Greg Lukianoff

And the one on viewpoint diversity, I think like half of the people who reviewed it would eliminate it right out.

And I think it was basically the same for religious diversity.

It was slightly better, like 40%, for socioeconomic diversity.

But that kills me.

Like the idea that kind of like, yeah, that actually is the kind of diversity that I think we need a great deal more of in higher education.

You can agree with – it's not hostile to the other kinds, by the way.

But the idea that we need more people from the bottom –

three quarters of American society, like in higher education, I think should be something we could all get around.

But the only one that really succeeded was the one that's that sprouted back exactly the kind of, you know, ideology that they thought the viewers would like, which is like, okay.

There's no way this couldn't be a political litmus test.

We've proved that it's a political litmus test and still school after school is adding these to its application process to make schools still more ideologically homogenous.

Well, one, it selects for people who tend to be farther to the left in a situation where you already have people – a situation where universities do lean decidedly that way.

But it also establishes essentially a set of sacred ideas that if you're being quizzed on whether – what you've done to advance –

anti-racism, how you've been conscious of intersectionality, it's unlikely that you'd actually get in if you said, by the way, I actually think these are dubious concepts.

I think they're thin.

I think they're philosophically not very defensible.

Basically, if your position was, I actually reject...

these concepts as being oversimple.

You're not going to get in.

And I think that the person that I always think of that wasn't a right-winger that would be like, go to hell if you made him fill one of these things out, it's Feynman.