A recent Orwellian firing gives some insight into what happens when an academic collides with Political Correctness:

Well, it is official, Marty Rowland PhD has been fired from his position as Special Issue Editor at the American Journal of Economics and Sociology (AJES). The reason he was given for being fired was his publication of our paper, Carbon Dioxide and a Warming Climate are not problems. The paper has been cited 23 times according to google scholar. It was first published online May 29, 2024, and is already in the top 1% of all 29 million papers followed by Wiley’s Altmetric tracker. It is the #2 paper published in the 83-year history of the AJES.

Andy May, Watts Up With That? August 17, 2025

Most likely, the paper was widely read because scientists are becoming skeptical of the narrow band of Approved Views. And the official response is hardly likely to generate confidence:

… Dr. Rowland calls his firing “Orwellian,” and we totally agree. The challenge by Tinus Pulles in an article somewhat offensively titled “Climate Denialism” cites two articles that directly compare “climate deniers” to holocaust deniers, see here for our critique of this paper. May & Crok has withstood all scrutiny to date.

The offensive and wildly inaccurate Tinus Pulles critique is the one cited by AJES board most when they explain why they fired Dr. Rowland. In addition, other board members were pressured by Wiley to write critiques of our paper, these are Cobb, 2024 and Gwartney & Lough. Both papers make the same argument that the “consensus” says climate change is dangerous so it must be so.” Watts Up With That?

In this atmosphere, we were hardly surprised to learn of recent research that shows that many students who claim to have progressive views are just pretending. From Micaiah Bilger at The College Fix:

Psychology researchers Forest Romm and Kevin Waldman said they recently conducted research on University of Michigan and Northwestern students, and found that 88 percent pretend to be more politically progressive than they actually are.

Even in conversations with close friends, nearly half of the students said they hid their beliefs or doubts due to “fear of ideological fallout,” according to the researchers.

“88 percent of students pretend to have progressive views: Northwestern scholars,” (August 13, 2025)

Romm and Waldman do not think this is Way Cool:

“This is not simply peer pressure — it is identity regulation at scale, and it is being institutionalized,” they wrote at The Hill. “Universities often justify these dynamics in the name of inclusion. But inclusion that demands dishonesty is not ensuring psychological safety — it is sanctioning self-abandonment.” More here at The Hill.

They will publish their research formally in the fall. Meanwhile, from the Hill article:

Perhaps most telling: 77 percent said they disagreed with the idea that gender identity should override biological sex in such domains as sports, healthcare, or public data — but would never voice that disagreement aloud. Thirty-eight percent described themselves as “morally confused,” uncertain whether honesty was still ethical if it meant exclusion.

Most students are not trust fund babies. They need those jobs when they graduate.