Can the academic world ever get past their dogmas and affirm the biological origin of social behavior?

Conservatives and modern liberals complain about each others position on academic freedom, with conservative's objecting to the the liberal view of non-commitment to anything, supposedly in the pursuit of the truth, and liberals object to conservative traditional “dogmas” as truth. But for the most part both object to the biological origin of social behavior.

If there is to be a “dogma,” or an official system of principles or tenets concerning religion, philosophy, politics, art, faith, morals, behavior, etc., I believe that the biological origin of social behavior is true, but I would never object to it being questioned and examined in schools. The idea of the biological origin of social behavior is one idea that does not mask the biological origin of social behavior.

If the academic world can ever get past their dogmas and affirm the biological origin of social behavior---as some in the courageous evolutionary sciences have done---then they may see that their ideas are expressions of the biological origin of social behavior related to whatever field the ideas are presenting. Ideas often mask the will to life of biology.

Affirming the biological origin of social behavior can be an antidote to the often absurd abstractions of 19^th and 20^th century ideologies or traditional claims of moral superiority. The biological origin of social behavior suggests that real kin and ethnic-centered human nature leads naturally to regionalism, localism, and an ethnopluralism of ethnostates, which could be established, legally, in the United States from our constitutional separation of powers and states, and then protected from marauding globalists, supremacists, and money grubbers, by a light federalism.