I think the problems Summers identified here are common to fields that are very politically charged. I think that "scholars" are more likely to trumpet questionable or even clearly false "research" - and their opponents are more likely to angrily attack them for these mistakes.

Suppose that an immensely convenient theorem showed up in a math paper 10 years ago, that was later shown to be flawed. Well, I suppose math grad students looking to solve problems would be tempted by this theorem, and might erroneously use it for a while. But unlike the "rule of thumb" inaccuracy, math doesn't tend to induce the same wish to believe. We may "wish" to believe that a map can filled out with four colors, because it seems like a cool concept, but we're not going to get angry when someone shows that our current proof is false.