 We have now Paul Mozart from Team 13. This is already on my mic. Yeah, thank you very much. Yeah, well, first of all, I'd just like to say that this is my only six minutes in my life that I'm ever going to be Paul Mozart's because I'm not. My name is Anthony Pemberton and I'm the director of Intervict because Paul Mozart couldn't make it this afternoon. And I'm not representing Intervict, I'm representing the Academic Sounding Board of the Vice Chancellor who is also involved in drafting this speech. And as I'm effectively a hand puppet of Paul Mozart, today I'm going to be reading it as well. The human sciences, all five Tilburg University faculties are facing an apparent paradox. The more we seem to descend from the ivory towers of knowledge, heeding the public call for extra academic value, the more we find ourselves on a battleground to defend our expertise to that same public. That battle is fought on new terrain. The run up to the fight was located in a friendly attempt to bridge the boundaries between human sciences and society. Academics sought to engage with society based on the belief of the potential of the human sciences to assist in understanding and advancing society. After decades of separation and retreat, a new time had begun. The age of valorization, knowledge utilization, and public value of the sciences. But the euphoria soon withered away. It did not take long for academics to realize that they had entered unknown territory where the truth game was played by different rules. In this terrain pragmatism rules and ideas do not triumph because of their intrinsic truth, a more difficult goal for the human sciences than for the natural sciences anyway. The society ideas are revered for their acceptability, not because of their coherent description of reality. As John Kenneth Galbraith said, the notion of conventional wisdom is important here. And that academics have not really adapted themselves to this new terrain. A direct and unabridged confrontation with state-of-the-art scientific insights often amounts to talking over the heads of the public. Meaning our activities are perceived as elitist and inaccessible. And the public translation of science is a craft in itself. Too often it amounts to no more than an insincere and condescending attempt to speak down at the public. A Yip and Yelik version of our journal articles. And I personally worry every time I see individual academics dress up their opinions with their scientific status. It is a dangerous situation. Academia is humiliated by politicians claiming that the people have had enough of experts. Like the Brexit campaigner Michael Goff. That poisonous ideologies have trickled into our universities. Our former colleague Czery Baudet. And even preventing scientists from relaying information to the public that does not square with their preferred politics. The orange one who now sits in the White House. In public opinion science mockery has become a widespread phenomenon. The human sciences and its representatives are in peril of becoming just one opinion between others. This legitimacy crisis ought to be a top priority on our strategic agenda. Our retreat to the towers is no option. It will not solve our legitimacy issues and would also neglect our responsibility to be advocates of an open society characterized by pluralism and equality. Now more urgent than ever. Instead we need to think and think collectively about the function of boundaries of our institution and what Michael Wolzer called the liberal art of separation. How do we maintain our separate identity as a human science university while fully engaging with the societies we seek to serve? Our approach should not be fueled by our approach should be fueled by self-confidence but not by arrogance and condescension. Should maintain that we are a premier institution of knowledge production about the human condition but acknowledge that many others have a valuable contribution to make. When we venture beyond the walls of the university should no longer do so as free-floating individuals disconnected from our institution. Instead we need to reach out as representatives of an academic community. We therefore call for the establishment of a Tilburg Initiative for Public Knowledge with two core tasks, the organized distribution and organized co-construction of knowledge to and with the general public. This is a modest step but an important one and the stakes could hardly be higher. Thank you very much.