Thank you, Nadine. And thank you to the MIT free speech alliance for putting on this event. I believe this event really captures and touches upon the zeitgeist of our times. And I'll make a small joke in homage to Kurth over here as a comedian. What am I a comedy is also one of my loves. And there's a brilliant comedian by the name of Chris Rock, who has come up with this bit called selective outrage and I strongly encourage you to watch it. I think Chris Rock touches upon the issues of the zeitgeist of our time. What he touches upon but misses is selective empathy. And in particular, selective empathy is something that drives me apoplectic. I find it anathema, and in particular, is part and parcel of the diversity, inclusion and equity umbrella. So I think the idea is selected. Empathy is something we should be very afraid of. And that's something that's taking place over here. Having given that little opening salvo I'd like to make four basic points in these eight minutes or seven minutes I have remaining. The first point is why should anyone listen to me? And that's something I always think about as a humble scientist, as that I can offer some value as a chemist or a physicist or engineer, but why should you as a student or a taxpayer or an alumnus Listen to me, what value can I add to this discussion? And the value that can add to this discussion is I've been thinking about these ideas of so called Equity Diversity and Inclusion or race and racism or sex obsessed sexism and caste and caste ism. Ever since I was a child having immigrated from India to America. So I emigrated from a third world country with my parents, my parents experience considerable amount of difficulties and racism, and we never thought of ourselves as victims. We never thought of ourselves as anything more than being lucky to be part of possibly the greatest country on Earth, but certainly a marvelous country that made us able to succeed and fly as high as we want to. So myself and my parents, and my family, we've all benefited from this country. And as a result, I take great pains to defend a lot of the things that this country and related countries have put forth to advance the state of human civilization. As a result, I will not be canceled. And that's the thing that a lot of people worry about is cancellation. And as my friends Jordan Peterson and Gad sad say, Don't be afraid gad sad especially says be a honey badger. Be an academic honeybadger and that's something that I take to heart. Don't be canceled. Say what you think, say it kindly and politely and listen to other people. And as Jordan Peterson says you should probably interact with people with whom you disagree. So you can learn more and hopefully become smarter, but don't cancel others and I refuse to be canceled. That's one of the reasons why I'm here. Now, the next question is, what about an intellectual approach? Is there an intellectual approach that we should take and the approach that I'd like to propose is the is the primacy of free speech? Free speech is central to human civilization, the foundation of democracy, the advancement of civilization, and it is the means by which we learn. We are not supposed to have safe speech. We're not supposed to have kind speech. We're supposed to have a vast marketplace of free speech and ideas that we can consume, reject, debate, modify, do as we see fit, free speech as the absolutely primary foundation of our civilization, and any efforts to restrict free speech should be looked at with the utmost of fear and concern. The second rather third point is having established an intellectual approach. What is our value proposition? Our value proposition I take from Dorian Albert Yvonne Marinovich, who came up with this idea of merit, fairness and equality, merit, fairness and equality was merely their marketing statement to discuss classical liberal principles, as discussed by John Stuart Mill, or classical conservative principles, as discussed by Edmund Burke, brilliant people have worked on these ideas far smarter than me far earlier than I have. So what we aim to do is to learn from them. Merit fairness and equality. Merit means I'm going to judge you based upon your merits as an individual and that and that alone not going to judge you by the content of your character, not by the color of your skin or your organs or your religion or your nationality. I only judge you based upon merit, and I certainly have practiced that in my life and certainly as a scientist, and as a professor. Fairness is a fairly straightforward thing we won't belabor that any further. Societies have historically not been fair, and we try to make them more fair. Everyone wants to do that. Equality is the central point. We are equal under the law in American society, what we don't necessarily have equal rights and responsibilities but ideally we should strive for equal rights and responsibilities, as typically discussed by the founding fathers, whether of America or even France, these are brilliant ideas, we should focus on equality. Having said that, what is the opposite of merit, fairness and equality, diversity? Inclusion and Equity? diversity, inclusion and equity? Sounds wonderful. No one wants to say I'm against a version diversity, inclusion and equity. But these ideas are a wolf in sheep's clothing. And I would tell anyone to be absolutely wary of them. Diversity Inclusion and Equity. Let's begin with equity. Equity versus equality is a very different concept. Equity involves redistribution of resources from me to you. If I've earned resources and you haven't earned resources, maybe we should redistribute them this falls under the auspices of what the communist tried to do. And the communists now are becoming repackaged in a modern version called Cultural Marxism. We had economic Marxism a century ago in Moscow in 1920. And now in Cambridge and 2020 we have we have cultural Marxism. The Cultural Marxism suggests that we are all collectives of one group against another victims and oppressors. This is not how most of society works. And that's certainly not how Cambridge and 2020 works. So I think the idea of equity is very, very dangerous. Diversity is also dangerous, because why should we have diversity in outcomes? We're all different. Do we have diversity in the NBA? Do we have diversity in the NFL? Do we have diversity in particle physics? And the answer is no. Was a diversity in the Rolling Stones know people do things when they want to with their skill set, and people of all walks of life can come together and create rock and roll or jazz or particle physics or play basketball or soccer. That's the idea. We want to let people of all walks of life have similar interests. add value to human society. That doesn't mean there's a diversity of outcomes. It means there's a diversity of interests. And with that, I'll conclude and thank you for your time.