That's yeah, that's a terrific question, because it helps me tease out a few other threads of this idea of viewpoint diversity. So as I say, on the one hand, it's not necessarily a new platform at all, this is a new iteration of a long standing conceit, I want to emphasize conceit is that university and college campuses are overwhelmingly liberal in terms of their culture. And here, I'm sort of describing arguments and the way ideas get used. I don't want to kind of participate in like I'm coming from this particular political perspective. My argument I don't think hangs on me identifying any particular political perspective, it's, it's a pretty much a fact that in the 40s, but particularly the 50s and the 60s, there were a lot of reactionary political actors and media figures and members of universities in the era of early desegregation, who started to say that universities and colleges are overwhelmingly liberal. This was a sort of fog, a terminological fog, reactionary in response to the idea that by court order, constitutionally, universities, colleges, public education, now we're supposed to be equally accessible to people of all quote unquote, races and increasingly genders. And so I think it's just important when we hear kind of similar argument today, it's important to remember that the genesis of these sorts of arguments was not It's not new, and it was not fact based, or it was not honest. Because a lot of the culture of universities and higher education at that time in the US, was incredibly elitist, and served many conservative traditional cultural classes. You can look up on your on demand right now, there's an Alfred Hitchcock movie called rope. Oh, yes. And rope is the story of two college students who live in a penthouse in Manhattan, penthouse apartment, they have a maid, they have fancy cocktail parties, and they were expensive suits, their college students. So and that wouldn't have blinked an eye at the time. So the reason we think about the Ivy League in this country, as representative of higher education, when it's actually not now is because it had that legacy. So these ideas originated at a time when education was financially out of reach. For many people, people of color were barred from it. And sort of the idea of sort of achieving equal time between these perspectives, was really a response. It was a fear, if you will, toward the increasing desegregation and democratization of US institutions like higher education. So, yes, so you're right. There's a sort of history here. And I think it's important to be aware of and not just throw around these slogans, but be aware of where we are now in words. In relation to prior history and how certain arguments get recycled, and semantically repackaged the other part of your question then about sort of how this idea of viewpoint diversity gets used as a slogan. You're correct. The example of Charles Murray is an excellent example of how extremist groups, but also people kind of caught up and trying to be set, quote, unquote, centrist. And sympathetic, will say, well, we need to listen to all viewpoints. I try and make the case at the back of the book, we should have as open circulation of arguments and ideas as possible. And race science gets taught, these ideas get taught on university campuses, but they don't get taught to in ideological adherence, they get taught to say, What's faulty science, they get taught to explain in an evidence based way of Dangerous Ideas gets circulated, and can dehumanize and harm entire peoples in groups. And so in the back of the book, I tried to make the argument that there's a distinction between viewpoints and arguments, that university teaching and research is about taking viewpoints, you can walk into any classroom or educational space with your pre existing viewpoints, you can keep those viewpoints. But those viewpoints might not be translated into arguments that are based on a wide variety of evidence that other people will find persuasive. So instead of mandated viewpoint parity, I recommend evidence based argumentation as expressions of First Amendment freedoms and academic freedom in university settings. And so I think, actually, the idea of well, we just all need to have viewpoint diversity, diversity for different viewpoints. Again, which I think is just obligatory parity of stereotypical ideas. That's only the beginning of the conversation, if you really are interested in pursuing academic freedom, First Amendment liberties. Let's turn let's see what happens when we try and turn those viewpoints into arguments that other people can then judge whether or not they're persuasive, and whether they have merit and hold up.