Academic Inquisition Are Universities Ce

ACADEMIA Letters
Academic Inquisition: Are Universities centres of Higher

Education or Higher Indoctrination?
Alaric Naudé
Introduction
In the Western World, Universities have been held in high regard as institutes of higher learn-
ing where complex and at times highly controversial ideas could be openly critiqued and stud-
ied from the vantage point of neutrality. Yet, proud traditions of open discourse are slowly
being eroded by those who do not desire open inquiry and who insist that academia bow to
a narrow, pseudoscientific and flawed view of the world, all without the ability to even dare
question its validity. Even once proud Universities have begun to succumb to this intellectual
rot, the giants of education, the University of Oxford which dates to at least 1167 (Oxford,
2018), and University of Cambridge have discarded their traditions of open inquiry and lay
prostrate before destructive ideologies that pit men and women against each other, and drive
a wedge deeper between already unstable race relations (Cambridge Equality & Diversity,
2020). Across the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the UK, universities
have slowly but surely begun to bow to the intellectually immature rather than uphold freedom
of speech, open inquiry and freedom of thought. The history of open inquiry and free speech
in academia has been a centuries long battle, a battle between those who desire to think and
those who desire to tell others what to think. For centuries those who would censor academic
inquiry have recycled the same methodologies to intimidate and de-platform those who would
not follow the narrative. Today, large swathes of academia have already succumbed to the re-
lentless tide of Philistinism. Academia has become the proverbial canary in the coal mine and
what happens in universities is of great importance as they are a microcosm of what wider
Academia Letters, January 2021 ©2021 by Academia Inc. — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0
Corresponding Author: Alaric Naudé, dr.alaricnaude@outlook.com

Citation: Naudé, A. (2021). Academic Inquisition: Are Universities centres of Higher Education or Higher
Indoctrination? Academia Letters, Article 130. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL130.
1
society will inevitably become.
Discussion
The precedence of history cannot be ignored lest we be doomed to repeat it. In 1517, Professor
Martin Luther of the University of Wittenberg in German publically called for open debate in
his Ninety- five theses (Hillerbrand, 2019), only to be excommunicated by Pope Leo X and
labelled an outlaw by Charles V the Holy Roman Emperor [also known as Charles I in his
capacity of King of Spain] in 1521 who further banned his writings and permitted anyone
to kill Luther on sight. Luther’s crime was using scripture to point out academic and church
corruption, no debate would be permitted nor tolerated. Galileo Galilei, the father of modern
science and professor of Mathematics at the University of Padua, was also thusly persecuted.
The church, infected by Aristotelian geocentric philosophy, misinterpreted poetic scripture
to mean that the earth was the center of the universe. This stance taken by those who were
not willing to delve into scripture nor for an instance take an open critique of highly flawed
Aristotelian philosophy caused him to be labelled with “vehement suspicion of heresy”, he
was condemned to a life sentence of house arrest (Galileo Monument, 2010.) and yet he is
one of the fortunate ones.
The 1930s, the National Socialist German Workers’ Party commonly referred to as the
NAZI Party, set about to purge academia of all open inquiry, academic debate, and freedom
of speech in order to solidify its indoctrination on the populace. Control of academia and
removal of open inquiry was a central tenant of this totalitarian ideology, the only doctrine that
would be tolerated was NAZI cultism. (Yourman, 1939) Several new subjects were created
and many others started to be observed through the lens of NAZI ideology, eugenics becoming
the favorite of NAZI biologists.
An example is that of Emil Gumbel, “who was of Jewish origin, was a Socialist and paci-
fist who openly expressed his convictions. In the summer of 1930, as a result of his scholarly
achievements in the field of statistics, he was promoted by the Baden Minister of Education
to the position of “extraordinary associate professor.” The radical nationalists among the
students at Heidelberg, several nationalist professors, as well as the nationalistic parties and
press vehemently opposed his appointment, claiming that it was unconstitutional. The Nazi
and the nationalistic factions in the Student Union, as well as the right-wing political par-
ties in Baden, attempted to turn this controversy into a political and ideological crisis, thus
challenging a traditionally sacred principle of German academia - the complete separation
of the State from academic affairs. These (developments proved the vulnerability of German
scholars to the violence generated by the adherents of an anti-intellectual ideology. Finally,

2
not only Gumbel’s appointment but also his career at Heidelberg was terminated.”(Carmon,
1976)
Non-Jewish professors who refused to integrate NAZI ideology into their lectures and re-
search and who spoke out against this rabid ideology were forced out of academia and several
fled the country, some of these include Hans Kuhn, Peter Goessler, Franz Weidenreich and
K.H. Jacob-Friesen. (Jacob-Friesen, 1934). More examples can be found at LMU in Munich,
“In the 1920s Munich was a center for reactionary and extremist groups that counted many stu-
dents among their members. Their degree of radicalization and their public impact increased
as the decade advanced.” This ideological zealotry only continued to deteriorate. “With the
appointment of Walther Wüst, Indologist and Aryan ideologist (President of the National So-
cialist Forschungsgemeinschaft Deutsches Ahnenerbe), as Führer-Rektor of the University in
1941, responsible research and soundly based tuition programs became more and more dif-
ficult, particularly in ideologically sensitive disciplines. These authoritarian measures led to
a further fall in student enrolment.” (Ludwig-Maximilian’s University, 2020). In 1945, the
university was forced to close due to lack of students and lack of qualified staff, extremism had
caused its implosion. When invading the Ukrainian town of Lwów in July of 1941, the NAZIs
targeted Polish academics and murdered 25 professors along with their families. The Gestapo
who headed these executions was Karl Eberhard Schöngarth, himself an academic and PhD
in Law from Institute for Labor and Law (Lehrer,2000). Unsurprisingly, the lists identifying
Polish professors were prepared by activist Ukrainian students belonging to Organization of
Ukrainian Nationalists, an organization that used terrorism as a form of intimidation against
perceived enemies (Zygmunt, 1989)
The USSR took similar steps to prevent open inquiry and crush freedom of speech. With
brutal efficiency it imprisoned and executed any academic, scholar or expert in their field who
showed even the slightest suspicion by USSR standards of supporting free expression. The
brilliant linguist, Doctor Nikolai Durnovo of the USSR Academy of Sciences was shot and
thrown into a mass grave in 1937. (Imperial Moscow University, 2010) Another linguist,
Doctor Nikolai Aleksandrovich Nevsky of Leningrad State University was falsely accused
of being a Japanese spy and executed in 1937. (Karimata, 1998). Khadija Osman bey qizi
Gayibova, a skilled pianist and music teacher was also falsely charged and executed by firing
squad on 19 October 1938. (Ganjali, 2001). It is impossible to know just how many academics
died during the Great Purge, their deaths and the surrounding mayhem caused a great cultural
and intellectual loss for all the regions involved. Zhu (2000) points out that as radicalization
spread, that the academic standards were quickly sacrificed and entire pseudoscientific fields
such as Lysenkoism and Japhetic theory were created.
Today, spread of this same dangerous mindset can clearly be seen. Professors are behaving

3
as zealots and activists rather than remaining neutral where possible and acting as facilitators
of complex discussions and problem solving skills. Professors themselves partake in violent
demonstrations (Bostock, 2020) and encourage their inexperienced students, not to act with
reason, but condone and justify repulsive behaviors in their students. They have forsaken the
art of teaching and instead revel in the power and influence that comes with indoctrination.
Instead of providing stimulating and through provoking lessons, they water down education
and create “safe spaces” as if their students were young children that needed mental protection.
And yet that is what they are, intellectual children, unable and unwilling to grasp or deal
with anything controversial, there is no logic and no reason, merely recycled ideology. These
activist professors and students follow the same methods as those in the Third Reich and the
USSR, by making conceited efforts make ad hominem attacks and never once address the
issues raised, they attempt to have professors expelled from universities for displaying views
that they disagree with (Hilu, 2020), they seek to ban literature that critiques their worldview,
they attend speeches and attempt to drown out the speakers (Lynskey, 2018), they justify the
use of violence for speech they deem to be “offensive”. This cultish behavior that knows no
reason or intellect has made itself the judge, jury and executioner an anti-intellectual Academic
Inquisition. Just as in the Third Reich and USSR, pseudointellectual and pseudoscientific
“disciplines” that venerate victimhood and activism and which ought never be questioned,
have become well established in many universities.
Another area to be considered is that of financial incentives provided only to those projects,
fields of research or ideologies which are considered “Orthodox” and the financial stran-
gulation of “Heterodox” thought. Elsner and Lee (2008) note “that influence has left the
main mechanisms of reproduction of the mainstream untouched. These are mass teaching,
public advising, journal policies, and faculty recruitment. Above that, the last decade has
seen something like a “counterattack” to safeguard these mainstream reproduction mecha-
nisms. The means used for this seem to be journal (and publisher) rankings based on purely
quantitative citation measures and “impact factors”. These have an obvious cumulative
“economies‐of‐scale” effect which triggers a tendency towards reinforcement and collective
monopolization of the dominating orientation. Department rankings and individual faculty
evaluations are then based on journals rankings.” Orthodoxy in terms of following a narrative
in publishing poses in itself a variety of problems. As publishing in many fields is imperative
to receiving continued employment, bonuses or project funding, it becomes necessary to cre-
ate research that will not be deemed as potentially Heterodox by reviewers, thereby delaying
or disqualifying publication. A gatekeeper effect thus develops (Schweitzer & Saks, 2009)
which establishes a model of persuasion and gradually a sense Orthodoxy is formed, due to
the dominating orientation. From Ideological Orthodoxy thus arises a concept of monopoly on

4
truth, even when such “truths” are purely philosophical and/or ideological. Campbell (2019)
goes on to state that in such an academic climate, academics are forced to “go along with” or
keep differences to themselves, going on to show that this is enforced by pressures in build-
ing an academic career because it has direct correlation to “writing and research, teaching and
grading, hiring and firing, and public commentary”. The field of Orthodoxy then become pro-
gressively narrower and contradicted. Newly graduated scholars have no choice but to follow
the popular ideology as failure to do so would impede or disqualify them from any progress or
position in academia, where the support of superiors and peers is central to creating recogni-
tion within the meritocracy. Meritocracy itself then becomes more about who one knows and
how much one is willing to follow the trend, than actual merit. There is historic precedence.
Returning to the Third Reich, the idea of defunding to de-platform opposing views was
used extensively. An example of this is the field of Prehistoric Archaeology which before the
Rise of National Socialism in Germany, did not have extensive funding. The usefulness of
this field was seen by the NAZIs to create a national Zeitgeist and build pride and nostalgia
in Germany’s past, hence, funding was increased greatly, and Arnold (1990) describes three
resulting factions in academia that result, “The Party-Liners”, “the Mitläufer” and “the Op-
position”, all of which can be seen in the modern context in a true recreation of Reich-like
conditions. The Party-Liners were academics willing and ready to espouse “politically cor-
rect” research. Academics such as Herman Wille, Wilhelm Teudt and Oswald Menghin all of
which helped bolster the Zeitgeist of the NAZI Party with below par, yet for the period “Ortho-
dox” scholarship. The Mitläufer, as the name suggests, are those who “walk with” or “blindly
follow” so as to receive funding and keep their position. In Germany, this meant blindly and
passively teaching the Orthodox doctrines created by the National Socialists. An imperative
part of passive sanctioning of the ideology itself, all for funding. The final group, “The Op-
position” are those who did not, or refused to fit the first two categories. Essentially, these
academics were given a choice, follow the politically correct Orthodox views and research or
lose funding and positions. Hugo Obermaier stated that he turned down a position as Chair
at the University of Berlin because “National Socialists had already taken possession of the
field”. Another example is Franz Weidenreich who was forced out as Chair from the Univer-
sity of Frankfurt. This financial undermining of heterodox academics was the foundation of
the next phase of censorship.
Returning once again to the present, consider how the next phase of censorship takes place.
Once dissenting and heterodox views have been sufficiently silenced, and once policy takes
sides with a particular ideological view, the work of academics can be attacked. A modern
phenomenon is not unlike the past labels used namely “harmful and undesirable” where the
morality of a view is called into question and used as justification for attack. A favorite label

5
in modern times is the label of “hate speech” for any view that challenges the Orthodox narra-
tive even when such arguments are based on science or logic. This label of hate speech is then
used to argue that the view or thoughts of said academic causes social or moral decay or that
it is emotionally damaging. Activists (often including academics) then demand the removal
of funding for the individual targeted by boycotting their lectures or encouraging others to do
so as was the case with Professor William Jacobson (Allen, 2020). Another method is the
making of false allegations of ethical/ academic/ professional misconduct on such as those
leveled against Professor Dorian Abbot (Klinghoffer, 2020) and Professor Janice Fiamengo
(Robertson, 2016). Another example was the strong Zeitgeist in the attack on Professor Jor-
dan Peterson for refusal of using pronouns (Murphy, 2016) and then again with the University
of Cambridge rescinding its offer of visiting fellowship due to pressure from activist students
(Marsh, 2019). Then there are the limiting factors that take place when free speech is used, as
was the case with Professor Gad Saad of Concordia University whose views have prevented
him from climbing the academic ladder and who must be escorted by security for his own
safety on campus (Shah, 2019). With the great potential backlash on the professional, aca-
demic and public front for even tenured professors, there is little wonder that career academics
without tenure and new graduate scholars would be vary weary of not following Orthodoxies.
Compare this with the Third Reich, academic de-platforming mobs were also used for
those who remained obstinate, as was the case with Gero von Merhart who was defamed,
publically maligned and defamed. Jacob-Friesen bravely spoke out against what he viewed
as perversions in research namely the dogma of the superiority of race and culture, he was
promptly sent a letter warning him that dissent would not be tolerated. As time progressed,
blacklists were created and works by certain authors and scholars were either banned (and
often burned) or severely restricted with only those deemed loyal to the party being permit-
ted to “study the works of the enemy”. Book burning had strong support among professors.
Professor of German Philology Hans Naumann and Professor of Art History Eugen Lűthgen
actively encouraged students to burn books that could “mislead them”. At Technical Uni-
versity, Professor of German Literature Freidrich Neumann and the Director of the Institute
Literature and Theatre Gerhard Fricke led the burning of books and called it symbol purifi-
cation that comes from burning trash. A favorite book to burn was “A History of Germany”
by the German author August von Kotzbue who was murdered by a student activist. During
all of this, not a single university protested the censorship and all gave their support. Joseph
Geobbels had already declared that such writers and academics, who wished to critique the
nation, should be put against a wall and shot (Lewy, 2016).
History continues to repeat in a vicious cycle. As can be noted, a major beginning cause for
this polarization is the partisan approach of academics and devotion to ideology rather than

6
truth. This then creates Orthodoxies in fields of studies that cannot be challenged without
significant possibility of negative impact on livelihood and career development. In extreme
cases, this gives rise to outright censorship and may, in the worst possible scenario, lead not
only to a total loss of academic and intellectual freedom but also crimes against humanity.
Given the reoccurring historical pattern, we sit on the verge of a catalytic point in history
where academia is once again poised to descend into totalitarianism. To remedy this, it is
vital that academics (professors/ scholars etc.) refrain from the following:
They should not be activists.
They must not Mollycoddle their students from controversial issues.
They must not Indoctrinate their students into socially degrading ideologies.
They must not Indoctrinate their students in the innate superiority or inferiority, or
innate virtue or evil of another race.
They must not censor debate, free speech and open inquiry. (Nelson & Ochoa, 1987)
They must not Unfairly score students who display different views.
They must not Encourage their students to partake in violent activities.
They must not Act as a member of the Academic Inquisition to stifle open discourse.
Conclusion
Extremism and radicalism only flourish like mushrooms in an intellectually dark and unven-
tilated space, the light and ventilation of open critique, free speech, and open inquiry are the
only way to prevent such parasitic growths. Professors and students alike must be open to
discuss and understand potentially volatile issues in a civilized, intellectual and polite manner
thereby reaching to the core of issues and building intellectual capability. Professors must
make earnest efforts to remain as neutral as possible in controversial issues and when giving
their own views must clearly state that it is only their view. It is obvious that a balance needs to
be regained in academia along with a return to mediocracy. The time in which to stop history
repeating is short, the time to save academia from its own indulgence all the more so. Now is
the time to choose between Higher Education or Higher Indoctrination.
References
Imperial Moscow University: 1755-1917: encyclopedic dictionary. Moscow: Russian po-
litical encyclopedia (ROSSPEN). A. Andreev, D. Tsygankov. 2010. pp. 226–227. ISBN
978-5-8243-1429-8.

7
Bostock, B. (2020). Video shows the college professor who pretended to be Black attacking
the NYPD, accusing it of brutalizing “our” people at BLM protests. [online] Insider.
Available at: https://www.insider.com/video-professor-pretend-black-attacks-ny-council-
racism-police-blm-2020-9 [Accessed 6 Dec. 2020].
Carmon, A., (1976). The Impact of the Nazi Racial Decrees on the University of Heidelberg.
Yad Vashem Studies, 11, pp.131-163.
Galileo Monument (2010.). Multimedia Catalogue - Glossary - Monumental tomb of Galileo.

[online] Available at: http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20100805135633/http://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/
museum/esim.asp?c=100359 [Accessed 4 Dec. 2020].
Ganjali, S (2001). Woman, Beauty and Sanctity. Azerbaijan Nashriyyati. Baku:; p. 154-155
Hillerbrand, H.J. (2019). Martin Luther | Biography, Reformation, Works, & Facts. In:
Encyclopædia Britannica. [online] Available at: https://www.britannica.com/biography/
Martin-Luther.
Hilu, C (2020). U Chicago refuses to punish professor protested for criticizing diversity, eq-
uity and inclusion efforts. [online] The College Fix. Available at: https://www.thecollegefix.com/
uchicago-refuses-to-punish-professor-protested-for-criticizing-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-
efforts/ [Accessed 6 Dec. 2020].
Jacob-Friesen, KH (1934) Herman Wirth’s Ura-Linda-Chronik und die deutschen Vorgeschichts-

forscher, Nachrichtenblatt fur Deutsche Vorzeit 10(6):130-5
Karimata Shigehisa (1998). “Miyako kenkyū no senkusha In Nikolai A. Nevsky and L. L.

Gromkovskaya (ed.). Miyako no fōkuroa
Lehrer, S (2000). Wannsee House and the Holocaust. McFarland. pp. 169–170.
Ludwig-Maximilians University (2020). 1918-1945: The Weimar Republic and the Nazi
Period - LMU Munich. [online] Available at: https://www.en.uni-muenchen.de/about_
lmu/introducing-lmu/history/contexts/08_weimar_ns/index.html [Accessed 5 Dec. 2020].
Lynskey, D. (2018). How dangerous is Jordan B Peterson, the rightwing professor who “hit a
hornets” nest’? The Guardian. [online] 7 Feb. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/
science/2018/feb/07/how-dangerous-is-jordan-b-peterson-the-rightwing-professor-who-hit-
a-hornets-nest.
Nelson, J.L. and Ochoa, A.S., (1987). Academic Freedom, Censorship, and the Social Stud-

8
ies. Social education, 51(6), pp.424-27.
Oxford (2018). Introduction and history | University of Oxford. [online] Available at: https:/
/www.ox.ac.uk/about/organisation/history.
Winsa, P(2017). He says freedom, they say hate. The pronoun fight is back | The Star.
[online] thestar.com. Available at: https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2017/01/15/he-
says-freedom-they-say-hate-the-pronoun-fight-is-back.html.
Yourman, J., (1939). Propaganda Techniques Within Nazi Germany. The Journal of Educa-
tional Sociology, 13(3), pp.148-163.
Zygmunt, A,(1989) Kaźń profesorów lwowskich – lipiec 1941/studia oraz relacje i doku-
menty zebrane i oprac. przez Zygmunta Alberta Wrocław , Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu
Wrocławskiego; ISBN 83-229-0351-0, s. 180–181
Elsner, W. and Lee, F.S., 2008. Publishing, ranking, and the future of heterodox economics.
On the horizon.
Schweitzer, N. J., & Saks, M. J. (2009). The gatekeeper effect: The impact of judges’ admis-
sibility decisions on the persuasiveness of expert testimony. Psychology, Public Policy,
and Law, 15(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015290
Campbell, J.E., 2019. The Trust Is Gone: What Ideological Orthodoxy Costs Political Sci-
ence. PS: Political Science & Politics, 52(4), pp.715-719.
Arnold, B., 1990. The past as propaganda: totalitarian archaeology in Nazi Germany. Antiq-
uity, 64(244), pp.464-478.
Lewy, G., 2016. Harmful and undesirable: book censorship in Nazi Germany. Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Klinghoffer, D (2020). Where Will Cancel Culture End? Meet Dorian Abbot. [online] Avail-
able at: https://evolutionnews.org/2020/12/where-will-cancel-culture-end-meet-dorian-abbot/
[Accessed 8 Jan. 2021].
Allen, V. (2020). Law Professor Speaks Out After Being Shamed for Writing Honest History
of BLM. [online] The Daily Signal. Available at: https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/12/
22/law-professor-speaks-out-after-being-shamed-for-writing-honest-history-of-blm/ [Ac-
cessed 8 Jan. 2021].

9
Robertson. G (2016). U of O prof to stand trial at social justice tribunal. [online] Avail-
able at: https://thefulcrum.ca/news/u-o-prof-stand-trial-social-justice-tribunal/ [Accessed
8 Jan. 2021].
Murphy, J. (2016). Toronto professor Jordan Peterson takes on gender-neutral pronouns.

BBC News. [online] 4 Nov. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-
37875695.
Marsh, S. (2019). Cambridge University rescinds Jordan Peterson invitation. The Guardian.
[online] 20 Mar. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/mar/20/cambridge-
university-rescinds-jordan-peterson-invitation.
Shah, V (2019). A Conversation with Gad Saad, “The Gadfather” of Evolutionary Psychol-
ogy. [online] Thought Economics. Available at: https://thoughteconomics.com/gad-saad/
[Accessed 2 Feb. 2021].

10

Academic Inquisition Are Universities Ce

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Academic Inquisition Are Universities Ce

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Academic Inquisition Are Universities Ce

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ACADEMIA Letters

Academic Inquisition: Are Universities centres of Higher

Corresponding Author: Alaric Naudé, dr.alaricnaude@outlook.com

Corresponding Author: Alaric Naudé, dr.alaricnaude@outlook.com

Corresponding Author: Alaric Naudé, dr.alaricnaude@outlook.com

Corresponding Author: Alaric Naudé, dr.alaricnaude@outlook.com

Corresponding Author: Alaric Naudé, dr.alaricnaude@outlook.com

Corresponding Author: Alaric Naudé, dr.alaricnaude@outlook.com

Corresponding Author: Alaric Naudé, dr.alaricnaude@outlook.com

Galileo Monument (2010.). Multimedia Catalogue - Glossary - Monumental tomb of Galileo.

Jacob-Friesen, KH (1934) Herman Wirth’s Ura-Linda-Chronik und die deutschen Vorgeschichts-

Karimata Shigehisa (1998). “Miyako kenkyū no senkusha In Nikolai A. Nevsky and L. L.

Corresponding Author: Alaric Naudé, dr.alaricnaude@outlook.com

Corresponding Author: Alaric Naudé, dr.alaricnaude@outlook.com

Murphy, J. (2016). Toronto professor Jordan Peterson takes on gender-neutral pronouns.

Corresponding Author: Alaric Naudé, dr.alaricnaude@outlook.com

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.