The Decline Of The Expert Class

The recent SCOTUS decision in United States v. Skrmetti, the case upholding Tennessee’s ban on adolescent transgender treatments, has Jonathan Turley examining the decline in America's expert class:

https://jonathanturley.org/2025/06/26/the-icarian-gene-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-expert-class/

The Icarian Gene: The Rise and Fall of the Expert Class

By Jonathan Turley - June 26, 2025

The warning was stark. At issue was a privileged class that has long dictated policy despite countervailing public opinion. At issue, the luminary warned, is nothing short of democracy itself. No, it was not the continued rallies of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., VT) to “fight oligarchy.” It was Justice Clarence Thomas rallying his colleagues to fight technocracy, or government by experts. He warned against allowing “elite sentiment” to “distort and stifle democratic debate.” Yet, the story is even more profound of an elite class which succumbed to the Icarian gene and fell to Earth due to hubris and excess.

In his concurrence in United States v. Skrmetti, a case upholding Tennessee’s ban on adolescent transgender treatments, Thomas called for his colleagues to stand against an “expert class” that has dictated both policy and legal conclusions in the United States.

The reference to “experts” is often used to insulate an opinion as self-evidently true on a given question when they speak as a group. It distinguishes the informed from the casual; the certifiably authoritative from the merely interested. Yet, what constitutes an “expert” can be little more than an advanced degree, and the “overwhelming opinion of experts” can be little more than groupthink.

Thomas warned his colleagues that “[t]here are particularly good reasons to question the expert class here, as recent revelations suggest that leading voices in this area have relied on questionable evidence, and have allowed ideology to influence their medical guidance.”

Indeed, those “good reasons” have become increasingly obvious to those outside of the Beltway. The public saw experts line up during the pandemic to support mandatory uses of surgical masks, shutting down schools, and requiring the ruinous six-foot rule of separation. Many of these rules were later found lacking in scientific support. At the same time, dissenting experts, including the signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration, were blacklisted, censored, or fired for challenging these views.

We have seen the same orthodoxy on issues ranging from gender dysphoria to COVID measures.

In his concurrence, Thomas lashed out at the virtual mantra in court papers and the media of an “overwhelming medical consensus” in favor of transitioning children. This is often cited as the conclusive judgment of experts as opposed to citizens who overwhelmingly oppose treatments for children, including castration or surgical removal of genitalia. Thomas insisted that “so-called experts have no license to countermand the ‘wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices.’”

For decades, citizens largely identified the government with bringing modern approaches to programs eliminating long-standing social ills from poverty to illiteracy to inequality. Roughly 100 years ago, the New Deal of Franklin Delano Roosevelt transformed the government’s role in American life. A generation of experts brought new ideas of electrification, education, and economics to the country.

This veneration was furthered by Kennedy’s assemblage of “the best and the brightest” and Johnson’s “Great Society” reformers.

The courts later followed with greater and greater deference afforded to these experts, including the establishment of the “Chevron doctrine” insulating agency decisions from substantial judicial review. The Supreme Court ruled that courts were poorly equipped to second-guess the expertise of agency experts.

The Reagan Revolution challenged those assumptions. Reagan famously told voters that “the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.”

Over the years, the mystique took on a more menacing aspect for many in the country as they watched academic and scientific groups become more advocates than experts. There seemed to be a shift from making for a better life to making us better people through progressive social agendas.

The result has been a dramatic change in trust for higher education and, by extension, the supremacy of the expert class. According to Gallup, only a third of Americans today have great confidence in higher education and roughly the same number have little or no confidence. That is a drop of over twenty percent in the last ten years.

Other polling shows drops in the trust for state and local public health officials as well as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The decline of the expert class can be traced to the changes in higher education over the last couple of decades. As I discuss in my book The Indispensable Right, an orthodoxy has taken hold of most universities with a purging of conservative, libertarian, and dissenting faculty. Within these ideological echo chambers, appointments, publications, and grants often seem to turn on conclusions that favor political agendas.

Over the years, dissenting faculty members have been forced out of scientific and academic organizations for challenging preferred conclusions on subjects ranging from transgender transitions to COVID-19 protections to climate change. Some were barred from speaking at universities or blacklisted for their opposing views.

As shown during COVID, many of the exiled experts were ultimately proven correct in challenging the efficacy of surgical masks or the need to shut down our schools and businesses. Scientists moved like a herd of lemmings on the origin of the virus, crushing those who suggested that the most likely explanation is a lab leak (a position that federal agencies would later embrace).

Scientists have worked with the government in suppressing dissenting views. At the end of last year, The Wall Street. Journal released a report on how the Biden administration suppressed dissenting views supporting the lab leak theory, as dissenting scientists were blacklisted and targeted.

When experts within the Biden Administration found that the lab theory was the most likely explanation for COVID-19, they were told not to share their data publicly and were warned about being “off the reservation.”

British pediatrician Hilary Cass published a review for NHS England that cast doubt on gender-identity treatments for children and young people. The research reportedly led to an aggressive campaign by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) to suppress the results.

The gravitational pull of social agendas has overwhelmed not just scientific judgment but common sense. For example, there has been a push to treat gender as a socially constructed myth.

A University of Pittsburgh anthropology professor declared that you cannot tell the gender of an individual from their bones – a widely ridiculed assertion.

The editor-in-chief of Scientific American Laura Helmuth made her own contribution to gender ideology by tweeting out a statement with a 2017 article in Audubon Notebook stating “White-throated sparrows have four chromosomally distinct sexes that pair up in fascinating ways. P.S. Nature is amazing[.] P.P.S. Sex is not binary.”

Various experts cried fowl and noted that her point was ideologically driven and scientifically absurd. (Helmuth later resigned after posting a profanity-laden attack on social media calling Trump voters “fascists” and bigots).

In many cases, dissenting views on social or political issues are treated as disqualifying for any research.

At Cornell, professors signed a letter denouncing “informed commentary” critical of violent protests as racist.

In 2020, Harald Uhlig, the senior editor of the prestigious Journal of Political Economy and the Bruce Allen and Barbara Ritzenthaler Professor in Economics at the University of Chicago, criticized Black Lives Matter and the movement to defund the police. The response was a campaign to remove Uhlig from the Journal. Writers like economist Paul Krugman insisted that he was now “yet another privileged white man” attacking the”less fortunate.”

The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center removed Associate Professor of Medicine Norman Wang from his position as Program Director of the Electrophysiology Fellowship after he wrote an article in a peer-reviewed journal questioning the use of affirmative action in medical schools admissions. (Later, the Supreme Court would declare such use of race as unconstitutional race discrimination).

Another controversy arose in 2024 just before the Supreme Court considered access to mifepristone, one of two drugs used for abortions by mail. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk relied on two studies that showed harm from the use of the pill.

The Sage journal Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology was widely criticized by abortion advocates for publishing the studies. One month before the oral argument, the studies were conveniently retracted and a review published that found the conclusions “invalidated in whole or in part.”

Justices and judges will often take favorable studies as gospel in supporting their legal conclusions. In her dissent in the University of North Carolina affirmative action case, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson triggered a controversy in citing a 2020 study from a friend-of-the-court brief by the Association of American Medical Colleges. Jackson claimed that race-based admissions “saves lives” because having a Black physician more than doubles the likelihood of the survival of high-risk Black babies. The claim of the brief and the flawed methodology of the study was shredded by critics.

The fact is that it is easy to produce near uniformity of experts since most universities now run from the left to the far left. The combination of biased hiring practices has left most departments with few or no conservative faculty members. As a result, the media can report that liberal positions are supported overwhelmingly by “experts.”

For example, it is now common for the media to report signed letters or petitions of law professors denouncing conservative positions or rulings. It rarely mentions that most law schools have only a couple of conservative faculty members. It is like getting a pro-papal petition from the College of Cardinals. Nevertheless, the coverage leaves the impression that opposing views on transgenderism, gun rights, or other subjects are absurd and rejected by virtually all “experts.”

Both the courts and the public, however, appear to be losing their awe for the expert class. The Supreme Court recently tossed the Chevron Doctrine and called for courts to resume their prior scrutiny of agency decisions.

None of this means that courts or the public should disregard science or experts. Indeed, many experts still follow core principles of unbiased inquiry and discourse. However, good science requires open inquiry and a diversity of viewpoints. Citizens are rejecting science by plebiscite, the self-authenticating petitions where academics purported to speak for an expert class.

The expert class lost the public when they replaced objectivity with orthodoxy. No matter how many experts claim that gender is a social myth, the public is not likely to dispense with reality. The rise and fall of the expert class is a story of the costs of arrogance and excess. Higher education has created a privileged class of social warriors who abandoned core principles of neutrality and objectivity in research. It is an Icarian generation of scholars who flew too close to the sun and fell to Earth in the eyes of the public.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University where he teaches a course on the Supreme Court. He is the best-selling author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” and the forthcoming Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution (Simon & Schuster 2026).