I certainly did, but I'm having a hard time pinning down what 'this ideology' is. I don't see a monolithic ideology that is constraining academic freedom. There has ALWAYS been limits on what research is considered ethical, and those limits came to exist because of grave abuse. The savagery of early science is well-documented and results in material limits on what is funded and published. After 40 years of denying syphilis treatment to African-American males in Alabama "For Science" are were more limits on human research methods. We stopped letting researchers inject hepatitis into institutionalized children. NIH and NSF have been systematically denying funding for phrenology and eugenics. Is that a causing a crisis in academic freedom - or - is a reasonable policy to prevent bad science being used to further racial supremacy narratives?

Let's be clear here: OP's material complaint is that NIH gated access to some genetics datasets. That's the 'crisis', yet he manages to bundle in all of these groups he dislikes into a narrative.

>federal agencies, such as the National Science Foundation, now offer a surplus of grants with the purpose of “broadening the participation of members of groups that are . . . currently underrepresented”—instead of funding research to answer scientific questions.

Allow me to translate: "Give money to minorities" OR "Do Real Science". So minorities can't so real science???

(implicitly, "minorities aren't doing real science" - "real science came from people like me, so keep giving data access and money to my team, then you'll see I deserve the ability to say and do anything I want because I'm quantifiably superior and they are a waste of resources.")

> As an example: The NIH now puts barriers to access to the important database of “Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP).” The database is an amazing tool that combines genomes (the unique genetic makeup of each individual) and phenotypes (the observable characteristics of each individual) of millions of people. These phenotypes include education, occupation, health and income and, because the dataset connects genetics with phenotype at an individual level, it is essential for scientists who want to understand genes and genetic pathways that are behind those phenotypes. The NIH now denies scientists access to this data and other related datasets. Researchers report getting permits denied on the grounds that studying their genetic basis is “stigmatizing.” According to one researcher, this happens even if the research has nothing to do with race or sex, but focuses on genetics and education.

I cannot explain this one better than Harvard can:

>By the early to mid-20th century, polygenism and biology-based racism were widely disproven, and racism in social science had gained popularity. Studies showing high rates of imprisonment among Black Americans were used as proof of innate criminality, while pseudoscientific intelligence testing claimed the mental superiority of white people. These flawed, biased studies failed to account for political and social factors such as poor housing, poverty, lack of healthcare, and virulent racial oppression. But they provided the so-called evidence needed to fuel systemic forms of anti-Black racism, like segregation. And, for many Americans looking for objective reasons to justify racist beliefs and behaviors, studies like these were more than enough.
source: https://library.harvard.edu/confronting-anti-black-racism/sc...

>The censors and gatekeepers simply assume—without evidence—that human population research is malign and must be shut down. The costs of this kind of censorship, both self-imposed and ideologically based, are profound. Student learning is impaired and important research is never done.

"Important Research" SMH. I hope it's clear why I am so incensed about this article. In my first comment I complained about his distain for students that push minority narratives rather than seeing them as children who can be shown and taught civility. Here, he's worried about the students ability to learn if they can't have full freedom to combine demography and genetic data.

I hope it's clear why I am so incensed about this article.

This is red-pill content, full stop.