The Latin phrase ad hominem meaning to the person describes approaches to argumentation, debate, discourse, and politics, that consist of personal attacks against the opposing speaker, rather than presenting arguments or evidence relevant to the topic under discussion[1]. The practice was criticized by Greek philosophers as early as Aristotle. From a logical viewpoint, ad hominem attacks are usually recognized as a type of fallacy. Unfortunately, political discourse today is full of them. Personal insults and name calling, formally called abusive ad hominem attacks, have become the norm, frequently practiced by the current US President and many other politicians. Social media seems to be their natural habitat.

Other, less offensive, forms of ad hominem discourse predominate in many modern arguments, especially online. Circumstantial ad hominem argumentation consists of reference to some circumstance in the opponent’s life that might explain psychologically why they hold their position. In the last century, Oxford don C. S. Lewis colorfully called this vice Bulverism[2], saying “You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly.” Another specific form, Guilt by association, refers to an ad hominem argument in which assertions are attacked based on the opponent’s association with another group considered to be guilty of some error or vice.

The common factor that makes all these varieties ad hominem is that they aim to discredit opinions by discrediting the person. Criticizing a person’s actions might sometimes be warranted, but the intent to discredit their ideas by implication is rhetorical misdirection. Even the less offensive modes of ad hominem argumentation often lack civility as well as logical relevance. It is disheartening, therefore, that two recent high-profile events concern ad hominem attacks by MIT faculty members (in the Linguistics and Philosophy Department, no less) on other members of the Institute.

Faculty attacks against a postdoc and a graduate student, such as those alleged (but as yet unproven) in the Brandeis Center’s suit[3] against MIT and an MIT professor, amount to an egregious abuse of power as a faculty member, failing in the academic responsibility to engage in civil and rational discourse, and instead attempting to intimidate those disagreeing by abusive ad hominem attacks and threats. Even if such actions and speech, persisting over many months, were to be judged legal under the first amendment, they remain academic harassment, unworthy of an MIT faculty member. They plainly contravene what the Faculty Statement on Free Expression[4] calls the “expectation of a collegial and respectful learning and working environment” and “civility [and] mutual respect.” A perpetrator ought to have been restrained in a timely manner by the MIT administration and strongly disciplined.

The “open letter”[5], signed by a number of MIT students and by two MIT professors[6] in his own department, denigrating Professor Byrne[7] for his contributions to the HHS “Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria” report (1 May 2025[8]), reserves its extreme language for the federal government. However its accusation of “failure to uphold your responsibilities as an academic” seeks to undermine Prof. Byrne’s reputation by an unfounded ad hominem attack on his credentials, his intentions, and his cooperation with the government. The posting of this attack online without even bothering to send a copy to Prof. Byrne, shows that the intent was to discredit and “cancel” his ideas by a public attack on him, rather than to engage with his expressed opinions or arguments. No cogent arguments or evidence are offered to counter the findings of the report or even to support the letter’s criticism of Professor Byrne. His publishing a well-documented analysis of Gender and Gender Dysphoria[9], or participating in a government report, violates no principle of academic responsibility. It ought to be critiqued on the basis of its content, not of his supposed character or qualifications.

One can appreciate that undergraduates, who are only beginning to learn the expectations of academic discourse, might be ignorant of the fallacious nature of ad hominem argumentation. One would expect that the dozen or so MIT Philosophy graduate students signing the “open letter” ought to know that ad hominem attacks are philosophically mis- guided and illogical. For MIT professors to engage publicly in ad hominem attacks against other professors is at least a failure of collegiality and civility, and a bad example to students. For a professor to mount abusive ad hominem attacks on more junior members of the Institute is academic harassment, abuse of power, and an attack on academic freedom, not an exercise of it.

^∗ Prof. Hutchinson is Co-President of the MIT Council on Academic Freedom. In this article, he is not speaking for MITCAF as a whole, which has a range of opinions on this topic.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism

[3] https://brandeiscenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/06.25.2025-MIT-Complaint.pdf

[4] https://facultygovernance.mit.edu/december-23-2022-update-free-expression-statement

[5] https://dearprofessorbyrne.wordpress.com/

[6] Whose names have been removed from this article at the request of the FNL Editorial Board.

[7] Who thereafter wrote a “Dear Colleague” letter defending his reputation against the misrepresentations of the open letter https://web.mit.edu/abyrne/www/DearColleagues070325.pdf

[8] https://opa.hhs.gov/gender-dysphoria-report

[9] https://news.mit.edu/2024/mit-philosophers-call-civil-discussion-gender-sex-0220

Back to top