>But what percentage of grant proposals were reviewed by an appointed political officer whose sole job was to screen out wrongthink? It did happen, but it was ad hoc and amateur.
Small consolation for those excluded. It wasn't "occasional (but serious!) mistakes" it was systematic ideological control.
I'd say explicit is better than implicit. Less hypocrisy, and more transparency. And at least now that this shit is officially set as word to paper, and is out in the open, the other side, when in power, can dismantle it and make into law guarantees that such wrongthink persecution wont happen again.
But they wont. They'll use the same mechanism of "appointed political officer whose sole job was to screen out wrongthink".
Because it was never about the principle. It was about doing it convertly as long as they politically/ideologically controlled those establishments. Controlling them through government power will suit them too, as much as it suits the other side.
Small consolation for those excluded. It wasn't "occasional (but serious!) mistakes" it was systematic ideological control.
I'd say explicit is better than implicit. Less hypocrisy, and more transparency. And at least now that this shit is officially set as word to paper, and is out in the open, the other side, when in power, can dismantle it and make into law guarantees that such wrongthink persecution wont happen again.
But they wont. They'll use the same mechanism of "appointed political officer whose sole job was to screen out wrongthink".
Because it was never about the principle. It was about doing it convertly as long as they politically/ideologically controlled those establishments. Controlling them through government power will suit them too, as much as it suits the other side.