Published on July 12, 2019.
As a continuation of the previous chapter, this passage criticizes the contradiction and danger of scholars engaging in political activism under academic titles, arguing that the value-neutrality of scholarship is being seriously undermined.
It also sets out the author’s own definition of the “left,” sharply presenting the authoritarian tendencies spreading through Japanese academia and the growing danger of scholarship’s self-destruction.

2019-07-12
While claiming to oppose power and rescue the weak, they have a strong desire to gain power themselves and are obsessed with personal advancement and success.
What follows is a continuation of the previous chapter.
The abuse of academic titles.
For scholarship to fulfill its proper function, it must be politically neutral.
And yet, the fact that scholars themselves would lead political movements such as the “Scholars’ Association Opposed to the Security-Related Laws” was, to me as one scholar, something almost impossible to believe.
People who ordinarily loudly insist on university autonomy and the political independence of scholarship should not fail, if they possess sound reason, to notice the contradiction in committing themselves to political movements in the name of scholars.
And yet, well over ten thousand scholars signed this movement.　
Of course, even scholars, as individual citizens, naturally have the freedom to make political statements.
However, such statements should be made from the position of citizens, and should not be made using the title of scholar.
Otherwise, the political independence of scholarship cannot be preserved.
In fact, at the time, I once explored the possibility of developing a protest movement against political activities carried out under academic titles.
There were not 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?, although scholarship must be value-neutral, unless it upholds at least the value of preserving scholarship as scholarship, scholarship will collapse from within.
For that reason, it should be considered permissible for scholars to assert, under the title of scholar, only the value of protecting scholarship.
However, if that assertion is directed against a specific political movement, it falls into the dilemma of taking on a political character in the opposite direction.　
Regrettably, in recent years there have appeared scholars who attack the very claim that scholarship must be value-neutral.
It is the claim that nuclear power and war are absolute evils and therefore must be unconditionally denied.
Certainly, once a nuclear accident occurs, the damage is enormous, and the problem of radioactive waste is also grave.
However, 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 resistance is made, the entire population will become slaves, at least outside Japan the great majority of people judge that waging a war of self-defense is right.　
Today’s academic disciplines 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 doctoral degree, one becomes a Doctor of Philosophy.
The basis of philosophy is, first of all, to doubt.
This can also be read from introductory philosophy books written for the general public and turned into bestsellers, such as Sophie’s World and Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?
The reality in which the academic world in Japan now finds itself is that there are not a few scholars who deny that healthy skepticism at its very root.
Are leftists numerous in theoretical fields and few in engineering fields?　
In the discussion that follows, I will use the word “left” as an ideological category, but since this word contains ambiguity of definition, I will first state the definition used in this essay.
By “left” in this essay, I refer to 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 itself and the groups with which it sympathizes, and has no concern for the freedom of other people. It often even feels sympathy for states that suppress freedom and human rights.　
●It possesses a kind of sense of omnipotence, and has a strong tendency to believe that it is always right. For that reason, while professing “diversity,” it often suppresses speech that differs from its own views.　
●While claiming to oppose power and rescue the weak, it has a strong desire to gain power itself and is obsessed with personal advancement and success. It lacks a spirit of service and has little interest in contributing to society.　
●It gives priority to the ideals inside its own mind over what is actually happening in reality. When its own ideas do not fit reality, it does not revise its own thinking, but instead blames reality.　
A mode of thought with such characteristics might properly be called “left-wing authoritarianism.”
However, since, regrettably, there are few non-authoritarian leftists in today’s Japanese academic world, in this essay I will abbreviate it simply as “the left.”
This article will continue.