"Academics Spent Years Lending Their Institutional Credibility to Various Political Projects" 97%

By Eugene Volokh6%

7/19/2026, 8:42:57 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and False Dilemma, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 51.3% saturation with 99 hits. Analysis detected 921 faulty-reasoning hits from 193 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 95% and a BS Rank of 97% (654 of 18,668 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 96.50% of the article peer group.

Now they are reputationally bankrupt. 
If they don't repair the damage, and convince people to keep writing the checks, many institutions will eventually be financially bankrupt as well. 
Wise words from Megan McArdle (Washington Post). 
A bit more from the same column: 
Academics need to sell the public on the value of their project. 
They must convince people that the radical pronouncements of the Great Awokening were a terrible mistake, now corrected, and that they are pursuing truth, not political agendas. 
Many people in academia do understand this, including the administrators who commissioned {the "Report on the State of Scholarship in the Humanities and the Humanistic Social Sciences," commissioned by Vanderbilt and Washington University in St. 
Louis}. 
But many others are still clueless. 
Even if they grasp, dimly, that something is seriously amiss, they do not understand what it will take to fix the problem. 
Their idea of a solution is to imperiously inform Americans they are wrong: wrong that academia has let politics infect its work, wrong that reform is needed, and wrong that there are two sexes, male and female. 
Confirmation Bias
14%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
0%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
51.3%
Loss Aversion
11.9%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
25.9%
Negativity Bias
44.6%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
17.6%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
3.1%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
18.1%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
3.6%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
5.7%
Straw Man
19.2%
Appeal to Authority
21.8%
False Dilemma
33.2%
Slippery Slope
11.9%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
3.1%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
6.2%
Begging the Question
14%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
18.1%
Anecdotal
14%
No True Scotsman
14%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
0%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
19.2%
Quote-first Misdirection
9.3%
Biased Writer Voice
39.9%
Indoctrination
20.2%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
19.2%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
18.1%

193 words analyzed.

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.