For scholarship to fulfill its proper function, political neutrality is indispensable.
This essay criticizes the use of academic titles for political activism and sharply examines the spread of left-wing authoritarianism in Japan’s academic world, including its notable tendencies within theoretical and life-science fields.

2019-04-13
However, such statements should be made from the standpoint of an ordinary citizen, and should not be made using the title of scholar.
Otherwise, the political independence of scholarship cannot be preserved.

What follows is a continuation of the previous chapter.

The abuse of academic titles.

For scholarship to fulfill its proper function, it must remain politically neutral.
And yet, as one scholar among others, I found it utterly unbelievable that scholars themselves would lead political movements such as the “Scholars’ Association Opposing the Security-Related Laws.”
People who usually speak loudly about university autonomy and the political independence of scholarship should not fail to notice the contradiction of committing themselves to political activism in the name of scholars.
And yet, far more than 10,000 scholars signed on to this movement.

Of course, even a scholar naturally has the freedom, as an ordinary citizen, to make political statements.
However, such statements should be made from the standpoint of a citizen, and should not be made using the title of scholar.
Otherwise, the political independence of scholarship cannot be preserved.

In fact, at that time, I once explored the possibility of developing a protest movement against political activism conducted under academic titles.
There were quite a few voices of support, but there were also many who feared that such a movement itself would become a political movement.
Conscientious scholars are that cautious about engaging in political action.
As a result, it is ironic that only the voices of scholars lacking in conscience end up spreading through society.

As I also wrote in What Is Scholarship?, scholarship must be value-neutral, but unless one at least upholds the value of protecting scholarship so that it may continue to remain scholarship, scholarship will destroy itself.
For that reason, it should be permissible to assert, under the title of scholar, only the value of defending scholarship itself.
However, when that assertion is directed against a specific political movement, one falls into the dilemma that it takes on a reverse political character.

Regrettably, in recent years, scholars have appeared who attack the very claim that scholarship must be value-neutral.
They insist that nuclear power and war are absolute evils and therefore must be rejected unconditionally.
Certainly, once a nuclear accident occurs, the damage is immense, and the problem of radioactive waste is also grave.
But on the other hand, as stated earlier, methods of power generation other than nuclear power also carry major side effects.
It is also highly doubtful whether war can be called an absolute evil.
When a neighboring country attacks, and unless one resists the entire population will become slaves, then at least outside Japan the great majority of people would judge a war of self-defense to be justified.

Academic fields today are diverse, but their source leads back to philosophy.
That is why, in the United States, no matter in which specialized field one earns a doctorate, one becomes a Doctor of Philosophy.
The foundation of philosophy is first of all to doubt.
This can also be seen in popular introductory books on philosophy such as Sophie’s World and Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?
The present condition of Japan’s academic world is that there are not a few scholars who fundamentally deny that healthy skepticism.

Are leftists numerous in the theoretical fields and few in engineering?

In the discussion that follows, I will use the term “leftist” as an ideological classification, but because the word carries ambiguity in definition, I will first state how it is defined in this essay.
By “leftist” here, I mean a mode of thought possessing the following characteristics.

● Outwardly, it professes to be “liberal,” but in reality it is concerned only with the freedom of oneself and the groups to which one feels sympathy, and has no interest in the freedom of other people.
It often also feels sympathy for states that suppress freedom and human rights.

● It possesses a certain kind of sense of omnipotence, and has a strong tendency to think that it is always right.
For that reason, while professing “diversity,” it often suppresses speech that differs from its own opinions.

● While advocating anti-power and the rescue of the weak, it has a strong desire to gain power for itself and is obsessed with personal advancement and success.
It is poor in the spirit of service and shows little concern for contributing to society.

● It prioritizes the ideals inside its own head over what is actually happening in reality.
When its ideas do not match reality, it does not revise its own thinking, but instead blames reality.

A mode of thought with these characteristics should perhaps properly be called “left-wing authoritarianism.”
However, since non-authoritarian leftists are regrettably few in Japan’s academic world today, in this essay I will abbreviate it simply as “leftist.”

A troublesome matter in word usage is the term “liberal.”
Since I stand for defending the autonomy and independence of scholarship, I regard myself as a liberal who fights both left-wing authoritarianism and right-wing authoritarianism.
However, because left-wing authoritarians call themselves “liberal,” when one identifies oneself as liberal, one ends up being mistaken for a left-wing authoritarian.

Precisely because I am liberal, if scholars were to begin right-wing political activism under the title of scholar, I would criticize them in exactly the same way on the basis of the reasoning written here.
Naturally, left-wing scholars too would bring out the same logic as mine and launch fierce protests.
That kind of double standard is the true hallmark of the left.
However, in Japan’s universities today, it is exceedingly rare to find people conducting right-wing political activism under academic titles.
On the other hand, left-wing political activism carried out under academic titles is not limited to the “Scholars’ Association Opposing the Security-Related Laws”; there have also been such cases as the 2017 statement by the Science Council of Japan on military security research, and they are not few in number.

For that reason, it seems that in conservative circles there has spread the misunderstanding that almost everyone belonging to academia is a leftist.
However, in my experience, there are hardly any leftists in practical fields such as engineering.
That is also supported by the survey results introduced on page 180 (Table 3).

We engineers repeatedly conduct experiments in the course of research and development in pursuit of realizing things with new functions.
However, most experiments end in failure.
Even when we think something should work, reality repeatedly confronts us with the fact that there is always something overlooked.
Only after repeating failures dozens of times do we finally achieve the desired function.
Nothing can be created by failing in an experiment and then criticizing the experimental result.
Our days are a continuous series of reflection.
Once one has gone through experiences like these, one cannot embrace a way of thinking like left-wing authoritarianism.

Even within the sciences, there are many leftists among theoretical scholars.
They are not baptized by the failures of experiment.
At the same time, they are good at studying, and so they are prone to acquire a false sense of omnipotence.
In the survey at the beginning as well, physicists and mathematicians were heavily represented in the list of signatories.

Let me introduce one episode.
Several years ago, I had a chance to drink at night with a university teacher specializing in mathematical engineering whom I had met at an international conference.
When I asked him why he did not do research that would connect his theory to practical application, he replied as follows.

“If I leave it as pure theory, other people will do the applied research using it, so my papers will be cited a lot and I can increase my citation count.”

Hearing those words, I thought to myself that he was a left-leaning person, and that intuition proved correct.
Later, the conversation turned to international affairs, and when I said, “If China swallows us up, academic freedom will disappear too,” he shot back as follows.

“China has good points too.
Japan’s politicians are hereditary, and there are few female lawmakers.
In that respect, China is more equal.”

I was stunned and replied like this.

“But all seven members of the Standing Committee of the Chinese Communist Party Politburo are men, and there is also a hereditary faction called the princelings.
That makes no sense.”

As expected, he could offer no rebuttal.

Many biologists are also included in the signatory list in Table 3.
Since biology is basically an experimental science, this may seem surprising in light of the discussion so far.
However, in my experience, I have the impression that there are not a few leftists in the life sciences as well.
In fact, quite a few life-science laboratories are considerably “black.”
Individual researchers are made to work long hours under the PI, the principal investigator and head of the laboratory.
Because the PI holds enormous power, power struggles also tend to become fierce.
I remember that when I moved from the life sciences into engineering for graduate school, I experienced a culture shock at the sheer degree of freedom.
To be continued.