The Backlash Against Questioning Progressive Agendas

In 2004, biologist Richard Sternberg was removed from his position as editor of the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. The journal took the unusual step of disavowing an article that had already passed peer review and been approved for publication. The reason: the article was written by Stephen Meyer, a geologist and professor of the history of science, presenting scientific arguments supporting the theory of intelligent design, meaning that the world was designed by a creator rather than evolving spontaneously.

The intelligent design theory challenges the prevailing explanations of evolutionary mechanisms, proposing that the complex systems of living creatures better reflect a designing intelligence. At the time, this theory was a red flag to orthodox Darwinism activists within the U.S. culture wars. These activists aggressively fought against scientists supporting intelligent design.

Since then, the phenomenon has spread rapidly, becoming an almost standard part of academia. Today, it is apparent that certain opinions and questions are forbidden in public discussion on contentious issues such as gender identity, climate change, and effective responses to pandemics.

Two recent examples illustrate the new peaks reached by “cancel culture.”

The "1619 Project" is a journalistic endeavor by the New York Times suggesting that America's founding fathers built the nation to perpetuate slavery and Black disenfranchisement. It aims to provide a historical foundation for the belief in systemic racism in the U.S. to this day, making it very popular among the progressive "woke" left. Despite being rife with historical distortions, the project's conclusions align with current ideological needs.

Recently, James Sweet, president of the American Historical Association, faced backlash after publishing an article criticizing "presentism"—the tendency to evaluate historical figures by today’s standards to serve current political motives. As an example, he pointed to the "1619 Project." With careful language and an extremely cautious tone, he highlighted several historical inaccuracies the project relied on and wondered aloud: "The project is certainly excellent journalism. But is it history?"

His cautious wording and ginger approach did not spare him from the wrath of the enlightened zealots. They attacked him furiously, hurling insults and curses. Critics didn't bother to address the points Sweet raised. Instead, they launched personal attacks. It's important to note that the harsh verbal assault didn’t come from some bored street thugs but from senior academics and respected professors.

The pressure worked, and within hours Sweet issued a groveling apology, admitting his "insensitivity" for critiquing the project and expressing deep regret for the pain caused to everyone affected by institutional white racism. He also confessed to a lack of proper judgment in publishing the article, acknowledging it could assist conservative right-wing arguments against the "1619 Project."

Needless to say, the apology did him no good. The enlightened demand his resignation, settling for nothing less than his removal from the presidency of the Historical Association. Time will tell if they achieve their goal, but it’s safe to assume that Sweet will not dare to expose historical errors in articles serving the progressive agenda in the future, and anyone valuing their academic career will likely follow suit.

This is what being "liberal" looks like.