What is the fuss? It seems the executive board of the American Anthropological Association has stripped the word "science" from its long-range goals for the field. Only cultural anthropologists who do not rely on data are welcome (so it seems).
How long has this been going on? The lead up to it has been unfolding over the last decade, with clear lines drawn in the funding-agency sands over the last six. Agencies, such as the NSF, have had the audacity to require actual methods and data to support anthropological claims. Cultural anthropologists have been outraged by what they claim to be oppressive enforcement of European, positivist thought.
How hot is it getting over there? The science-based anthrofolk are now calling the cultural anthrofolk names, arguing that their supposed scholarship has as much quality as that of "creationists".
Why should folk in an English department be interested? Anthropology as a field is very much like many English departments. Linguists would play the role of the science folk, and cultural studies faculty would play the role of the cultural anthropologists (where words like hegemony and hermeneutics come up a lot).