Economist Roland Fryer was caught in a frenzy after publishing a paper that found no racial bias in police shootings, recalling that he had colleagues warning him that his study could be career-ending.
This from westernjournal.com.
The Harvard professor shared his experience with Bari Weiss, a journalist for The Free Press, when he published the paper researching racial bias in Houston policing.
He recalled that people around him approved of the first portion of the paper that found police were twice as likely to use nonfatal force against blacks and Hispanics than those of other races.
The issue came with the latter part of his study that found:
[N]ot only were blacks not more likely to be shot at than their white counterparts, but it was more likely police would use their firearms against the white suspects.
Fryer shared that even he was surprised with the results. He recruited eight fresh research assistants to redo the data, and they found the same results as before.
But according to the professor:
[A]fter he confirmed the data and was ready to share, that’s when all hell broke loose.
He stated:
It was a 104-page dense, academic economics paper with a 150-page appendix, OK?
It was posted for four minutes before I got my first email ‘This is full of s–t!’
He shared that his colleagues doubted the results, pointing to flaws in the methods he used despite the fact that they used the same methods in their own research.
He said:
I had colleagues take me into the side and say, ‘Don’t publish this, you’ll ruin your career,’ I said, ‘What are you talking about?’ I said, ‘What’s wrong with it? Do you believe the first part? Yes. Do you believe the second part? Well … the issue is they don’t fit together.’
Fryer said his colleagues told him:
[I]f the second half of his study also showed bias in police violence that he should publish it in full, but as it was, it shouldn’t be a single study.
Even then-dean of Harvard Claudine Gay claimed his research “exhibited a pattern of behavior” that did not meet the expectations of the university.
Fryer then shared a story about how he had to be escorted by a bodyguard to go buy diapers for his newborn because of the immense backlash he faced for his findings.
Is this bizarre or typical of the degraded state of sociocultural health in America?
To wit:
[A]n economist who worked hard on a study and verified the results were accurate is punished for those results because they don’t fit into a narrative.
One would think that results showing blacks are less likely to be shot by police would be a positive. Proof that supposed institutional racism is being mispresented should be good news for everyone, yes?
Unfortunately, the mental illness of the Left requires a category of victims for them to manipulate.
So, when something comes out that concretely shows that the narrative the liberal media has worked so hard to craft is a sham, it’s immediately in their sights.
While liberals bloviate how tolerant they are because they advocate for LGBT causes and claim to be on the side of racial minorities, actions like those displayed toward Roland Fryer speak much louder than words.
Contradicting a preferred narrative of the liberal mindset is analogous to taking from a child their pacifier or their favorite comfort blanket. Emotions run wild.
Final thoughts, two imperatives: Imagine the amount of valuable research and sociocultural advancement that has been suppressed because it did not fit the liberal narrative.
And likewise, imagine the valuable findings that are distorted to meet liberal biases for publication.
