America, and the West as a whole, has been experiencing a revival of sorts — a social movement based around the ideology of social justice. The intentions of individuals commonly described as social justice warriors, or "SJWs," are perhaps noble but have expressed themselves in an authoritarian manner.
Take, for example, the repercussions of this movement to the public discourse. Speakers who come to college campuses and challenge the doctrines of social justice are quite often or in some way. So, too, the movement threatens people that it deems inappropriate, and those who attempt to think for themselves have been misrepresented and . And, worst of all, the movement can and occasionally does escalate into real .
Now it appears that the movement has come for free inquiry.
Ted Hill, a professor emeritus at Georgia Tech, published last week detailing the suppression that one of his articles had received. Hill had written about the “Greater Male Variability Hypothesis” — the hypothesis that there are more male geniuses and idiots than female ones. Hill had built a mathematical model that fit the supporting data (which is extensive and extends across a variety of species, according to him). The article was well received by academics who evaluated the paper, and it was quickly selected to appear in a well-respected academic journal.
To be clear, Hill had merely attempted to create a framework to better understand the existing data. He had not supported the implications of such data. He had not even created the datasets themselves. Yet, as soon as the article was published, backlash poured in. Those who had a stake in the ideology of social justice pointed out that the article provided an explanation for why there might be an under-representation of women in awards and positions of prestige. Those invested in the ideology of social justice cannot abide another explanation to the underrepresentation of women in positions of prestige.