Is the free exchange of diverse views out in the academy? This open letter, from a supposedly learned society, calls for the silencing and demotion of @sapinker based largely on tweets going back a decade. https://twitter.com/JonHaidt/status/1279443899002519554">https://twitter.com/JonHaidt/...

The letter reads like a parody of academic discourse. They open with a dose of innuendo and guilt by association, but then publicly wash their hands. They dissect a scattering of Pinker’s statements, always confidently asserting the least charitable interpretation.

Are academic societies now rooting through their members& #39; tweets (and other public statements) hunting for supposed dog whistles (e.g., using the word “urban”) or insensitive adjectives (e.g., describing a killer as “mild-mannered”) and using these as evidence of unworthiness?

Fighting racism and other injustices is hindered by silencing those who offer alternative views or policy approaches that diverge from the local orthodoxy. Instead of calling for a silencing, the signees should dispute @sapinker, explain their views, and have the debate.

Such virtue-signalling stunts provide the bandwagon-hoppers with the illusion that they are doing something while they actually undermine efforts to fight injustice. They destroy our unity in misguided efforts to achieve ideological purity.