[force_reboot]

Regarding 2., are you saying that, in general, some true facts are so harmful that the public needs to be prevent from knowing them? And if so, who is in charge of determining what the public can know, and why are those people immune from the harmful effects of these beliefs?

For example you assume the existence of some people who believe that a liberal democratic society requires women in science and tech, even if they are inherently less able in these fields. Why then, can't these people explain to the public why this is the case, so that the public will then accept the need for women in these fields, regardless of the truth regarding IQ?

[groth]

not at all. the 'facts' are obviously out there, but it's not the job of a university president to promote them, especially when their facticity is a) indispute and b) promotes expectations and norms in society that could and do adversely effects a segment of it.

summers is still a faculty member at harvard, he's just no longer president, and no longer speaking for the institution

[force_reboot]

All facts are going to be interpreted differently. So (a) alone is clearly not a good criterion. But if you are saying that (a) and (b) combined imply that a statement should be forbidden, then my critique still applies.

If you forbid Larry Summers from forming one plausible opinion based on the facts, even though you allow others (e.g. the opposite opinion), then your reasoning still must be along the lines that I outlined.

Why can't the public be trusted with the fact that Larry Summers draws one opinion from the data, even though other people have drawn different opinions.

Whenever your reasoning contains something like (b), my critique is going to apply, because you are arguing against a viewpoint based on its consequences, not on its truth (even if you also doubt its truth).