The university and research institutions, such as the CNRS, have a fundamental role in our society: they must offer a space for reflection and debate that transcends the political passions of the moment. Particularly in the disciplines of the humanities and social sciences, where the analysis of facts requires rigor and objectivity, it is crucial to maintain a certain emotional distance so as not to sink into pathos or ideology. This is what Max Weber called the axiological neutrality, an intellectual attitude that requires the academic or researcher to put aside his own opinions in order to understand, in an impartial way, the phenomena he is studying. This requirement is a foundation of scientific work and a pillar of the university institution.
However, in recent years, we have witnessed a growing politicization of academic institutions, including the most prestigious establishments, which are moving away from their primary vocation. A particularly problematic recent case is that of CEPED (Population and development), a Joint Research Unit (UMR) of the CNRS and dependent on the University of Paris, whose website was recently "repainted" in the colors of Palestine, accompanying a motion unanimously voted by its members. This choice is not insignificant: it is an explicit political position, which betrays a deviation from the neutrality and scientific rigor expected of such an institution.
This motion raises several worrying questions. First, it relies on CEPED's research objects, focused on the Global South, to support a clearly biased political hypothesis. This instrumentalization of research subjects is a dangerous drift, because it uses work in sociology and anthropology to legitimize a particular vision of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, it is essential to separate social facts from political commitments, especially when the latter are controversial.
More specifically, the CEPED motion contains two problematic assertions. First, it denounces the “Israeli war enterprise,” a term that reduces a complex conflict to the sole responsibility of one of the actors in a Manichean manner. This interpretation ignores the reality of armed conflicts involving terrorist groups and their state supporters, who also conduct war enterprises in the name of their geopolitical interests. CEPED, as a research institution, must offer a more balanced and nuanced analysis of the situation.
Second, the motion warns that the expression of their “dynamic of solidarity with Palestine” would be stifled. This statement is paradoxical, even laughable, because it is precisely formulated on an official website, repainted in the colors of Palestine, which unrestrainedly disseminates violently anti-Israeli positions. How can one claim to be silenced when one benefits from an institutional platform to express one’s opinions?
This double paradox reveals the extent of the confusion that reigns in this type of discourse, where scientific research is diverted to the benefit of militant rhetoric. If the situation were not so serious, one could almost smile. But what is at stake here goes beyond the simple register of the absurd. When research institutions like the CNRS and its UMRs take public political positions, they undermine the credibility of the entire academic community. Knowledge, which should be a tool for understanding and reflection, becomes an ideological weapon, diverted to serve partisan interests.
This kind of posture has nothing to do with an act of resistance to injustices. On the contrary, it is an act of collaboration with a certain current of thought that is dominant in certain academic spheres. This confusion between political commitment and scientific research is deeply dangerous, because it alters the ability of researchers to produce objective knowledge. It also contributes to the polarization of public debate, where extreme positions crush any space for critical reflection and dialogue.
It is urgent that universities and institutions such as the CNRS become aware of the need to preserve their role as guardians of knowledge and scientific neutrality. If they continue to drift towards politicization, they risk losing their credibility and betraying their primary mission. The stakes of this deviation are not only academic, they concern society as a whole, which counts on researchers to shed light on debates, and not to poison them.
