In a world where everyone is desperate to be correct, let us begin with a simple principle: academic inquiry is supposed to operate under the Baconian notion of falsification. We test hypotheses not to confirm our biases but to see if they are wrong. The problem, of course, is that contemporary academia is increasingly populated by people who test nothing. Instead, they build upon foundations of information devoid of testable hypotheses, stacking bricks of opinion atop faulty scaffolding. Bogus journals, social activism, and ideological orthodoxy masquerading as free speech and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are their instruments of propagation.
The result is a fraudulent intellectual edifice protected by the shields of identity politics and performative morality. Take sports science and sociology, for example, the works of Malcolm Gladwell and K. Anders Ericsson, which have contributed to the proliferation of the hedonic treadmill—a culture of obsessive, misdirected practice based on junk science. Today, much of academia is built on this same treadmill, fixated on grit, practice, and the pursuit of tenure rather than genuine academic inquiry.
DEI, Free Speech, and the Fetishization of Identity
In July 2024, PEN America—an organization ostensibly devoted to free speech—defended a professor at the University of North Carolina after he was dismissed for comments on gay and Indigenous identity. PEN framed the dismissal as an attack on free speech. But here’s the problem: in the academy, people are people—not gay, Black, or Indigenous. Their work is supposed to be judged by its intellectual merit, not their immutable characteristics. To defend speech based on identity rather than its academic integrity is to miss the point entirely.
The academy has increasingly abandoned scientific rigor in favor of ideological allegiance. DEI, which began as a noble pursuit of equity, has become a cover for intellectual cowardice. Many universities now prioritize demographic representation over academic merit, rebranding conformity as compassion. Those who challenge this orthodoxy are often labeled as bigots rather than engaged in genuine debate.
It is no longer enough to be correct. One must be correct with the right politics. The result? a dogmatic monoculture in which the pretense of diversity masks intellectual uniformity.
The Collapse of Scientific Rigor
The bigger issue is that the public—enabled by organizations like PEN America—has lost its ability to analyze data relationally and professionally. The public no longer demands verifiable evidence or testable theories; they demand validation. And because academic institutions have embraced a culture of virtue-signaling over empirical scrutiny, even real science is under ideological control.
Consider the field of sociology, which once relied on rigorous, large-scale studies to test social theories. Today, entire journals are devoted to untestable claims about systemic oppression, patriarchy, and whiteness—terms so broad and vague they evade empirical scrutiny. Words become self-referential jargon, reinforcing the author’s worldview rather than testing it.
Or take gender studies, which now frequently publishes articles based on autoethnography—personal narrative as research. Lived experience has replaced objective inquiry. Truth is no longer the goal. Emotional validation is.
The hard sciences are not immune. In 2023, the journal *Nature* published an editorial arguing that scientific language should be rewritten to be more “inclusive,” removing terms like “mother” and “father” in favor of “gestational parent” and “non-gestational parent.” This is not science. It is linguistic activism dressed in a lab coat.
The Sokal Hoax
In 1996, physicist Alan Sokal famously submitted a nonsensical article to the journal *Social Text*—an esteemed publication in cultural studies. His article, titled *”Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity”*, was pure gibberish, blending postmodern jargon with absurd claims about physics. The journal published it without question.
Sokal’s hoax revealed that entire branches of academia were intellectually bankrupt, operating without any scientific standards or falsifiability. Yet, rather than sparking reform, the academy doubled down, becoming even more ideologically entrenched. Today, entire disciplines—critical theory, postcolonial studies, and gender studies—exist almost entirely beyond the reach of empirical verification.
DEI as Legally Ridiculous
The standing of the DEI issue should be examined through the academic lens of law. Under the law, one must have jurisdiction, standing, and damages. Someone cannot be held liable for another’s actions without these elements. But, at some level, that is precisely what is being attempted here. By forcing DEI issues into the academic discourse without a clear and defined legal framework, we risk opening the door to chaos. As the law operates within clearly defined parameters, so must academic inquiry. We set a dangerous precedent for diluting intellectual integrity when we expand the scope of what constitutes damage or harm based solely on identity or unverified claims.
The Failed Experiment
The hypnosis has been tested, and the results are precise: reducing scientific rigor, undermining the foundation of falsification, and letting ideology overshadow empirical inquiry is not working. The data doesn’t lie. The decline in academic rigor in hard and soft sciences manifests in the weak intellectual products churned out by ideologically driven research. We have become so obsessed with affirmation and inclusivity that we have forgotten the primary purpose of academic work—to seek the truth, no matter where it leads.
With clear evidence, it is time to take necessary and immediate action. First and foremost, we must educate people on the basics of science: what it is, what standards must be met, and how to read and interpret data. We must teach students and the public alike to be critical of what is presented as truth and question, as Francis Bacon urged, “What is the case for the opposition?” This fundamental skill seems to have been abandoned in favor of echo chambers and confirmation bias.
Armed with these tools, we can begin restoring academic integrity. It starts by demanding accountability from our educational institutions, ensuring that merit and evidence, rather than identity or political alignment, dictate the contours of intellectual work. Only by returning to the principle of falsification can we hope to stop the erosion of intellectual standards and once again create an environment where ideas are judged not by their popularity or ideological conformity but by their merit and their ability to withstand rigorous testing.
_________
Cover graphic courtesy Sarah Lawrence College
The author confuses programs with implementation. All good and worth policies and programs can be ruined by poor management, just as this writer does in his argument.