In today’s world, we’re witnessing a troubling rise in the suppression of academic freedom and the right to think differently. What should be healthy debate is, in some places, devolving into discrimination, exclusion, and even violence against those who dare to stand apart.
The recent arrest of Ukrainian scholar Dr. Oleg Maltsev is a worrying example of how academic freedom is under threat.
Case of Scientist Dr. Oleg Maltsev
Oleg Maltsev is a scientist whose path has been anything but easy. His career has been marked by relentless challenges, both from his research and from the public’s reaction to it. No matter the field— psychology, history, philosophy, or martial arts—he faces sharp criticism and labels that often stray beyond the academic. His work in psychology is dismissed as quackery, his historical research leads to accusations of him being a Templar, and his exploration of philosophy or religion sees him branded as sectarian. Even when he organizes scientific symposiums, he’s labeled a “snake oil salesman.” Even his academic background draws criticism, with some people simply displeased that Dr. Maltsev holds two PhDs.
This pattern is familiar to those who have followed him — it doesn’t matter what he says, there will always be people ready to disagree. Despite the opposition, Maltsev is well-respected in international academic circles, collaborating with European universities and frequently presenting his work at conferences.
“The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim.“ Gustave Le Bon
To understand the controversy surrounding him, it’s essential to recognize that being different doesn’t mean being wrong. People have diverse views, experiences, and ways of life—and that diversity should be embraced, not condemned.
Jerome Krase, Murray Koppelman Professor and Professor Emeritus at Brooklyn College of The City University of New York, attests to Dr. Maltsev’s unique scientific approach:
“it’s excellent and it’s unique, he’s an interesting character, he has many different points of view and many different activities. From my perspective, these activities occupy a distinctive niche within the broader landscape of scholarly pursuits.”
He characterizes Dr. Maltsev’s scientific approach as unusual and distinctive, which in turn leads to insights that might otherwise go unnoticed.
The Image of the Intolerant in a Supposedly Tolerant Society
Those intolerant of differing ideas often share a defining trait: a limited worldview. Their inability or unwillingness to engage with different perspectives leads to rigid thinking, and they lash out when confronted with challenges to their beliefs. These individuals often see the world in black and white, and rather than considering that there might be merit in viewpoints different from their own, they are quick to dismiss, label, and attack. The intolerance stems from a fear of the unknown and a need for certainty, which leads them to reject anything that feels unfamiliar or uncomfortable. This is especially evident in their treatment of public intellectuals and scientists who propose ideas outside the mainstream.
Take the attacks on Maltsev during his research on fate analysis, when many reacted with primal fear. Some dismissed it as quackery, others as blasphemy. Instead of engaging with the complexities of his work, critics resorted to personal attacks, a tactic used to avoid grappling with difficult ideas. Today, his critics have escalated, accusing him of being a traitor and even labeling him a “GRU agent” over his research into shooting disciplines and his creation of a new field, Urban Tactical Shooting (UTS).
This shift from claiming his work as pseudoscience to branding him a national security threat illustrates a disturbing trend: when intellectuals push boundaries, they face not just professional isolation but outright persecution.
The Weaponization of Labels
The persecution of scientists and thinkers is nothing new: it’s a practice that dates back centuries, to times when those who dared to think differently were persecuted, even burned at the stake, for their beliefs. But in today’s information-saturated world, independent thinking has become a professional risk. Intellectuals like Maltsev face persecution not just personally, but through their fundamental right to speak and research freely being undermined. Scientists who dare to present alternative perspectives frequently become targets of ridicule, not because their ideas lack merit, but because they threaten the comfort of the status quo. This is clearly illustrated by the Maltsev case, where the consequences extend far beyond mere criticism, putting live and freedom at risk.
The labeling has become a convenient tool for discrediting scholars. Labels like “anti-science” or “misinformation” are often thrown around to shut down debate rather than foster it. While combating genuine misinformation is essential, these labels are increasingly weaponized to undermine legitimate academic work.
By slapping a label on a person or their ideas, we shut down critical thinking and reduce complex subjects to oversimplified categories that fit neatly into preconceived narratives.
Once someone has been labeled—whether it’s “charlatan” or “pseudo-scientist” —there’s no longer a need to engage with their work. The label does the thinking for you. Without having to read their research or engage with their ideas, you’ve already decided that their contributions are “bad” or not worth your time. It allows the public and even other academics to dismiss entire bodies of work without ever seriously considering their merit.
Labeling might feel like a convenient way to dismiss uncomfortable or challenging ideas, but the long-term consequences are much more serious. It leads to intellectual laziness, oversimplifies the intricacies of research, and pushes us back to a less tolerant time.
In Ukraine, a country working to build a democratic society, this kind of intolerance threatens to undermine that progress. By allowing dissent to be labeled as dangerous, Ukraine risks falling into the same traps as its authoritarian adversary.
The Threat of Egalitarianism to Independent Thought
In recent years, there’s been a growing trend toward intellectual “equalization,” where diverse perspectives are flattened into a single, acceptable narrative. This push for forced equality in thought may seem noble on the surface, but it often has the opposite effect: stifling intellectual diversity.
The case of Dr. Oleg Maltsev illustrates this phenomenon. When Maltsev ventured into areas of study that didn’t align with mainstream, he faced swift backlash. This response reflects a broader issue: when intellectual diversity is sacrificed for a uniform narrative, anyone who deviates from the accepted path becomes a target.
In an attempt to make all ideas appear equally valid, we risk elevating mediocre or safe ideas. When society insists on flattening intellectual discourse into a narrow framework of what is “acceptable,” we lose the dynamism that allows new, groundbreaking concepts to emerge.
Maltsev’s experience shows how this flattening of thought plays out in real time. His researches sparked fear because it didn’t fit neatly into accepted frameworks. By dismissing dissenting ideas as dangerous or unworthy, society loses its ability to critically engage—and intellectual growth stalls.
If we continue down this path of intellectual equalization, where all ideas must fit within a pre-approved range of thought, we risk stagnating as a society. True progress is made when independent thinkers are free to explore and challenge the conventional wisdom.
Conclusion
The growing intolerance toward independent thought, the persecution of dissenting scholars, and the push for intellectual homogenization represent a dangerous shift in both academia and society at large. This trend threatens the very foundation of academic freedom and intellectual progress.
It’s possible that some may argue Maltsev’s case is primarily about Ukraine’s national security. However, the methods used to incite conflict in the information sphere and influence public opinion strongly suggest that this is an attempt to prosecute the scientist for his scientific work and to undermine the prestige of Ukrainian scholars within the international academic community. By labeling him a “traitor” and dismissing his research, the effort appears to be aimed at silencing him and delegitimizing independent thought.
While the military aid provided to Ukraine by partner countries is undoubtedly a significant support in its fight against the dictatorial enemy, we must not overlook the equally critical need for support for democratic values and intellectual freedom in Ukraine. Protecting independent thought requires more than just external military assistance; it demands a commitment to fostering open, inclusive discourse and a willingness to defend those who challenge the status quo.
It’s important to remember that Ukraine’s primary adversary is Russia—a country with a long history of suppressing intellectual freedom under authoritarian rule. Persecution of scientists is routine there. Ukraine, by contrast, is working to build a democratic society and must avoid repeating the mistakes of its enemy. Otherwise, as the saying goes, those who fight monsters risk becoming one themselves.
