Maybe, gentlemen, maybe. No wonder Soviet propaganda shouts to the world of moral and political unity of Soviet society. It is, of course, makes juggling shifts the meaning of the words, but it does not lie recklessly. In its disregard for the rights of the individual, there is no self-esteem, in their servility to power, Soviet society is one: both morally and politically. I was told (I do not know how true this is) that the members of the Academic Council, for whatever reason, had a grudge against Etkind, and this partly explains (although, of course, does not justify) the result of voting. But here in front of my eyes the other case. In one scientific institute he worked as a physicist A. - a man of great kindness and probity, with a round face, ruddy - a living symbol of Russian good nature and sociability. I think in the whole institute was not a single person who would set him unkindly. And A. 'guilty'. As a member of the Communist Party, he wrote a letter to the top party resort, this is not like instances. Note A., in fact, only served the Communist Party charter, according to which the Communist must inform the higher authorities about the actions of the lower courts, which in his view are wrong. In addition, a letter, as expected, was closed. However, it was at the end of 1968, and the institute was the fact that at the Party language called 'difficult situation'. Therefore, the top lowered instructions: condemn freethinker. Okay. The two accounts held party meeting, condemned, endured a severe reprimand. Then we put together a scientist with the vet. Sit and think of physics: it is rubbish, the situation is complicated, it is necessary to punish A., and how if something happens. It is proposed: to translate it to a senior research fellow at the junior researcher. This involves lowering wages by more than a third (as in A.'s wife and two children).