>>95
1) Well, since a lot of biologists and physical anthropologists are, er, racists:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112759433/abstract
Responses to surveys of faculty at Ph.D.-granting departments indicate that 67% of biologists accept the concept of biological races in the species Homo sapiens, while only 50% of physical anthropologists do so.
I don't see how your statement holds weight. But this doesn't matter. Academia is in a state of filth anyway due to both neocon and leftist interventions. Facts and empirical data do.
2) I don't think it's the libfag media 'covering the truth' in the case of human ecology -- in fact I'm pretty sure they don't, for the most part. There's a LOT more bias when it comes to psychometrics. The only people still advancing the idea that race is a social construct are political radicals, basement dwellers, and people with a really low spatial intelligence.
I can explain at length your egregious lack of judgement if you wish to tell me WHY (specific arguments) you think that race is an invalid taxon for humans. If you'll continue with ad hominems, appeals to anonymous authority or appeals to ignorance that are bunk now (early studies of the genome), I win.