It seems that the desire to ban talks given by those with whom one disagrees is a more widespread sentiment than I initially thought. In a small town in Montana recently, a talk scheduled to be given by a University of Montana ecology professor (who just happens to be the lead author of the North American portion of the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change report) to local high school students was canceled by the school district superintendent. The talk was going to address “the global changes occurring because of the earth’s warming.”
The alleged reason for the cancellation? Concern voiced by local residents that the “presentation would be one-sided because no opposing view would be offered.” The school superintendent later acknowledged that he had misunderstood the nature of the lecture that was to be given, and that he hadn’t had time to explain to the concerned locals that the speaker was a “leading scientist” rather than an “agenda-driven ideologue".
There seems to be at least a couple of things at work here. One is the misdirected hope that if we don’t allow someone to talk – whether by labeling them an “ideologue”, or whatever else – then whatever they have to say will just go away and leave us alone; if we don’t acknowledge something, then it won’t affect us. Denial constitutes the first stage of climate grief (the stages are supposedly denial, anger, underestimation, depression, and acceptance). Unfortunately, such moves preclude the possibility of discussion and dialogue, effectively shutting down the conversation before it has already begun.
A second, and to me more interesting, concern relates to the distinction between “leading scientist” and “agenda-driven ideologue”. As much as scientists like to hide behind their grand claims of rationality and reason and impartiality, they too have their agendas, and must always be aware when they are moving from impartial scientific observations to partial interpretations of the consequences of such observations. The line between impartiality and partiality is not always clear, particularly when it comes to those issues that are regarded (rightly or wrongly) as contentious. If scientists wish to preserve their well-deserved image of impartial judge in the eyes of wider society, they need to tread carefully.
