Baloney. First of all, nobody should need access to Lott’s “inner thoughts” to join the debate about him and his conclusions. Second, if Lott’s sock needed access to a wider range of Lott’s views on the issues, Lott could publish such an inventory on a personal Web site, that “Mary” could refer to, to bolster her case, as I previously said.
The two are hardly equivalent. Just last night, for instance, I had extremely critical things to say about a Pit OP. But I pointed out one solid bit of reasoning amidst what I considered to be drek. Saying “This argument of yours is valid” was definitely a huge jump from “you’re a good debater,” and I would not have dreamed of extrapolating from the former to the latter.
Same thing with Lott. “His research has conclusively answered this particular argument” is a limited, relatively fact-based claim; posters on both sides can look at the argument, Lott’s research, and government crime statistics, and at least establish in short order whether the claim is right, wrong, or debatable. And “He is a really good scholar,” of course, is the sort of generality that’s worthless, so let’s roll the tape of what “Mary Rosh” actually claimed:
Let’s see:
- “Mary” thought Lott was the best professor she ever had.
- From his class presentations, you wouldn’t know he was a right-wing ideologue.
- Lott was such a great professor that there were a group of grad students who tried to take every class he taught.
- Lott did his best to deflect his would-be disciples from such a narrow focus, encouraging them to get exposed to a wider set of views.
Consider how this would look if Lott had said these things about himself:
- “Students told me I was the best professer they ever had.”
- “From my class presentations, no one would know that I favored right-wing viewpoints.”
- “I had a bunch of grad students who were such big fans of mine, they tried to take every course I offered.”
- “But I told them that they needed to be exposed to the work of other professors, too.”
The chorus of laughter, and the following barrage of ridicule, shows exactly why it’s illegitimate for his sock to say these things on his behalf: what credibility they have is completely derived from someone else saying them. We are not, as a rule, good objective judges of ourselves, and so effusive self-adulation will gain us nothing but ridicule.
So instead, he puts these very specific adulatory claims - two claims about his vaunted objectivity as a professor, and two claims about his devoted following of grad students - in his sock’s mouth.
That’s not so. I’ve cited Lott’s figures - here on this board - to call his work into question. 
There’s an important distinction, FWIW, between Lott’s research, and Lott’s conclusions. One can argue, as any Lott supporter could, that his research supports his conclusions. There may be a limited endorsement there - but it’s an ‘endorsement’ in the same sense that one scientist replicating the results of another is ‘endorsing’ the first scientist’s work. In both cases, it isn’t so much endorsement as demonstration that it is so, with the pieces out there for all to examine.
But this is not what “Mary” is doing when she oozes about how evenhanded Lott was as a grad school prof, or how the grad students were ready to leave all else behind, and follow him. The evidence isn’t in any argument, which we can all judge for ourselves; the evidence is ‘her’ personal testimony. Which is a fraud.
One reason is that everyone can decide for themselves about whether Lott’s work is dispositive on an issue, by going to the work and reaching their own conclusions. “Mary Rosh” is in no better position to do this than the legions of other Lott fans and critics.
But Lott had a relative handful of grad students, so there are a limited number of people who can make or gainsay “Mary’s” claims, most of whom will not have visited the message boards, Usenet fora, etc. where these debates took place. “She” is making claims about his evenhandedness that likely no one in a given debate can refute. And they’re claims that he could not make publicly for himself, and as I’ve already argued, has no business making for himself through a sock.
I hope I’ve conveyed here why I deeply disagree.
)