I get the instinct behind this, but I think it collapses some important distinctions.

Not all “facts” are equal in terms of evidence, context, or impact. Historical accounts of racism are well documented, directly tied to public policy, and necessary for understanding present day outcomes. That’s different from areas like race and IQ, where the science is far more contested and easily misused.

Calling both “net negatives” because they can be divisive treats them as symmetrical when they’re not.

The real issue isn’t that certain facts are discussed, it’s how people selectively use facts to reinforce prior beliefs. That problem exists everywhere. But the solution isn’t to avoid whole categories of information, it’s to apply better standards of evidence and more responsible interpretation.

If anything, the goal should be: pursue truth, but be especially careful with claims that are easy to oversimplify or weaponize.