As with cholesterol, there would be good and bad controversies.
The bad is involuntary and awkward;
we then speak of a "quack" and we only get out of it by stepping back.
The good is deliberate and aims to break a taboo;
we then speak of "transgression" and we can only overcome turbulence by assuming.
To which of the two categories does the controversy triggered by Frédérique Vidal on Islamo-leftism at the university belong?
If she tempers her expression, the Minister of Higher Education confirms, in the
JDD
, her desire to distinguish what falls within the field of
"scientific research"
and what falls under
"militancy"
.
More accuracy in the form, but no
mea culpa
on the substance.
Read also:
The executive reconnected the quack machine
It now remains for the entire executive to go to the end of a logic of facing reality and not letting its ideological adversaries unilaterally determine what is or is not within the “scientific concept”.
And, simultaneously, to go as far as
This article is for subscribers only.
You have 71% left to discover.
Subscribe: 1 € the first month
Can be canceled at any time
I ENJOY IT
Already subscribed?
Log in