If it is not possible for one to critique other research and succeed--or even remain securely employed--in a research profession, how is the profession ever to rid itself of flawed, biased, or fraudulent research? Answer: it will not. Any community that disallows accusations of bad behavior condones bad behavior. Any community that disallows evidence of falsehoods condones falsehoods. In-group leaders can promote falsehoods as truth because a volunteer army of enablers protects them, stamping out any dissident embers as they appear. Most of those who recognize the falsehoods say nothing, given the rational fear of retribution and career stunting. Students, families, and US society as a whole pay the price for US education research's falsehoods, doggedly defended by an aggressive minority in-group, while most education researchers pay no price at all. The falsehoods persist because few of those who know they are false summon the courage to speak up. The implicit pact between the aggressive minority and the passive majority sustains an intellectual monoculture. Frustratingly, the mainstream education press tends to accept what the powerful elites present them at face value, as if US education research were just like that in any other subject field, such as physics or business administration. Indeed, some education reporters casually dismiss reports of censorship, thus ignoring (and supporting) the problem. They seem to assume that such widespread and successful information control could not be possible. (See, for example, Russo 2015.) Should society at large feel OK with this arrangement? In part, Scolding #9 concerned the work of arguably the country's most policy-influential scholar in educational testing. I maintain that his primary contribution to the research literature is not just highly misleading, but fraudulent--he makes claims that he must know are false, yet he recommends basing highly consequential public policies on his work. Yet Scolder #9 talked down his work as a "pet theory" that "he may go overboard on." In other words, not to worry, we can just hide this under the covers inside the profession's tent. Any effect on the public is no concern of ours. Education research is ours to own and manage as we please, and none of the public's business. Yet, the society of education research professionals also wants the public to believe that they can be trusted as arbiters of truth in education policy, even though, for some, truth ranks among the least of their interests. Outing truth requires free inquiry, open debate, vigorous discussion, and conflict, all anathema to those professionals more concerned with their personal career trajectories, the superficial appearance of decorum, or the preservation of appealing myths.