An Atlantic writer tries to shift blame for the most recent hoax on social science journals to conservatives

You probably heard about the three left lib researchers who showed that just about any nonsense could get published in grievance studies journals. Now, at The Atlantic, there is some admission of an, er, problem but also some curious face-saving: From Yascha Mounk:

Over the past 12 months, three scholars—James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter Boghossian—wrote 20 fake papers using fashionable jargon to argue for ridiculous conclusions, and tried to get them placed in high-profile journals in fields including gender studies, queer studies, and fat studies. Their success rate was remarkable: By the time they took their experiment public late on Tuesday, seven of their articles had been accepted for publication by ostensibly serious peer-reviewed journals. Seven more were still going through various stages of the review process. Only six had been rejected.

Sounds like something we’ve all noticed… But then:

Many conservatives who are deeply hostile to the science of climate change, and who dismiss out of hand the studies that attest to deep injustices in our society, are using Sokol Squared to smear all academics as biased culture warriors. The Federalist, a right-wing news and commentary site, went so far as to spread the apparent ideological bias of a few journals in one particular corner of academia to most professors, the mainstream media, and Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Won’t it be a wonderful world when everyone sees that it’s all those awful people’s fault …

These attacks are empirically incorrect and intellectually dishonest. There are many fields of academia that have absolutely no patience for nonsense. While the hoaxers did manage to place articles in some of the most influential academic journals in the cluster of fields that focus on dealing with issues of race, gender, and identity, they have not penetrated the leading journals of more traditional disciplines.

To what extent is that because career leftists have been thwarted from developing their full agenda in those journals. We don’t know but the question is eminently reasonable.

As a number of academics pointed out on Twitter, for example, all of the papers submitted to sociology journals were rejected. For now, it remains unlikely that the American Sociological Review or the American Political Science Review would have fallen for anything resembling “Our Struggle Is My Struggle,” a paper modeled on the infamous book with a similar title. More.

“For now” it remains unlikely? But maybe later? Would Mounk like to see that tested? If things get loonier, it probably will be tested.

See also: Who’s really behind the downpour of toxic snowflakes on campus? In short, it isn’t leftist profs as such but leftist profs with no other qualification than leftism. And they are many.