Gene Roddenberry: The Original Social Justice Warrior

If you frequent Star Trek fan sites, you’ll know there’s a disagreement between groups of fans. This has become particularly apparent now that the news of a new series starting in 2017 has broken. Some are hoping for the new show to push the limits even farther and include more women, an LGBTQ main character or captain, and in general a more diverse cast. Others push back on this and want to “keep that SJW crap” out of Trek.

For those wondering, that acronym stands for Social Justice Warrior. It’s usually meant in a derogatory sense to put said SJW down. You know what, though? I don’t see wanting social justice as a bad thing. Neither did Gene Roddenberry, and Star Trek is at its heart a progressive and forward-thinking show. If we look back at Roddenberry’s comments and articulated ideas about the show, we’ll find that he was, in fact, the original SJW.

Let’s start at the very beginning, with the original pilot “The Cage.” The first officer in the first episode is a woman. This is in the 1960’s, when women didn’t have nearly the same rights and options that women today do. Number One is portrayed as cool, levelheaded, and perfectly capable of taking command when Captain Pike is taken captive. Roddenberry originally intended for half of the Enterprise’s crew to be women as well. The studio forced him to back down; Number One was cut and the crew became one-third women instead. Still, though, the sentiment was there. Roddenberry clearly believed that in the future men and women would be equally represented and equally capable of command.

The cast of "Star Trek: The Original Series" (Photo: CBS)
The cast of “Star Trek: The Original Series” (Photo: CBS)

The makeup of the cast of The Original Series itself was progressive at the time. At the height of the Cold War, when Russians were viewed as the enemy of the United States, Pavel Chekhov is at the helm of the ship. The Japanese Hikaru Sulu is symbolic, too. The Japanese were a recently defeated enemy in WWII, and the country was just starting to come to terms with how they had treated their Japanese citizens. George Takei himself had been a victim of racist paranoia and put into an internment camp with his family.

Lt. Uhura may be one of the most significant additions to the crew. Not only is she a woman, she is also black. She is portrayed as intelligent, competent, and an integral part of the crew. This was absolutely groundbreaking at a time when most roles for black women on TV were maids or servants. Whoopi Goldberg was famously inspired by Uhura as a child, and partially because of her went on to become a famous actress herself. Roddenberry showed us a future where we had transcended the barriers of gender, race and religion.

The diversity of the cast is important. Viewers were able to see themselves in the characters. Another famous Uhura fan, Mae Jemison, the first black woman in space, watched Star Trek as a child. Without Roddenberry going out of his way to show diversity, we would have lost some of the most brilliant minds in our society. Nichelle Nichols went on to recruit women and minorities for NASA, including the current NASA administrator. When we asked her in an interview (read it here) why she believed diversity is important she said, “Because we are diverse. Earth is diverse, the future is OURS, meaning all of us.” How can you disagree with Uhura herself?

In addition to a diverse cast, there are several notable episodes that show Star Trek’s progressivism. The Vulcan concept of “infinite diversity in infinite combinations (IDIC)” was introduced in “Is There No Truth in Beauty?” In the following exchange between Spock and Dr. Miranda Jones we get a good explanation of it.

“The glory of creation is in its infinite diversity.”
“And the ways our differences combine to create meaning and beauty.”

We see this in action through casting in episodes throughout the series. Miranda Jones is an accomplished doctor, Dr. Daystrom, a black man, is a leader in his scientific field. We are shown women and people of color in differing positions as the series goes on.

Gene and Majel Barrett-Roddenberry
Gene and Majel Barrett-Roddenberry

Apart from diversity, Roddenberry uses to show to make statements on other issues. “A Private Little War,” is a clear allegory to the Vietnam War, in which two major powers, in this case the Federation and the Klingons, are arming the native peoples of a planet and fighting a proxy war. The episode points out how dangerous it is and how easily it could escalate to a full conflict between the powers. This isn’t the only episode to point out the evils of war and conflict. “A Taste of Armageddon” shows a society where war has become such a way of life that the citizens of the planet have sanitized it and made it part of daily life. Kirk and his crew go out of their way to show them the barbarity.

The Original Series doesn’t always live up to its own ideals (we’re pretending “Turnabout Intruder” doesn’t exist), but by and large it leans progressive and teaches important lessons about our own society and ideals. It cautions us against sexism, racism and blind hatred. The following four series continue this tradition. We later get a black captain in Sisko and a woman in command with Janeway, furthering the diversity of Star Trek captains. Let’s look at some standout episodes from the other shows.

The Next Generation, with the diplomatic Captain Picard in command, pushes the envelope farther yet. Not only do we get commentary on the futility and horror of war, but in the famous “Chain of Command” we get a scathing condemnation of torture. This has become particularly relevant to our post-9/11 world, in which government officials have argued for the use of torture to stop further terrorist attacks. Our beloved Picard is brutally tormented both physically and psychologically by Cardassians to get Federation defense information. He almost gets to the point where he sees the fifth light, aware that admitting something he knows isn’t true will make the torture stop. This episode is both a commentary on the ineffectiveness and barbarism of torture, but also the fact that civilized governments tacitly condone it.

In “The Outcast” we get one of the few examples of a Star Trek show exploring gender and sexuality. The crew meets a race of aliens that have evolved beyond gender, where choosing to identify as either male or female makes an individual an outcast. This episode has a great conversation between Soren and Dr. Crusher when Soren questions her about the differences of the human genders. Soren asks why women paint their faces, if it’s the woman’s job to attract the man, etc. Dr. Crusher is at a loss to explain much of it. Through it we see how odd traditional gender roles would be through alien eyes. “The Outcast” explores sexuality that differs from the societal norm.

We also see something that is controversial in our own world, “conversion therapy,” in which Soren is brainwashed into conformity. The therapy is depicted as taking away her individuality and choice. An argument can be made that the episode could have taken it even further. Jonathan Frakes wanted a male actor to play Soren to make it even more overtly in favor of LGBTQ inclusion, but was denied. While it may not have been perfect, it at least made the attempt.

The episode I find the most relevant in its social commentary recently is “The Drumhead.” With the recent terror attacks in Paris, I specifically chose to re-watch it. Picard and the Enterprise crew believe there is a saboteur on board, possibly a Romulan collaborator. The Romulans are, of course, the greatest threat facing the Federation at this time. At first Picard is fully participating and supports the proceedings. As Admiral Satee begins to persecute crewman Simon Tarses for his Romulan heritage Picard begins to get uncomfortable.

They begin operating on the assumption that just because he is part Romulan he is guilty, despite the lack of verifiable evidence. The admiral even continues her prosecution of Tarses after it’s proven that the engine explosion was an accident rather than sabotage. Picard finally steps in to end the trial, finding that it violates some of the Federation’s most dearly held principles. He says, “Have we become so… fearful, have we become so cowardly… that we must extinguish a man? Because he carries the blood of a current enemy?” There is a fear that anyone with Romulan blood must be involved in the conspiracy, despite evidence to the contrary.

The characters in the episode slowly become paranoid and take it too far, blaming innocent people for the crimes committed by others of their race. There are so many ways this is relevant to us: from the detainment of terror suspects without trial and a suspension of their human rights in the War on Terror, to rampant racism and prejudice against Muslims from 9/11 to now. It happened to Japanese-Americans during WWII. Just ask George Takei. It’s beginning to happen again. “The Drumhead” asks us, if we’re taking away liberties and rights to protect ourselves, what are we protecting? Picard says “Oh, yes. That’s how it starts. But the road from legitimate suspicion to rampant paranoia is very much shorter than we think. Something is wrong here, Mr. Worf. I don’t like what we have become.”

Capt. Benjamin Sisko and Joseph Sisko from "Paradise Lost" (Photo: CBS)
Capt. Benjamin Sisko and Joseph Sisko from “Paradise Lost” (Photo: CBS)

The Deep Space Nine episodes “Home Front” and “Paradise Lost” have a very similar theme. A changeling attacks Starfleet in an act of terror, and Captain Sisko and Odo return to earth to help assess the threat. Throughout the two episodes we see the Federation take steps and become paranoid in the name of safety, slowly taking away the freedoms of their citizens. It takes Sisko’s father’s stubborn refusal of a mandated blood test for Captain Sisko to see what’s happening. He realizes Admiral Leyton is using the attack as an excuse to execute a military takeover of Earth, all in the name of better protection and readiness against the Dominion. The following exchange between Sisko, his father and Odo articulates the message perfectly:

Odo: Am I the only one who’s worried that there are still Changelings here on Earth?

Joseph Sisko: Worried? I’m scared to death. But I’ll be damned if I’m gonna let them change the way I live my life.
Captain Sisko: If the Changelings want to destroy what we’ve built here, they’re going to have to do it themselves. We will not do it for them.

The episodes from Deep Space Nine with important progressive messages are almost too many to count. We have “Duet” with its commentary on the after effects of a brutal military occupation, “The Maquis,” parts 1 and 2, and its exploration of the effects of diplomacy on marginalized groups. “Past Tense” parts 1 and 2 are unusually prescient given the current conversation on racial and economic inequality, and strongly condemn the treatment of racial minorities, the mentally ill, and the economically disadvantaged as less than human. It’s an excellent case for empathy and compassion, and proof that humanity working together can affect real change and reach harmony.

There is “Demons/Terra Prime” from Enterprise, and “Workforce” from Voyager, both pretty overtly political and progressive. There are countless other examples of similar episodes from all five shows. Too many to list all of them. Star Trek is, at its heart, a progressive and forward-thinking show. As Gene Roddenberry said “Star Trek was an attempt to say that humanity will reach maturity and wisdom on the day that it begins not just to tolerate, but take a special delight in differences in ideas and differences in life forms. […] If we cannot learn to actually enjoy those small differences, to take a positive delight in those small differences between our own kind, here on this planet, then we do not deserve to go out into space and meet the diversity that is almost certainly out there.” 

So, if you’re upset about people asking for more diversity and inclusion and want to keep social justice out of Star Trek, well, I’m sorry: You can’t separate them. If you want a Star Trek free of social commentary, you might want to find a different show to watch.

Follow @TrekNewsnet on Twitter, TrekNews on Instagram and TrekNewsnet on YouTube.

Michelle Toven

view all posts

Michelle Toven lives in northern Minnesota, where she does normal things by day and nerdy things by weekend and night. Her interests range from Star Trek, to history, archaeology, languages, fantasy and sci-fi, politics, and cats. Find her on Twitter at @mtoven.

27 Comments Join the Conversation →

  • Wayne Benner

    Sorry to nit-pick, but the episode title you mentioned, “Is There No Truth in Beauty?”, is actually “Is There in Truth No Beauty?” 🙂

  • Justin Oser

    Bravo! Articulates many of the things I love about Trek and hope to see in the new show.

  • Stelios Arianoutsos

    Excellent Michelle! Well say! Anyone “Trekkie” don’t like this… wrap it and Buck Rogers!!!!

  • Mark

    As much as I’d love for the new series to be Tumblr!Trek and really piss off the anti-“SJW” crowd, I’m not hopeful it’s going to happen. My bet is on another white guy captain, women who can’t exist without being sexy, and standard heteronormativity.

    The roots of Trek died with DS9 and Voyager. (And it pains me to even include Voyager in that statement, what with Tits of Borg, but they did have other decent female characters and episodes like Workforce.)

    • Michelle

      B’Elanna and Janeway make up for it, though. I don’t dislike Seven as much as I feared I would, either.

      We can hope the new series will be what we want! TV in general is getting more diverse and friendly to normally marginalized groups.

    • Cabo 5150

      I must admit, I feared Seven was going to be all about T&A – and indeed, I guess she was to some extent..

      However, despite all that, she turned out to be a worthy, fascinating and compelling character – brought to life brilliantly by Jeri Ryan’s terrific performance.

    • Christina Lewis

      Mark, I too hope for diversity, which will include the LGBT community. However, why do you speak of heterosexuality as if it is a bad word, or something we should shun. I am looking forward to some good old fashion sexuality between men and women. And hopefully, the show will expand to include characters from the LGBT community. However, let’s not get crazy! The LGBT community only makes up about 3 to 4 percent of the US population; and there are many of us who still enjoy the standard heteronormativity. This does not make me LGBT-phobic, it is just my preference!

      • Eric Cheung

        Mark used the word “heteronormative.”. There’s a difference between heterosexuality and heteronormativity. The former is simply what someone is, the latter is the belief that gender roles and sexuality should be cut and dry. No one’s saying there’s anything wrong with heterosexuality, but there certainly is a strong sense of prejudice and denial with heteronormative views on gender and sexuality.

        • Chase Miller

          No, that’s not what it means

    • Arch Stanton

      Perfect example of the SJW double standard, Mark. Thank you. In one sentence, you said you’d really love to piss off the anti-SJW crowd, showing that you are intolerant of people with differing opinions to the point of wishing them ill will, bemoaned the possibility there might be a “white guy captain”, which is racist, and then tell women that they can’t be valid characters if they happen to also be sexy.

      Then, as the cherry on top, you reduce the actress, Jeri Ryan, down to her physical attributes, “Tits of Borg”, which IS sexist.

      Again, thanks. You underlined the points I made in my post here this evening.

  • I agree with you in general — TOS was a fantastically progressive show, and that progressiveness is part of the heart of Star Trek. Anyone who’s against social justice does not really get Star Trek.

    But you’ve got some misinformation in your article. For years, Roddenberry CLAIMED that NBC forced him to replace Number One as first officer because they didn’t believe that a woman could be second in command, but it was later revealed that this was a lie. Roddenberry intentionally lied to save Majel Barreft’s face. NBC objected to Number One NOT because she was a woman but because they thought Barrett wasn’t a strong enough actress to carry off the second banana role on a show. (And really — compare Barrett to Nimoy, and we’re lucky NBC objected.) Not that there wasn’t plenty of sexism at the time — there certainly was — but replacing Number One didn’t happen because of it.

    Also, the famous IDIC was created by Roddenberry to make money. He had started a mail order company to sell Star Trek stuff, and he wanted something he could market to fans. He created the IDIC to be something he could sell. Both Shatner and Nimoy objected to being used as billboards for Roddenberry’s mail order business, and the IDIC was gotten on the air over their objections.

    There are a lot of myths about Roddenberry. We’re grateful to him for having created Star Trek, but he was a human being, and he was flawed, because all of us are. And he didn’t create Star Trek alone; much of what we love about Star Trek was created by Gene Coon and Dorothy Fontana and Leonard Nimoy and Bob Justman and the huge number of writers, directors, actors, and producers who all added their creativity to Star Trek.

    The “lone visionary” story always plays well to audiences, but in truth, it takes a village to make a Star Trek, just as much as it does to raise a child. 😉

    Those minor quibbles aside, excellent article! Star Trek has been progressive from the beginning, and anyone who doesn’t like this should feel free to go love a different science fiction franchise. 😉

    • Michelle

      I did not know that about Number One. Now I do!
      I did see that about IDIC in various sources, but was going for the good idea behind it. Even if it was meant to make money, it’s still a good moral.
      As for Roddenberry being flawed, yeah, definitely. I’m more referencing him as the starting point for the rest of the ideas, and wanted to use the SJW term specifically to stimulate discussion about how some Trek fans dismiss others by using it.

      • akindryd

        Gene Coon also hired to first black woman production secretary on the lot (actually I was the only) and mentored the first and only Native American writer who won trek’s only emmy.

  • Joe Smith

    Are you married?

  • Arch Stanton

    There is no comparison between what people in the 1960’s were fighting for, and what these campus cry-bullies are whining about, now.


    I’ve seen the videos of how these students are behaving and I’m, frankly, disgusted. Their parents and the public school system that spawned these fragile, feckless kids have completely failed them. How anyone can actually believe that shutting down free speech, feigning “tolerance”, while viciously attacking anyone who disagrees with them, trying to erode the very foundations of this once great land, are good things, let alone “justice”, shows how far to the communist left this nation has slid.

    Indeed, anyone who has studied history knows that what we are seeing here is 100% Marxism, right out of the communist manifesto. These student protestors have created division and discord everywhere they turn up, banning words, banning reporters and throwing around words like “sexist”, “bigot” and “racist” so often and so easily that real racism and sexism cases are lost in the malaise.

    “Black Lives Matter”, by its very name, is racist, and has sent race relations in this country back 50 years in just a matter of months. I bet Charles Manson loves these kids. They are managing to start the race war he and his family failed to start in 1969.

    Imagine the SJW rage if there was a group calling themselves, “White Lives Matter”? Actually, there is… They’re called, The KKK and the Aryan Brotherhood. Clearly racist organizations. But wrap that same racism up in a new package, claim it’s about “rights”, and suddenly, the left-leaning members of the population have no problem with it.

    Michelle, you are dead wrong. Gene was about Human Rights and uniting people. I see none of that in this despicable wave of Cultural Marxisism.

    Sad that so many of these SJW Star Trek fans don’t see it, either.

    When you reduce people to their skin color and ther gender, dear ma’am, you have completely gotten off the track to the future that Gene envisioned.

    • Eric Cheung

      Where in the article does it say characters would be reduced to their sexual, racial, or ethnic description. What Roddenberry wanted was a ship that looked like Earth. So that means that it would necessarily include people of all colors and sexualities.

      More importantly, it would include all those peoples’ cultures and philosophies, influencing each other without judgment, and with benefit to all.

    • Conrad Stonebanks

      Excellent comment, all true.

    • whitekryptonite

      Bravo mate,keeping it real.

    • Troutmanned

      Nah. The same right wing mouth breathers sneering about social justice today would’ve been the same right wing mouth breathers sneering about social justice in the 60s.

  • Milo

    The mistake SJW make is the view that things like political correctness or LGBT rights are best. You can move forward in the wrong direction!

  • Christopher Dalton

    The key to Star Trek’s longevity has always been its ability to make a social commentary on various social and political issues. Balance Of Terror and The Omega Glory also touched upon those issues about war and the Vietnam Conflict as well.

  • whitekryptonite

    One thing that’s different than our country, is on the ship,you did pull your weight on your job,or you were gone,unlike in the U.S.,where people can’t get out of bed,or off their macbooks,to start work at the bottom.They scream boo-hoo,poor me.Like a old singer once sang,”If you can’t make there,you won’t make it anywhere.

  • Joseph White

    I’ve always enjoyed the social aspect of Star Trek, but how are you going to show A LGBT character without venturing solidly into the bedroom and staying there, which is not where Star Trek was exploring? In the Future, where we’ve grown beyond such petty designations, would LGBT even exist as a reason to make someone a second class citizen? Would Star Fleet even care who it’s crews slept with, or not?

    • AJ

      No reason why it would have to be a bedroom scene. There’s so many ways to show LGBT representation without having to necessarily show anyone under the covers (which frankly, I’m starting to get sick of seeing Kirk do every new movie. He wasn’t even that promiscuous in the original series, and yet we already got two unnecessary bedroom scenes with him.) It could be something subtle like have a scene where the crew is relaxing in the rec room and there’s a same sex couple cuddling in the background. TOS had Captain Kirk perform a ceremony to marry two straight crewmen in “Balance of Terror”; why not a similar scene like that only with a gay couple? Like the tv show, have the crew in some sort of low energy scene (shore leave, break room, etc) where gay couples are right next to straight couples, and after a minute or two the down time gets interrupted and everyone drops what they’re doing and goes to handle the emergency.

      Besides, just because humans in the 23rd century might be totally cool with LGBT people, doesn’t mean other planets are. Roddenberry used non-Federation aliens as substitutes for modern humans to show how backwards it was to hate another human being based solely on skin color. Maybe the Enterprise runs into another planet that refuses to deal with anyone who isn’t strictly paired up 1 male to 1 female at all times. Maybe a couple in a landing party are captured and threatened with execution because they broke the natives’ taboo and Kirk and crew now has to save them and at the same time convince the planet that what they’re doing is asinine. Pretty standard TOS story format.

      Or maybe the Enterprise crew has to deal with a Federation planet that doesn’t actively ban or obviously punish LGBT people, but still discriminates in much more subtle ways. IMO, the Vulcans seem like prime candidates since they already showed themselves more than capable of throwing IDIC out the window when it suits them. Think about how Spock (both versions) has known prejudice from both Vulcans and humans his whole life for his mixed heritage. Sarek lied through his teeth to justify his marriage to Amanda in the beginning of the 2009 movie. In the same movie, the Vulcan elders probably thought of themselves accepting and tolerant, yet they talked down to Spock and paid him a backhanded compliment about how much he accomplished “despite his disadvantage”. Sarek sees this all happening and he doesn’t stand up for his wife or son at all. He actually starts to berate Spock for rejecting the Academy. Why would a species that prides themselves on adherence to logic and the philosophy of “infinite diversity in infinite combinations” constantly feel the need to voice how they believe Spock is somehow beneath them? Why does Sarek cover up his love for Amanda and make up an excuse that it was logical because he was ambassador to Earth? It seems to me that for Vulcan society, conformity to tradition is held up pretty damn high (pretty much confirmed in “Amok Time”). Sarek may have been able to get away with marrying a human because of his political stature and his ability to sort of justify the union as politically necessary. He doesn’t have such an excuse for siring Spock, so his son is fair game for criticizing and voicing their objections to the whole marriage in general.

      In the same vein, Vulcan society could just as easily justify their exclusion of LGBT Vulcans as being “illogical” since there is no obvious biological necessity and they could probably claim that it is behavior solely based on emotions. Vulcans are too pacifist and “enlightened” to resort to violence, but they probably could consider LGBT Vulcans’ logic lacking in some manner and question their every move (are they truly being logical or are they simply acting on emotions again? Can we trust their judgement on anything at all?), and it would just be a subtle social stigma that hung around those individuals who did not conform and treated like a brain sickness that they refused to get treated. Imagine a Vulcan scientist who is constantly having their work double-checked and/or dismissed because his “logic is lacking” or has a reputation for behaving/thinking irrationally from emotion simply because he has another male for a mate. Imagine said scientist discovering something of massive importance and being waved off until some “real” scientists can get around to confirming their work. Perhaps LGBT Vulcans might just be expected to push down any sexual urges and expect to marry for reproduction purposes only, or otherwise remain abstinent. Some Vulcans might believe they are doing their fellow citizens a favor by helping such Vulcans work through their “illogical attractions” by sending them to mind healers or something. And wouldn’t that be a horrific shock to the humans (both the Enterprise crew and the modern audience), who currently view the Vulcan people as our intergalactic older siblings.

      The Vulcans helped guide our species and stood by us weak little Earthlings as our friends for the longest time. We were furious and heartbroken when the Vulcan planet was destroyed. And here we see that not only are they clinging to an old prejudice that humans had learned to live without years ago, but they are defending such a prejudice with calm and brutal logic. It is easy to dismiss people you don’t know or don’t like for having such attitudes, since we really want a bad guy to rally against. It’s a lot harder to ignore someone you love and respect very strongly. That’s probably a lesson that we need now more than ever:That people are complex. They can be hypocrites. People can be intelligent and like-able, and yet, they can still have horrible prejudices that cause us to question them and ourselves.

      I see such a lesson as especially relevant in the sci-fi fan community, since there seems to be a recurring trend by a lot of fans who try to justify not including any sort of LGBT representation by (at best) rationalizing that it isn’t integral to the plot and that no one wants to see sex/romance in a scifi movie (were they this loud complaining when Han and Leia hooked up or with any of Kirk’s woman of the week?). At worst, there are fans who start frothing at the mouth about political correction run amok at the mere suggestion that a main character might possibly be anything other than straight.

      Just this morning there was an article about how one of the characters from the latest Star Wars movie might be portrayed as gay, and the entire comments section was people horrified at the idea, tired of the “political correctness” and claiming that there is some insidious hidden agenda to “make everyone gay” or “every bromantic relationship gay” (I must have missed all these gay couples being shoved into all latest movies and media, because so far the only time I’ve seen a legit representation in the past few years that wasn’t a campy stereotype has been Steven Universe, and even that had fans screaming “THEY’RE JUST FRIENDS/SISTERS!” long after the creators confirmed the romantic relationship). In the Trek fandom, the issue pops up periodically, and every time the comment posts are nearly identical as to the various reasons why LGBT representation is not needed/wanted.

      If Roddenberry were alive today, I’m sure he’d be shaking his head in frustration at the way the studios have been digging their heels in refusing any LGBT depiction in any of of Star Trek series and movies, and probably also be disappointed at the fans who keep encouraging such decisions by making their displeasure about the notion loud and clear. Roddenberry never got a chance to make an episode with any LGBT representation on the original series since he knew Star Trek would have been shot and buried in an unmarked grave of tv ancient history if he tried it (he said so himself to Takei when asked). The only such script that had been written for TNG was pushed back by lawyers/TPTB, rewritten over and over again before being tossed to the wayside never to be produced. It’s pretty disheartening that even now in 2016, the mere idea of having a possible LGBT character in Star Trek still is taboo and controversial enough to get a large enough segment of the fanbase riled up in indignation and protest.

  • SteveQuaid

    Unless Paramount can force people to watch the new series in FEMA camps or something, I don’t think they’d watch a Star Trek that was even more SJW than it has been in the past. They already pushed things too far with Voyager where “diversity” took precedence over acting ability.

  • akindryd

    Actually you need to separate and give credit to Gene Coon. The Great Bird didn’t do it all. Prime Directive, Klingons, The Horta. come on.

  • Chase Miller

    That you said you don’t think social justice is a bad thing means you misunderstand the term. Social justice is the opposite of individual justice, social justice means you are held accountable for other people’s actions, eg if all Germans were held accountable for the actions of Nazis, or if all white Americans were held accountable for slave owners