Junk Social Science Watch

This study claims racial prejudice is driving opposition to paying college athletes.

Using a bad definition, the study, apparently, defined prejudice as having a negative view, but prejudice is judging without evidence, not having a negative view.

Why?

If negative views were a good definition of prejudice, the study would be self-condemning because it expresses negative views toward whites. Also every negative view would be considered prejudice. But negative views on ruling group actions are usually beneficial because almost all public policies are wrong or at least grossly sub-optimal.

Pew polls indicate large percentages of Muslims believe infidels, apostates, accused blasphemers, and accused female adulterers should all be murdered. Whites have negative views of such murders. Does that make whites prejudiced?

The study claims it controls for a host of factors. Did it control for genes? Beliefs about neoclassical economics? The evidence? Dozens of other factors that typically get left out?

(Some whites do deserve criticism because they believe college coaching salaries are decided by imaginary free markets while denying that freedom to athletes.)

(For the record, I think organized sports at public funded schools should be eliminated. As a second best alternative, I support paying athletes at universities with profitable athletic departments. I support eliminating athletic departments at every school that uses taxpayer money or student fees for athletic departments. The unprofitable represent the overwhelming majority of athletic departments. I also support stricter academic standards, a $60,000 annual salary cap on athletic department salaries, stricter restrictions on time spent on sports, and severe restrictions on money spent for facilities.)