George Orwell, Animal Farm.
While this title is a joke, it's really anything but funny! In common with much of the western world, my country has been taken over by the culture of "Equity, Diversity and Inclusion", or ED&I. Most major companies and organisations now employ "ED&I Officers" within their Human Resources departments, whose job is exclusively to implement ED&I policies with regard to recruitment and treatment of employees.
In reality, the effect of such policies is almost the opposite of what is intended; people of ethnic or other minorities are given jobs because they belong to those minorities, and not necessarily on their merits, in order to fulfil "diversity quotas".
I recently came across a comment in an internet forum, where someone suggested that ED&I should really stand for "Exclusion, Discrimination and Inequality"; that's very clever, and I can't resist using it. In the US, they change the order of the words, and use the acronym DEI; a friend of mine has suggested that that stands for "Didn't earn it".
Here, I'll examine some aspects of ED&I, and its effects on employment and other parts of society.
Note: Since the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement in 2020, a bizarre convention has been adopted in the media, when referring to matters of race or ethnicity, of always writing the word "Black" with a capital. I have no idea why! It isn't a nationality or a geographical term, and is not in any way a proper noun; there is no rational or grammatical reason to capitalise it - especially when they don't do the same with "white"!
It's almost as if the word has been elevated to a term of reverence, akin to the way that Christians capitalise "He" and "Him" when referring to their God! It seems as if someone somewhere has decided that black people should be regarded as not merely equal to white, but superior!
I refuse to conform to this ridiculous trend, for a very simple reason. I firmly believe that "equality" should mean exactly that! People of minorities, ethnic or otherwise, should be treated equally, not preferentially! That belief will form the basis of my arguments on this page.
5.1. Equality - or not?
The principle of equality - particularly in employment law - is very simple. In recruitment for jobs, and treatment in the workplace, everyone must be treated equally, without regard to their age, gender, race or ethnicity, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, etc. In the UK, this is enshrined in the Equality Act 2010, which defines a number of "protected characteristics", including but not limited to the above - in fact, any definable characteristic of a human being which could conceivably form a basis for discrimination or prejudice - and says that discrimination on the grounds of any such characteristic is illegal.
The Government insists that there is no "hierarchy", and no "protected characteristic" takes precedence over any other. But in reality, there are inevitably conflicts, where respecting one person's "protected characteristic" unavoidably results in disrespecting that of another - resulting in a circular argument which can only be resolved by the Orwellian assumption that one characteristic is more "protected" than another! This is sometimes deliberately and cynically exploited by HR departments, in the hope that the victim will be ignorant of the law. In particular, a person's so-called "gender identity" is often assumed to "outrank" another's right not to recognise it, in accordance with their own "protected characteristic" of religious and/or philosophical belief, as described in Section 2.4. ( "Gender identity", and its associated ideology, is a whole field of madness and absurdity in its own right, and is the topic of Section 6. )
The principle of ED&I, however, is completely different. It means people's "protected characteristics" must be taken into account when selecting candidates for jobs, to ensure that the workforce is "diverse", and that people of every imaginable minority are "included". There are two "ideals" of ED&I, to which employers are expected to aspire. The first is that every company or organisation should employ equal numbers of men and women - despite the rather obvious fact that there are, and always will be, some jobs which appeal more to men than to women, and others vice versa. For example, there will always be far more male than female car mechanics, and far more female than male nurses, and no amount of legislation or political correctness will ever change that!
The second is that in every workforce, the proportion of every definable minority, such as ethnic minorities, religious groups and the "LGBTQ+ community", should equal the proportion in the population. ( I think for ethnic minorities, that means the proportion in the population of the town, city or local region, rather than the overall national population, since it's another obvious fact that particular ethnic groups tend to congregate in particular places. ) This leads to the concept of "diversity quotas".
The inevitable consequence is that when women, or people of ethnic or other minorities, are found to be "under-represented" within a company or organisation, then it tries to specifically recruit them in order to "redress the balance". For example, if two or more candidates are similarly qualified for a position or for a promotion, an ethnic minority candidate will be chosen in preference to a white one. So in reality, as opposed to in theory, "protected characteristics" effectively means any definable characteristic of a human being, other than being white, male and heterosexual! While all other forms of discrimination are illegal, that against straight white males is the only kind which is still allowed!
( A friend of mine, who is black, tells me that when filling in personal details in job applications, he always indicates his ethnicity as "Prefer not to say" - because he wants to be given a job on his merits, because he is the best person for the job, and not to tick a box or fulfil a quota! )
To put it another way; while "equality" means treating people according to their individual merits, ED&I means the exact opposite. People are not treated as individuals, but as members of defined groups, and are given jobs, or given preferential treatment, because they belong to those groups.
When ED&I was first introduced, it stood for "Equality, Diversity and Inclusion". Many soon pointed out that the phrase was nonsensical, as the latter two words contradicted the first; as per the above, "diversity and inclusion" has nothing to do with equality! So the first word was quietly changed to "Equity", which means equality of outcome or representation, rather than equality of opportunity.
5.2. Positive discrimination versus positive action
As I've said above, ED&I effectively results in "positive discrimination" in favour of women and minority groups. But of course, there is no such thing as positive discrimination - it's simply discrimination, the opposite way! If you positively discriminate in favour of women, then you are, by definition, discriminating against men; if you positively discriminate in favour of ethnic minorities, then you are, by definition, discriminating against white people! And so on.
I have discussed this at length with my MP, who is a member of the currently governing, and woke-obsessed, Labour Party. He tells me that positive discrimination is in fact illegal under the Equality Act, but "positive action" is not. The Act permits employers, for example, to take "positive action" to encourage people of ethnic minorities to apply for jobs or for promotions, if they are under-represented - but it does not permit them to exclusively recruit from ethnic minorities and exclude white people.
That's the theory - but of course, the reality is quite different. Suppose a company finds that ethnic minorities are under-represented among its staff, and wants to rectify that situation. How is it possible to do so, except by specifically hiring ethnic minority candidates in preference to white ones?
5.3. "White people need not apply"
In reality, there have been many cases in the UK, where organisations have implemented policies which undoubtedly do constitute positive discrimination, rather than mere positive action.
A couple of years ago, it was reported that the Security Service, better known as MI5, was running an internship scheme exclusively for ethnic minorities; it was explicitly stated that no white people need apply! My MP somehow claims that this counts as positive action, and is therefore legal; apparently, an internship scheme is somehow different from actual recruitment. But I completely fail to comprehend how specifically excluding white people can possibly not constitute positive discrimination, and not be illegal!
The CEO of Westminster Council, who says he is "proud to be called woke", has instructed all hiring managers that in every case where two or more candidates are equally qualified for a position, they must hire an ethnic minority candidate in preference to a white one! And any manager who actually gives a job to a white person is required to justify his decision to the CEO, even if it's a simple case of the white candidate being better qualified.
That CEO was born in South Africa, and freely acknowledges that his policy is a result of "guilt", due to having been brought up in that country under Apartheid. Yet what he is doing is quite literally Apartheid in reverse! How can that possibly be legal?
Even more bizarrely, there is a nationwide internship scheme, across multiple industries, called "10000 Black Interns", which aims to recruit exactly that. As the name infers, this is open exclusively to black people; it explicitly excludes not only white people, but also those of every other ethnic minority, such as those of Indian or Chinese heritage! I defy anyone to tell me how this does not constitute positive discrimination, and how it can possibly be legal!
Similarly, there exist professional associations of, for example, black lawyers and black police officers - but any equivalent association exclusively for white people would undoubtedly be illegal. There are other examples outside the field of employment; here in the UK, there is an annual music awards ceremony called the MOBO Awards, standing for "Music Of Black Origin". And in the US, they have a "Miss Black America" beauty pageant. Would an awards ceremony solely for white musicians, or a beauty pageant solely for white women, be allowed? Of course they wouldn't!
5.4. How do you even define it?
In Section 5.3, I mentioned the "10000 Black Interns" scheme. This is advertised as being open exclusively to people who are "black or of black heritage". But how do you even define the latter?
Richard Dawkins has pointed out something truly bizarre1. To any rational person, sex or gender is binary; a person is either male or female, full stop. ( Apart from the tiny fraction, less than one in 5000, who due to accidents of genetics, actually are anatomically something in between. ) But in the world of woke, it's imagined as some kind of spectrum, whereby a person can supposedly "choose their gender", and can choose to "identify as" the opposite of their biological sex, or even to somehow "identify as" neither.
Yet race or ethnicity, which absolutely is a spectrum, is often treated as if it's binary - in European and American society, people are defined as either "white" or "non-white". When a black person marries a white person, their children will have an intermediate skin colour, but American society almost invariably defines them as "black". In the UK and Europe, they are often described as "mixed race" - but that label is applied to anyone whose ancestry is anything other than 100% white.
Taking the single example of "black and white", there is an entire spectrum of intermediates. So for the purpose of eligibility for that internship scheme, how do you define whether or not a person of mixed race is "of black heritage"?
In the US, if a person has one black parent and one white, society invariably defines them as black. If they have one black grandparent and three white, they are still defined as black. But where do you draw the line? What if just one of a person's eight great-grandparents was black?
In Apartheid South Africa, and the "segregated" states of the US up to the 1960s, the latter was used as a legal definition; if a person's ancestry was at least one eighth black, then they were legally defined as black - meaning, among many other things, that they were not allowed to marry a white person - even though in appearance, they would probably be barely distinguishable from any white person!
There was a court case in one of those states in 1947, where a man who was defined as black by that criterion was on trial for the "crime" of marrying a white woman. He was defined as black, because one of his great-grandmothers had been black. His defence, however, claimed that that great-grandmother had herself been only half black; her mother had been a slave, and they claimed that her father had been the white owner. If true, that would have meant the defendant was only one sixteenth black, which would have legally defined him as white!
So the case depended on establishing the identity of one of his great-great-grandfathers, to determine whether or not he was allowed to marry a white woman! The prosecution was somehow able to prove that the white owner could not have been the great-grandmother's father after all, so the defendant was declared legally black, and was convicted and sent to prison.
So it seems to me that the only way to determine who is or isn't eligible for "10000 Black Interns" would be to go back to using some such ridiculous definition. And that is surely something which no reasonable person ever wants to see again!
5.5. A long time ago...
A brief digression, about something which happened more than half a century ago...
Margaret Burbidge ( 1919-2020 ) was an extremely eminent British astrophysicist. In 1957, she was the lead author of a famous paper which is regarded as a fundamental cornerstone of modern astrophysics - a paper so well-known in the field, and so frequently cited, that it's always referred to simply as "B2FH", for the names of its authors - Burbidge, Burbidge, Fowler and Hoyle ( the second being Margaret's husband ).
The American Astronomical Society used to have an annual award, named in honour of a famous female astronomer of the early 20th Century, which was given for achievements in astronomy by women. In 1972, this was awarded to Margaret, but she refused it. Why? Because she believed that positive discrimination was equally as bad as negative, and that the concept of an award specifically for women was offensive, as it inferred that women could not be judged on a par with men.
Margaret lived to the age of 100, and lived to see the beginnings of today's ED&I culture. I shudder to imagine what she thought of it...
Have we really moved on all that far?
5.6. Meanwhile, in the Commonwealth...
Australia and Canada each have similar equality laws to that of the UK - but in their versions of ED&I, it appears that positive discrimination is very much allowed!
It was recently reported that an Australian university advertised for a professorship position exclusively for women - no men need apply. Its "reasoning" was that in that particular department, women were under-represented, with significantly more male than female staff, so it wanted to "redress the balance".
This is apparently permitted under Australia's "anti-discrimination" legislation; positive discrimination is permitted in order to correct an imbalance. So, as someone sarcastically commented, "Their anti-discrimination law permits discrimination in order to prevent discrimination!"
The position in question was a professorship of engineering. It's surely obvious that engineering, as a subject of study, has always appealed more to men then to women, and always will! The same applies to some other subjects. When I took my degree in physics over 40 years ago, there were over 50 students in my year on the course, of whom seven were women. There wasn't a single female lecturer in the department at that time. I would assume that on engineering courses, the proportions were similar.
Today, there are many female physics and engineering lecturers, and the proportions of female students and staff in those departments are undoubtedly considerably higher than back then - but I would bet a lot of money that they are still significantly less than half.
Conversely, there are other degree subjects, particularly in the arts and "humanities", which appeal more to women than to men, and probably have significantly more female than male lecturers. So will any of those departments advertise for a professorship exclusively for men, to redress the balance? I very much doubt it...
In Canada, things are even worse! Their version of ED&I legislation specifically permits positive discrimination, where it can be argued that it "rights past wrongs". But in their universities, it's not merely permitted, but actually required!
Canada's universities and its government have decided that by 2029, the proportions of women and of various minorities in government-supported research positions must match the corresponding proportions in the background population, to the nearest tenth of one percent! 50.9% must be "women and gender minorities" ( it stands to reason that the proportion of women in a population will be slightly higher than 50%, as women have a slightly higher average life expectancy than men ), 22% must be racial minorities, 7.5% people with disabilities and 4.9% indigenous.
In the words of physics professor Lawrence Krauss, "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that with such discriminatory hiring based on identity, merit will no longer be the chief determinant for successful candidates."2
As Krauss also points out, this is unfair not only to those candidates who are rejected for having the "wrong" identity - that is, white able-bodied males - but also to those who are hired, as their subsequent careers will always be viewed with some suspicion by their colleagues.
Another Canadian academic, Gad Saad, a professor of psychology, writes that a university best known for its engineering and computer science research advertised for two research chairs in its School of Computer Science.3
The first was advertised as ( exact words ), "open only to qualified individuals who self-identify as women, transgender, gender-fluid, non-binary or Two-spirit". ( I have absolutely no idea what "Two-spirit" means, but apparently, it's a term borrowed from Native American culture. So shouldn't it be condemned as "cultural appropriation"? )
The second was "open only to qualified individuals who self-identify as a member of a racialised minority".
So think about that... The first position explicitly excludes men - apart from those who pretend to be women, or who somehow claim to be neither - and the second explicitly excludes white people! And this is somehow permitted by Canada's so-called "equality" laws in the 21st Century! At the risk of repeating myself - go figure.
As Saad points out, if Alan Turing - the father of computing, and one of the greatest minds of the 20th Century - was alive today, he would be automatically disqualified from applying for either of those positions, simply for being white and male! And unusually for Planet Woke, even being gay wouldn't have qualified him!
While Saad himself is an extremely eminent professor in his field, his career has suffered in recent years, due to his refusal to comply with woke nonsense. His university has ignored his many professional accolades, removed him from a chair which he had held for a decade, and cancelled some of his courses. In his words:
"... while the outside world greatly appreciates my contributions in defending reason, science and the ethos of meritocracy, my own university views me as a pariah. I cannot sit idly while the edifices of reason are being destroyed one brick at a time... I refuse to be uniquely an ally to a specific group of students based on their skin hue, ethnicity or gender orientation. I am a mentor to all students who wish to learn, irrespective of their irrelevant identity markers. This should be lauded, and yet it is viewed with derision in today's academic climate. I am the professor of the people, and not the professor of some people more so than others."4
Geoff Horsman, a Canadian professor of chemistry, also upset his university's administration by challenging ED&I. In particular, he questioned why his department was "participating in racial discrimination by advertising exclusively for an indigenous professor".5
This was part of the university's so-called "Inclusive Excellence" programme, which sought to "address systemic racism" by hiring six black and six indigenous professors. So once again, this excluded not only white people, but also those of every other ethnic minority. Moreover, six of those positions were open only to black applicants, thereby excluding indigenous ones, and the other six vice versa. Horsman's department was instructed from on high to advertise one of the latter - open only to indigenous applicants, and no-one else!
Horsman was one of a group who protested about this. Part of his case was that his department might be forced to reject a suitably qualified applicant who happened to be black. In his words, "How could implementing concrete racial discrimination address the vague concept of systemic racism?"
The administration's dismissive response included the baffling statement, "We don’t need data to know that indigenous people are under-represented." Er – what? Surely the definition of "under-represented" involves comparing expected numbers with actual numbers; how is it possible to make such a comparison without data?
As it turned out, Horsman's hypothetical concern came true. They actually were forced to reject a highly qualified candidate for being black - something which, a few years earlier, would have been both unthinkable and illegal!
5.7. "Colour-blind casting"
Here in the UK, an MP of the Reform UK Party was recently widely vilified in the media, and branded a racist, for commenting that adverts on TV are "full of black and brown people". She was later banned from speaking at a university's debating society ( Section 4.4 ) - which says a lot about the absurdity of "woke" culture!
While the MP subsequently admitted that her choice of words had been clumsy, the essence of what she said is an indisputable fact! The proportion of ethnic minorities portrayed in TV adverts is vastly higher than that in the population, with a great many of them featuring ethnic minority people for no particular reason - just for the sake of it.
It's easy to guess how this has come about. At some point in the recent past, a few people probably complained about ethnic minorities being under-represented in the adverts. All the advertising agencies said, "OK, we had better do something about it!", and everyone jumped on the same bandwagon at once. Consequently, we now have ethnic minorities considerably over-represented, so that no-one can be accused of under-representing them!
Naturally, the converse - that white people are under-represented - doesn't matter.
In the last few years, British TV companies have adopted a policy of so-called "colour-blind casting" - the idea being that the ethnicity of an actor or actress playing a character doesn't matter. ( On Planet Woke, we're no longer allowed to use the word "actress", but I completely fail to comprehend what's wrong with it! ) There are many cases where this is true; in a completely fictitious drama, set in the present time, the ethnicities of the fictitious characters often don't particularly matter.
What should matter, however, is that the proportions of ethnic groups portrayed should be at least somewhere close to that in the real world. If a drama series is set in Birmingham or Manchester, then it makes sense to make around one in four of the characters ethnic minorities, because that reflects the reality of those places. But if a drama is set in a rural English village, then it doesn't.
Some of the woke brigade have complained that Midsomer Murders is "too white", i.e. that it doesn't include enough ethnic minority characters. Well, maybe that's because in the real world, not many ethnic minority people tend to live in the kind of villages portrayed in the series! There is nothing remotely racist about saying that; it's simply a fact! Saying there are too many white people in Midsomer Murders is logically equivalent to saying there are too many black people in Death in Paradise! Duh!!
The ethnicity of actors certainly does matter, in programmes set in the past! Just very recently, at the time of writing, we have had a TV adaptation of William Golding's Lord of the Flies, which many of my and subsequent generations will remember reading at school. For the uninitiated, it's about a group of boys from an English boarding school, who survive a plane crash in which all the adults are killed, and are stranded on an uninhabited island and have to fend for themselves.
The novel was written in 1954, and the TV version was set in the same era. But it was made with modern day "diversity", with the cast including black, mixed race, Indian and Chinese boys. Such a mixture would be representative of an English boarding school now - but it certainly wasn't in the 1950s!
There's a very long tradition on British TV of "period" dramas, set at various times in the past, and often involving aristocratic families and their stately homes. Some of these are based on well-known novels; others are written specially for TV. Recently, a couple of such series, set in the 18th or 19th Centuries, have controversially featured ethnic minority actors in completely inappropriate roles. While there undoubtedly were a small proportion of ethnic minority people in the UK in those days, they absolutely did not marry into aristocratic families!
Similarly, in a recent TV adaptation of an Agatha Christie novel, set in the 1940s, the lead character was turned into a Nigerian.
I don't think the novels of Charles Dickens are noted for their portrayal of ethnic minorities. But in a recent TV adaptation of Great Expectations, a mixed-race actress was cast in the role of Estella - the niece of Miss Havisham, who in both the novel and the series was very much white.
The 1970s wartime sitcom It Ain't Half Hot, Mum featured a white actor in "brownface", playing an Indian character. ( The quite elderly actor had in fact been brought up in India in the days of British rule, and so played the role with a considerable knowledge of the culture. He even spoke fluent Urdu. ) For that reason, among others, the series can never be shown again now! The woke brigade scream that having a white actor play a non-white character was "disgusting" and "racist" - but now the opposite is somehow considered perfectly acceptable!
Above all, the ethnicity of actors absolutely matters, when it comes to portraying real people! Even in a totally fictitious story, I can imagine few things more absurd than casting a non-white actor to portray a real historical person, who was undoubtedly white! In a recent episode of Dr. Who, a mixed-race actor was cast as Sir Isaac Newton. And in a historical drama a couple of years ago, a black actress was cast as Anne Boleyn, one of the wives of Henry VIII!
In what fantasy land does this make any slightest iota of sense???
For those who somehow imagine that this "doesn’t matter", just imagine doing the opposite... Suppose that for some bizarre unfathomable reason, someone was to cast a white actor in the role of Martin Luther King, Muhammad Ali or Nelson Mandela - and then imagine the reaction...
5.8. Two-tier policing
A few years ago, in my home city, a group of Muslims were taking part in some kind of demonstration. I noticed one of them carrying a placard saying, "The final hour will not come until the Muslims kill the Jews." I have no idea what the first part of that means, nor do I care; what matters is the second part.
As we all know, the right of free speech rightly excludes hate speech and incitement of violence. If someone claiming to be a Christian carried a placard in public saying "Kill the Jews" or "Kill the Muslims", he would be arrested within five minutes, and rightly so - but a Muslim carried one saying "Kill the Jews", and was allowed to get away with it!
This is an example of the most sinister consequence of "ED&I" in the UK, which has become known as "two-tier policing" - whereby people of certain ethnic and religious minorities are given preferential treatment, in complete contradiction of equality law. And of course, this applies more to one particular minority group than to any other...
This also contradicts the oath taken by all police officers, to serve "without fear or favour". In the past, the police have long been accused - in some, but by no means all, cases, rightly - of institutional racism. In response to this, in recent years, they have been given "anti-racism" training. It's no longer enough to merely not be racist; they now have to be seen to be "anti-racist". But it doesn't take a genius to see that that inevitably leads to "reverse racism" - giving ethnic minorities the benefit of the doubt, in order to avoid being accused of racism!
In particular, in any conflict between a white person and one of an ethnic minority, if the latter accuses the former of racism, the police are likely to automatically believe him!
This had a disgraceful and tragic consequence in December 2025, when an 18-year-old student, Henry Nowak, was stabbed to death by a Sikh, Vickrum Digwa. For some reason which I don't pretend to understand, Sikh men are required by their religion to carry a ceremonial dagger - and they are exempted from British law, which prohibits the carrying of knives in public! However, leaders of the Sikh community have said that the knife carried by Digwa was not of the type required by their faith, and was therefore illegal.
When the police arrived, Digwa claimed that Henry had racially abused him, and he had acted in self-defence. And of course, they believed him! Before they arrived, he had enlisted his brother to lie for him, and his mother to remove the weapon from the scene.
When Henry told the officers he had been stabbed, they initially didn't believe him, and arrested and handcuffed him as he lay dying!
Thankfully, Digwa was subsequently arrested, convicted and given a life sentence - but the police's handling of the case clearly shows everything which has gone wrong!
Kemi Badenoch, Leader of the Conservative Party, recently made a speech in which, in my opinion, she spoke far more sense in 25 minutes than Sir Keir Starmer and his entire government have done in two years! Yet if any white politician had made the same speech, they would probably have been branded racist!
She began by asking, "What do the Nottingham murders, the Southport murders, the Manchester Arena bombing and the rape gangs all have in common?" The answer is that they could all have been prevented, had people not been afraid to do their jobs properly, for fear of being branded racist!
She then acknowledged the obvious truth, which few white politicians dare to admit, that "anti-racism" equates to reverse racism.
The speech also included the single most sensible sentence uttered by a politician this decade: "If the facts embarrass your ideology, then the problem is your ideology, not the facts."
It seems, however, that our policing is now not merely "two-tier", but multi-tier! While Muslims undoubtedly occupy the top tier, followed by ethnic minorities, another minority is relegated to the very bottom - namely Jews!
Since the start of the current Gaza conflict, "pro-Palestine" marches have taken place almost weekly in London and other cities. There have been numerous cases of Muslims chanting violent antisemitic slogans, and the police taking no action; some have even called for "Jihad", the Islamic word for a "holy war". At the Glastonbury music festival, a pair of so-called "singers" led a crowd in chants of "Death to the IDF!" ( Israeli Defence Force ), and were allowed to get away with it; that was even broadcast by the BBC!
Meanwhile, one Jewish man, the Chief Executive of the Campaign Against Antisemitism, was confronted by the police and threatened with arrest, for - wait for this... "looking openly Jewish in the vicinity of a pro-Palestine march"!6 I kid you not!!!
So while "pro-Palestine" mobs are able to incite antisemitic violence with impunity, Jews are literally not even allowed to be in the vicinity!
In today's Britain, some are indeed more equal than others!
References
1. Richard Dawkins, Scientific Truth Stands Above Human Feelings and Politics, in Krauss 2025, p. 61. ( see Ref. 2 )
2. Lawrence M. Krauss, Editor, The War on Science, Forum 2025, p. 17-18.
3. Gad Saad, Universities as Dispensers of Parasitic Ideas, in Krauss 2025, p. 93.
4. Gad Saad, Universities as Dispensers of Parasitic Ideas, in Krauss 2025, p. 97-98.
5. Geoff Horsman, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion: The Dismal Pseudoscience Threatening Science, in Krauss 2025, p. 170-172.
6. Ben Jones, Island of Strangers: Diversity, Decline and Free Speech in Crisis, Constable 2026, p. 80-81.