. In 1995, Wright met privately with Perurdu Farmer

Wright met privately with Perurdu Farmer representatives in a hotel room and

representatives in a hotel room and allowed them to help write his medical

allowed them to help write his medical offic's review of Oxycontton for the

offic's review of Oxycontton for the FDA. After signing off on Oxycontton,

FDA. After signing off on Oxycontton, Wright quit his job at the FDA and was

Wright quit his job at the FDA and was subsequently hired by Perdu Farmer, who

subsequently hired by Perdu Farmer, who then paid him $379,000.

It certainly pays to be helpful, doesn't it? Dr. David Kesler, FDA commissioner

it? Dr. David Kesler, FDA commissioner at the time Oxycontton was approved,

at the time Oxycontton was approved, later acknowledged that the approval of

later acknowledged that the approval of Oxycontton was quote, "one of the worst

Oxycontton was quote, "one of the worst medical mistakes, a major mistake." So

medical mistakes, a major mistake." So after this major mistake, Perdu Pharma

after this major mistake, Perdu Pharma has a license to sell these opioid

has a license to sell these opioid painkillers. And thanks to their very

painkillers. And thanks to their very helpful friend in the FDA, they are free

helpful friend in the FDA, they are free to state that their specific pill

to state that their specific pill formulation is believed to be less

formulation is believed to be less addictive. And they used this

addictive. And they used this justification in an aggressive sales

justification in an aggressive sales push aimed at getting doctors to

push aimed at getting doctors to prescribe Oxycontton for a much wider

prescribe Oxycontton for a much wider variety of cases than they would usually

variety of cases than they would usually prescribe opioid painkillers. They spent

prescribe opioid painkillers. They spent hundreds of millions of dollars

hundreds of millions of dollars marketing Oxycontton. They had

marketing Oxycontton. They had salespeople going out to doctors

salespeople going out to doctors nationwide and pushing Oxycontton,

nationwide and pushing Oxycontton, getting bonuses based on how many pills

getting bonuses based on how many pills they convinced the doctors to order. And

they convinced the doctors to order. And in some cases, Perdu Pharma was paying

in some cases, Perdu Pharma was paying doctors directly to act as spokespeople

doctors directly to act as spokespeople for the drug. And they were very

for the drug. And they were very successful. They made billions of

successful. They made billions of dollars flooding the country with these

dollars flooding the country with these highly addictive opium pills. And of

highly addictive opium pills. And of course, people started getting addicted

course, people started getting addicted to them. So, there's all these adverse

to them. So, there's all these adverse effects. People overdosing, dying,

effects. People overdosing, dying, getting into other drugs. There's

getting into other drugs. There's incentives for people to sell them on

incentives for people to sell them on the side, for doctors to sell them on

the side, for doctors to sell them on the side. There's incentives for people

the side. There's incentives for people to steal them from medical facilities,

to steal them from medical facilities, get into crime to fund the habit, and so

get into crime to fund the habit, and so on and so forth. This is the US opioid

on and so forth. This is the US opioid crisis. Overprescribed painkillers like

crisis. Overprescribed painkillers like Oxycontton created a demand for opioid

Oxycontton created a demand for opioid drugs that was later met by heroin and

drugs that was later met by heroin and fentinil. Oxycontton is the gift that

fentinil. Oxycontton is the gift that just keeps on giving, isn't it? Anyway,

just keeps on giving, isn't it? Anyway, after its release, people started

after its release, people started becoming aware of the problems with

becoming aware of the problems with Oxycontton, realizing how addictive it

Oxycontton, realizing how addictive it was and putting together the story of

was and putting together the story of how it got approved and Perdu Farmer

how it got approved and Perdu Farmer started getting asked very awkward

started getting asked very awkward questions. This is the start of the

questions. This is the start of the process that eventually leads to the

process that eventually leads to the company being fined billions of dollars

company being fined billions of dollars in 2007 after it pleads guilty to

in 2007 after it pleads guilty to misleading the public about Oxycontton's

misleading the public about Oxycontton's addiction risk. The company's executives

addiction risk. The company's executives also plead guilty as individuals. But

also plead guilty as individuals. But since they're rich and we can't have

since they're rich and we can't have rich people going to prison, they got a

rich people going to prison, they got a slap on the wrist, some community

slap on the wrist, some community service, and a fine for a fraction of

service, and a fine for a fraction of the profits they made from all the

the profits they made from all the crimes they did. That's the rich person

crimes they did. That's the rich person justice system special there. At the

justice system special there. At the very least, Perdu Farmer has since been

very least, Perdu Farmer has since been engaged in a series of legal battles as

engaged in a series of legal battles as everyone who was adversely affected by

everyone who was adversely affected by the opioid crisis takes a financial bite

the opioid crisis takes a financial bite out of them. And good. Now, throughout

out of them. And good. Now, throughout this entire process, Perdu Farmer was

this entire process, Perdu Farmer was engaged in a public relations effort to

engaged in a public relations effort to attempt to control the media narrative

attempt to control the media narrative around Oxycontton. first to avoid

around Oxycontton. first to avoid responsibility for their part in causing

responsibility for their part in causing the opioid crisis and then later to

the opioid crisis and then later to limit their liability as much as they

limit their liability as much as they possibly could. This is detailed in a

possibly could. This is detailed in a 2019 ProPublica piece titled Inside

2019 ProPublica piece titled Inside Perdu Farmers Media Playbook, how it

Perdu Farmers Media Playbook, how it planted the opioid anti story. And let

planted the opioid anti story. And let me quote some of that piece to you.

me quote some of that piece to you. Perduru launched Oxycontton in 1996 and

Perduru launched Oxycontton in 1996 and it soon became one of the most widely

it soon became one of the most widely prescribed opioid painkillers. By 2001,

prescribed opioid painkillers. By 2001, it was generating both enormous profits

it was generating both enormous profits as well as growing concern about

as well as growing concern about overdoses and addiction. That August, a

overdoses and addiction. That August, a column in the New York Post opinion

column in the New York Post opinion section criticized media reports that

section criticized media reports that Oxycontton was being abused. The piece

Oxycontton was being abused. The piece headlined heroic dope heads mocked a new

headlined heroic dope heads mocked a new species of victim, the hillbilly heroin

species of victim, the hillbilly heroin addict. The real victims, the article

addict. The real victims, the article contended, were pain patients who may

contended, were pain patients who may lose access to a prescription wonder

lose access to a prescription wonder drug. At 5:17 a.m. on the day the

drug. At 5:17 a.m. on the day the article was published, Eric Desenhal,

article was published, Eric Desenhal, the founder of Washington DC crisis

the founder of Washington DC crisis management firm Desen Hall Resources,

management firm Desen Hall Resources, sent an email to Perdu executives,

sent an email to Perdu executives, according to documents filed by the

according to documents filed by the Oklahoma attorney general in a lawsuit

Oklahoma attorney general in a lawsuit against opioid makers. See today's New

against opioid makers. See today's New York Post on Oxycontton, he wrote. The

York Post on Oxycontton, he wrote. The anti-story begins. Perduru had hired

anti-story begins. Perduru had hired Desenh Hall resources that summer.

Desenh Hall resources that summer. Desenh Hall's hard-nosed reputation fit

Desenh Hall's hard-nosed reputation fit the blame the victim strategy advocated

the blame the victim strategy advocated by Perurdu's then President Richard

by Perurdu's then President Richard Sackler. "We have to hammer on the

Sackler. "We have to hammer on the abusers in every way possible," Sackler

abusers in every way possible," Sackler wrote in a 2001 email quoted in a

wrote in a 2001 email quoted in a complaint by the state of Massachusetts

complaint by the state of Massachusetts against the company. "They are the

against the company. "They are the culprits and the problem. They are

culprits and the problem. They are reckless criminals." Perdu later

reckless criminals." Perdu later followed this approach to fend off a New

followed this approach to fend off a New Jersey mother who was urging federal

Jersey mother who was urging federal regulators to investigate the marketing

regulators to investigate the marketing of Oxycontton. Her daughter had died

of Oxycontton. Her daughter had died while taking the drug for back pain. We

while taking the drug for back pain. We think she abused drugs, a Perdu

think she abused drugs, a Perdu spokesman said without offering

spokesman said without offering evidence. Perdu later apologized for the

evidence. Perdu later apologized for the comment. So in 2001 here, Perdu are

comment. So in 2001 here, Perdu are defending themselves by blaming the

defending themselves by blaming the people addicted to their drug. It's not

people addicted to their drug. It's not our fault for creating the drug or for

our fault for creating the drug or for misleadingly marketing or labeling the

misleadingly marketing or labeling the drug. It's just drug addicts abusing the

drug. It's just drug addicts abusing the drug because they are drug addicts. It's

drug because they are drug addicts. It's not our fault. It's their fault. And

not our fault. It's their fault. And they hired crisis management firm

they hired crisis management firm Desenhal Resources, headed by Eric

Desenhal Resources, headed by Eric Desenhal, to help them push this story

Desenhal, to help them push this story in the media. And I'll quote here from a

in the media. And I'll quote here from a letter written by Eric Desenhal,

letter written by Eric Desenhal, recapping the firm's first month of work

recapping the firm's first month of work for Perdu Farmer. Exhibit E. This came

for Perdu Farmer. Exhibit E. This came out in a court case. This one. Dear

out in a court case. This one. Dear Howard, our first month of work for

Howard, our first month of work for Perurdue was quite busy with activities

Perurdue was quite busy with activities including but not limited to counseling

including but not limited to counseling on responses to hostile media inquiries

on responses to hostile media inquiries including from 60 Minutes, 48 Hours, and

including from 60 Minutes, 48 Hours, and the New York Times. Media outreach

the New York Times. Media outreach counseling, eg. Tom Shales of the

counseling, eg. Tom Shales of the Washington Post. Media placement

Washington Post. Media placement efforts, eg New York Post, Wall Street

efforts, eg New York Post, Wall Street Journal, Forbes Pursuits, Fox News.

Journal, Forbes Pursuits, Fox News. third-party outreach, eg Kato Institute.

third-party outreach, eg Kato Institute. Dr. Sally Satel. Well, now, hello there,

Dr. Sally Satel. Well, now, hello there, Sally Satel. Fancy seeing you here in

Sally Satel. Fancy seeing you here in exhibit E of this court document from

exhibit E of this court document from 2001. Whatever are you doing here? Well,

2001. Whatever are you doing here? Well, allow me to quote some passages from the

allow me to quote some passages from the ProPublica piece here. One of Desenh

ProPublica piece here. One of Desenh Hall resources first moves after being

Hall resources first moves after being hired by Perdu was to cultivate Satel.

hired by Perdu was to cultivate Satel. In July 2001, Hershow, that's Desenh

In July 2001, Hershow, that's Desenh Hall vice president Sheila Hershow,

Hall vice president Sheila Hershow, there reported to Perurdu officials that

there reported to Perurdu officials that she and Eric Desenhal had lunch with

she and Eric Desenhal had lunch with Satel and the doctor was eager to get

Satel and the doctor was eager to get started. Hair show said Satell had read

started. Hair show said Satell had read a debunking package and was interested

a debunking package and was interested in doing an opinion piece on the medical

in doing an opinion piece on the medical needs of patients being sacrificed to

needs of patients being sacrificed to protect drug abusers. Desenh Hall's

protect drug abusers. Desenh Hall's courting of Satell soon paid off. A

courting of Satell soon paid off. A month after the lunch with Desen Hall

month after the lunch with Desen Hall and her show, Satel defended Perdu's

and her show, Satel defended Perdu's flagship drug in an article for the

flagship drug in an article for the opinion page of the Boston Globe. In

opinion page of the Boston Globe. In 2003, a Desen Hall staffer recommended

2003, a Desen Hall staffer recommended Satel as a guest to a producer for the

Satel as a guest to a producer for the Diane Ree show on NPR. The firm and

Diane Ree show on NPR. The firm and Perdue executives, including vice

Perdue executives, including vice president David Hadex, helped prep Satel

president David Hadex, helped prep Satel for the appearance. Hadex passed along

for the appearance. Hadex passed along what he called interesting intel for

what he called interesting intel for Sally that Re's mother suffered from

Sally that Re's mother suffered from chronic headaches. "Thanks for helping

chronic headaches. "Thanks for helping us get her up to speed for the show,"

us get her up to speed for the show," her show replied. Also that year, when

her show replied. Also that year, when conservative radio commentator Rush

conservative radio commentator Rush Limbar revealed that he was addicted to

Limbar revealed that he was addicted to prescription painkillers, Perdu declined

prescription painkillers, Perdu declined a request from CNN for a company

a request from CNN for a company representative to discuss the news on

representative to discuss the news on air. Instead, Perduru recommended Satel,

air. Instead, Perduru recommended Satel, who assured viewers that Oxycontton was

who assured viewers that Oxycontton was a very effective and actually safe drug

a very effective and actually safe drug if taken as prescribed. Desen Hall's

if taken as prescribed. Desen Hall's Hair Show told Perurdu executives in an

Hair Show told Perurdu executives in an email that she was very glad Sally went

email that she was very glad Sally went on. In September 2004, Forbes magazine

on. In September 2004, Forbes magazine published a Satel article under the

published a Satel article under the headline, "Oxycontton doesn't cause

headline, "Oxycontton doesn't cause addiction. Its abusers are already

addiction. Its abusers are already addicts." I am happy this morning.

addicts." I am happy this morning. Perdu's then general counsel Howard

Perdu's then general counsel Howard Udell emailed other company executives

Udell emailed other company executives and Eric Desenhal with the subject line

and Eric Desenhal with the subject line rebs article. Three years later, Udell

rebs article. Three years later, Udell and two other Perurdu executives would

and two other Perurdu executives would plead guilty in federal court to a

plead guilty in federal court to a misdemeanor criminal charge related to

misdemeanor criminal charge related to misleading patients and doctors about

misleading patients and doctors about the addictive nature of Oxycontton. As

the addictive nature of Oxycontton. As part of that 2007 settlement, Perdu

part of that 2007 settlement, Perdu admitted to acting with the intent to

admitted to acting with the intent to defraud or mislead when it promoted

defraud or mislead when it promoted Oxycontton as less addictive and less

Oxycontton as less addictive and less subject to abuse than other painkillers.

subject to abuse than other painkillers. In an article for the Wall Street

In an article for the Wall Street Journal headlined, "Oxymorons,

Journal headlined, "Oxymorons, Satel defended the company." The real

Satel defended the company." The real public health damage here comes from the

public health damage here comes from the pitched campaign conducted by zealous

pitched campaign conducted by zealous prosecutors and public interest

prosecutors and public interest advocates to demonize the drug itself,

advocates to demonize the drug itself, she wrote. So to sum up here, Perdu

she wrote. So to sum up here, Perdu Farmer, seeking to protect its

Farmer, seeking to protect its reputation, hired PR firm Desen Hall

reputation, hired PR firm Desen Hall Resources, who brought in and briefed

Resources, who brought in and briefed psychiatrist Sally Satell, who went on

psychiatrist Sally Satell, who went on to defend Perdu Farmer in a series of

to defend Perdu Farmer in a series of articles and media appearances. Now, the

articles and media appearances. Now, the problem with all this is that Sally

problem with all this is that Sally Satell works for the American Enterprise

Satell works for the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank

Institute, a conservative think tank which is funded by, would anyone like to

which is funded by, would anyone like to venture a guess here? Uh, that's right.

venture a guess here? Uh, that's right. It's funded by Perurdu Pharma. Perduru

It's funded by Perurdu Pharma. Perduru Pharma gave more than $800,000

Pharma gave more than $800,000 to the American Enterprise Institute,

to the American Enterprise Institute, which gives rise to an obvious financial

which gives rise to an obvious financial conflict of interest, doesn't it? Sally

conflict of interest, doesn't it? Sally Satell is paid by the American

Satell is paid by the American Enterprise Institute who are paid by

Enterprise Institute who are paid by Perdu Farmer. So when Sally Satel goes

Perdu Farmer. So when Sally Satel goes around giving media interviews and

around giving media interviews and lectures and writing articles about

lectures and writing articles about Oxycontton, she should really disclose

Oxycontton, she should really disclose that her organization has been given

that her organization has been given hundreds of thousands of dollars by the

hundreds of thousands of dollars by the manufacturer of the drug. But she

manufacturer of the drug. But she doesn't. She presents herself as a

doesn't. She presents herself as a neutral, unbiased third party, which she

neutral, unbiased third party, which she isn't. The writers of the ProPublica

isn't. The writers of the ProPublica piece contacted Sally Satell for a

piece contacted Sally Satell for a statement on all of this and what she

statement on all of this and what she says is utterly ridiculous. Satell in an

says is utterly ridiculous. Satell in an email to ProPublica said that she

email to ProPublica said that she reached her conclusions independently.

reached her conclusions independently. Oh, I am sure. I do not accept payment

Oh, I am sure. I do not accept payment from industry for my work, articles,

from industry for my work, articles, presentations, etc. She wrote, "Yeah,

presentations, etc. She wrote, "Yeah, and that perdu farmer gives the think

and that perdu farmer gives the think tank you work at hundreds of thousands

tank you work at hundreds of thousands of dollars is just coincidental, I

of dollars is just coincidental, I suppose. Small world, isn't it? You

suppose. Small world, isn't it? You know, I don't accept payments for my

know, I don't accept payments for my work. My employer accepts the payments

work. My employer accepts the payments and then pays me, which makes it

and then pays me, which makes it different because of the extra step in

different because of the extra step in the middle there, I suppose. Now, rather

the middle there, I suppose. Now, rather humorously here, after saying she does

humorously here, after saying she does not accept industry payments for her

not accept industry payments for her work, ProPublica asked her about a time

work, ProPublica asked her about a time that Perdu Farmer quote approved

that Perdu Farmer quote approved spending $2,000 to pay for Satel to

spending $2,000 to pay for Satel to speak to the staff of a New Orleans

speak to the staff of a New Orleans hospital about addiction. according to

hospital about addiction. according to internal company records. So that would

internal company records. So that would be a direct payment there. Satell said

be a direct payment there. Satell said she had absolutely no memory of speaking

she had absolutely no memory of speaking at a hospital in New Orleans, which

at a hospital in New Orleans, which isn't the same as saying you didn't do

isn't the same as saying you didn't do it. I would note it's saying you don't

it. I would note it's saying you don't remember it. So she claims she doesn't

remember it. So she claims she doesn't accept direct industry payments for her

accept direct industry payments for her work, but her memory is not really the

work, but her memory is not really the best there. So who knows? And as for

best there. So who knows? And as for reaching her conclusions independently,

reaching her conclusions independently, ProPublica also asked Satel about the

ProPublica also asked Satel about the fact that she shares drafts of her

fact that she shares drafts of her articles with Perurdue executives prior

articles with Perurdue executives prior to publishing them. The study Satel

to publishing them. The study Satel cited was funded by Perurdue and written

cited was funded by Perurdue and written by Perurdue employees and consultants.

by Perurdue employees and consultants. And a month before the piece was

And a month before the piece was published, Satell sent a draft to Bert

published, Satell sent a draft to Bert Rosen, Perdu's Washington lobbyist and

Rosen, Perdu's Washington lobbyist and vice president of federal policy and

vice president of federal policy and legislative affairs, asking him if it

legislative affairs, asking him if it quote seems imbalanced. The sharing of

quote seems imbalanced. The sharing of drafts before publication with subjects

drafts before publication with subjects of stories or other interested parties

of stories or other interested parties is prohibited or discouraged by many

is prohibited or discouraged by many media outlets. Satell said she didn't

media outlets. Satell said she didn't remember sharing the draft with Rosen

remember sharing the draft with Rosen and it was not her usual practice.

and it was not her usual practice. memory on the fritz again. Eh, that's

memory on the fritz again. Eh, that's very atypical, she said. However, Satell

very atypical, she said. However, Satell shared a draft of another story with

shared a draft of another story with Perdu officials in 2016, according to

Perdu officials in 2016, according to emails she sent. Now, the most shameless

emails she sent. Now, the most shameless thing that Satel says here is when

thing that Satel says here is when ProPublica asked her about meeting with

ProPublica asked her about meeting with Desen Hall Resources, the PR firm hired

Desen Hall Resources, the PR firm hired by Perurdu. Satell said that the meeting

by Perurdu. Satell said that the meeting with Desen Hall was not unusual and that

with Desen Hall was not unusual and that quote, "I often talk to people who have

quote, "I often talk to people who have interesting stories." Now, just how

interesting stories." Now, just how naive does this Sally Satell person

naive does this Sally Satell person think we are? She was invited to a

think we are? She was invited to a meeting with the head spin doctor at a

meeting with the head spin doctor at a PR firm that's defending a

PR firm that's defending a pharmaceutical company from a major

pharmaceutical company from a major medical scandal that they caused. A

medical scandal that they caused. A pharmaceutical company that funds the

pharmaceutical company that funds the institute she works at. And she's acting

institute she works at. And she's acting like she went there just to see if there

like she went there just to see if there was an interesting story to tell. Like

was an interesting story to tell. Like she's a curious mouse in a cartoon for

she's a curious mouse in a cartoon for children instead of someone with a

children instead of someone with a financial stake in the reputation of the

financial stake in the reputation of the pharmaceutical company. What a load of

pharmaceutical company. What a load of rubbish. I think the most damning thing

rubbish. I think the most damning thing here is that in emails between Desenh

here is that in emails between Desenh Hall Resources and Perdu Farmer, they

Hall Resources and Perdu Farmer, they just call her Sally. Not Sally Satel,

just call her Sally. Not Sally Satel, not Dr. Sel, just Sally, our mate Sally,

not Dr. Sel, just Sally, our mate Sally, who we all know well enough to refer to

who we all know well enough to refer to by just her first name. So anyway, with

by just her first name. So anyway, with everything we've just learned in mind,

everything we've just learned in mind, let's get back to Sally Satel's talk at

let's get back to Sally Satel's talk at Yale. First things first, it's called My

Yale. First things first, it's called My Year Abroad: Ion, Ohio, and Lessons from

Year Abroad: Ion, Ohio, and Lessons from the Opioid Crisis. Now, wording like my

the Opioid Crisis. Now, wording like my year abroad is in part where the

year abroad is in part where the accusations of classism came from. as

accusations of classism came from. as Satel talks about small town America

Satel talks about small town America like she's a snooty fish out of water

like she's a snooty fish out of water big city gal who's been marooned there

big city gal who's been marooned there for Christmas and is going to

for Christmas and is going to reluctantly fall in love with a downto-

reluctantly fall in love with a downto- earthth car mechanic or something.

earthth car mechanic or something. Satell's talk starts off by introducing

Satell's talk starts off by introducing Iron, a city in Ohio founded by people

Iron, a city in Ohio founded by people who were very good at mining iron and

who were very good at mining iron and apparently not very good at coming up

apparently not very good at coming up with names. Satell's talk is ostensibly

with names. Satell's talk is ostensibly about this year she spent in Iron, but

about this year she spent in Iron, but after introducing it, she stops talking

after introducing it, she stops talking about it and proceeds to give her

about it and proceeds to give her boilerplate speech about why the opioid

boilerplate speech about why the opioid crisis is the fault of individuals

crisis is the fault of individuals abusing the drugs and definitely not the

abusing the drugs and definitely not the fault of the drug manufacturers. Let's

fault of the drug manufacturers. Let's watch a clip.

watch a clip. >> Um, now, as I said before, a lot of

>> Um, now, as I said before, a lot of these folks had significant involvement

these folks had significant involvement with other drugs. Um uh

with other drugs. Um uh I've just mentioned Ted Cicero who's at

I've just mentioned Ted Cicero who's at uh uh Washington University who's done

uh uh Washington University who's done some really excellent work in um

some really excellent work in um descriptive work in the epidemiology of

descriptive work in the epidemiology of this population. and and over several

this population. and and over several studies he's um reported that between 70

studies he's um reported that between 70 and 90% of people who come in uh for

and 90% of people who come in uh for treatment for um prescription use

treatment for um prescription use disorder um had used at least one other

disorder um had used at least one other non-opioid drug in the month before

non-opioid drug in the month before cocaine methamphetamine hallucinogens

cocaine methamphetamine hallucinogens benzo this kind of thing

benzo this kind of thing >> now the issue here is that the study

>> now the issue here is that the study Satel is talking about the one shown on

Satel is talking about the one shown on the screen here does not show what she

the screen here does not show what she says it does Sally Satel is lying saying

says it does Sally Satel is lying saying about what this study says. Satell says

about what this study says. Satell says that the study shows that between 70 and

that the study shows that between 70 and 90% of people who come in for treatment

90% of people who come in for treatment for prescription use disorder had used

for prescription use disorder had used at least one other non-opioid drug in

at least one other non-opioid drug in the month before. However, if we quote

the month before. However, if we quote the study, in this study, we utilized

the study, in this study, we utilized data from the survey of key informance

data from the survey of key informance patients skip program, a key element of

patients skip program, a key element of the researched abuse, diversion, and

the researched abuse, diversion, and addiction related surveillance radars

addiction related surveillance radars system. a comprehensive series of

system. a comprehensive series of programs that collect and analyze post

programs that collect and analyze post marketing data on the abuse and

marketing data on the abuse and diversion of prescription opioid

diversion of prescription opioid analesics and heroin. Skip data were

analesics and heroin. Skip data were analyzed for 9,540

analyzed for 9,540 respondents from the third quarter of

respondents from the third quarter of 2010 until the second quarter of 2015

2010 until the second quarter of 2015 who endorsed past month abuse of at

who endorsed past month abuse of at least one prescription opioid. What this

least one prescription opioid. What this means is that the respondents to the

means is that the respondents to the study had abused a prescription opioid

study had abused a prescription opioid in the past month, not that they had

in the past month, not that they had taken other drugs in the past month.

taken other drugs in the past month. When the survey asks about other drugs,

When the survey asks about other drugs, it's talking about lifetime use, as in

it's talking about lifetime use, as in have you ever taken X, Y, or Z, not have

have you ever taken X, Y, or Z, not have you taken it in the past month, as Sally

you taken it in the past month, as Sally Satel claims. Next, when Satel lists off

Satel claims. Next, when Satel lists off the drugs she claims people were taking

the drugs she claims people were taking in the past month, she says cocaine,

in the past month, she says cocaine, methamphetamine, hallucinogens, benzo,

methamphetamine, hallucinogens, benzo, this kind of thing. Relatively hard,

this kind of thing. Relatively hard, illegal drugs there. But this is not

illegal drugs there. But this is not what the study was solely asking about.

what the study was solely asking about. It was asking about any psychoactive

It was asking about any psychoactive substances including nicotine, tobacco,

substances including nicotine, tobacco, alcohol, rtoolin, and aderall. So when

alcohol, rtoolin, and aderall. So when this chart shows that between 70 and 90%

this chart shows that between 70 and 90% of people had used a drug before initial

of people had used a drug before initial opioid prescription, the two most common

opioid prescription, the two most common drugs there are alcohol and nicotine

drugs there are alcohol and nicotine because these numbers include people who

because these numbers include people who have ever that is ever remember drank a

have ever that is ever remember drank a beer or smoked a cigarette. Satel has

beer or smoked a cigarette. Satel has taken data about lifetime use of a whole

taken data about lifetime use of a whole range of drugs, including legal drugs,

range of drugs, including legal drugs, and is falsely reporting it shows prior

and is falsely reporting it shows prior month use of illegal hard drugs. If you

month use of illegal hard drugs. If you get addicted to opioid painkillers, but

get addicted to opioid painkillers, but at one point in the past you've ever had

at one point in the past you've ever had a glass of wine or taken ADHD

a glass of wine or taken ADHD medication, Sally Satell will use that

medication, Sally Satell will use that information to paint you as an

information to paint you as an established drug addict. And she's doing

established drug addict. And she's doing this to shift responsibility for people

this to shift responsibility for people getting addicted to these pills from the

getting addicted to these pills from the manufacturer of the pills to the people

manufacturer of the pills to the people being prescribed them. And she's doing

being prescribed them. And she's doing this after the manufacturer of the pills

this after the manufacturer of the pills gave her organization $800,000.

gave her organization $800,000. Returning to the war on science in Sally

Returning to the war on science in Sally Satel's essay, which is supposedly about

Satel's essay, which is supposedly about the angry reaction to a talk she gave

the angry reaction to a talk she gave about the opioid crisis, she does not

about the opioid crisis, she does not mention any of this. Of course, she does

mention any of this. Of course, she does not mention Oxycontton by name. She does

not mention Oxycontton by name. She does not mention Perdu Farmer or Desen Hall

not mention Perdu Farmer or Desen Hall resources or the enormous financial

resources or the enormous financial conflict of interest arising from the

conflict of interest arising from the money paid to the American Enterprise

money paid to the American Enterprise Institute. Actually, in the ProPublica

Institute. Actually, in the ProPublica piece, Satel claims not to be aware that

piece, Satel claims not to be aware that her employer was being paid by Perdu,

her employer was being paid by Perdu, which one I do not believe for a single

which one I do not believe for a single second, but two, that piece came out in

second, but two, that piece came out in 2019. Her talk at Yale was given in

2019. Her talk at Yale was given in 2021, so she knows by then, doesn't she?

2021, so she knows by then, doesn't she? She's definitely seen the ProPublica

She's definitely seen the ProPublica piece because she was interviewed for

piece because she was interviewed for it, but as usual, she doesn't declare

it, but as usual, she doesn't declare the conflict of interest. What Sally

the conflict of interest. What Sally Satel is doing in this book is using

Satel is doing in this book is using silly culture war nonsense as a shield

silly culture war nonsense as a shield for legitimate criticisms aimed at her.

for legitimate criticisms aimed at her. She paints the people who criticize her

She paints the people who criticize her as this amorphous, woke mob of overly

as this amorphous, woke mob of overly sensitive, irrationally angry people

sensitive, irrationally angry people with no genuine reason to object to

with no genuine reason to object to anything she says or does. But if you

anything she says or does. But if you look into it, it turns out there are a

look into it, it turns out there are a lot of very legitimate reasons to

lot of very legitimate reasons to criticize Sally Satel. And as for

criticize Sally Satel. And as for Lawrence Krauss, I would ask him what he

Lawrence Krauss, I would ask him what he thinks about financial bias as a

thinks about financial bias as a potential threat to science. Among the

potential threat to science. Among the various so-called threats to science

various so-called threats to science laid out by him in his introduction,

laid out by him in his introduction, zero of them are corporations buying off

zero of them are corporations buying off scientists to act as spokespeople for

scientists to act as spokespeople for their interests, using bribes to get

their interests, using bribes to get around government regulations, or

around government regulations, or pushing unsafe drugs onto the market for

pushing unsafe drugs onto the market for profit. Surely those things are more of

profit. Surely those things are more of a threat to science than a bunch of

a threat to science than a bunch of culture war nonsense. Well, I would ask

culture war nonsense. Well, I would ask Lawrence Krauss all that, but of course,

Lawrence Krauss all that, but of course, he took hundreds of thousands of dollars

he took hundreds of thousands of dollars from Jeffrey Epstein, remember? So, he's

from Jeffrey Epstein, remember? So, he's probably more willing than most to

probably more willing than most to overlook this sort of thing. Moving on,

overlook this sort of thing. Moving on, I want to talk about something

I want to talk about something interesting that happened while I was

interesting that happened while I was reading the war on science. I started to

reading the war on science. I started to see the same few names crop up again and

see the same few names crop up again and again. The first of these was the name

again. The first of these was the name Bo Weard. Alan SoCal quotes Weineard who

Bo Weard. Alan SoCal quotes Weineard who he describes as a psychologist on the

he describes as a psychologist on the subject of academic freedom of speech

subject of academic freedom of speech and then afterwards quotes him again.

and then afterwards quotes him again. Jerry Coin and Lana Maroa mention Weine

Jerry Coin and Lana Maroa mention Weine Guard as an example of a canceled

Guard as an example of a canceled professor who was fired for quote merely

professor who was fired for quote merely suggesting the possibility that there

suggesting the possibility that there were differences in cognition among

were differences in cognition among ethnic groups. We guard 2020 and they

ethnic groups. We guard 2020 and they later refer back to that again. Anna

later refer back to that again. Anna Kryoff and Jay Tansman point to an

Kryoff and Jay Tansman point to an article Bo Weguard published in Colette

article Bo Weguard published in Colette and also say elsewhere in Sex and the

and also say elsewhere in Sex and the Academy, Clark and Weine Guard present

Academy, Clark and Weine Guard present statistics revealing differences in

statistics revealing differences in sensorious attitudes between men and

sensorious attitudes between men and women. So, okay, who is this Bo Weard

women. So, okay, who is this Bo Weard person whose research and articles and

person whose research and articles and quotes keep on turning up in the book?

quotes keep on turning up in the book? Well, Bo Weard was an assistant

Well, Bo Weard was an assistant professor of psychology at Marietta

professor of psychology at Marietta College in Georgia, and he was dismissed

College in Georgia, and he was dismissed from that position, but not for merely

from that position, but not for merely suggesting the possibility that there

suggesting the possibility that there were differences in cognition among

were differences in cognition among ethnic groups. The actual reason was

ethnic groups. The actual reason was that his paper had to be retracted

that his paper had to be retracted because he used unreliable data.

because he used unreliable data. Unreliable data sourced from some old

Unreliable data sourced from some old friends of ours. If we click on that

friends of ours. If we click on that paper and go to the references, who do

paper and go to the references, who do we see? Richard Lynn. Richard Lynn.

we see? Richard Lynn. Richard Lynn. Richard Lynn. Richard Lynn. Good old

Richard Lynn. Richard Lynn. Good old head of the Pioneer Fund, Richard Lynn.

head of the Pioneer Fund, Richard Lynn. And who else do we see? J. Phipe

And who else do we see? J. Phipe Rushton. J. Phipe Rushton. So on and so

Rushton. J. Phipe Rushton. So on and so forth. This is the exact same sort of

forth. This is the exact same sort of debunked data that was cited in the bell

debunked data that was cited in the bell curve coming from the same sources. Even

curve coming from the same sources. Even these days, Weineard works for an online

these days, Weineard works for an online scientific racism magazine and podcast

scientific racism magazine and podcast called Aporeia. He is the executive

called Aporeia. He is the executive editor. He works there alongside editor

editor. He works there alongside editor Noah Carl, someone who we also see turn

Noah Carl, someone who we also see turn up in the war on science. Jerry Coin

up in the war on science. Jerry Coin quotes him and links to two of his

quotes him and links to two of his articles. Weard also frequently works

articles. Weard also frequently works with Corey J. Clark, someone who we see

with Corey J. Clark, someone who we see turn up in a whole bunch of places in

turn up in a whole bunch of places in the war on science in Clark and Weine

the war on science in Clark and Weine Guard 2023 of course, but also some of

Guard 2023 of course, but also some of the Clark at als we guard as one of the

the Clark at als we guard as one of the co-authors. For instance, the paper

co-authors. For instance, the paper pro-social motives underlies scientific

pro-social motives underlies scientific censorship by scientists from 2023 is

censorship by scientists from 2023 is cited by Alan SoCal, Anna Krylov, and

cited by Alan SoCal, Anna Krylov, and Jay Tansman. and that lists we guard as

Jay Tansman. and that lists we guard as one of the co-authors alongside Krylo

one of the co-authors alongside Krylo herself and also Steven Pinker who of

herself and also Steven Pinker who of course also writes a chapter in the war

course also writes a chapter in the war on science. Clark at al 2024 is cited by

on science. Clark at al 2024 is cited by Krylo Tansman and Richard E. Reading and

Krylo Tansman and Richard E. Reading and also lists Weineard as one of the

also lists Weineard as one of the co-authors. The Aporeia podcast has had

co-authors. The Aporeia podcast has had Amy Wax as a guest. It's had Steven

Amy Wax as a guest. It's had Steven Pinker as a guest. It's had Elizabeth

Pinker as a guest. It's had Elizabeth Weiss as a guest. All War on Science

Weiss as a guest. All War on Science authors. We also see Cory Clark, Noah

authors. We also see Cory Clark, Noah Carl, lots of Bo Weard, of course. It's

Carl, lots of Bo Weard, of course. It's also had Charles Murray on, and they've

also had Charles Murray on, and they've had Jared Taylor on more than once.

had Jared Taylor on more than once. Aporeia is seemingly a haven for, air

Aporeia is seemingly a haven for, air quotes, scientific racists. Now, Aporeia

quotes, scientific racists. Now, Aporeia is operated by the Human Diversity

is operated by the Human Diversity Foundation, which is a company founded

Foundation, which is a company founded in 2022 with the aim of publishing race

in 2022 with the aim of publishing race science. The Human Diversity Foundation

science. The Human Diversity Foundation was founded by Emil Kirk Godard, who is

was founded by Emil Kirk Godard, who is a Danish far-right racist, and he's

a Danish far-right racist, and he's someone who turns up all over the place

someone who turns up all over the place in connection with the Aporeia

in connection with the Aporeia contributors we've mentioned so far.

contributors we've mentioned so far. He's on the podcast. He publishes papers

He's on the podcast. He publishes papers with them and so on. He also turns up in

with them and so on. He also turns up in the war on science. When Jerry Coin

the war on science. When Jerry Coin cites a quote analysis of ethnically

cites a quote analysis of ethnically mixed populations, Lasaska Etal 2019,

mixed populations, Lasaska Etal 2019, Emil Kirkgard is one of those at als

Emil Kirkgard is one of those at als kirkgard has a research team at the

kirkgard has a research team at the human diversity foundation and that

human diversity foundation and that operates with the aim of producing

operates with the aim of producing seemingly legitimate research papers

seemingly legitimate research papers whose actual function is to try to sneak

whose actual function is to try to sneak race, science, and eugenics into

race, science, and eugenics into mainstream publications. Kirk Godard's

mainstream publications. Kirk Godard's collaborators include Pioneer Fund

collaborators include Pioneer Fund recipient Brian Pester, who was fired

recipient Brian Pester, who was fired from Cleveland State University in 2022

from Cleveland State University in 2022 for lying in his research application

for lying in his research application with regards to an article he wrote

with regards to an article he wrote about racial IQ gaps. Another is

about racial IQ gaps. Another is Davidida Pifer who once tweeted calling

Davidida Pifer who once tweeted calling African immigrants coming into Italy

African immigrants coming into Italy gorillas. Lovely chaps. Now, seeing all

gorillas. Lovely chaps. Now, seeing all of this gave me a feeling of deja vu.

of this gave me a feeling of deja vu. You see, when I was reading through the

You see, when I was reading through the bell curve for that video, I kept

bell curve for that video, I kept running into the same names over and

running into the same names over and over again that were connected to the

over again that were connected to the Pioneer Fund, which made for a fun late

Pioneer Fund, which made for a fun late video twist. You know, it turns out a

video twist. You know, it turns out a lot of the arguments in the book are

lot of the arguments in the book are based on the very shoddy research of a

based on the very shoddy research of a bunch of racists who were being funded

bunch of racists who were being funded by the Nazi Eugenics Fund. And as I was

by the Nazi Eugenics Fund. And as I was reading the war on science and kept

reading the war on science and kept running into the same names over and

running into the same names over and over again connected to Aporeia and the

over again connected to Aporeia and the human diversity foundation, I was struck

human diversity foundation, I was struck by the similarity. The pioneer fund was

by the similarity. The pioneer fund was to the bell curve as the human diversity

to the bell curve as the human diversity foundation is to the war on science or

foundation is to the war on science or at least the parts of it concerned with

at least the parts of it concerned with dodgy race science anyway. And as it

dodgy race science anyway. And as it turns out, this is more than a

turns out, this is more than a coincidence. The Human Diversity

coincidence. The Human Diversity Foundation isn't just similar to the

Foundation isn't just similar to the Pioneer Fund. The Human Diversity

Pioneer Fund. The Human Diversity Foundation is the Pioneer Fund. So,

Foundation is the Pioneer Fund. So, okay. Then, late last year, Hope Not

okay. Then, late last year, Hope Not Hate published a story called Race

Hate published a story called Race Science, Inc., which detailed how they

Science, Inc., which detailed how they sent an undercover reporter to

sent an undercover reporter to infiltrate the Race Science Movement.

infiltrate the Race Science Movement. One of the racists this reporter spoke

One of the racists this reporter spoke to was Matthew Frost, the founder of

to was Matthew Frost, the founder of Aporeia, and they filmed him dulging

Aporeia, and they filmed him dulging something rather interesting.

something rather interesting. >> This is a new pioneer fun. I mean I

>> This is a new pioneer fun. I mean I guess

guess public so they've appropriated the

public so they've appropriated the money.

money. [Music]

>> Yeah. >> That's defunct. I don't think that's

>> That's defunct. I don't think that's putting any money behind anything like

putting any money behind anything like yeah I think they just appropriated the

yeah I think they just appropriated the remaining money right when died it was

remaining money right when died it was left to a mill

left to a mill organization. So according to Frost,

organization. So according to Frost, after Richard Lynn died, the remaining

after Richard Lynn died, the remaining Pioneer Fund money was left to Emil

Pioneer Fund money was left to Emil Kirkgard who used it to fund the Human

Kirkgard who used it to fund the Human Diversity Foundation. This is just

Diversity Foundation. This is just tiresome now, isn't it? Surprise. It's

tiresome now, isn't it? Surprise. It's the same racists as last time. Anyway,

the same racists as last time. Anyway, let's read some other interesting points

let's read some other interesting points from the Hope Not Hate article. Firstly,

from the Hope Not Hate article. Firstly, the Human Diversity Foundation has also

the Human Diversity Foundation has also claimed ownership of Mankind Quarterly,

claimed ownership of Mankind Quarterly, which was the Pioneer Fund's pro-

which was the Pioneer Fund's pro- eugenics race science journal. That's

eugenics race science journal. That's the one that was founded by fascists and

the one that was founded by fascists and actual Nazis. The article also shows a

actual Nazis. The article also shows a slide of the HDF's organizational

slide of the HDF's organizational structure. There's the research side,

structure. There's the research side, which is where Kirk Godard's team cook

which is where Kirk Godard's team cook up race science papers. Here's a video

up race science papers. Here's a video of that happening. You can see Kirk

of that happening. You can see Kirk Guard, Wine Guard, Pifer, Pester, and

Guard, Wine Guard, Pifer, Pester, and some other blurry people. The slide also

some other blurry people. The slide also shows their media side, which includes

shows their media side, which includes Aporeia and TJH, which is a YouTube

Aporeia and TJH, which is a YouTube channel called The Jolly Heretic, which

channel called The Jolly Heretic, which is ran by a man called Edward Dutton,

is ran by a man called Edward Dutton, and that publishes YouTube videos, which

and that publishes YouTube videos, which are a load of old bollocks. The article

are a load of old bollocks. The article also includes the following disturbing

also includes the following disturbing paragraph about Emil Kaggard. Kgard's

paragraph about Emil Kaggard. Kgard's disturbing views extend beyond race. In

disturbing views extend beyond race. In 2012, he published a blog on his website

2012, he published a blog on his website about pedophilia, suggesting that

about pedophilia, suggesting that abusers should be allowed to rape

abusers should be allowed to rape children drugged with sleeping medicine.

children drugged with sleeping medicine. If they don't notice, it is difficult to

If they don't notice, it is difficult to see how they could be harmed, even if

see how they could be harmed, even if it's rape, he wrote. So, if you still

it's rape, he wrote. So, if you still needed another reason to dislike him,

needed another reason to dislike him, there you go. Matthew Frost is quoted in

there you go. Matthew Frost is quoted in the article being very open about how

the article being very open about how Aporeia targets and uses high-profile

Aporeia targets and uses high-profile commentators. Aporeia has tried to

commentators. Aporeia has tried to appeal to what it considers highvalue

appeal to what it considers highvalue readers by hosting well-known

readers by hosting well-known commentators and authors on its podcast.

commentators and authors on its podcast. We're using these people to get

We're using these people to get legitimacy by association, Frost said.

legitimacy by association, Frost said. Frost added that he was using these

Frost added that he was using these high-profile guests as a shield to avoid

high-profile guests as a shield to avoid scrutiny, giving the semblance of a

scrutiny, giving the semblance of a respectable publication. This is how the

respectable publication. This is how the Human Diversity Foundation operates.

Human Diversity Foundation operates. They target prominent commentators with

They target prominent commentators with big platforms. They get them talking

big platforms. They get them talking about free speech and censorship and

about free speech and censorship and academic freedom and so on, but it's all

academic freedom and so on, but it's all with the aim of sneaking topics like

with the aim of sneaking topics like eugenics and racial hierarchies closer

eugenics and racial hierarchies closer to mainstream acceptability. Some of the

to mainstream acceptability. Some of the people who go on their podcast and share

people who go on their podcast and share their papers will be racists who agree

their papers will be racists who agree with them, whereas others will just be

with them, whereas others will just be easy marks, lazy, ignorant mouthpieces

easy marks, lazy, ignorant mouthpieces who don't even realize that they're

who don't even realize that they're being used. With regards to the war on

being used. With regards to the war on science, I'm not going to bother trying

science, I'm not going to bother trying to figure out who falls into which of

to figure out who falls into which of these categories because ultimately it

these categories because ultimately it doesn't really matter, does it? Except

doesn't really matter, does it? Except Amy Wax is in the explicitly racist

Amy Wax is in the explicitly racist group. I think that's a safe bet. And

group. I think that's a safe bet. And just to demonstrate what this group are

just to demonstrate what this group are like, I'm going to play you a clip now

like, I'm going to play you a clip now of Bo Weard interviewing white

of Bo Weard interviewing white supremacist Jared Taylor. You can

supremacist Jared Taylor. You can understand practically no social

understand practically no social phenomenon if you don't understand

phenomenon if you don't understand racial differences. It would be like

racial differences. It would be like trying to navigate the world and

trying to navigate the world and assuming that absolutely every single

assuming that absolutely every single woman is just as strong, just as fast,

woman is just as strong, just as fast, just as powerful as every single uh man

just as powerful as every single uh man and then wondering, gosh, how come women

and then wondering, gosh, how come women are losing all the fights? How come

are losing all the fights? How come women get themselves raped but men

women get themselves raped but men don't? Everything is a mystery.

don't? Everything is a mystery. Everything is a mystery. And so in the

Everything is a mystery. And so in the United States today, everything is

United States today, everything is either a mystery or you have to

either a mystery or you have to attribute different poverty levels,

attribute different poverty levels, different crime levels, different

different crime levels, different failures, different successes. You have

failures, different successes. You have to attribute that to malevolent white

to attribute that to malevolent white people.

people. >> So, and yes, go ahead.

>> So, and yes, go ahead. Well,

Well, >> I I happen to agree with this thesis,

>> I I happen to agree with this thesis, which is the alternative to race realism

which is the alternative to race realism is widespread bunkome about racist white

is widespread bunkome about racist white people holding down other groups who

people holding down other groups who are, you know, failing relative to white

are, you know, failing relative to white people. Of course, magically, Asians do

people. Of course, magically, Asians do better. I don't know how that happened

better. I don't know how that happened in a white supremacist society, but it

in a white supremacist society, but it >> Sorry about that. This is just what

>> Sorry about that. This is just what they're like, this group. Okay. So,

they're like, this group. Okay. So, first of all, I'll note the very

first of all, I'll note the very horrible way in which Taylor assigns

horrible way in which Taylor assigns agency when he's talking about rape.

agency when he's talking about rape. Women getting themselves raped when men

Women getting themselves raped when men don't. Men do get raped for a start, but

don't. Men do get raped for a start, but also don't say women getting themselves

also don't say women getting themselves raped. That's horrible. Secondly, Weine

raped. That's horrible. Secondly, Weine Guard just says he agrees with Jared

Guard just says he agrees with Jared Taylor's quote race realism or his

Taylor's quote race realism or his racism to cut out the unnecessary

racism to cut out the unnecessary euphemism there. I showed you that clip

euphemism there. I showed you that clip mainly to demonstrate how awful they

mainly to demonstrate how awful they are. But I do want to briefly talk about

are. But I do want to briefly talk about what they said about Asian-Americans

what they said about Asian-Americans because I know the answer to the

because I know the answer to the question they asked there. I've talked

question they asked there. I've talked about this in a video before. Wineard

about this in a video before. Wineard and Taylor laugh at the idea that

and Taylor laugh at the idea that Asian-Americans can do better than white

Asian-Americans can do better than white Americans, better academically and

Americans, better academically and financially in a society which is

financially in a society which is supposedly biased towards white people.

supposedly biased towards white people. But where they're mistaken here is that

But where they're mistaken here is that the groups they're attempting to compare

the groups they're attempting to compare have been manipulated by the environment

have been manipulated by the environment in ways they are deliberately not

in ways they are deliberately not considering. They're doing the racial

considering. They're doing the racial equivalent of attempting to measure the

equivalent of attempting to measure the average human height on a basketball

average human height on a basketball court during an NBA game. The data

court during an NBA game. The data you're going to get from that

you're going to get from that environment will obviously be biased,

environment will obviously be biased, won't it? To start with here, let me say

won't it? To start with here, let me say that when it comes to academic

that when it comes to academic achievement, I favor an environmental

achievement, I favor an environmental explanation. I think there is a

explanation. I think there is a hierarchy of wealth and privilege in

hierarchy of wealth and privilege in society and wealthier parents can afford

society and wealthier parents can afford a better education for their children

a better education for their children and thus their better results on

and thus their better results on academic tests mainly reflect their

academic tests mainly reflect their parents' position in this socioeconomic

parents' position in this socioeconomic hierarchy. But if how people do

hierarchy. But if how people do academically is governed by wealth and

academically is governed by wealth and social environment, then why do

social environment, then why do different racial groups achieve

different racial groups achieve different results? You might wonder. And

different results? You might wonder. And the obvious answer is that they're not

the obvious answer is that they're not starting from an equal place, are they?

starting from an equal place, are they? The vast majority of black people in the

The vast majority of black people in the United States, for instance, are the

United States, for instance, are the descendants of slaves. Now, slaves were

descendants of slaves. Now, slaves were obviously kept at the very bottom of the

obviously kept at the very bottom of the socioeconomic hierarchy. They're not

socioeconomic hierarchy. They're not paid. They don't have property. They

paid. They don't have property. They have no or extremely limited formal

have no or extremely limited formal education. And then after slavery was

education. And then after slavery was abolished, it's not like things were

abolished, it's not like things were made immediately equal, is it?

made immediately equal, is it? Discrimination in many forms was still

Discrimination in many forms was still legal until the 1960s. There were

legal until the 1960s. There were segregated schools and so on. And even

segregated schools and so on. And even after things were made nominally legally

after things were made nominally legally equal, there's generational poverty,

equal, there's generational poverty, regional poverty, systemic bias,

regional poverty, systemic bias, unspoken racist attitudes. None of those

unspoken racist attitudes. None of those things go away overnight. And this

things go away overnight. And this brings us to Weine Garden and Taylor's

brings us to Weine Garden and Taylor's point about Asian-Americans. If the USA

point about Asian-Americans. If the USA has a pro-white racial bias, they ask,

has a pro-white racial bias, they ask, "Why do Asian people on average perform

"Why do Asian people on average perform better than white people on academic

better than white people on academic tests?" And the answer to that is

tests?" And the answer to that is because of geography. You see, in 1960,

because of geography. You see, in 1960, there were less than 1 million Asian

there were less than 1 million Asian people in the United States. Immigration

people in the United States. Immigration from Asian countries into the US had

from Asian countries into the US had historically been limited by a series of

historically been limited by a series of discriminatory racist laws called things

discriminatory racist laws called things like the Chinese Exclusion Act, for

like the Chinese Exclusion Act, for instance. Very on the nose there. In the

instance. Very on the nose there. In the decades after 1965, when racial

decades after 1965, when racial discrimination was prohibited in

discrimination was prohibited in immigration policy in the US, Asian

immigration policy in the US, Asian immigration skyrocketed. There are now

immigration skyrocketed. There are now more than 20 million Asian-Americans,

more than 20 million Asian-Americans, and the vast majority of the growth in

and the vast majority of the growth in that group has been due to relatively

that group has been due to relatively recent immigration. But we have to ask,

recent immigration. But we have to ask, who can afford to relocate to another

who can afford to relocate to another country that does not share a land

country that does not share a land border with your country and is on the

border with your country and is on the other side of the planet? Is it the

other side of the planet? Is it the poorest and least educated members of

poorest and least educated members of that society? No, of course not.

that society? No, of course not. Speaking very generally here, of course,

Speaking very generally here, of course, but the Asian people who have immigrated

but the Asian people who have immigrated to the United States in recent decades

to the United States in recent decades have had to pass a wealth check already.

have had to pass a wealth check already. Many of the poorest members of that

Many of the poorest members of that group have been filtered out because

group have been filtered out because they are less likely to be able to

they are less likely to be able to afford to immigrate. So, in making

afford to immigrate. So, in making comparisons between African-Americans

comparisons between African-Americans and Asian-Americans, you have one group

and Asian-Americans, you have one group who were descended from people who were

who were descended from people who were intentionally restricted to the very

intentionally restricted to the very bottom of the economic pyramid and

bottom of the economic pyramid and another who's had a lot of the bottom of

another who's had a lot of the bottom of their economic pyramid filtered out by

their economic pyramid filtered out by the immigration process. So, it's not a

the immigration process. So, it's not a fair comparison, is it? This is where

fair comparison, is it? This is where American stereotypes about Asian people

American stereotypes about Asian people being inherently academically gifted

being inherently academically gifted come from. What isn't being considered

come from. What isn't being considered is the immigration system filtering for

is the immigration system filtering for people with a good education or enough

people with a good education or enough money to pay for a good education. And

money to pay for a good education. And because of that filter, you're not

because of that filter, you're not seeing an accurate representation of the

seeing an accurate representation of the entire group of people. We can turn this

entire group of people. We can turn this whole thing on its head. For instance,

whole thing on its head. For instance, by considering black African immigration

by considering black African immigration into the United States, black African

into the United States, black African immigrants are more than twice as likely

immigrants are more than twice as likely to have a college degree than the

to have a college degree than the nativeorn white population. They're more

nativeorn white population. They're more likely to have graduate degrees. They

likely to have graduate degrees. They earn more money. Some groups of black

earn more money. Some groups of black African immigrants even have higher

African immigrants even have higher levels of academic achievement than

levels of academic achievement than Asian-Americans. Are we to conclude from

Asian-Americans. Are we to conclude from these facts that black people are the

these facts that black people are the most intelligent race? I'm sure Wineard

most intelligent race? I'm sure Wineard and Taylor would be completely agast at

and Taylor would be completely agast at that idea because it's not a fair

that idea because it's not a fair comparison, is it? Black African

comparison, is it? Black African immigrants have already been filtered by

immigrants have already been filtered by the immigration process for wealth and

the immigration process for wealth and academic achievement. But this is the

academic achievement. But this is the exact same process that they

exact same process that they dismissively refer to as magic when

dismissively refer to as magic when talking about Asian-Americans. Now, let

talking about Asian-Americans. Now, let me be clear here. I understand this. You

me be clear here. I understand this. You understand this, but Wine Guard and

understand this, but Wine Guard and Taylor also understand this. They're not

Taylor also understand this. They're not incapable of grasping anything that I

incapable of grasping anything that I just said. They are pantomimeing not

just said. They are pantomimeing not understanding it in order to recruit

understanding it in order to recruit ignorant people. These are not honest

ignorant people. These are not honest men. They are racists with an explicitly

men. They are racists with an explicitly racist political project. They wake up

racist political project. They wake up every morning and clock in for a full

every morning and clock in for a full day at the racism factory. The fact that

day at the racism factory. The fact that so much of their pseudocientific

so much of their pseudocientific research and writing has been accepted

research and writing has been accepted and shared by various war on science

and shared by various war on science authors should be shameful and it would

authors should be shameful and it would discredit the entire project if there

discredit the entire project if there were anything left to discredit by this

were anything left to discredit by this point. I want to slowly start wrapping

point. I want to slowly start wrapping up now and I'll start by answering a

up now and I'll start by answering a question that I got asked a lot while I

question that I got asked a lot while I was working on this video. Is there

was working on this video. Is there anyone in this book, this list of 39

anyone in this book, this list of 39 distinguished scholars, who is all right

distinguished scholars, who is all right or who wrote anything sensible? I

or who wrote anything sensible? I haven't talked about all of the essays

haven't talked about all of the essays today. Some were simply boring and said

today. Some were simply boring and said nothing of note. Some were solely

nothing of note. Some were solely comprised of points already made in

comprised of points already made in other essays, so they weren't worth

other essays, so they weren't worth mentioning. But there was the occasional

mentioning. But there was the occasional essay in here which was a fairly

essay in here which was a fairly unobjectionable statement in support of

unobjectionable statement in support of free speech or free expression. And

free speech or free expression. And taken by themselves out of context, I'd

taken by themselves out of context, I'd say those were basically fine. But

say those were basically fine. But they're not out of context, are they?

they're not out of context, are they? They're in Jeffrey Epstein defender and

They're in Jeffrey Epstein defender and accused serial sex pest Lawrence

accused serial sex pest Lawrence Krauss's book. Everybody here chose to

Krauss's book. Everybody here chose to be a part of this project. And if

be a part of this project. And if they're an otherwise sensible person who

they're an otherwise sensible person who wrote something unobjectionable, that's

wrote something unobjectionable, that's all the worse because they're lending

all the worse because they're lending their credibility to a project with a

their credibility to a project with a bunch of bigotry in it. I will briefly

bunch of bigotry in it. I will briefly mention here a few of the chapters that

mention here a few of the chapters that weren't worth getting into in more

weren't worth getting into in more detail, but I want to mention in passing

detail, but I want to mention in passing because they're funny. Jeff Horseman

because they're funny. Jeff Horseman writes, "Equity, diversity, and

writes, "Equity, diversity, and inclusion: The dismal pseudocience

inclusion: The dismal pseudocience threatening science." This one comes

threatening science." This one comes fairly far through the book. And before

fairly far through the book. And before you get to this point, you've already

you get to this point, you've already read a dozen other chapters espousing

read a dozen other chapters espousing the various supposedly scary Orwellian

the various supposedly scary Orwellian aspects of college diversity, equity,

aspects of college diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. And they all

and inclusion programs. And they all write as if they're hiding under the

write as if they're hiding under the desk from the woke mob brown shirts

desk from the woke mob brown shirts patrolling the corridors, hunting for

patrolling the corridors, hunting for ideological disagreements. As a tiny

ideological disagreements. As a tiny aside here, speaking as a representative

aside here, speaking as a representative of the woke mob today, I have to mention

of the woke mob today, I have to mention that I do not see these DEI programs as

that I do not see these DEI programs as being implemented by universities,

being implemented by universities, particularly the very big universities,

particularly the very big universities, in order to actually bring about some

in order to actually bring about some huge change in how the institution

huge change in how the institution operates. Actually, too often, in my

operates. Actually, too often, in my opinion, these programs are there in

opinion, these programs are there in order to prevent change or slow it down

order to prevent change or slow it down as much as possible. If you think the

as much as possible. If you think the presence of DEI programs in an

presence of DEI programs in an institution necessarily signals that

institution necessarily signals that institution has been taken over by some

institution has been taken over by some sort of progressive leftist political

sort of progressive leftist political vanguard, tell that to all the students

vanguard, tell that to all the students who got brutalized and arrested for

who got brutalized and arrested for protesting Israel's genocide in Gaza or

protesting Israel's genocide in Gaza or who complain about these institutions

who complain about these institutions links to the military-industrial

links to the military-industrial complex. With respect to the concepts of

complex. With respect to the concepts of diversity, equity, and inclusion, which

diversity, equity, and inclusion, which are all obviously good, too often these

are all obviously good, too often these diversity, equity, and inclusion

diversity, equity, and inclusion programs are just tokenistic camouflage

programs are just tokenistic camouflage that these institutions use to hide from

that these institutions use to hide from criticism. And again, I like diversity

criticism. And again, I like diversity to be clear, but it's really the least

to be clear, but it's really the least they could be doing. Three of the

they could be doing. Three of the traditional cishat white man positions

traditional cishat white man positions got given to a black person and a gay

got given to a black person and a gay person and a woman. But we still support

person and a woman. But we still support Israel's genocide in Gaza. And most of

Israel's genocide in Gaza. And most of our physics graduates go on to design

our physics graduates go on to design bombs that blow up hospitals better. And

bombs that blow up hospitals better. And if you complain about that, we'll send

if you complain about that, we'll send in the police to kick the out of

in the police to kick the out of you. But our administration is very

you. But our administration is very diverse. But the DEI complainers in the

diverse. But the DEI complainers in the war on science, they just see three

war on science, they just see three fewer positions available for cishat

fewer positions available for cishat white men and that's the end of the

white men and that's the end of the world to them. Anyway, with all that

world to them. Anyway, with all that said, the part of Horseman's essay I

said, the part of Horseman's essay I want to talk about is the section the

want to talk about is the section the EDI statement sewing seeds of

EDI statement sewing seeds of corruption. And here horseman complains

corruption. And here horseman complains about how applications for government

about how applications for government grants for science research need to

grants for science research need to include a statement about diversity,

include a statement about diversity, equity, and inclusion. He sees this as

equity, and inclusion. He sees this as Orwelli in state control of Fort. I see

Orwelli in state control of Fort. I see it as the process of writing a brief

it as the process of writing a brief statement explaining that you're not a

statement explaining that you're not a racist probably helps the grant

racist probably helps the grant department filter out people who want to

department filter out people who want to use the money to fund eugenics research

use the money to fund eugenics research or something. Either way, Horseman does

or something. Either way, Horseman does a little investigating and he finds that

a little investigating and he finds that in 2021, the number of applicants in one

in 2021, the number of applicants in one grant process whose application was

grant process whose application was rejected because of their statement on

rejected because of their statement on DEI was, drum roll please, 2.5%.

DEI was, drum roll please, 2.5%. And I burst out laughing when I got to

And I burst out laughing when I got to this point. After reading a whole book

this point. After reading a whole book about the supposedly devastating effects

about the supposedly devastating effects of DEI programs on science, you finally

of DEI programs on science, you finally get to some hard numbers about it and

get to some hard numbers about it and its 2.5% of applicants to a government

its 2.5% of applicants to a government grant process couldn't be bothered to

grant process couldn't be bothered to write a basic DEI statement. This is the

write a basic DEI statement. This is the time the book's complaints rarely felt

time the book's complaints rarely felt the least consequential to me,

the least consequential to me, especially again in light of the Trump

especially again in light of the Trump administration's total defunding of

administration's total defunding of various science programs. Next up,

various science programs. Next up, Gadsard, who is not a scientist, by the

Gadsard, who is not a scientist, by the way. He has a degree in marketing. He

way. He has a degree in marketing. He writes a very juvenile chapter whining

writes a very juvenile chapter whining about how he isn't taken seriously by

about how he isn't taken seriously by his colleagues, even though he's very

his colleagues, even though he's very important and has sold lots of books and

important and has sold lots of books and met lots of important people. Now, to be

met lots of important people. Now, to be fair, this is the subtext of a lot of

fair, this is the subtext of a lot of the other chapters in the book. I've

the other chapters in the book. I've been unfairly oppressed, even though I'm

been unfairly oppressed, even though I'm a special genius. But unlike them, Sard

a special genius. But unlike them, Sard doesn't bother veiling his masturbation.

doesn't bother veiling his masturbation. He just does it out in the open. I'm

He just does it out in the open. I'm brilliant, and if you don't see how

brilliant, and if you don't see how brilliant I am, you must be insane. This

brilliant I am, you must be insane. This essay is just too embarrassing to talk

essay is just too embarrassing to talk about, frankly. In that vein, geoysicist

about, frankly. In that vein, geoysicist Dorian Abbott writes one of the most

Dorian Abbott writes one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read in my

ridiculous things I've ever read in my life, which is a series of short

life, which is a series of short morality fables featuring characters

morality fables featuring characters such as Dr. Centrist and Mr. Woke. Mr.

such as Dr. Centrist and Mr. Woke. Mr. Awoke looks up in shock from his slash

Awoke looks up in shock from his slash their MacBook Pro with all the

their MacBook Pro with all the appropriate political decal stickers,

appropriate political decal stickers, spits out a mouthful of his slash their

spits out a mouthful of his slash their venty soy chai latte and declares that

venty soy chai latte and declares that this is highly problematic. Now I'm

this is highly problematic. Now I'm sorry to break this to you Dorian

sorry to break this to you Dorian Abbott, but your calling is not

Abbott, but your calling is not geoysics. You were destined to be a

geoysics. You were destined to be a terrible political cartoonist. In

terrible political cartoonist. In another of these stories, Professor

another of these stories, Professor Wright faces off against MissUpressed,

Wright faces off against MissUpressed, and MissUpressed somehow takes over the

and MissUpressed somehow takes over the World Economic Forum by means of a

World Economic Forum by means of a Twitter thread and kicks out everyone

Twitter thread and kicks out everyone over the age of 35. No one dares to

over the age of 35. No one dares to present data or make a rational argument

present data or make a rational argument for fear of being labeled a white

for fear of being labeled a white supremacist. Mr. Abbott, you are playing

supremacist. Mr. Abbott, you are playing with dolls here. This is cringe. You are

with dolls here. This is cringe. You are Mr. Cringe. Anyway, as we're coming

Mr. Cringe. Anyway, as we're coming towards the end of the video today, I

towards the end of the video today, I think it's about time we finally talked

think it's about time we finally talked about the war on science. No, not that

about the war on science. No, not that one. Not the war on science 2025, edited

one. Not the war on science 2025, edited by Lawrence Krauss, but the war on

by Lawrence Krauss, but the war on science 2016 forward by Lawrence Krauss.

science 2016 forward by Lawrence Krauss. This is a book by American writer and

This is a book by American writer and science advocate Sha Otto. Shan Otto and

science advocate Sha Otto. Shan Otto and Lawrence Krauss worked together on the

Lawrence Krauss worked together on the science debate 2008 campaign which

science debate 2008 campaign which called for US presidential candidates to

called for US presidential candidates to engage in a public debate on their

engage in a public debate on their science policies issues relating to the

science policies issues relating to the environment, medicine, technology and so

environment, medicine, technology and so on. Krauss writes the forward to this

on. Krauss writes the forward to this book introducing various threats to

book introducing various threats to science that Shaun Otto is going to talk

science that Shaun Otto is going to talk about in more detail. And what are these

about in more detail. And what are these threats to science? Well, back in 2016,

threats to science? Well, back in 2016, they look rather different than in 2025.

they look rather different than in 2025. Krauss talks about efforts to obstruct

Krauss talks about efforts to obstruct the teaching of evolution in schools,

the teaching of evolution in schools, the removal of fluidation in water,

the removal of fluidation in water, restrictions on vaccination, efforts to

restrictions on vaccination, efforts to deny the science associated with

deny the science associated with humaninduced climate change, and the

humaninduced climate change, and the book itself explicitly criticizes

book itself explicitly criticizes politicians in 2016. For instance, it

politicians in 2016. For instance, it calls out Donald Trump for his vaccine

calls out Donald Trump for his vaccine and climate change deniialism, which

and climate change deniialism, which rather humorously makes this decade old

rather humorously makes this decade old book more relevant to today than the

book more relevant to today than the book with the same name that just came

book with the same name that just came out. So, firstly here, I'll say that

out. So, firstly here, I'll say that it's very funny that Lawrence Crouch

it's very funny that Lawrence Crouch just straight up jacked the name of his

just straight up jacked the name of his friend's book. That's pretty rude,

friend's book. That's pretty rude, right? Especially since he was involved

right? Especially since he was involved in the project. But secondly, of course,

in the project. But secondly, of course, yes, the problems mentioned, vaccine

yes, the problems mentioned, vaccine denialism, climate denialism, these are

denialism, climate denialism, these are actual threats to science, right? And

actual threats to science, right? And these things haven't become less

these things haven't become less important over the last decade. They've

important over the last decade. They've become more important. But there's no

become more important. But there's no vaccine chapter or climate change

vaccine chapter or climate change chapter in the war on science 2025. In

chapter in the war on science 2025. In fact, both of those subjects are hardly

fact, both of those subjects are hardly mentioned at all. So, what changed in

mentioned at all. So, what changed in the past decade to make Lawrence Krauss

the past decade to make Lawrence Krauss decide that the more important threats

decide that the more important threats to science were pronouns and safe spaces

to science were pronouns and safe spaces and other right-wing culture war

and other right-wing culture war nitpicks? Well, I'm sure you can put it

nitpicks? Well, I'm sure you can put it together yourself by now, but he got

together yourself by now, but he got accused of doing a bunch of sexual

accused of doing a bunch of sexual harassment and then nobody sensible

harassment and then nobody sensible wanted to work with him anymore and his

wanted to work with him anymore and his good friend Jeffrey died, so he's not

good friend Jeffrey died, so he's not getting any more money from him. So now

getting any more money from him. So now he's selling culture war nitpicks to

he's selling culture war nitpicks to right-wing bigots because they don't

right-wing bigots because they don't care whether or not he sexually

care whether or not he sexually assaulted all those women. This is a

assaulted all those women. This is a small sad story. One last thing I want

small sad story. One last thing I want to talk about here is one of the only

to talk about here is one of the only times in the war on science that climate

times in the war on science that climate change is mentioned and it's in law

change is mentioned and it's in law professor Bruce Hardy's essay where he

professor Bruce Hardy's essay where he refers to the climate change agenda in

refers to the climate change agenda in the course of defending Jordan Peterson

the course of defending Jordan Peterson from criticisms of his climate change

from criticisms of his climate change denialism. Peterson has a long history

denialism. Peterson has a long history of spouting nonsense about climate

of spouting nonsense about climate change. He's claimed the climate is too

change. He's claimed the climate is too complex to be modeled. He gives climate

complex to be modeled. He gives climate change deniers a platform on his YouTube

change deniers a platform on his YouTube channel. It's sad and a fair bit ironic

channel. It's sad and a fair bit ironic for the book The War on Science to spend

for the book The War on Science to spend any time at all defending the

any time at all defending the anti-science beliefs of Jordan Peterson.

anti-science beliefs of Jordan Peterson. On that note, the final essay in the

On that note, the final essay in the book is written by Jordan Peterson, and

book is written by Jordan Peterson, and he's here in full Petersonian glory,

he's here in full Petersonian glory, talking about dragons and chaos and

talking about dragons and chaos and Lucifer and all that stuff. I appreciate

Lucifer and all that stuff. I appreciate the poeticism of ending the book with

the poeticism of ending the book with Jordan Peterson, especially after

Jordan Peterson, especially after starting with Richard Dawkins, a

starting with Richard Dawkins, a formerly respected science communicator

formerly respected science communicator and critic of religion. Jordan Peterson

and critic of religion. Jordan Peterson is a religious man who believes a bunch

is a religious man who believes a bunch of unscientific ideas. For instance, he

of unscientific ideas. For instance, he believes that representations of coiled

believes that representations of coiled serpents in ancient art are depictions

serpents in ancient art are depictions of the human DNA structure. And he

of the human DNA structure. And he believes this because he thinks under

believes this because he thinks under certain conditions, humans can see down

certain conditions, humans can see down to the microscopic level. He thinks that

to the microscopic level. He thinks that he personally has seen down to the

he personally has seen down to the microscopic level after taking large

microscopic level after taking large amounts of magic mushrooms. He explained

amounts of magic mushrooms. He explained this a few years ago in an interview he

this a few years ago in an interview he did uh with Richard Dawkins. funnily

did uh with Richard Dawkins. funnily enough, it's funny to include Jordan

enough, it's funny to include Jordan Peterson in a project with Alan SoCal,

Peterson in a project with Alan SoCal, best known for criticizing vague and

best known for criticizing vague and unscientific post-modern language, given

unscientific post-modern language, given that Jordan Peterson writes exclusively

that Jordan Peterson writes exclusively in a faux intellectual nonsense script.

in a faux intellectual nonsense script. It's funny to spend a lot of the book

It's funny to spend a lot of the book criticizing indigenous beliefs and

criticizing indigenous beliefs and creation myths as having no relevance to

creation myths as having no relevance to modern science and then have Peterson

modern science and then have Peterson talk about what's happening in

talk about what's happening in universities today in terms of biblical

universities today in terms of biblical stories and a Babylonian myth of

stories and a Babylonian myth of creation dating from the late second

creation dating from the late second millennium BC. It's funny to criticize

millennium BC. It's funny to criticize museums for signs explaining that

museums for signs explaining that indigenous tradition holds that their

indigenous tradition holds that their exhibits contain spirits and then move

exhibits contain spirits and then move on to Jordan Peterson talking about the

on to Jordan Peterson talking about the university being home to spirits which

university being home to spirits which are being threatened by the Luciferian

are being threatened by the Luciferian intellect. It's fitting that Jordan

intellect. It's fitting that Jordan Peterson is the last essay here because

Peterson is the last essay here because he is the rock bottom. His chapter

he is the rock bottom. His chapter represents the book giving up and just

represents the book giving up and just embracing anti-scientific religious

embracing anti-scientific religious quackery.

quackery. Thanks a lot for watching today, folks.

Thanks a lot for watching today, folks. On the way out, I'd just like to clarify

On the way out, I'd just like to clarify that I like science a lot. And I hope

that I like science a lot. And I hope the last four hours, oh my god, of me

the last four hours, oh my god, of me criticizing all these old dinosaurs and

criticizing all these old dinosaurs and bigots and charlatans hasn't given you

bigots and charlatans hasn't given you the impression that I'm inherently

the impression that I'm inherently anti-science or anything. There's a

anti-science or anything. There's a reason these people are sidelined and

reason these people are sidelined and disliked in their fields, and it's

disliked in their fields, and it's because they thankfully do not represent

because they thankfully do not represent the majority opinion. Thanks as always

the majority opinion. Thanks as always to all my supporters over on Patreon,

to all my supporters over on Patreon, some of whom should be scrolling by

some of whom should be scrolling by right now. Patreon backers get early

right now. Patreon backers get early access to all my videos, all of them.

access to all my videos, all of them. And they also get the opportunity to

And they also get the opportunity to crush my spirits by pointing out

crush my spirits by pointing out mistakes I made in the first draft. For

mistakes I made in the first draft. For instance, in this video's first draft, I

instance, in this video's first draft, I said that organized religion was

said that organized religion was systemically biased towards women. How

systemically biased towards women. How embarrassing. Okay, folks, that's all

embarrassing. Okay, folks, that's all from me today. The next video will be

from me today. The next video will be shorter. I promise. Bye.

Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video

Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds

One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps

Paste YouTube URL

Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript

Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds

Get Our Chrome Extension

Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.

Add to Chrome — Free

Works with YouTube, Coursera, Udemy and more educational platforms

Get Instant Transcripts: Just Edit the Domain in Your Address Bar!

YouTube

←

→

↻

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

YoutubeToText

←

→

↻

https://youtubetotext.net/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

YouTube TranscriptPreparing your results…

YouTube Transcript:The War on Science