The article argues that a policy of voluntary silence on contentious research (e.g., race and IQ) cannot work without social or institutional punishment. Everyday tact analogies fail in academic contexts: stopping researchers or commentators demands sanctions, making 'don’t go there' a form of de facto censorship.
— It clarifies how soft speech norms become coercive in science and universities, shaping debates over academic freedom and acceptable inquiry.
David Dennison
2026.04.23
60% relevant
The article issues a caution about playing with coercive or punitive political strategies because of asymmetric long‑term costs — echoing the existing idea that there are political limits to 'don’t go there' moves and that coercion/overreach can have structural consequences.
Aporia
2025.10.10
100% relevant
Steven Pinker’s 'don’t go there' proposal and the author’s rebuttal that silence would require social punishment to deter researchers and speakers.
← Back to all ideas