[jacobolus]

I don’t think we’ll get anywhere with this discussion—you have an existing prejudice about those involved which causes you to toss around trivializing sarcastic insults of Professor West (have you read any of his “actual” work?) and Harvard professors in general (“huffy”, “egotistical”, “cozy”? “behave differently?”).

And no, it’s not “factually incorrect”: it’s an opinion piece. It is, however, garbage.

[byrneseyeview]

It's more of a post-judice. I notice that in disputes with Larry Summers, Summers offers lots of data and the other side offers lots of emotion. I mean, the Big Stink over Summers was when he mentioned a fact about the standard deviations of test scores, and a professor in the audience swooned ("I would've either blacked out or thrown up.")

So yes, I think referring to the emotional aspect is important, here. People nail Summers for mentioning data they don't like -- which is probably why he gave up on academia and government and moved closer to finance.

I would like to know what about the article is garbage. My request for ways in which the legitimate field of Afro-American studies has improved my life still stands. If you can't discern a single logical or factual error in the entire National Review article, but you persist in, er, trashing it, shouldn't I just accept that you're reenacting the typical disagree-with-Larry pattern?

[jacobolus]

No, Summers was not canned because of his comments about women in science (at least that was not the primary reason; it certainly didn’t help him out). That was the whole point of this sub-thread. “People” didn’t nail Summers for mentioning data: that is a straw-man mischaracterization of any serious part of the dispute with Summers, even of the dispute about women in science. Summers did not give up on academia: he holds a University Professorship and teaches courses.

But more to the point, you are conflating three separate disputes, and trying to change the subject as a way to dodge my questions. But again, this discussion is going nowhere, and is therefore pointless.

As for the National Review article, it adds no substance, and makes no attempt to engage with any of the discussion it supposedly disagrees with, and instead makes a classic troll argument of empty epithets. It has no factual inaccuracies, because it not arguing facts. (Note: it does not take factual inaccuracies to make a stupid argument.) It is garbage, because the only possible reactions to reading it are “Yeah, they’re right. Those liberals are just useless elitist leeches on society,” or else “No, they’re wrong. Studying how society works is important,” neither of which is a worthwhile reaction (e.g., “Hey! That article taught me something I didn’t already know,” or “Wow! That article really clarified that concept I was having trouble understanding.”).