The Origins Podcast with Lawrence Krauss - Abigail Thompson | The War on Science Interviews | Day 5

Episode Date: July 27, 2025

To celebrate the release on July 29th of The War on Science, we have recorded 20 podcast interviews with authors from the book. Starting on July 22nd, with Richard Dawkins, we will be releasing one interview per day. Interviewees in order, will be:Richard Dawkins July 23rdNiall Ferguson July 24thNicholas Christakis July 25thMaarten Boudry July 26thAbigail Thompson July 27thJohn Armstrong July 28thSally Satel July 29thElizabeth Weiss July 30thSolveig Gold and Joshua Katz July 31stFrances Widdowson August 1stCarole Hooven August 2ndJanice Fiamengo August 3rdGeoff Horsman August 4thAlessandro Strumia August 5thRoger Cohen and Amy Wax August 6thPeter Boghossian August 7thLauren Schwartz and Arthur Rousseau August 8thAlex Byrne and Moti Gorin August 9thJudith Suissa and Alice Sullivan August 10thKarleen Gribble August 11thDorian Abbot August 12thThe topics these authors discuss range over ideas including the ideological corruption of science, historical examples of the demise of academia, free speech in academia, social justice activism replacing scholarship in many disciplines, disruptions of science from mathematics to medicine, cancel culture, the harm caused by DEI bureaucracies at universities, distortions of biology, disingenous and dangerous distortions of the distinctions between gender and sex in medicine, and false premises impacting on gender affirming care for minors, to, finally, a set of principles universities should adopt to recover from the current internal culture war. The dialogues are blunt, and provocative, and point out the negative effects that the current war on science going on within universities is having on the progress of science and scholarship in the west. We are hoping that the essays penned by this remarkable group of scholars will help provoke discussion both within universities and the public at large about how to restore trust, excellence, merit, and most important sound science, free speech and free inquiry on university campuses. Many academics have buried their heads in the sand hoping this nonsense will go away. It hasn’t and we now need to become more vocal, and unified in combatting this modern attack on science and scholarship. The book was completed before the new external war on science being waged by the Trump administration began. Fighting this new effort to dismantle the scientific infrastructure of the country is important, and we don’t want to minimized that threat. But even if the new attacks can be successfully combatted in Congress, the Courts, and the ballot box, the longstanding internal issues we describe in the new book, and in the interviews we are releasing, will still need to be addressed to restore the rightful place of science and scholarship in the west. I am hoping that you will find the interviews enlightening and encourage you to look at the new book when it is released, and help become part of the effort to restore sound science and scholarship in academia. With no further ado, The War on Science interviews…As always, an ad-free video version of this podcast is also available to paid Critical Mass subscribers. Your subscriptions support the non-profit Origins Project Foundation, which produces the podcast. The audio version is available free on the Critical Mass site and on all podcast sites, and the video version will also be available on the Origins Project YouTube. Get full access to Critical Mass at lawrencekrauss.substack.com/subscribe

Hi, and welcome to the Origins Podcast. I'm your host Lawrence Krause. As many of you know, my new book, The War on Science, is appearing July 29th of this year in the United States and Canada. And to celebrate that, we've interviewed many of the authors of the 39 authors who have contributed to this volume, and we have 20 separate podcast interviews

that will be airing over the next 20 days, starting July 22nd, before and after the last. the book first appears with many of the authors in the book on a host of different subjects. The authors we will have interviews with in order of appearance over the next 20 days are Richard Dawkins, Neil Ferguson, Nicholas Christakis, Martin Budry, Abigail Thompson, John Armstrong, Sally Sattel, Solveig Gold, and Joshua Katz, Francis Wooderson, Carol Hoven, Janice Fiamengo, Jeff Horsman, Alessandro Strumia, Roger Cohen and Amy Wax, Peter Bogosian, Lauren Schwartz and Arthur Russo, Alex Byrne and Modi Goren,

Judith Sisa, and Alice Sullivan, Carleen Gribble, and finally Dorian Abbott. The topics that will be discussed will range over the need for free speech and open inquiry and science and the need to preserve scientific integrity stressed by our first podcast interviewer Richard Dawkins and we'll once again go over historical examples of how academia has been hijacked by ideology in the past and the negative consequences

that have come from that to issues of how specific disciplines including mathematics have been distorted and how certain departments at universities now specifically claim that they are social activists and a degree in their field is a degree in either critical social justice or social activism, not a degree in a specific area of scholarship, how ideology has permeated universities. We'll proceed also to discuss issues in medicine. Sally Satel will talk about how social justice

is hijacked medicine. And also, when it comes to issues of gender affirming care, we have a variety of authors who are going to speak about the issues there and how too often gender affirming care claims are made that are not based on empirical evidence. In fact, falsely discuss the literature in ways that are harmful to young people. We will talk to several people who, for one reason or another, have been cancelled for saying things. Francis Woodison at Mount Royal University in Canada and Carol Hoeven from Harvard, who eventually had to leave Harvard after saying on television that sex is binary in biology, we'll be talking to people who've looking at the impact of diversity, equity, inclusion in academia,

and how it's restricting free inquiry, and also restricting in many ways scientific merit at those universities. And finally, Dorian Abbott, the last contributor to our series, will be talking about three principles he believes are essential to separate science. and politics, and keep academia free from ideology and more for open questioning and progress and to make sure that science is based on empirical evidence and where we go where the evidence is, whether it's convenient or not, whether it's politically correct or not, and we're willing to debate all ideas that nothing is sacred, a central feature of what science should be about and what, in some sense, this podcast is about. So I hope you really enjoy the next 20 days,

and we've enjoyed bringing it to you. So with no further ado, the war on science, the interviews. Well, Abigail Thompson, thank you so much for being here virtually and also for contributing to the book, The War on Science. I've enjoyed reading you, and I was really happy when you agreed to be on. And I want to talk here about your contribution, titled The Two Universities Redux, which is a wonderful way of thinking about what's going on in academia right now.

But this is an origins podcast. and I like to find out people's origins a little bit about how they got to where they are. And I will ask sort of what led you to write about. This is clearly not directly mathematics and your professor of mathematics. So what led you here? But first I want to ask what got you into math because, yeah, because first of all, you're a woman mathematician and a lot of people have this stereotype that all mathematicians are men. And so what got you in what got you excited about math early on?

I always loved it as a child and I was pretty good at it. I enjoyed it a lot in high school. I majored it in college, although I was a double major in math and music. Music. And I wasn't quite sure which one I was going to try to pursue. But in the end, I decided I would actually like to be able to make a living. And math seemed more plausible as a way to make a living. Yeah, you know, I have to tell you, this is an aside, but I have to tell you a story.

when I was chair of the physics department in Cleveland, one of our alumni had won the Nobel Prize years earlier for bending the bubble chamber at Berkeley. But he told me, I met him, and he said, he actually was good enough in the violin to play, not in the Cleveland Orchestra, but one of the lower orchestras. And he was trying to decide whether it become a physicist or a musician. And his father said, become a physicist,

because it's easier to get a job as a mediocre physicist than it is as a mediocre musician. This is definitely still true. Anyway, sorry, but I couldn't resist. Anyway, so you decided to do math. And of course, you're automatically confirming the stereotype that there's a connection to people who are good at math and music. I know.

And actually, I'm always very skeptical of that stereotype. There are quite a number of mathematicians who are very fine musicians. For some reason, in my field, it is the cello. So the number of cellists in my field is ridiculous. That's my instrument. Oh, you did the show. See, I'm, well, I'm a good counter example. I love, I mean, I was a good mathematician. I, mathematical physicists, but I did agree in math. But one of the things that frustrates in the moment is, and I'm an awful musician. I love music, but I, but I, and when I was, this is totally aside, but I picked, when my daughter was a very good violinist and starting when

she was two and a half of three, but I surprised her once when I taught Yale and I took cello lessons in my office, actually, and surprised her one Christmas by accompanying her, and she was thrilled, you know, but I can only keep up at the first song, and after that, she wasn't real. But I am a, if you ever need a great counter example,

and maybe I'm not a good enough example as a math edition, but I'm certainly a crummy musician, that's for sure. Sorry, that didn't work out. It's okay. It's okay. Anyway, sorry. So I decided to do math. And it actually also has the advantage that you can be a mathematician and, you know, play chamber music on the side, which has really been a wonderful thing.

Did you do that, by the way? Always. Yeah. Oh, wow. That's great. I do still. Yeah. And I mean, my, my math, the story of my career is fairly, fairly boring.

I, you know, I got a PhD from Rutgers. and had a few postdocs and then ended up at my permanent job at UC Davis where I've been since 1988, so for a long time. A long time, yeah, yeah. And all was fairly quiet, although I did have a small tendency to poke my head above the oh, so this is, I don't know, the ledge there. Oh, okay, so you stayed under the radio, but this isn't the first time you peaked up and looked to see for enemy fire.

That's correct. And, yeah, actually, so the very first time that anyone paid any attention was there's quite a remarkable article which contains something called the diversity trumpsability theorem.

Oh. And this was mentioned and cited in one of the many trainings that, you know, one has to go to. and it was presented as a theorem, a mathematical theorem. It's been proven that diversity trumpsability. Oh, wow. So I was very interested in that, and I looked at that quite carefully.

And I wrote an article about that for the AMS notices. And the mathematics is, I don't know how to be kind about it. The mathematics is nonsense. You don't have to be kind. If it's nonsense, you're supposed to say it's nonsense. Well, I did. Yeah. Yeah.

I mean, just on its face, you would think that people would realize that was not something that could be proven mathematically, even if it's true much of the time or something. But anyway, so that caused a little bit of a little bit of a ruckus, but not too much. When was that, by the way? That was quite a long time ago. I want to say around 2015, but I'm not sure. Okay. And then I became department share in 2017, 18, not, 17, I guess. And it's 2017.

And it's a three-year position. And that was when more ruckus happened. So did you want to hear about that? Yeah, I mean, I think, look, I'd be frank, I think you first came to my attention. when it's important for female scientists, mathematicians, and whatever, to address a number of what I think are misconceptions about sexism and other things in academia. And I seem to remember you speaking forthrightly about that as a successful female mathematician.

And I thought that was incredibly important. So anyway, I don't know if that's related to what you're about to talk about. But as chair, I was chair for 15 years in my department. about the department. And I became blatantly aware of the quotas that were being put on and their effect on necessarily looking for merit. So maybe you want to talk about that. Actually, I remember at one academic Senate meeting long ago asking exactly, could somebody define the difference between what they were discussing and quotas? And the difference was that quotas are illegal. Yeah, exactly.

That was the key difference. Actually, in that training that I was talking about where I was introduced to this notion that there's a theorem that diversity, trumpsability, this was a training that was instituted, I think again around 2015. and it was to train any member of a faculty search committee had to attend one of these trainings Every member of the search committee still to this day has to attend one of these trainings they're called stead what it's some terrible acronym trainings and the reason they were the put on by who I'm sorry and drop but who who ran the training or was it at the Department of Equity? Academic Affairs. I think it was academic affairs, but it was a requirement. If you were on a search committee, you had to attend one of these trainings. And as far as I could tell,

the point of the trainings was to, you were encouraged to take that online implicit bias test, which I refused to do. But the point of the trainings was to instill in the search committee members the understanding that the reason that there were so few women and underrepresented minorities, particularly in the sciences, was because the search committees were actually discriminating against applicants. And at the time that it was instituted, they were still publishing data. Now it's much more difficult to find the data. But at the time that that was instituted, you could pull up the data and you could see that the number of women and the number of underrepresented minorities across the entire campus.

There was one exception, which was like education or something. But in almost every field, we were hiring women and underrepresented minorities at higher percentages than they were appearing in the applicant pools. And in some cases, much higher percentages than they were appearing in the applicant pools. And so the idea that it was the fault of the search committees and that training was going to change that was ridiculous, right? It was just preposterous. And there was just nothing. I mean, I tried several colleagues, tried, there seemed to be nothing that we could do to shake this idea.

And as I say, the trainings are still a requirement, although the data is much harder to see now. They're better at hiding these things. So, you know, as a woman in math, senior woman in math, I mean, certainly when I I was a graduate student, certainly some instances when I was a young faculty member, there is, there are stereotypical prejudices against women in mathematics. There are many, many fewer than there were. But I think on balance, even for me, on balance, the extra points I've gotten have sort of balanced against the whatever, you know, negative points I got. And to think that now at this point that this is the problem or that there is a problem,

I'm not sure what the problem is. It seems to me that is. The assumption, as you talk about here and number of people talk about in the book, and I've written about this, not only is it assumed there are a problem, but you can't even ask the question, is there a problem? Many people have asked, is there a problem get canceled or removed for simply asking the question. Is there a data, please? In fact, I'll be talking one of the authors of one of the pieces who literally did get a problem in his institution were asking,

can we have data for why we're implementing this particular policy? And they almost removed him for that, asking that question. Yeah, no, you're the, as far as I can tell, the underlying assumption is that in the absence of discriminatory, nation, 50% of research mathematicians, for example, would be female. I'm like, really? Why? Yeah. And I have to say, it's very helpful to have other women in mathematics. It does make a difference to see other, you know, if it's nice to walk into a seminar

room and not be the only woman in the room. But does it have to be 50%? I wouldn't expect it to be anything. I wouldn't expect it to be 50%. And I imagine when you were younger, you were often the only woman in the room, but you liked math and it didn't stop you. I think that's an important factor.

I think I was often the only woman in the room, and I like math. And I think I'm particularly lucky in my field, in that it's an extremely, this is low-dimensional topology for some reason as like the world's friendliest field. Yeah. And it took me quite a while to say, if I'm uncomfortable walking into a room full of male mathematicians,

I should probably check to make sure that it's whose fault it is. And quite often it was mine. That is, they were extremely friendly and welcoming. So, I mean, then what do you do? Then you just say, okay, you know, let's. That's a really, a remarkable friend of mine who has actually been on our podcast, is often said that. Often it's good to ask yourself the question whether the problem is you rather than someone else. And it's easy to not not do that. Also, and, you know, I think this discussion,

which is, you know, prefaces what we're going to talk about. It's still useful because it's, it's an important conversation that's hard to have. And because one of the other problems, I want to ask you if you agree with me, but I've always felt, you know, as a physicist looking at this field as well, but as a successful female mathematician, surely it not only must it feel patronizing, but it must feel bad if there are quotas, I would think if I were in your situation to feel like people are looking at me and asking, is there an asterisk next to my name, did I get my job because I'm a woman? woman. So it's demeaning to other successful scientists or mathematics, whatever, if people have that underlying assumption that perhaps they're there not because of their quality of their

work. I mean, it must be. Do you ever sense that? I have to say, I don't sense it about my job. Because partly because I'm reasonably confident that my mathematics is plenty good enough for the position that I have. I mean, that's okay. But when, for example, I'm invited to be on organizing committee for a conference or I'm, sometimes even if I'm just invited to give a talk at a conference or I'm invited. That does provoke that. And I feel kind of bad because, you know, when you, up until three months ago, when you organized a conference or when you made up your list of invitees for a conference, in fact, you had to have quite a number of women speakers or a number of women organizers. And so, you know, I feel bad for the people that are trying to organize it.

But it doesn't make you feel good. That's true to say, ah, once again, they didn't have enough women. I have a friend who basically will not. It will ask basically, you know, they'll come and say we need to diversify our panel and then she won't do it. Yeah. And, and, and, and I, then I have males, friends that I, I also, who said, well, I'll not, I won't be on a,

I won't be on a manel. And I'm, I keep thinking, you know, aren't you interested in what the topic is rather than, rather than who, you know, anyway. Okay, but now that, that, that, that, that preface is because that kind of, well, actually, what really prefaces it, I think is that, is that, is that people are required, when you talked about required to take this training in the absence of any evidence that there's a problem there to be solved. And then the evidence, the data goes away. And so now it has to be an act of pure faith. And so that discrimination between reality and and myth becomes, you know, ideas become sacred and are governed by ideology. And I think that's a

nice preference and a segue to your piece because your piece basically says two universities coexist on campus across the university. They show the same physical space, but they're different worlds. There's the knowledge university and the dogma university. And the knowledge university basically follows what you call the Princeton Principles, the core mission of the university is the pursuit of knowledge and advancement of knowledge through scholarship and teaching, it sustains through freedom of inquiry and equality before laws and campus. And the other are those who view the university primarily as an agent of social change.

Scholarship is almost incidental. This, but, and what I pretty like about your piece, is that people can say, well, you're just saying that, but of course, you immediately follow it. And I was shocked to see some of the real world statements that you use from departments at UC Davis. Let me read, because you can't, you couldn't make this up, I think.

Let me read what you said, the faculty job advertisement that UC Davis illustrates us. The Chicano, Chicana O's Studies Department is rooted and aligned with the decolonial project that emerged from a third world liberation front

and a vision of Chikana OX studies as a space for liberation, resistance, freedom, and decolonial absolutionist futurist. And then the Asian American Studies Department website is even more explicit. The way I would describe it is that to major Asian American Studies is to measure in social justice.

I mean, I believe it's not to say to major to major in Asian American studies is to learn something about Asian American studies. I know. No, it's very explicit. I think it's weird that people haven't paid a little bit more attention to this because if you read, like if you read op eds and you read, you know, all these commentary pieces, they say, We are moving away from the core mission of the university as really describing the Princeton principles. And I'm like, yeah, half of the people, not half, but a substantial number of people on campus moved away from that mission quite a long time ago. Yeah. And are very clear about it.

They're not hiding it, right? Yeah, yeah, no, exactly. And I think, and you point out that Divide isn't just. verbal. It's profoundly, it's profoundly important because not only, because associated with this social justice, as we talked about in the example you gave, the faculty in the Dogme University are skeptical of anything termed objective truth, namely something that's rooted in data and empirical evidence. And especially if data and empirical evidence disagree with what they would like to be the case, they know that they don't like it. And that is a really, that's an affidavit of science,

the whole concept of science. Right. And I don't see. It's, it's very difficult to imagine a situation in which the two can continue to coexist actually because neither really can tolerate the other point of view. I mean, we're sort of, you know, we could wave as we pass each other or something. But we don't intellectually have very much in common. And I think that's one of the, I mean, and that's one of the reasons why we're,

doing this book is that is that is of a concern of that exact fact how can how can how can university which is supposed to disseminate knowledge develop knowledge coexist in an environment like that and a number of us are concerned that that that that it isn't and and it's important i think that that that the group is is internal is all people within not criticizing academia from outside saying oh you know you left as professors but but but but the group from which within who are politically diverse, and I kind of made sure of that too, but also, you know, all concerned about this from within. And it's not a, it's not a hypothetical situation. As the examples here point out, these are real issues. These are not just, and it's, and it's not

just in the humanities department or Chicana studies or whatever. It's occurring within the sciences itself as well. And, and, and, which when I remember when I was, when I taught years ago, I, We thought we're immune. We're up on Science Hill off and saying, we used to look down and say, well, you know, we're immune from that, but it's not. And one of the reasons that we're also, I think, that I'm excited about the fact that a number of people like you,

who I admire greatly, are willing to speak out about this. And it's important is that many faculty want to keep their head down, as we talked about it. And we'll talk about at the end, because you illustrate that at the end of your paper, too. but that many people thought, well, this is just, you know, it's just a small, it's a side effect. We don't have to worry about it.

It's going to go away. It doesn't have a big effect. And you said in 2018, when someone was writing about this, you would have agreed. But it's different now. It is different. And I don't know how you can ignore it at this point. And the example of the, sorry, go on. I mean, even before 2018, they clearly, it's not just that we don't intellectual.

have much in common these two halves of the university. It's it's the the social justice oriented half can't really tolerate the science half as it stands, right? We're we're a problem for that. Yeah, we're a problem and there are a lot. Yeah. And they've tried very hard to push into that, into that half. and it's quite destructive. Well, it is, and you just reminded me.

I mean, if you think of California where you teach, I mean, and so it's a problem, so you have to invent reasons why it's a problem. And you have to say, well, it's a white male patriarchy, and it's not really, and you know, and I've written about it and you know about these mathematic standards in California, which basically said getting the right answer is a white supremacist construct of mathematics. And so you have to find reasons why it's bad. And ultimately it's rooted in some, in Western, you know, in Western oppression. Yeah.

And it's, it's when it starts affecting, you know, particularly when it starts affecting math education, actually, for my point of view, particularly when it starts affecting K through 12 math education. Yes, exactly. It's unbelievably destructive. You're taking children who have the potential to be. really excellent mathematicians and you're not allowing them to learn any math. I mean, you're not teaching them math. Yeah, absolutely. Because that's, it's somehow bad.

Yeah, and you can't track kids who are excellent for some reason and put them in advanced classes. It's just ridiculous. But it's also equally bad because we all know that more generally, forget the good mathematics students who one day or another, I often find that the really good students will overcome anything and then still survive and, you know, they'll flourish anyway. but there's the bulk of people. We do a really bad job generally, nationally teaching math in general.

And so to make it worse is even sadder, I think, for the people who weren't gifted. And it has to go along with testing is evil, right? Yeah, exactly. Well, but the example you give the difference thing, which hit you and a number of other people have written for this right in the face of the difference between what's going on sort of as a side issue that's not important in 2018, happened in 2023 when in October, when Hamas attacked Israel.

And I think that as far as that really provoked, I think you're writing here that this is really something. The anti-Israel demonstrations have run amok with the student leader saying, I wake up daily and pray for their death, talking about Jews basically, and they're forever sentencing to hell. And the fact leave for justice and Palestine

and running at the same time, as you point out, these people were advocating the death of people to kill people, celebrating the barbaric murders and tortures and rapes and burnings, celebrating them. And on the other hand, as you point out, UCD is still running the training sessions, the kind you had to take, where attendees are instructed asking someone, where are you from, is microaggression. So that is dangerous. Asking someone where you're from is dangerous,

but advocating the death of a whole group of people, that's okay. That's okay. Yeah. No, it's, it's, I think it's spooky, actually. It's, it's very, it's very disconcerting for, for me, at least, to have, you know, an administration, that repeatedly describes these, you know, encampments and these protests as these are peaceful protests. They're protesting for peace in the Middle East and peace in Gaza. And I'm like, you know, not really. They've got, you know, they've got a Hezbollah flag. They've got a popular front for the liberation of Palestine flag. They have a good Zionist as a dead one in their encampment. Really? You really think that.

that these are peaceful. I mean, no one was hurt. That's true. They are yet. But the argument which eventually led to Claudine Gay's demise is saying, well, look, they may be saying something stupid, but they have the right to say something stupid. They have the right to be wrong, which is fine. But then you can't, but at the same time, we're saying,

but someone doesn't have the right to miss, you know, give the wrong pronoun. That's, that is a severe. act of violence. Yeah, that's, I think we're in a different, we're obviously in a very difficult situation because I'm actually reasonably close to a free speech absolutist, right? Me too. If if people want to demonstrate in the quad with swastikas saying Heil Hitler from noon to one, from noon to one, because that's what our rules say, with megaphones from noon to one,

I will defend their right to do that. But that's not what was happening. It's just not, right? It's not a question of free speech when you allow them to camp out for six weeks in the middle of the quad. And you allow them to march through classrooms and you allow them to disrupt exams and you allow them to close the bus station during final exams. exams. It's not free speech. And it's, it's really wrong to describe it that way. And it's also by, by, by not actively, not I saying it's wrong, but arguing, but having people say they may be wrong. Yeah. You lead, as you point out, I was shocked. 67% of 18 to 24 year olds now think that Jews as a class are oppressors. And then, and then you had this resolution. that was being debated in January 24 about from the so-called

UC Ethnic Studies Faculty Council on the Israel Gaza War arguing that to describe this attack as terrorism is to re-inscribe a colonial narrative that I mean it's so divorced from reallity.

That's what we're teaching. This is. Yeah. Yeah. And and then the I was shocked by this quote. Well, the other thing that's important, as we talk about the perversion of scholarship, I mean, as I say, people can be wrong,

but the university is supposed to be a place where ideas can be debated so one can see what makes sense and what doesn't make sense. That's the whole point of scholarship. And certainly science is a dialectic. You expect when you present a math paper to be attacked at some level, or at least your ideas, questioned, and you'll be able to defend them. And, and, but these people then say this is the Ethnic Studies Department, which I think you've already demonstrated from earlier quotes, is clearly not an academic intellectual department in any way. The proposed policy experts constrains experts for effectively communicating crucial information.

And it fails to acknowledge that the scholars in programs like ethnic studies rely on research theory and factual data. The nature of our statements is inextricably linked from our expertise as scholars. So the idea is that somehow they're doing scholarly work by just simply making bold claims that are unsubstantiated and that are divorced from reality. But you can't question them because they're scholars. That's a protection argument. Sorry, go on. They're the experts. Yeah.

It's quite an argument. It's really, I think it's an interesting situation. It feels like we thought we had. had an effective system of checks and balances in academia, and it's failed. Yeah. And we're kind of stuck. I don't know what you could do about this. I mean, once you have multiple of the studies departments that, and you forget how we got here, at this point, we have multiple of the studies departments with a majority, perhaps unanimity,

that are populated by people that think this is what scholarship is, this is what the purpose of the university is, and they're tenured. What do you do with that, right? And I mean, you've, you've, you know, you've been on a campus many years, right? And you come to review faculty files. And at some point, there's a committee that reviews files from all over campus. And what you're told, I just had a colleague who was, on that committee, what you're told is you must rely on the experts in the field for their evaluation of the scholarly work. And so what's, you know, what's a mathematician supposed to do? Say, well, that looks like rubbish to me, you know. Well, you can't question the field, but along with that, which is sort of not only can you, could the argument made that you have no right to question it because you're not X, Y, or Z, which of course is also an anathema. science. There are no authorities, they're experts, but any kid can question your mathematical

proof. They're allowed to, they're allowed to do it, whether they're a mathematician or not, right? And, and, but also, to some extent, there's another attack, which is that you, that your arguments come from a Western male patriarchal, whatever it is. And therefore, they're not, they're not justified because they're based on a whole enlightenment, a problem. which we realize is led to colonialism and et cetera, et cetera. So when you say that, you are inherently racist, sexist, whatever, or whatever. And that's another way to shut down your arguments. Yes.

And it's, it's, unfortunately, it's been quite an effective way to shut down, shut down people's arguments. I don't know. Yeah, I know it. And also that you make the point that when people are, are stopped from speaking, which is the other thing that goes on, where debate is. effectively quashed because people are de-platformed or so many other ways, which we discuss in our book. You point out Dorian Abbott was just speaking to, we wrote an article for this book. When he was MIT, he was giving a talk on climate change, but because he'd written a piece of gender or some,

or on afford of action, basically, which they didn't like. They canceled his big public lecture. And you said, a UC colleague posted, freedom of speech does not protect you from the loss of your privileged expectation. And as you write, who knew that giving you, a scientific talk in your research area was a privileged expectation. Yeah, no, that was a colleague in his field who approved of that cancellation.

Well, it's even worse. I don't know if you've read his piece, but it's, he quoted, there was a New York Times article, the chairman of geoscience is at Williams College said specifically, as you probably know, that the, that arguing on the basis of data, is white male patriarchy

and it's not to be it's not to be given any credence this is the chair of geosciences at Williams anyway well there's a problem and I and we've tried to illustrate it in a lot of ways and you've done a great job

there but you do talk about and then we try in the book at various times talk about what can be done and you say the first thing is to recognize there's a problem because I don't know if things have changed in the last year but it is true when I have tried and I've as you know written extensively talk to people even earlier in academia certainly in mind the public there was not the awareness of how ridiculous this

situation is but because most academics like to keep their head below the radar and just go about their work they hear about this or that but again it's assumed anecdotal but not that it's deeply ingrained so the first thing is to recognize there is a problem and that's one of the reasons for, as I say, from the book, not just so the public realizes there is a problem, but if people see what I think is a distinguished group of people who've written about this problem who don't have an ax to grind except they're concerned, that hopefully other of our colleagues will realize, A, there is a problem, B, maybe we better think about it.

I hope so. I have to say that what I've seen in the last few months, I don't find encouraging. So, I mean, University of California, you know, we're in California. We're a little bit nuts, right? But and of course, the entire senior administration is in a state of intense terror right now, right? Because they're just hoping that that federal spotlight doesn't come and shine on them. But every sort of public pronouncement that I've heard from senior administration has,

that there's zero reflection that there is actually any problem except the external attack. That is, everything is, let us now all agree that it's time to circle the wagons and defend, defend the university. And I'm like, you know, maybe we should actually try to figure out why we're being attacked so severely and try to do something about it. But there's no, I don't see any kind of reflection of the nature that I would have hoped for. Yeah, and you make a very good point, which is something that, as you know, we have the authors have thought about is that this book called the Warren Science and it was completed last year before the current election. And many people are saying, well, oh, come on.

How can you look at what's going on in the Trump administration's tracks on science, university. And I think it's really important to point out, and we've talked about this, and I will continue, I hope, the contributors will continue as when this book appears and it to the extent that they're asked to speak about it, that there are two things. There's an external attack, which, and you have to fight that in the ballot box or speak out or purchase. But what we're talking about is an eternal thing, as something that that is part of the culture of science and scholarship. And if that isn't changed, the science and scholarship themselves, independent of what's going on outside, is in trouble. And that's what we're trying to address.

And that's clear. Independent of, had nothing happened, I would have given the science mission of the great research universities, maybe 10, 10 more years of productive work. Because things are getting bad. And people aren't paying good attention still. And you also, as you pointed, this attack of the administration, which is, which I abhor, I will say, but but it's in response to you know they've the wrong it's it's almost ludicrous here well you weren't allowing free speech so what we're going to and which is true and you weren't

allowing free inquiry and you were imposing things so what we're going to do now is we're going to pose on you you can't talk about this you can't it's just but but there's a reason for it as you point out and and and and and I think it's really I'm kind of shocked and saddened here what you say but as my wife always reminds me, it's going to get worse before it gets better. The question is whether it'll get better. But the other problem which you address, which I personally feel is very strong,

is as you say, this, this, the administrative class, namely the leaders of institutions who show not only no backbone, but less than backbone. phone, who have no real interest in what the university is all about, who are hired ultimately to raise money or to present a good picture, a public picture, and are more therefore more concerned with the public perception and perhaps a media campaign than the principles they're supposed to defend. Yeah. And that's actually really come to the four in the last few months because if you, in fact, I imagine every campus has done this, but we're now promoting, you know, the wonderful things that UC Davis has provided to the state of California. And what are they? Well, they're great, you know, great achievements in agriculture, in biology, in medicine and in the sciences, right? We're not mentioning any of the other stuff.

Yeah. I mean, it's kind of funny, but it is, it's basically a, it's, it's a, it's a, it's a P-R move, but it's, it's not doing anything to acknowledge some of the underlying problems. Absolutely. And, and, and, and, and one can understand if the, if the senior administrators are willing, whenever possible to, to forego academic freedom or, or, or, or, or, uh, do process or whatever it is for, to defend faculty's right to speak or, or, or students' right to speak. or students' rights to speak, then it's pretty easy to understand why faculty are a little hesitant to speak. And you point out, and the fact most faculty are not speaking out, and it's not

besides the actual inclination of faculty not to speak out, in general timid, they'd just rather do their work. But you can also understand it's not too stupid not to speak out when you see the risks of speaking out. Yeah, and it's very unpleasing.

pleasant. That's the other, that's the other. Yeah, yeah, you know. But that doesn't sound too bad, but, you know, in fact, if you kind of become a bit of a pariah in many circumstances on campus, on a place where you work, it's a very unpleasant thing. And I'm, I'm quite sympathetic to people that don't want to say anything. It's usually sympathetic to junior faculty members because they're just, that would be foolish. Yeah, yeah. It's, well, it's foolish, but yeah, exactly. But I mean, sometimes you've got to do what you've got to do. But absolutely, it is hard. And I think that's why most academics have always avoided speaking out, even about non-contentious issues or hesitant to talk to journalists. And it's a very safe environment in academia, even if it's, because the debates in your field are very about things you work on, it's very different than the kind of things that we suddenly are exposed to a journalist or a public on your questions. And it's a, it's a scary environment in general. And I understand why many people are not comfortable with it. I have been. And I don't think any faculty should be forced to do, you know, to, I've often said when I was, when I was chair of a department, my, I don't mean, my junior faculty shouldn't be required to do outreach if they're not good at

outreach. I mean, they should be due required to do well in their work. And that's why they're here. And, you know, and teaching, et cetera. And of course, one can't help but mention as you do, those dreaded words, diversity, equity, and inclusion, which are not dreaded words, but which have been have been perverted. Many people always say, how can you be against DEI? But the effect of the bureaucracy has been to police and restrict.

And as you point out, D.I nationally has had a setback because as Jews on campus and off come to the realization that inclusion in D.E.I was strictly for politically favorite groups and Jews weren't on that list. No, we were not. demonstrates the lie.

And it's going to be hard to start going on. It's a very specific list of groups that are really included in that inclusion word. And it's the way, as you say, I mean, diversity is as a concept, diversity, equity, well, equity has become really perverted, I would say. Yeah, yeah. But diversity and inclusion, great. Those are terrific ideas. But the execution of those ideas on campuses in the last 20 years has been just horrific. Because inclusion means exclusion and diversity means.

And the real, in a university, the real diversity that matters is intellectual diversity in a sense and not based on artificial concepts. And it's sad when universities themselves or scientific institutions or scientific organizations, I don't know about the American math. the association. I'm in my own area of physics. It's, it's been tragic and you probably know I've written about it when the American Physical Society says things like, you know, the Trump executive order saying based on Martin Luther King's statement that a person should be judged by the, you know, not by judged by the color of the skin, but the quality of the character is somehow antithetical to the goals of the American Physical Society. I mean, it's really, it's really, well, the American Math Society certainly has had its, um, its issues. Let me say that.

Okay, well, yeah. We started an alternate math society, actually. Ah, okay. Well, there you go. That's one way to do it. Association for Research Math. But it's sad. It's tragic that one has to do it, I think.

But then now talk about two universities. Now you have two societies. You've got dog math and knowledge math. Anyway. So you conclude, and I would like to read your statement because I always like to read the conclusions. And it's clear. Changing this trajectory of decline is a daunting task. We must dismantle DEI bureaucracies, eliminate a reform politicized departments,

significantly reduce the size of university administrations, and vigorously defend free speech and academic freedom all simultaneously. And I'll skip to the last statement. You say that our universities and our society march forward together. If we don't want to live in the wasteland of a dog in society, we must stop it now. And I really appreciate you for writing and speaking out, And I told you before, we've never met personally, but we're at a meeting recently. I've always admired what you've written.

And now it's a pleasure to even be a little closer virtually. And maybe someday we'll get to be physically. We'll actually be physically in the same space. Yes. Yeah. Yeah, we're now in the same state. Thank you very much. I really appreciate.

On the stone's throw away. Yeah. Thanks for coming on here. Thanks for contributing to the volume. And it's wonderful. And I really appreciate the discussion. Thanks a lot. Oh, thank you very much.

Lawrence. Hi, it's Lawrence again. As the Origins podcast continues to reach millions of people around the world, I just wanted to say thank you. It's because of your support, whether you listen or watch, that we're able to help enrich the perspective of listeners by providing access to the people and ideas that are changing our understanding of ourselves and our world and driving the future of our society in the 21st century. If you enjoyed today's conversation, please consider leaving a review on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. You can also leave us private feedback on our website if you'd like to see any parts of the podcast improved. Finally, if you'd like to access ad-free and bonus content, become a paid subscriber at Originsproject.org. This podcast is produced by

the Origins Project Foundation as a non-profit effort committed to enhancing public literacy and engagement with the world by connecting science and culture. can learn more about our events, our travel excursions, and ways to get involved at Originsproject.org. Thank you.