I Am Not A Robot

I Am Not A Robot

By

The Real Leonard Zwelling

I reader sent me an email recently. He did an experiment. Here’s what he sent me:

When you wrote “It sounds like it was created by AI”, just now, on a whim, I pulled up ChatGTP and entered the following:

write an article about academic freedom in the style of Leonard Zwelling blog

And within 3 seconds here’s what I got:

Certainly! Leonard Zwelling’s blog style is conversational, candid, and often opinionated. He combines personal anecdotes, professional insights, and a deep sense of ethical obligation to critique systems—especially in medicine, academia, and politics. His writing is usually concise, reflective, and calls for action or reform. Here’s an article in that spirit:

Academic Freedom: It’s Not a License to Be a Jerk

By [Author Name]
In the style of Leonard Zwelling, MD, PhD

Let’s get one thing straight: academic freedom is not a blank check.

Sure, it’s critical. It’s the bedrock of higher education and the pursuit of truth. But like most bedrocks, it doesn’t mean you can throw rocks at everyone else while standing on it.

In recent months, I’ve watched from the sidelines—thankfully not the frontlines—as universities across the country descend into chaos over what academic freedom is supposed to protect. Speech? Research? Political protest? Yes, yes, and sometimes. But let’s not confuse “freedom” with “impunity.”

Academic freedom was originally designed to protect scholars from being punished for unpopular ideas—especially those rooted in research, science, or moral courage. Think Galileo. Think tenure as a shield against dogma. Not as a cloak of invisibility to duck professional standards or personal accountability.

Now, what do we have? Faculty using “freedom” as a weapon, administrators afraid of both trustees and Twitter mobs, and students who think disruption equals dialogue. It’s not just dysfunction. It’s malpractice.

Let me offer an example.

Back when I was a vice president at MD Anderson, we had scientists working on controversial topics—gene editing, animal models, industry-funded trials. Did they face scrutiny? Of course. Did they deserve protection? Absolutely. But not one of them ever claimed their “freedom” exempted them from peer review, IRB protocols, or basic decency. You know why? Because they were professionals.

Today, it’s different. And let’s be honest—it didn’t start yesterday. It’s been building for years. Universities became brands. Presidents became fundraisers. Faculty became content creators. Somewhere in the noise, the real purpose of academic freedom got drowned out.

So, let’s go back to basics.

Academic freedom means you can pursue the truth—even if it makes people uncomfortable.

It does not mean you get to publish garbage, shout down dissent, or refuse to teach students because they voted for the other guy.

It does not mean you’re above scrutiny.

It does not mean tenure is a lifetime appointment to speak without consequence.

Academic freedom is a privilege. Yes, a privilege. Earned through years of study, demonstrated integrity, and a commitment to the public good. It exists so that real research can continue without fear of political interference. Not so professors can tweet whatever they want and hide behind their titles when the blowback comes.

Look—I’m not suggesting we gut the First Amendment or put gag orders on faculty. I’m suggesting we remember what universities are for: truth, teaching, and service. Not tribal warfare.

And if you’re in a position of leadership—whether a dean, chair, or humble blogger—you have a responsibility to draw the line. Support inquiry, but also expect professionalism. Protect speech, but uphold standards. Encourage dissent, but demand civility.

Otherwise, academic freedom won’t die from government interference.

It’ll die from inside.

Like so many good things, corrupted by the very people who were supposed to protect it.

—
Leonard Zwelling-style Footnote:
Don’t like what I said? Great. Argue with me. But bring facts, not feelings. That’s academic freedom too.

It’s the real me again. I did not write that. I wouldn’t have for a bunch of reasons, especially the line about professionalism.

Nonetheless, this is really scary. No, it is not what I would write. First, I have no PhD. Second, this is lacking in specifics. There are no good examples. Third, it mentions neither Donald Trump nor MD Anderson. That’s a rarity with my blogs, but not impossible. Finally, I guess I must have a style if a computer can copy it. I am not sure how I feel about that.

It almost makes me want to quit writing. But, it doesn’t. Instead, it makes me want to write more, because the world has become even more dangerous if a computer can write for someone, how are readers supposed to know what is real. The answer is that readers have to be even more discerning and critical and read from even more sources.

So, please do that. Read as much as you can. Hear from the electronic media. Question everything, including me as many of you already do.

I’ll keep writing and I promise to let you know if I ever get lazy and allow Chat GPT to take over for a week. That will not happen. I am not a robot.