This is a modest personal attempt to understand the ideology behind the current antiscientific trends in STEM, and more specifically in mathematics. In simplified terms, these trends can be traced back to a growing imbalance between the old ideal of fairness based on individual merit and the increasingly predominant, unrealistic expectations of equality of outcomes in all areas of human activities. I draw on specific examples and various scientific studies to show how these trends undermine the teaching of science in the US and, increasingly, research in STEM disciplines.

This article examines the violation of longstanding scientific norms, in particular universalism, objectivity, and truth orientation by new identity policies such as the principle of ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ (DEI). The imposition of this principle by public opinion, administration, and mass media, particularly in the United States but also in other countries, contradicts the principle of equal opportunity regardless of race, gender, nationality, and class, by putting the emphasis of assessment on group identities. The implementation of this principle has begun to damage careers, threaten scientists and lower standards in academia. In order to provide a historical perspective, I review how the violation of scientific norms has impacted scientific success in past authoritarian countries, in particular the USSR under Stalin, and Nazi Germany. The comparison with past authoritarian countries does not aim at equating situations from then and now, but can help understand social and political mechanisms of current events. It also highlights in a drastic way consequences that a violation of scientific norms may have for science today.

In this article, I will try to offer both a French perspective on academic activism and a perspective based on my field of competence, that is, the social sciences and humanities. The social sciences and humanities differ from the natural sciences in many respects, but they also share some common properties, among which the most important is their common institutional belonging to the academic field. Nowadays the impact of wokism has added a common concern for the autonomy and quality of our working conditions.

In this article, I describe Germany’s Cancel Culture and Limitations of Debate by referring to my own biography and current social-political events.

Philosophers have described several approaches for scientific research, including causal inference and induction, the hypothetico-deductive method, inference of the best explanation, Bayesianism or causal network analysis. Prescriptive truth is dependent upon the values that one brings into scientific inquiry. One may oppose the writings of Bertrand Russell and Helen Longino. The former argues that values may negatively impact inquiry, while Longino argues that value-free research does not exist, and we must cope with it. However, Longino proposes a very stringent value-system which does not allow certain research to be conducted. The problem arises when prescriptive truth becomes hypertrophic, self-righteous, rigid, and unconnected to reality, which is the transformation into ideology. Ideological intrusion into science and medicine, such as with Social Justice Ideology (SJI), is indeed a problem in Western democracies. It derived from scholarship originating in the humanities (law, social sciences, branches of philosophy, etc.) and then transferred to Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics and Medicine (STEMM). The STEMM field was thought to be immune to SJI because of its rigorous methodology, but the hyper-specialization and absence of training in the humanities made it vulnerable to SJI. These intrusions into STEMM and the amplification in the last 2–3 years are potentially due to ‘concept creep,’ psychogenic contamination, herd behaviour and, for activists, strategical equivocation (motte-and-bailey fallacy).

In the philosophy of science, there are multiple concepts trying to answer the question of how scientists ‘know’ things, all circling around the notion of observation, thesis, falsification and corroboration – namely, the usual concepts of scientific practice. However, a whole different question is ‘how does the public know things?’. Understanding the answer to this question is crucial, since (at least in Western democracies) the public is the entity which funds, and through funding directs to a certain extent, the course of science. Here I discuss ‘the knowledge system’, a concept (proposed by the American writer Alex Epstein), which can generally be thought of as the set of institutions and processes which take part in the way the public becomes knowledgeable about certain (scientific) topics. I argue that the ‘knowledge system’ contains two inherent flaws, namely (i) the accumulation of biases; and (ii) strong feedback loops, which are almost unavoidable. I demonstrate these flaws with some examples and show how these flaws can (and already do) lead to policy suggestions that de-facto abolish academic freedom. Finally, I discuss possible ways to overcome – or at least minimize – the effect of these flaws on science and the scientific community.

The politicization of science – the infusion of ideology into the scientific enterprise – threatens the ability of science to serve humanity. Today, the greatest such threat comes from a set of ideological viewpoints collectively referred to as Critical Social Justice (CSJ). This contribution describes how CSJ has detrimentally affected scientific publishing by means of social engineering, censorship, and the suppression of scholarship.

Research framed around issues of diversity and representation in STEM is often controversial. The question of what constitutes a valid critique of such research, or the appropriate manner of airing such a critique, thus has a heavy ideological and political subtext. Here, we outline an attempt to comment on a paper recently published in the research journal Physical Review – Physics Education Research (PRPER). The article in question claimed to find evidence of ‘whiteness’ in introductory physics from analysis of a six-minute video. We argue that even if one accepts the rather tenuous proposition that ‘whiteness’ is sufficiently well defined to observe, the study lacks the proper controls, checks and methodology to allow for confirmation or disconfirmation of the authors’ interpretation of the data. The authors of the whiteness study, however, make the stunning claim that their study cannot be judged by standards common in science. We summarize our written critique and its fate, along with a brief description of its genesis as a response to an article in which senior officers of the American Physical Society (which publishes PRPER) explained that the appropriate venue for addressing issues with the paper at hand is via normal editorial processes.

The purpose of this article is to discuss practical solutions to the threat to free inquiry at universities coming from the illiberal left. Based on my experiences at the University of Chicago, I propose that all universities should adopt and enforce rules requiring that: (1) the university, and any unit of it, cannot take collective positions on social and political issues; (2) faculty hiring and promotion be done solely on the basis of research and teaching merit, with nothing else taken into consideration; and (3) free expression be guaranteed on campus, even if someone claims to be offended, hurt or harmed by it. Faculty need to work together with students, alumni, journalists and politicians to get this done.