The Institutional Suppression of Academic Dissent: The Covid Doxa and My Exclusion from Université Laval

By Luc Lelièvre

Last July, I interviewed Luc Lelièvre about his experience of academic censorship at Université Laval, where he faced institutional resistance and eventual dismissal for attempting to critically examine Quebec's pandemic response through the lens of Hannah Arendt's theories. That conversation revealed troubling patterns of how modern universities suppress dissenting voices, particularly around COVID-related inquiry. Now, I am honored to publish Lelièvre's comprehensive analysis of this phenomenon in his essay "The Institutional Suppression of Academic Dissent: The Covid Doxa and My Exclusion from Université Laval."

Lelièvre, a 70-year-old former journalist and autodidact whose unique path to academia gave him valuable outsider perspective, has found himself repeatedly silenced by traditional academic publishing channels. Multiple outlets have either rejected his essay outright or refused to engage with its arguments – a pattern that perfectly illustrates the institutional resistance to genuine critique that Lelièvre documents in his work. Their response only reinforces the urgency of his message about how academic institutions deploy bureaucratic mechanisms and ideological conformity to neutralize challenging voices.

Having provided a platform for Lelièvre's initial testimony, I am delighted to now publish this deeper exploration of academic censorship. His essay builds upon our earlier discussion, offering a rigorous theoretical framework that draws on thinkers from Arendt to Bonhoeffer while documenting the systematic ways that modern universities stifle intellectual diversity. At a time when academic freedom faces unprecedented challenges, Lelièvre's analysis provides crucial insight into how institutions silence dissent not through obvious censorship, but through subtle administrative and ideological mechanisms that are all the more effective for their invisibility.

With thanks to Luc Lelièvre.

---

Deep Dive Conversation Library (Bonus for Paid Subscribers)

This deep dive is based on both our July 2024 interview and the essay highlighted here:

Discussion No.55:

23 important insights from my interview with Luc Lelièvre and his recent essay “The Institutional Suppression of Academic Dissent.”

Thank you for your support.

---

The Institutional Suppression of Academic Dissent: The Covid Doxa and My Exclusion from Université Laval

Luc Lelièvre

Abstract

Luc Lelièvre is an independent researcher in social sciences. This paper explores the erosion of academic freedom through institutional censorship, using my experience at Université Laval as a case study. Drawing on the theoretical frameworks of Hannah Arendt, Loïc Wacquant, and Samuel Moyn, alongside recent analyses by Laurent Mucchielli, Eric Rasmusen, John Carpay, and historical parallels with Galileo Galilei and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, I argue that the suppression of dissenting voices is not merely an anomaly but a structural feature of modern academia. I demonstrate how bureaucratic and ideological mechanisms neutralize intellectual challenges, framing these actions as an extension of neoliberal governance, securitizing discourse, and consolidating a monopolized COVID narrative. This essay contributes to the discourse on censorship in the sciences and the social impact of constrained intellectual inquiry.

---

Introduction

Traditionally viewed as bastions of free thought and open inquiry, academic institutions increasingly engage in practices that limit the scope of permissible debate. While overt censorship is easily identifiable, a more insidious form of intellectual suppression operates through bureaucratic entanglements, opaque evaluative criteria, and ideological gatekeeping. This paper examines my exclusion from Université Laval's doctoral program as a case study of how academic institutions deploy structural mechanisms to suppress controversial yet legitimate inquiries, particularly regarding government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Repressing dissent is not new; history provides numerous examples of intellectual persecution. Galileo Galilei, who the Catholic Church condemned or supported heliocentrism, is an archetype of how institutions react when confronted with uncomfortable truths (Leake 2025). Similarly, Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Theory of Stupidity profoundly analyzes how mass ideological conformity enables authoritarian suppression, making intellectual repression an act of censorship and collective societal failure (Hudson 2025).

---

Theoretical Framework: Arendt, Wacquant, Moyn, Mucchielli, Rasmusen, Carpay, Galileo, Bonhoeffer, and Miłosz

1. Arendt and the Banality of Bureaucratic Control

• Hannah Arendt's analysis of totalitarianism provides insight into the bureaucratic normalization of exclusion. Rather than outright repression, institutions often justify intellectual suppression under the guise of administrative neutrality. (Britannica 2003e)

2. Wacquant's Neoliberal Penality

• Loïc Wacquant's theory of neoliberal governmentality elucidates how universities function as disciplinary institutions that regulate dissent, ensuring compliance with dominant ideological frameworks through subtle forms of academic policing.

3. Moyn's Critique of Human Rights Discourse

• Samuel Moyn's argument that human rights rhetoric often serves to obscure deeper inequalities applies here. The rhetoric of academic freedom, much like human rights discourse, is deployed selectively to maintain institutional legitimacy while suppressing actual dissent.

4. Mucchielli’s Concept of the Covid Doxa

• Laurent Mucchielli's research demonstrates how the pandemic response was controlled through a rigid and monopolized narrative, branding any dissent as misinformation. My exclusion mirrors this process, as my research questioned the dominant doxa of pandemic governance, leading to institutional reprisal rather than intellectual engagement.

5. Carpay on the Collapse of Legal Protections

• John Carpay's Corrupted by Fear examines how Canadian courts systematically failed to uphold constitutional rights during the pandemic, preferring government narratives over civil liberties concerns. The parallels between judicial compliance and academic suppression highlight a broader crisis of institutional accountability in democratic societies. (Carpay 2024)

6. Galileo's Ordeal and the Price of Scientific Truth

• Galileo's persecution for his heliocentric theory serves as a historical precedent for how institutions react to intellectual challenges. Much like how the Catholic Church silenced Galileo to preserve its ideological authority, modern academic institutions suppress research that threatens dominant narratives. (Britannica 2003d)

7. Bonhoeffer's Theory of Stupidity and Mass Compliance

• Bonhoeffer argued that the greatest enabler of tyranny is not malice but stupidity—the passive acceptance of irrational authority. This phenomenon was evident in the pandemic era, where blind adherence to official narratives replaced critical inquiry, and those who questioned the consensus, such as Dr. Hoffe, were systematically silenced and ostracized. (Franklin Sherman 2003)

8. Miłosz and the Intellectual’s Captivity

• In The Captive Mind (1953), Czesław Miłosz explores how intellectuals under oppressive regimes engage in self-censorship and ideological conformity to survive within a repressive system. His concept of Ketman—the art of outwardly conforming while privately dissenting—resonates with the current academic climate, where scholars simulate adherence to dominant ideologies to avoid professional exile. The institutional suppression I have faced mirrors Miłosz’s insights: dissent is not refuted but erased, and compliance is rewarded with career security, fostering a culture of ideological servitude. (Milosz 1953)

9. Rasmusen and the Mechanisms of Academic Cancellation

• Eric Rasmusen's work on academic freedom and cancel culture details the methods by which institutions eliminate dissenting voices under the guise of administrative decisions. He identifies peer pressure, bureaucratic proceduralism, and reputation destruction as key tools used to enforce ideological orthodoxy, all of which were deployed against me in my exclusion from Université Laval:

  • Eric Rasmusen's analysis of academic cancellation further illuminates the mechanisms behind this suppression. He argues that universities deploy bureaucratic hurdles, reputational attacks, and professional isolation to neutralize dissenting scholars. These methods ensure that even when outright dismissal is impractical, the academic environment becomes so hostile that dissenters are effectively silenced. Eric Rasmusen is a former business economics and public policy professor at Indiana University, known for his work in law, economics, and game theory. He has been active in academic free speech advocacy, serving as Chair of the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure for the Indiana Conference of the AAUP and as a director of the MIT Free Speech Alliance.

  • He was targeted twice for cancellation—first in 2003 for blog posts on religion and sexuality, and more prominently in 2019 after retweeting a controversial article. The university's provost publicly denounced him as "reprehensible" and "loathsome," leading to campus protests, vandalism at his home, and a security guard stationed outside his office. Though not officially fired, he retired the following year, focusing on free speech advocacy instead of legal battles. His case exemplifies institutional suppression of ideological dissent.

---

Case Study: My Exclusion from Université Laval

The rejection of my doctoral research serves as a tangible example of ideological gatekeeping within academia. Applying Arendt's theories to Quebec's pandemic governance was dismissed without substantive engagement. The exclusion process was neither transparent nor based on objective academic criteria but was instead driven by a need to uphold dominant institutional narratives.

The role of my supervisor was emblematic of this suppression. Rather than fostering an open academic discussion, he actively discouraged my research, warning that certain critiques would be "unacceptable" within the institutional framework. This preemptive censorship forced me into a position where scholarly debate was replaced with ideological compliance.

The ombudsman's refusal to intervene further underscored the systemic nature of this suppression. Rather than offering an impartial review of my case, the office functioned as a protective mechanism for the university, ensuring that controversial academic inquiries were neutralized before they could challenge institutional legitimacy. The absence of clear evaluative criteria highlights how academic bureaucracies manipulate procedural vagueness to exclude dissenting voices without appearing explicitly repressive.

Mucchielli's argument about the COVID doxa is particularly relevant here: my exclusion was not an isolated case but part of a broader effort to enforce a singular narrative on pandemic governance. Despite methodological rigor, scholars who deviated from this consensus were treated as ideological threats rather than contributors to scholarly debate (Mucchielli 2024; 2022).

Similarly, Carpay's examination of judicial failures in Canada reinforces the broader implications of my case. Suppose courts failed to protect fundamental rights under the guise of crisis management. In that case, academic institutions would follow this approach, prioritizing institutional security over the principles of free inquiry. My exclusion is thus not merely a personal injustice but a symptom of a wider institutional trend that sacrifices academic integrity for ideological conformity.

The legal arena provides another dimension to the narrative of suppression and selective acknowledgment of harm. In a poignant courtroom exchange, an attorney arguing for a civilian injured by a particular medication highlighted a stark inconsistency in legal accountability:

"ATTORNEY: Your Honor, this is absurd. My client is pursuing a claim of injury from [name of medicine]. We have, right in front of us, the undeniable precedent of the Department of Defense compensating soldiers harmed by the very same drug. What more evidence is needed? The drug is toxic. Soldiers took it. They were injured. The U.S. military acknowledges this fact and has paid them. Is my client, a civilian, somehow a different kind of human? If you rule in favor of the drug's manufacturer, you establish two conflicting standards—one for the military and another for the public. Or worse, you are implying that the Veterans Administration made a mistake in compensating those who served. The choice is clear: rule in favor of my client, just as the Army has done for its own soldiers." (Rappoport 2025)

This argument exposes a fundamental inconsistency in how pharmaceutical injury claims are handled. If the Department of Defense recognizes harm and compensates civilians, denying similar recourse raises profound ethical and legal concerns. It suggests a double standard where those in uniform are acknowledged as victims while the general public is left defenseless. This issue extends beyond individual lawsuits; it speaks to broader questions of governmental accountability, corporate influence, and the legal system's role in shielding pharmaceutical companies from liability. Encouraging injured soldiers to step forward could force a public reckoning, exposing the injustice of a system that selectively acknowledges harm. The central question remains: If the government has admitted harm in one case, how can it deny it in another without eroding its credibility?

This legal precedence mirrors the academic suppression I have experienced. Just as the court might be tempted to ignore clear evidence of harm to maintain a narrative or protect corporate interests, academic institutions similarly suppress dissenting voices to uphold dominant narratives, particularly around sensitive topics like managing public health crises. The selective acknowledgment of harm, whether in the courtroom or the classroom, undermines the very principles of justice, transparency, and truth-seeking that both legal and academic institutions are supposed to champion.

Although my situation looks more and more like a Kafka novel (Britannica 2003c), where I find myself trapped in an absurd bureaucratic labyrinth, confronted with arbitrary decisions and appeals that exist only in theory. Every step I take is met with systemic inaction, wrapped in empty justifications that give the illusion of a fair process, when it is only a smokescreen.

I also noticed how people play in a real kabuki theater: everything seems to be choreographed in advance to avoid any questioning of the system. While we seek to listen and advocate for justice, we often receive limited responses, such as standard administrative refusals that do not address the core issues.

All this looks like a perfectly oiled staging, where everyone plays their role with discipline, carefully avoiding any real questioning of the system. After kabuki theatre, where sincere commitment is feigned while following a pre-established script, comes the illusion of the Potemkin village: a deceptive institutional façade intended to give the appearance of a fair and functional process when it is emptied of all substance.

The procedures, remedies, and principles presented to me are meant to guarantee my rights but merely create an illusion of justice without achieving it. Behind these carefully erected administrative windows, there is no real evaluation of my case nor a willingness to act, but only a sham of democratic mechanisms used to legitimize inaction.

I question the authenticity of the administrative procedures and request that the Canadian Charter of freedoms decide: to act according to their principles or acknowledge involvement in this institutional process.

Such facts cannot be watered down, which often causes weaker people to look the other way while providing the public with fabricated lies that help people feel comfortable.

My fight is legitimate, and I intend to expose these contradictions, refuse to erase them, and force the institutions to step out of their pre-established role.

I can see that Gramsci, Zola, Solzhenitsyn, and Havel all managed to leave a lasting impact—whether through political theory, literature, or direct dissidence—while Bonhoeffer, though equally influential, met a tragic end before seeing the full impact of his resistance.

• I relate to Antonio Gramsci, who, despite imprisonment, developed a framework for understanding cultural and ideological domination. His Prison Notebooks resonate with my own struggle against systemic suppression. (Britannica 2003b)

• Like Émile Zola, I have sought to expose institutional injustice, refusing to remain silent in the face of censorship and bureaucratic obfuscation. His J'accuse…! reminds me that truth-telling can shift public perception even when met with hostility. (Berg 2003)

• Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's work mirrors my experience as I attempt to document and challenge the oppressive mechanisms that silence dissenters. The Gulag Archipelago showed me that exposing institutionalized injustice is possible, even against overwhelming forces. (Britannica 2003a)

• Václav Havel's transformation from dissident to leader gives me hope, reminding me that intellectual defiance can translate into tangible political change. His Power of the Powerless speaks to my own attempts to break through the façade of institutional legitimacy. (Britannica 2003d)

• Dietrich Bonhoeffer's fate reminds me of the risks I face and the moral imperative to resist. Unlike him, I intend to see my fight through, ensuring that my work contributes to real change rather than merely serving as a historical footnote. (Franklin Sherman 2003)

• Miłosz explains why so many academics remain silent or even participate in suppression—not because they believe in the dominant ideology, but because they recognize that survival depends on outward conformity. This is precisely the type of institutional cowardice that enabled my exclusion. Miłosz highlights how individuals internalize oppression and become complicit in maintaining the system, making suppression even more effective. (Milosz 1953)

These historical figures show me that persistence matters, that truth has power, and that, despite the obstacles I face, my resistance is not in vain.

---

The Broader Implications: Systemic Censorship in Academia

The suppression of my work is not an isolated event but part of a broader pattern of academic censorship in the West. Scholars who question dominant pandemic narratives have faced institutional penalties ranging from professional ostracization to outright dismissal. The systemic nature of these exclusions suggests an ideological litmus test governing permissible discourse in contemporary academia.

One of the defining characteristics of this censorship is its selective application. While institutions claim to uphold academic freedom, this protection is often extended only to perspectives that reinforce prevailing ideological frameworks. Suppressing pandemic-related critiques under the justification of "public safety" reflects a broader trend where crisis narratives serve as pretexts for limiting debate (Nass 2024; Wright 2024; Tucker 2024).

Eric Rasmusen's analysis of academic cancellation further illuminates the mechanisms behind this suppression. He argues that universities deploy bureaucratic hurdles, reputational attacks, and professional isolation to neutralize dissenting scholars. These methods ensure that even when outright dismissal is impractical, the academic environment becomes so hostile that dissenters are effectively silenced.¹

Carpay's critique of legal institutions provides an important parallel: just as courts lowered the bar for government overreach during the pandemic, academic institutions lowered their standards for suppressing controversial research. Both trends suggest a reduction in democratic practices, where fundamental rights, including academic freedom, are affected by political factors.

Dr. Hoffe's ordeal is a stark reminder of what happens when a doctor prioritizes ethical responsibility over institutional conformity. His willingness to document and expose vaccine injuries was met not with open inquiry but with swift and ruthless retaliation. He was vilified, barred from practicing and ostracized by the system meant to protect patients. Nevertheless, Hoffe refused to recant despite the crushing weight of censorship and professional exile. His story is not just one of personal sacrifice but of the larger war against medical authoritarianism—one that continues to unfold as more voices join the call for accountability (Canary 2025).

Bonhoeffer's reflections on stupidity remain profoundly relevant in an age where ideology often eclipses reason. His insights challenge us to consider how social pressures and conformity can strip individuals of critical thought, transforming them into unthinking participants in destructive systems. The implications of his argument stretch beyond Nazi Germany to any society where blind allegiance to authority replaces intellectual autonomy. His warning is clear: stupidity is not merely an absence of intelligence but a surrender of moral and intellectual responsibility. The challenge today is to recognize and see this phenomenon through courage, independent thought, and a commitment to truth, even when the tide of public opinion turns against it (Hudson 2025).

The case of the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) serves as a stark reminder of how power elites can leverage state resources to enforce censorship under the guise of combating misinformation (Ji 2025). Utilizing Hannah Arendt's analysis of totalitarian control, we can see how modern institutions might subtly or overtly censor through proxies like NGOs, thereby undermining the very essence of democratic discourse. The revelation that U.S. taxpayer dollars are funding a UK-based group involved in silencing American voices not only breaches First Amendment rights but also signals a profound interference in U.S. elections, challenging the accountability of those in power who facilitate or benefit from such systems.

This scenario echoes Samuel Moyn's critique of elite accountability, where the moral and ethical responsibilities of leaders are often obscured by complex networks of influence and control. The involvement of entities like CCDH (Ji 2025), operating under the pretense of being a 'hate speech watchdog' while functioning as a political tool, exemplifies how the elite can manipulate narratives to suppress dissent. This not only questions the integrity of our democratic processes but also demands a rigorous examination of how such operations are allowed to flourish within the legal and ethical frameworks meant to protect free speech and ensure fair elections.

---

Conclusion: Towards a More Open Intellectual Climate

Recognizing the systemic nature of academic censorship is the first step in formulating effective resistance strategies. It is not enough to highlight individual cases of suppression; scholars must expose the institutional structures that enable these practices and advocate for meaningful accountability mechanisms.

To preserve the integrity of academic discourse, universities must be held to higher standards of transparency in their evaluative processes. This includes implementing clearer guidelines for research approval, ensuring that ideological considerations do not override methodological rigor, and establishing independent review bodies to assess allegations of academic suppression.

Encouraging a culture of dissent is also crucial. The hallmark of a healthy intellectual environment is the willingness to engage with controversial ideas—even those that challenge institutional legitimacy. If universities abandon this principle, they risk becoming ideological echo chambers rather than places of genuine inquiry.

As Bonhoeffer warned, blind adherence to authority is the greatest enabler of oppression. If institutions continue to silence dissent, they risk repeating the same intellectual stagnation that characterized Galileo's era. Only by fostering genuine academic freedom can we prevent history from repeating itself.

Finally, the failures of the judiciary, as described by Carpay, illustrate the dangers of unchecked institutional power. If courts cannot be relied upon to uphold fundamental freedoms, then academic and legal institutions must be subjected to increased scrutiny. The defense of free thought requires a concerted effort to reinforce democratic principles (Mucchielli 2023), ensuring that neither academic nor legal structures become complicit in eroding civil liberties.

Moreover, the case of organizations like the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) exemplifies how the erosion of free speech transcends academia, embedding itself within broader power structures. This calls for an expanded understanding of censorship that includes the accountability of power elites. (Ji 2025)

As scholars, we must not only advocate for academic freedom but also for a comprehensive scrutiny of how state and non-state actors manipulate discourse and influence. The fight for an open intellectual climate is inherently tied to the battle against such manipulations, demanding that we extend our critique and action beyond the university walls to challenge any system that seeks to control thought and suppress dissent. This interconnected struggle highlights the need for a vigilant defense of democratic values, where transparency, accountability, and the right to question are not just academic ideals but societal imperatives.

Max Weber’s concept of the iron cage is particularly relevant to the suppression of dissent in modern institutions. Bureaucratic systems, initially designed to ensure efficiency and fairness, have evolved into rigid, self-perpetuating mechanisms that prioritize procedure over justice, conformity over truth. Those who challenge the prevailing orthodoxy find themselves ensnared in a Kafkaesque labyrinth, where rules serve not as safeguards of fairness, but as tools of exclusion and silencing. This bureaucratic entrapment is not merely a byproduct of administrative complexity—it is a structural necessity for maintaining ideological control. The iron cage is not just a metaphor for excessive rationalization; it is a reality that renders meaningful dissent nearly impossible, as institutions become more invested in self-preservation than in their original mission of knowledge and justice. (Mitzman 2003)

---

This essay discusses academic freedom, institutional power, and ideological constraints, emphasizing the need for open inquiry despite bureaucratic limitations.

---

I appreciate you being here.

If you've found the content interesting, useful and maybe even helpful, please consider supporting it through a small paid subscription. While everything here is free, your paid subscription is important as it helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work. It also helps keep it free for those that cannot afford to pay.

Please make full use of the Free Libraries.

Unbekoming Interview Library: Great interviews across a spectrum of important topics.

Unbekoming Book Summary Library: Concise summaries of important books.

Stories

I'm always in search of good stories, people with valuable expertise and helpful books. Please don't hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com

For COVID vaccine injury

Consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment as a resource.

Baseline Human Health

Watch and share this profound 21-minute video to understand and appreciate what health looks like without vaccination.

---

References:

Berg, William. 2003. “Émile Zola.” In Encyclopaedia Britannica 2003, Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.

Britannica. 2003a. “Alekxandr Solzhenitsyn.” In Encyclopeadia Britannica, Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.

———. 2003b. “Antonio Gramsci.” In Encyclopaedia Britannica 2003, Britannica. Encyclopeadia Britannica, Inc.

———. 2003c. “Franz Kafka.” In Encyclopaedia Britannica 2003, Britannica. Encounter Books.

———. 2003d. “Vaclav Havel.” In Britannica, Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.

Canary. 2025. “Dr. Charles Hoffe: Free at Last, but the Battle for Truth Continues.” Canary in a Covid World. 2025. https://canaryinacovidworld.substack.com/p/dr-charles-hoffe-free-at-last-but?

Franklin Sherman. 2003. “Dietrich Bonhoeffer.” In Encyclopaedia Britannica 2003, Ulimate Re. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.

Hudson, Alexandra. 2025. “When Does an Intellectual Failing Become a Moral One? Bonhoeffer’s Theory of Stupidity.” Civic Renaissance with Alexandra Hudson. 2025. https://www.civic-renaissance.com/p/when-does-an-intellectual-failing-add?

Ji, Sayer. 2025. “BREAKING: U.S. Tax Dollars Secretly Fuel CCDH’s Dark Money Censorship & Election Meddling.” Sayer Ji’s Substack. 2025. https://sayerji.substack.com/p/breaking-us-tax-dollars-secretly?

Leake, John. 2025. “Remembering the Prosecution of Galileo.” Courageous Discourse. 2025. https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/remembering-the-prosecution-of-galileo.

Milosz, Czeslaw. 1953. The Captive Mind. New York, New York, USA: Vintage Books.

Mitzman, Arthur. 2003. “Max Weber.” In Encyclopaedia Britannica 2003, Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.

Mucchielli, Laurent. 2022. La Doxa Du Covid. E-PUB: Éditions Éoliennes.

———. 2023. Défendre La Démocratie : Une Sociologie Engagée (French Edition). Paris, France: Éolienne.

———. 2024. “The Covid Doxa: How Propaganda, Censorship and the Politicization of Covid Have Destroyed Our Intellectual and Moral Bearings.” Kritische Gesellschaftsforschung (Critical Society Studies). https://cdoi.org/1.2/065/000050.

Nass, Meryl. 2024. “WHO, UN, WEF and EU Collaborate to Impose Censorship on the World. To Protect Us, of Course. It’s for Our Own Good.” Meryl’s COVID Newsletter. 2024. https://merylnass.substack.com/p/who-un-wef-and-eu-collaborate-to?

Rappoport, Jon. 2025. “Needle in the Arm of the Military Is a Special Exception.” Jon Rappoport. 2025. https://jonrappoport.substack.com/p/needle-in-arm-of-military-is-a-special-exception?

Tucker, Jeffrey A. 2024. “The Real Meaning of Censorship | Freedom First | EpochTV.” Freedom First. 2024. https://www.theepochtimes.com/epochtv/the-real-meaning-of-censorship-freedom-first-5605275?

Wright, Frank. 2024. “War on Truth: How the Censorship-Industrial Complex Threatens to End Free Speech as We Know It - LifeSite.” LIFE SITE. 2024. https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/war-on-truth-how-the-censorship-industrial-complex-threatens-to-end-free-speech-as-we-know-it/.

1. Eric Rasmusen is a former professor of business economics and public policy at Indiana University, known for his work in law-and-economics and game theory. He has been active in academic free speech advocacy, serving as Chair of the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure for the Indiana Conference of the AAUP and as a director of the MIT Free Speech Alliance.

He was targeted twice for cancellation—first in 2003 for blog posts on religion and sexuality, and more prominently in 2019 after retweeting a controversial article. The university’s provost publicly denounced him as "reprehensible" and "loathsome," leading to campus protests, vandalism at his home, and a security guard stationed outside his office. Though not officially fired, he retired the following year, focusing on free speech advocacy instead of legal battles. His case exemplifies institutional suppression of ideological dissent.