When you think you can move on from a personal crusade against faulty workplaces, such as the media, academia, and the sciences, an article appears in a prominent publication that is misleading at best or presents poor work in support of a particular point of view—Richard Fryer’s “The Economics of Slavery, an op-ed in the Wall Sreet Journal June 18th, in anticipation of the Juneteenth Holiday the next day. I join the masses of humanity in celebrating the end of chattel servitude anywhere in the world. My upset isn’t with the holiday but rather with someone using it as an opportunity to mislead.

My criticism is similar to what I wrote when I first read “The 1619 Project.” Both are tracts that consist of desired conclusions based on questionable data and straw men.

In Roland Fryer’s case, he claims to refute the idea that slavery was unprofitable. He mentions the “Woodson Center’s “1776 Unites.” However, the center notes Adam Smith’s idea that slavery was inefficient in comparison to his free trade principles. The fact that slavery exists nowhere capitalism is dominant is proof that Smith is correct. However, that has nothing to do with the rewards that owners of human chattels have received through the ages. Smith never said that British Caribbean island sugar plantation owners didn’t benefit. Home weaving was “profitable” for centuries, but hardly exists today because it’s uncompetitive in today’s mass market. Apples and oranges.

Has any of the millions of people who read or saw the movie “Gone With The Wind” concluded that Tara was unprofitable? Could an institution dating back to the Sumerians and practiced across the world in some form for thousands of years last if it was “unprofitable.?’

The author then supports his attack on this straw man with evidence he presents as well-founded scholarly work by Robert Fogel and Stanley Engerman; however, their work is highly contentious regarding both facts and methods. What is the shock in finding that plantations keep production data? Similarly, Roman and Greek slave-owning large landowners did the same. Hammurapi’s Babylon had cuneiform tally clay tablets. What would be enlightening would be comparisons of methods.

Fogel and Engerman allude to a “gang labor system,” which was the brutal engine to gain increased profits for southern landowners. How did this compare with, say, Roman slave management? The thousands of enslaved people who joined Spartacus in revolt might have had some insight into brutality.

Fryer turns to the “brilliant work” of economist Nathan Nunn to show that economic progress in slave-holding areas was retarded. According to Fryer, Nunn states, “In 19th-century regions cut off by rugged terrain or far from navigable rivers were too costly for slave raiders on horseback to reach, so they supplied fewer captives.” Who, where, and when were these raiders? West African Kingdoms were the source of slaves for transport to the New World. Europeans only purchased the already enslaved. The U.S., in any case, outlawed the slave trade in 1808, so it doesn’t factor in the 19th-century slave trade. Yet, you can’t help but think Nunn was implicating Americans when he was talking about the worldwide slave trade’s effect on Africa through the ages.

What Fryer presents is a straw man fallacy, accompanied by dubious data and a misrepresentation of others’ work. All of it is without context. Presenting all of this in the Wall Street Journal as an example of a needed history lesson. With misleading information such as this, it’s no wonder we’re confused.

Another highly questionable article on a national platform underscores the need for a challenge system, such as the App. I proposed. In this case, I’d fill out the challenge form, highlighting the straw man, disputed data, misleading use of others’ work, and lack of context, along with links to supporting data. Upon receipt, it’s categorized as easily searchable. And all parties challenged are notified. This group includes the author, The Wall Street Journal, and those mentioned in support of the piece. Unless answered sufficiently, my challenge remains the last word. Of course, there is more to the secret sauce of how it works, including the enforcement feature.

Available to anyone with the App, the purveyor of challenged information risks being confronted instantly with counterinformation they haven’t responded to. The WSJ says Fryer is a Harvard professor. How will he answer his students facing him with a phone?

Alas, I’ve not yet got the App in action. Presently, my only recourse is a letter to the editor. Duly sent; I am aware that the odds are significantly against publication. The sad fact is that I’ve sent out dozens of email invitations to prominent people to take a look at the App and tell me how they would use it or why they wouldn’t. These individuals, from the media, academia, and the sciences, have publicly complained about the poor quality of work. To date, I’ve only received “I’ll get back to you,” but none have followed up.

What explains this total lack of interest in a method to get closer to the truth? It has been pointed out to me that the current system is lucrative for many. Their jobs depend on presenting a particular perspective. Unresolved controversies drive book sales. Having the best information on any subject instantly on your phone threatens many of our elites.

I hope this isn’t true, but I’m getting paranoid. Is there a conspiracy against the truth? I can understand people believing the App. It won’t work, but you can’t come to that conclusion if you refuse to learn how it works.

As it stands today, questionable work, such as Prof. Fryer’s, will be featured prominently without prompt challenge unless a critical letter to the editor is published. Even then, how many people will read the criticism days later and relate it to the original?

Without being stopped in their tracks, bad work will permeate our whole educational system, and confusion will continue to reign. w