Following Cerberus's suggestion above, I checked the Wikipedia List of fallacies, and found a couple that bear on the case at hand. One is the "Appeal to Poverty" or argumentum ad Lazarum:
supporting a conclusion because the arguer is poor (or refuting [it] because the arguer is wealthy).
Though this red-herring fallacy focuses narrowly on the financial status of the arguer, it could be applied metaphorically to intellectual wealth, too. Understood in terms of scholarship, the Appeal to Poverty says "I am not clever and learned like my opponent, so I can be trusted to speak plainly and honestly, free of the encrustations of pretension, sophistry, and ivory-tower bias that inevitably accompany academic learning."
A second possibly relevant fallacy is "Inflation of Conflict":
The experts of a field of knowledge disagree on a certain point, so the scholars must know nothing, and therefore the legitimacy of their entire field is put to question.
This fallacy, I've noticed, is especially popular in anti-evolution rhetoric, where disagreements about specific narrow evolutionary details serve as a basis for claiming the existence of bitter division among evolutionists over the general principles of the science.
In effect, the (broadly interpreted) Appeal to Poverty says "You can't trust an educated person," and the "Inflation of Conflict" says "Those academic types don't really know anything anyway."