Crime Harvard professor says ‘all hell broke loose’ when his study found no racial bias in police shootings

[White Whale]

Harvard professor says ‘all hell broke loose’ when his study found no racial bias in police shootings

Harvard Economics Professor Roland Fryer said "all hell broke loose" after he released a study on racial bias in policing that colleagues told him not to publish.

www.foxnews.com

Harvard professor says ‘all hell broke loose’ when his study found no racial bias in police shootings

Roland Fryer said he lived under police protection during the fallout of his study

A Harvard professor said that "all hell broke loose" and he was forced to go out in public with armed security after he published a study that found no evidence of racial bias in police shootings.

During a sit-down conversation with Bari Weiss of The Free Press, Harvard Economics Professor Roland Fryer discussed the fallout from a 2016 study he published on racial bias in Houston policing.

The study found that police were more than twice as likely to manhandle, beat or use some other kind of nonfatal force against blacks and Hispanics than against people of other races. However, the data also determined that officers were 23.8 percent less likely to shoot at blacks and 8.5 percent less likely to shoot at Hispanics than they were to shoot at whites.

When Fryer claimed the data showed "no racial differences in officer-involved shootings," he said, "all hell broke loose," and his life was upended.

Fryer received the first of many complaints and threats four minutes after publication.

"You're full of s—t," the sender said.

Fryer said people quickly "lost their minds" and some of his colleagues refused to believe the results after months of asking him not to print the data.

"I had colleagues take me to the side and say, 'Don't publish this. You'll ruin your career,'" Fryer revealed.

The world-renowned economist knew from comments by faculty that he was likely to garner backlash. Fryer admitted that he anticipated the results of the study would be different and would confirm suspicions of racial bias against minorities. When the results found no racial bias, Fryer hired eight new assistants and redid the study. The data came back the same.

After the report was published, Fryer lived under police protection for over a month. He had a seven-day-old daughter at the time and went shopping for diapers.

"I was going to the grocery store to get diapers with the armed guard. It was crazy. It was really, truly crazy," he said.

Having to have armed security after publishing research you did is insane. What happened to the people that say trust the science?

 

[terrapin]

To pretend that social biases do not affect the scientific process is to be profoundly naive. There are topics you just can't question or it's career suicide and so while there is not a mechanism in place to control people's minds that is enforced from some organization, there are certainly social biases that are in enforced through public shaming and loss of jobs.

The study should be brought out in the public aired out, questioned analyzed and debated. Not hidden and suppressed.

 

[ShadowRun]

You think the people who don’t follow biological science will think about this ?

 

[nostradumbass]

Feelings don't care about your facts, chuds. This professor sounds like the black face of white supremacy.

 

[DiddlyDoodly]

When people have been brainwashed by the media their whole lives and have their minds made up, they don't want to hear anything other than what they believe, or they'll get violent.

So now this Black professor has to have armed security with him to protect him from who exactly?

 

[blackheart]

Harvard professor says ‘all hell broke loose’ when his study found no racial bias in police shootings

Harvard Economics Professor Roland Fryer said "all hell broke loose" after he released a study on racial bias in policing that colleagues told him not to publish.

www.foxnews.com

Harvard professor says ‘all hell broke loose’ when his study found no racial bias in police shootings

Roland Fryer said he lived under police protection during the fallout of his study

A Harvard professor said that "all hell broke loose" and he was forced to go out in public with armed security after he published a study that found no evidence of racial bias in police shootings.

During a sit-down conversation with Bari Weiss of The Free Press, Harvard Economics Professor Roland Fryer discussed the fallout from a 2016 study he published on racial bias in Houston policing.

The study found that police were more than twice as likely to manhandle, beat or use some other kind of nonfatal force against blacks and Hispanics than against people of other races. However, the data also determined that officers were 23.8 percent less likely to shoot at blacks and 8.5 percent less likely to shoot at Hispanics than they were to shoot at whites.

When Fryer claimed the data showed "no racial differences in officer-involved shootings," he said, "all hell broke loose," and his life was upended.

Fryer received the first of many complaints and threats four minutes after publication.

"You're full of s—t," the sender said.

Fryer said people quickly "lost their minds" and some of his colleagues refused to believe the results after months of asking him not to print the data.

"I had colleagues take me to the side and say, 'Don't publish this. You'll ruin your career,'" Fryer revealed.

The world-renowned economist knew from comments by faculty that he was likely to garner backlash. Fryer admitted that he anticipated the results of the study would be different and would confirm suspicions of racial bias against minorities. When the results found no racial bias, Fryer hired eight new assistants and redid the study. The data came back the same.

After the report was published, Fryer lived under police protection for over a month. He had a seven-day-old daughter at the time and went shopping for diapers.

"I was going to the grocery store to get diapers with the armed guard. It was crazy. It was really, truly crazy," he said.

Having to have armed security after publishing research you did is insane. What happened to the people that say trust the science?

My favorite part was how neither this article, nor the linked 2016 Fox News article talking about the study, actually linked to the study anywhere. Two articles about a study, and the study is nowhere to be seen.

 

[blackheart]

When people have been brainwashed by the media their whole lives and have their minds made up, they don't want to hear anything other than what they believe, or they'll get violent.

So now this Black professor has to have armed security with him to protect him from who exactly?

"brainwashed by the media"
or you know, mountains of academic research and data that have indicated for decades that cops are racist.

but of course, you see one headline about a study that reaffirms your pre-existing bias, and you're like "THIS IS IT! I KNEW IT!". And the article you're reacting to doesn't even fucking link the study so that you can confirm its findings for yourself. All it takes is one headline and you're completely convinced lmfaooo

 

[nostradumbass]

"brainwashed by the media"
or you know, mountains of academic research and data that have indicated for decades that cops are racist.

but of course, you see one headline about a study that reaffirms your pre-existing bias, and you're like "THIS IS IT! I KNEW IT!". And the article you're reacting to doesn't even fucking link the study so that you can confirm its findings for yourself. All it takes is one headline and you're completely convinced lmfaooo

Looks like we found one of the losers who's outraged that police aren't indiscriminately shooting blacks. Boo hoo, you're such a victim, and this black Harvard professor is just a white nationalist.

An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force

Roland G. Fryer J. An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force. Journal of Political Economy. Forthcoming.

scholar.harvard.edu

 

[blackheart]

Looks like we found one of the losers who's outraged that police aren't indiscriminately shooting blacks. Boo hoo, you're such a victim, and this black Harvard professor is just a white nationalist.

An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force

Roland G. Fryer J. An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force. Journal of Political Economy. Forthcoming.

scholar.harvard.edu

I don't see one contrarian study headline and immediately change my position on something. I'm not an idiot like you.

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

follow the science.

 

[blackheart]

Looks like we found one of the losers who's outraged that police aren't indiscriminately shooting blacks. Boo hoo, you're such a victim, and this black Harvard professor is just a white nationalist.

An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force

Roland G. Fryer J. An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force. Journal of Political Economy. Forthcoming.

scholar.harvard.edu

You should really bother actually reading articles instead of just headlines and immediately rushing to reaffirm your biases that already existed

Here's an admission from the study itself
"There are no systematic datasets which include officer involved shootings along with demographics, encounter characteristics, and suspect and police behavior. We compile a data set on officer-involved shootings from ten locations across America"

God DAMN - that's a pretty fucking big problem with the study's design isn't it? They don't have a dataset on officer involved shootings that includes demographics??? They compiled their own data from 10 American cities? Who is doing that compiling? What data are they selecting?

Tell me you've never stepped foot in a college classroom without telling me you've never stepped foot in a college classroom

"Hurr durrrr, me see headline that confirms what I already believe. Me believe headline instantly"

 

[blackheart]

follow the science.

Yeah you should follow the science and actually read it instead of reading headlines.

You should really bother actually reading articles instead of just headlines and immediately rushing to reaffirm your biases that already existed

Here's an admission from the study itself
"There are no systematic datasets which include officer involved shootings along with demographics, encounter characteristics, and suspect and police behavior. We compile a data set on officer-involved shootings from ten locations across America"

God DAMN - that's a pretty fucking big problem with the study's design isn't it? They don't have a dataset on officer involved shootings that includes demographics??? They compiled their own data from 10 American cities? Who is doing that compiling? What data are they selecting?

Tell me you've never stepped foot in a college classroom without telling me you've never stepped foot in a college classroom

"Hurr durrrr, me see headline that confirms what I already believe. Me believe headline instantly"

 

[HOLA]

The study is just 1 city where white people are the overwhelming minority. If what I just googled is correct, even the Houston police department is only 37% white. Obviously this is not an accurate microcosm of the country as a whole.

Edit...and looking at this further, that 37% appears to be from way back in 2000. Since Houston itself is significantly less white than it was in 2000, that is probably reflected in the demographics of the PD as well. City was 31% white in 2000 and is now only 24% white.

 

[HOLA]

My favorite part was how neither this article, nor the linked 2016 Fox News article talking about the study, actually linked to the study anywhere. Two articles about a study, and the study is nowhere to be seen.

The 2016 article also says this, from the man behind the study:

"also cautioned that his findings shouldn't be seen as evidence of broader national trends."

 

[Mr Holmes]

You should really bother actually reading articles instead of just headlines and immediately rushing to reaffirm your biases that already existed

Here's an admission from the study itself
"There are no systematic datasets which include officer involved shootings along with demographics, encounter characteristics, and suspect and police behavior. We compile a data set on officer-involved shootings from ten locations across America"

God DAMN - that's a pretty fucking big problem with the study's design isn't it? They don't have a dataset on officer involved shootings that includes demographics??? They compiled their own data from 10 American cities? Who is doing that compiling? What data are they selecting?

Tell me you've never stepped foot in a college classroom without telling me you've never stepped foot in a college classroom

"Hurr durrrr, me see headline that confirms what I already believe. Me believe headline instantly"

Far left clown on a karate forum believes he's knows more than a Harvard professor on how to conduct a study.

 

[blackheart]

Far left clown on a karate forum believes he's knows more than a Harvard professor on how to conduct a study.

The Harvard professor in question said his own study isn't evidence of broader national trends. Are you retarded? Even the author, that you're praising, says this isn't evidence of anything. When are you going to get sick of owning yourself?

 

[Mr Holmes]

The Harvard professor in question said his own study isn't evidence of broader national trends. Are you retarded? Even the author, that you're praising, says this isn't evidence of anything. When are you going to get sick of owning yourself?

Here's what he says: "no racial differences in officer-involved shootings,". He even did the study twice to just to be sure. You can back to your soy filled melt down now.

 

[William Munny]

Here's what he says: "no racial differences in officer-involved shootings,". He even did the study twice to just to be sure. You can back to your soy filled melt down now.

it's pretty hilarious how he's freaking out about this. then again, when you confront these clowns with facts and data, they SHRRIEEEEKKKK and RREEEEE like this.

 

[blackheart]

Here's what he says: "no racial differences in officer-involved shootings,". He even did the study twice to just to be sure. You can back to your soy filled melt down now.

This is like, "I'm going to read the definition of a word, but I'm going to stop after the first 2 words of the definition"

Really galaxy brained stuff here.

You JUST said "you think you know more than a Harvard professor?" The Harvard professor is saying you're wrong. He's saying his own study isn't evidence of anything.

Again, are you ever going to get tired of owning yourself?

 

[blackheart]

it's pretty hilarious how he's freaking out about this. then again, when you confront these clowns with facts and data, they SHRRIEEEEKKKK and RREEEEE like this.

I just broke down the facts and data for that idiot. I quoted the study directly and pointed out the statistical flaws in its design. So then he pivoted away from the data to appeal to authority - "oh you think you know more than a Harvard professor?"

It's really just a monumental display of stupidity in this thread.

"Facts and data" lmfaooo.