> get ideology out of academia

This reads like someone who needs to take the time to understand the breadth of “ideology”. What will be left when what you consider ideology is gone?

As you note, even science has its ideology.

What about science itself? That too can be (is) considered ideology, although I assume you reject that position… that doesn’t make you correct (or wrong).

There is a lot of theoretical writing about this; it would be worth your time to understand.

In some ways we are already living in a world in which there are no restrictions on speech, certainly no privilege of truthful, factually based speech.

> What will be left when what you consider ideology is gone?

The scientific method, that is what you're left with. Even when the results of your study do not track with your feelings, your religion, your political opinions or any other irrelevant factors. I can give examples galore and I'm pretty sure you can come up with close to the same examples of where ideology trumped the scientific method by either not releasing studies, by simply falsifying or otherwise manipulating data so the results fit with the narrative and other interferences with the scientific method so as to use the cachet of the institution to amplify some desired narrative.

As far as I'm concerned there is no 'Science', what there is is people who use the scientific method to study some phenomenon in the search for more insight. People who know how to use this method and who apply it diligently, who publish their data and methods and outcomes and to the best of their ability try to interpret the results are 'doing science'. It can be bad science if they don't know what they're doing or if they're using bad methods but as long as they follow the tenets of the scientific method they're doing science. Their experiments can be repeated, their methods can be researched, their data can be inspected and others can apply their methods to their data to verify their results. Their conclusions can be questioned and discussed.

If the same people start with a given position and tailor their experiments and data and methods around that position to reach a pre-defined conclusion they are not doing science no matter how lofty an institution they happen to be employed by and how impressive their titles are. If one of these people says something which clearly does not stroke with the truth and starts throwing epithets at those who call him or her out on this that person is not a scientist but something else - a charlatan, an activist, a propagandist, a troll, anything but a scientist. A scientist, when confronted with clear and obvious refutation of his or her claims will retract or revise those claims and - if their character allows for this - thank those who pointed out the error in his or her way. That is how knowledge grows, by learning from our mistakes and by turning back when we happen to have entered a dead end.

In short, science does not have an ideology, it is the application of a method - the scientific method - which is orthogonal to ideology. You can take the most left-wing radical and the most convinced orthodox conservative person and have them do a study into ${subject}. If both of them strictly adhere to the scientific method and use valid method and valid research data there's a good chance they'll arrive at more or less the same conclusions. They may differ on their interpretation of what these conclusions mean when applied to society but the actual conclusions should be similar.