With respect to issues of race, there are (1) "black folk who happen to be scholars/intellectuals", and (2) "scholars/intellectuals who happen to be black".

My experience has been that the first group has accumulated far more systematic knowledge on race...(1/8)

But the second group gains a devoted following amongst the population of people who wish to reject the idea that race matters in society.

It is an interesting dynamic... (2/8)

People of the first group pass all society's tests to be experts - they get their grad degrees in the area or their output is legitimized by other scholars.

People of the second group - while intelligent and productive, primarily gain authority simply from being black... (3/8)

The first group accumulates reams of evidence and applies agreed upon theories, concepts, and techniques, while the second group provides commentary, anecdotes, and exceptional writing (which is great).

But amazingly, the second group is judged *equal* to the first! (4/8)

This is akin to rejecting the comments of a military historian or WWII scholar (e.g. Max Hastings) critical of the US, in favor of an articulate dude you met at a bar who wears an "I support the troops shirt" and says what you want to hear...(5/8)

This (partly) explains the devoted followings that Coleman Hughes, Glenn Loury, John Mcwhorter, and Thomas Sowell have.

They speak to a population of people who want desperately to reject the ideas of those who devote their careers to studying race. (6/8)

The other reason is that they are black. This gives them legitimacy - and indeed they can and should speak from their own experiences.

It also gives white folks the space to say - "see, I am not racist, because black intellectual X says it too"... (7/8)

I end by saying this isn't an indictment of "scholars/intellectuals who happen to be black". They are far more accomplished than I will ever be.

But because I teach race I can see the evidence asymmetry between them and "black folk who happen to be scholars/intellectuals."(8/8)