Slate has a review of Harvard Rules posted today, by a writer named Stephen Metcalf. It’s a curious piece of work. Metcalf likes a lot about the book, and he repeatedly draws on the substance of it to discuss something already on his mind, “the culture of flattery” that now pervades academia. By this Metcalf means, if I’m getting him right, a prevailing campus atmosphere in which academics are so reluctant to offend that they wind up flattering each other—and themselves—non-stop. He criticizes me for being blind to this culture of flattery and idealizing the critics of Larry Summers.

Fair enough. I don’t agree with the point—what Metcalf considers flattery seems to me the civility necessary to function in a small academic community—but it’s a legitimate argument to make. Metcalf engages deeply with Harvard Rules, and any author is grateful for a review that seriously addresses the issues raised by his or her book.

But there is one cheap shot in this review that merits rebuttal. Early on, Metcalf describes Harvard Rules as “little better than a hatchet job, built on scuttlebutt and Nexis searches.” That’s a nasty allegation, and it’s wrong on every count.

Harvard Rules isn’t a hatchet job. It’s tough on Larry Summers, but it’s fair, and it accurately recounts his years in at Harvard. The events of recent weeks have only made its accuracy manifest.

Scuttlebutt and Nexis searches? Nah. I spent 18 months living up at Harvard, about two blocks from campus, researching and reporting this book. During that time, I averaged about two formal interviews a day, plus any number of phone conversations and lots of e-mail exchanges. What Metcalf calls “scuttlebutt,” I call reporting. That’s what journalists do to make sure that they don’t levy an unfounded accusation against someone. Stephen Metcalf ought to try it.