> A logical argument can be perfectly true and still invalid if it is the result of motivated cherry picking and framing to support an agenda or incentive. The

> A logical argument can be perfectly true and still invalid if it is the result of motivated cherry picking and framing to support an agenda or incentive. The approach to take here, then, would be to critique the part of the letter that is invalid and cherry picked. Perhaps universities have a broader scope than education and research, and focusing on the pursuit of truth doesn't allow it to fulfill its broader responsibilities. If that's your point, make it, instead of saying that certain personal traits of an arguer inherently makes their argument wrong. A world where arguments are primarily about which identities are good and bad is a world where you just have insults being thrown back and forth about who's a "white man reply guy" and who's an "autistic enby about to saw his genitals off." I'd prefer a different one.