It’s no big deal. Just like when Rolling Stone was found to be full of shit with their infamous campus rape story. It’s an easy pivot to “yes, but my lie reflects a greater truth.” As long as it “starts a conversation” it doesn’t matter they’ve no proof the thing they’re discussing is real. After all, if you’d dare deny systemic racism exists then they can dismiss you as speaking from a place of ignorant privilege.

Accurate racial science doesn't inform policy any more. This would be the kind of thing they'd use. I'm not sure it matters, because in this kind of science the conclusions are foregone, or they are not published at all. It's just like the climate science guy (from the other day here) said: Either you present findings that support the political narrative, and you play up that fact in your writing, or they don't publish you.

Never is an article written: Support for longer sentences for Hispanics not correlated with their increasing numbers. Or any kind of conclusion that white people aren't afraid of Mexicans or that there might be any kind of racial harmony. Whether it's true or not, those wouldn't be published and the hypothesis probably not even presented for testing.

Whatever kind of stuff does come out of this environment, it will be anti-white. Because of the politics. Accurate or not. With these kind of standards for hating white people, I'm sure you can find enough accurate reasons. White people do in fact resent the invasion of their country, and lefties call that racist, so one needn't lie.