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.
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 not 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 after he confirmed the data and was ready to share, that’s when “all hell broke loose,” according to the professor.
“It was a 104-page dense, academic economics paper with a 150-page appendix, OK?” he stated. “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.
“I had colleagues take me into the side and say, ‘Don’t publish this, you’ll ruin your career,’” he said. “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 that his colleagues told him if 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.
It’s bizarre that an economist who worked hard on a study and verified that the results were accurate is punished for those results just 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 corroded should surely be good news for all of us.
Unfortunately, modern leftists need blacks to continue to be victims because it allows them to be manipulated more easily. 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 talk about 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 Fryer speak much louder than words.
Do you agree with the idea that leftists are basically tolerant people?
For the left, diversity is amazing until someone or some idea doesn’t fit within the preferred narrative.
This situation brings into question how much research has been lost because it didn’t fit within the liberal narrative? How much of the research produced today has to be diluted or show expected biases just to be published?
