> I agree with the progressive arguments - that you can't just say "no politics in X", that politics are inherent to what you do. I would push back on this. In

> I agree with the progressive arguments - that you can't just say "no politics in X", that politics are inherent to what you do. I would push back on this. In a trivial sense, politics is in everything, because everything is somehow related to everything else. For most work-related purposes, an LGBT issue, to take a random example, is relevant in the same way it is relevant to include the gravitational influence of Neptune when calculating the trajectory of a thrown object on Earth: technically there is an influence, but it is minute. This would be true unless, perhaps, you work in HR and dealing with this stuff is part of the job description. Naturally, strongly committed activists won't see it that way because they see literally everything through the lens of their hobbyhorse. But I agree very much with your second paragraph. I work in medical research. The important thing about it is to find cures for diseases. If some allegedly or actually marginalized person comes in and attempts to derail this important work with their own issues, it is incredibly self-centered. I don't care how bad you think your group has it, it isn't as bad as "the group of people with metastatic cancer". Privileged as I may or may not be, it isn't me such a person would be harming, it's the patients. I think most people in my field recognize this and political issues generally aren't a problem there. I wonder if there is an inverse correlation between the importance of the work and the likelihood that people will bring up political issues.