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

[SakurabasEar]

I find his data be to highly accurate and if you disagree with it, like some of the freaks in this thread, then you are a racist.

Lol, I treat everything study wise with grain of salt. But when you've got several that tell you the same thing, it at least gives you a baseline of understanding

 

[terrapin]

Yeah, it's just all a big conspiracy that black neighborhoods are policed far more than any other due to rampant crime, and will lead to more police interactions.

It's the same shit over here, bud, and it ain't the fault of "white supremacy", or whatever other bullshit excuse you want to make for a community that refuses to get their shit together.

This is probably total B*******. I live in an upper middle class area and have a certain kind of career that exposes me to tons of people in this area. There are easily just as many drugs up here or more than there ever was in the poor neighborhoods I came from. Up here they got the money for them.

Differences is the cops aren't swarming up here waiting to pull people over for a broken tail light (which they won't find) or whatever excuse they can find to find those drugs.

Truth is it's easy pickings in a poor neighborhood and up here? these guys have great lawyers and friends in high places so cops just avoid them but the same crime happens and I would guess even more drugs are done up here than down in the west side.

 

[HOLA]

I don't have access to that Journal (and they want $30 for that article alone), so I can't comment. It is possible Harvard is just late in updating his page. Maybe they are ignoring it given the media attention?

I know some journals publish working papers for peer review, but I thought that stopped with the popularity of pdf formats.

I have no idea.

At the end of the day it is really a moot point, since the idea that he got Me Tooed over it is ridiculous, when they have actual text messages from colleagues. It's not some puttana who claimed he squeezed her ass in a bar 15 years ago; it's multiple Harvard researchers, close coworkers, who have text messages of him being a perv.

And really, his punishment for it all wasn't exactly draconian. Not many people can get fired from their job for 2 years, then allowed back in, with stipulations that you have to keep your distance from students because you're a perv.

 

[HOLA]

This is probably total B*******. I live in an upper middle class area and have a certain kind of career that exposes me to tons of people in this area. There are easily just as many drugs up here or more than there ever was in the poor neighborhoods I came from. Up here they got the money for them.

Differences is the cops aren't swarming up here waiting to pull people over for a broken tail light (which they won't find) or whatever excuse they can find to find those drugs.

Truth is it's easy pickings in a poor neighborhood and up here? these guys have great lawyers and friends in high places so cops just avoid them but the same crime happens and I would guess even more drugs are done up here than down in the west side.

During my cocaine rodeo days, I got pulled over with a carload of people who looked like this:



I don't know the exact quantity of drugs we had on us - besides the coke there was also two aspirin bottles filled with ecstasy pills and I'm sure there was marijuana everywhere as well.

Anyway, we were fucked. But...turns out the cop was the mom of two kids my age. I had been over her house twice. Once she realized she knew us, she let us go. Didn't even take our stash.

Not the only time I've seen this happen.

My friend, a little...OK...a lot fucked in the head. Driving around, very intoxicated. And we're 15 years old, without a license. It's Christmastime. This is when those inflatable Christmas decorations became popular. He decides he doesn't like, so, no warning, this motherfucker just starts driving on peoples' lawns and running them over. Then he loses control and crashes into FIVE different cars. Then he gets his car stuck on someone's muddy lawn.

His dad was NYPD, and he got out of it.

These are the white boy from the suburbs privileges. People pretending like this doesn't exist are full of shit.

 

[Two Crows]

At the end of the day it is really a moot point, since the idea that he got Me Tooed over it is ridiculous, when they have actual text messages from colleagues. It's not some puttana who claimed he squeezed her ass in a bar 15 years ago; it's multiple Harvard researchers, close coworkers, who have text messages of him being a perv.

And really, his punishment for it all wasn't exactly draconian. Not many people can get fired from their job for 2 years, then allowed back in, with stipulations that you have to keep your distance from students because you're a perv.

Actually, the case was pretty dubious, and at least one of the women on his team during the accusations defended him.

They went after every slight joke the man made, and it's because the original woman was litigating the university.

The real question is why reopen a finished hearing, then assign punishment that was previously deemed unnecessary?

I absolutely do believe this was retaliatory for Fryer publishing research that opposed general Leftist dogma.

 

[koquerelle]

Seems like he is in a perpetual meltdown in every thread he enters.

He's just another War Room postwhore looking for attention and likes. He's pathetic.

 

[Two Crows]

I'd almost forgot, to give some perspective on what happened back in 2016 in terms of reaction scale.

A week after making the paper available, he was called to the White House and a meeting with Obama & Sharpton that lasted 5 hours.

People were upset, to say the least.

Also, Fryer is neck-deep in DEI philosophy. He isn't right-wing by any measure I know of (except upsetting the left-wing).

 

[terrapin]

During my cocaine rodeo days, I got pulled over with a carload of people who looked like this:



I don't know the exact quantity of drugs we had on us - besides the coke there was also two aspirin bottles filled with ecstasy pills and I'm sure there was marijuana everywhere as well.

Anyway, we were fucked. But...turns out the cop was the mom of two kids my age. I had been over her house twice. Once she realized she knew us, she let us go. Didn't even take our stash.

Not the only time I've seen this happen.

My friend, a little...OK...a lot fucked in the head. Driving around, very intoxicated. And we're 15 years old, without a license. It's Christmastime. This is when those inflatable Christmas decorations became popular. He decides he doesn't like, so, no warning, this motherfucker just starts driving on peoples' lawns and running them over. Then he loses control and crashes into FIVE different cars. Then he gets his car stuck on someone's muddy lawn.

His dad was NYPD, and he got out of it.

These are the white boy from the suburbs privileges. People pretending like this doesn't exist are full of shit.

And I went to court for a marijuana charge when I was 19. Had a public defender and all I had was possession of a joint and I got a stiffer sentence than the guy ahead of me who got caught driving high on cocaine. The difference was he was white collar, had some money and had a high-end lawyer.

The system is b******* from start to finish.

 

[HOLA]

Actually, the case was pretty dubious, and at least one of the women on his team during the accusations defended him.

They went after every slight joke the man made, and it's because the original woman was litigating the university.

The real question is why reopen a finished hearing, then assign punishment that was previously deemed unnecessary?

I absolutely do believe this was retaliatory for Fryer publishing research that opposed general Leftist dogma.

I can't see how it is dubious. The New York Times article I read earlier said something like 7 different people complained, and that's just from the first investigation. One person had made nearly 40 different complaints. And there were finance violations as well. What he was using money on.

The article he published, as @blackheart, to no avail, has pointed out, ad nauseam, doesn't even say what people are claiming. The author points out you can't extrapolate from it anything about the United States as a whole, and even states his data is incomplete and weak.

What exactly is so threatening about it that a group of Harvard researchers would engage in a conspiracy over? And it wasn't even a conspiracy to silence him. The paper was published! He just got a 2 year break from work for perving on people and misusing money.

 

[Two Crows]

I can't see how it is dubious. The New York Times article I read earlier said something like 7 different people complained, and that's just from the first investigation. One person had made nearly 40 different complaints. And there were finance violations as well. What he was using money on.

The article he published, as @blackheart, to no avail, has pointed out, ad nauseam, doesn't even say what people are claiming. The author points out you can't extrapolate from it anything about the United States as a whole, and even states his data is incomplete and weak.

What exactly is so threatening about it that a group of Harvard researchers would engage in a conspiracy over? And it wasn't even a conspiracy to silence him. The paper was published! He just got a 2 year break from work for perving on people and misusing money.

You think the sitting President of the United States calls you in within a week over nothing? You don't get talk about race & police in the oval office with Cornell Brooks and the mayor of LA over nothing.

 

[Two Crows]

I can't see how it is dubious. The New York Times article I read earlier said something like 7 different people complained, and that's just from the first investigation. One person had made nearly 40 different complaints. And there were finance violations as well. What he was using money on.

The article he published, as @blackheart, to no avail, has pointed out, ad nauseam, doesn't even say what people are claiming. The author points out you can't extrapolate from it anything about the United States as a whole, and even states his data is incomplete and weak.

What exactly is so threatening about it that a group of Harvard researchers would engage in a conspiracy over? And it wasn't even a conspiracy to silence him. The paper was published! He just got a 2 year break from work for perving on people and misusing money.

I can't see Blackhart's posts, so that means at some point in the past he hurled insults (which go straight to my ignore list).

But he is wrong.

Also, I never wrote "conspiracy". There was no real attempt to disguise what was happening and why. 7 people complaining, in light of what was happening, is surprisingly low, in my view.

He did not get a "break"; not only was his lab shuttered but he also was not paid.

The data is neither incomplete, nor weak. I believe there is a serious attempt to discredit the man in light of his conclusions, and nothing more.

Where did you read 7 people accused him? The original article claims one, and only one, woman who was seeking financial compensation from Harvard. A second emerged in April 2018, anonymously:

"
As of May 2018, Harvard had received at least two formal complaints against Fryer.

One complaint was filed by the client now represented by Shah and Shatz. A separate complaint was filed by an individual roughly a month ago.

I can confirm that on DATE: Monday, April 16, 2018 5:50p. I filed a formal complaint against Prof. Roland G. Fryer, Jr. with the Office for Dispute Resolution, alleging violations of both Title IX and workplace sexual and gender harassment policy in place at the time of my employment,” the individual wrote in a statement last week.

Both complainants spoke only on the condition of anonymity."

 

[HOLA]

And I went to court for a marijuana charge when I was 19. Had a public defender and all I had was possession of a joint and I got a stiffer sentence than the guy ahead of me who got caught driving high on cocaine. The difference was he was white collar, had some money and had a high-end lawyer.

The system is b******* from start to finish.

I know. I've seen some shit. My friend, who is Peruvian, not very well off, a rather rough looking dude, tattoos like Aleks Emelienenko, broke up with his girlfriend. Bad breakup. He goes to her house, rings the bell, housekeeper answers. He says he left stuff in her room he needed to grab. Which, technically, was true. The Xbox 360 + games that were there was his, so was the guitar, and some clothes. He wanted them back and took them back.

Somebody called the police during it, and they arrested him. I forget the exact charges, but it was like breaking and entering, some kind of theft, + he had some drugs on him. Dude did over a year in prison for this! No way that would have happened to some rich brat.

In prison, he was like that guy in Shawshank, who did the book deliveries, except his cart had snacks. Which he used to pilfer. He was so fat when he got out lol.

 

[HOLA]

You think the sitting President of the United States calls you in within a week over nothing? You don't get talk about race & police in the oval office with Cornell Brooks and the mayor of LA over nothing.

I'm assuming this is Trump?

If so, then yes. Considering he let crazy pillow salesmen in, to help him overthrow an election. And Kanye, etc, to do whatever that was. Being invited into his office is not necessarily a merit-based decision.

 

[Two Crows]

I'm assuming this is Trump?

If so, then yes. Considering he let crazy pillow salesmen in, to help him overthrow an election. And Kanye, etc, to do whatever that was. Being invited into his office is not necessarily a merit-based decision.

That is incorrect.

It's Barack Obama.

 

[HOLA]

I can't see Blackhart's posts, so that means at some point in the past he hurled insults (which go straight to my ignore list).

But he is wrong.

Also, I never wrote "conspiracy". There was no real attempt to disguise what was happening and why. 7 people complaining, in light of what was happening, is surprisingly low, in my view.

He did not get a "break"; not only was his lab shuttered but he also was not paid.

The data is neither incomplete, nor weak. I believe there is a serious attempt to discredit the man in light of his conclusions, and nothing more.

My man, the author himself calls it incomplete and weak.

He literally writes it is "far from a representative sample of police departments" and "we need more and better data."

Where did you read 7 people accused him? The original article claims one, and only one, woman who was seeking financial compensation from Harvard. A second emerged in May 2018, anonymously:

Here: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/10/business/economy/roland-fryer-harvard.html

Although, rereading it, what they actually say is "7 occasions," not 7 people. Although they do make it clear it is more than 1 person:

"The first concluded investigation, in the fall of 2018, found that Mr. Fryer violated university policy with unwelcome conduct on seven occasions...On another occasion, according to several witnesses, Mr. Fryer put his groin near the face of a different female subordinate and began an extended monologue implying that the woman had performed fellatio on an older faculty member. Mr. Fryer told investigators that the actions had been jokes."

Notice how he doesn't even deny it? You can't stick your crotch in womens' faces and give monologues about them sucking dick in most workplaces. C'mon man lmao. If you happen to work in an office just imagine what would happen if you went to Linda from accounting's cubicle and pulled that move.

 

[Two Crows]

My man, the author himself calls it incomplete and weak.

He literally writes it is "far from a representative sample of police departments" and "we need more and better data."


Here: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/10/business/economy/roland-fryer-harvard.html

Although, rereading it, what they actually say is "7 occasions," not 7 people. Although they do make it clear it is more than 1 person:

"The first concluded investigation, in the fall of 2018, found that Mr. Fryer violated university policy with unwelcome conduct on seven occasions...On another occasion, according to several witnesses, Mr. Fryer put his groin near the face of a different female subordinate and began an extended monologue implying that the woman had performed fellatio on an older faculty member. Mr. Fryer told investigators that the actions had been jokes."

Notice how he doesn't even deny it? You can't stick your crotch in womens' faces and give monologues about them sucking dick in most workplaces. C'mon man lmao. If you happen to work in an office just imagine what would happen if you went to Linda from accounting's cubicle and pulled that move.

One woman sued the university.

A second, completely anonymous woman filed a formal complaint amidst the controversy of his publication. The case was closed.

Then a year later, suddenly reconvened. No lawyers, no jury, no trial. A hearing of 6 (also anonymous) staff re-open the issue and this time decide he needs to be suspended without pay.
I would argue that is about as obvious a case of punishment for not toing the line you will ever see in the US as it is today, as any more obvious action would result in lawsuit from Fryer.

Needing more and better data doesn't mean his data is worthless. It means both A.) The author wants higher quality data to analyze, and B.) He is apprehensive in the consequence of his publishing (which he stated repeatedly).

Put it this way; you believe his paper was published by a peer-reviewed journal in 2019, correct? If so, how do you reconcile that with bad data? Those don't get published, they get rejected.
Why did Obama want him in the Police Chiefs, City Mayors, & Black Leaders reconciliation discussion? This is Fryer's only work related to the police ... Did Obama's team recommend people with bad work? Was it just because he is black? Of course not. It was this paper that put him in the room and made his opinion wanted.

 

[HOLA]

Also, @Two Crows, make sure to read the link here:

"The first concluded investigation, in the fall of 2018"

It was clearly more than 1 woman, with multiple witnesses. And they go back to 2008, which is waaaaayyyyyy before this paper was out:

Documents and interviews suggest that Dr. Fryer was told repeatedly over the course of 10 years — by employees and by at least one university official — that his conduct was out of line.

A former assistant reported to a Harvard human resources office in late 2008 that Dr. Fryer was sending her unwelcome and sexually suggestive nighttime text messages.

 

[Two Crows]

Also, @Two Crows, make sure to read the link here:

"The first concluded investigation, in the fall of 2018"

It was clearly more than 1 woman, with multiple witnesses. And they go back to 2008, which is waaaaayyyyyy before this paper was out:

Documents and interviews suggest that Dr. Fryer was told repeatedly over the course of 10 years — by employees and by at least one university official — that his conduct was out of line.

A former assistant reported to a Harvard human resources office in late 2008 that Dr. Fryer was sending her unwelcome and sexually suggestive nighttime text messages.

Let me guess, anonymously and only to the paper?

No.

Look in to it. There was only woman initially, she wanted money, and it was the same hearing reopened.

There is even a mini-documentary on the subject. It was how Fryer first came to my attention 2 years ago.

I honestly think the only reason any of this is resurfacing is Claudine Gay and the irony.

 

[HOLA]

One woman sued the university.

A second, completely anonymous woman filed a formal complaint amidst the controversy of his publication. The case was closed.

Here I just saw it says at least 5 different women. Third paragraph:

"Mr. Fryer, 42, has been the subject of several concurrent university investigations, which concluded that he had engaged in “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature” against at least five employees over the course of a decade."

Harvard Suspends Roland Fryer, Star Economist, After Sexual Harassment Claims (Published 2019)

The move sidelines the researcher without pay for two years, and closes his lab, in a case that has roiled the profession.

www.nytimes.com

Then a year later, suddenly reconvened. No lawyers, no jury, no trial. A hearing of 6 (also anonymous) staff re-open the issue and this time decide he needs to be suspended without pay.
I would argue that is about as obvious a case of punishment for not toing the line you will ever see in the US as it is today, as any more obvious action would result in lawsuit from Fryer.

Wha? People get fired from work all the time without having a trial with lawyers and a jury involved. He got multiple investigations from his workplace. It wasn't arbitrary and haphazard.

Needing more and better data doesn't mean his data is worthless. It means both A.) The author wants higher quality data to analyze, and B.) He is apprehensive in the consequence of his publishing (which he stated repeatedly).

Put it this way; you believe his paper was published by a peer-reviewed journal in 2019, correct? If so, how do you reconcile that with bad data? Those don't get published, they get rejected.

Making it through the peer-review process doesn't mean what you published in infallible, ESPECIALLY, in a soft science like Economics. Also keep in mind, two Economists from the University of Chicago, including one with a Nobel Prize, and 3 from Princeton University, published their own peer-reviewed papers, which claim his paper is useless.

Why did Obama want him in the Police Chiefs, City Mayors, & Black Leaders reconciliation discussion? This is Fryer's only work related to the police ... Did Obama's team recommend people with bad work? Was it just because he is black?

I dunno, I'm not familiar with that discussion. It looks like it was 33 people invited, with different viewpoints. This article says he discussed this:

Fryer spoke of how incomplete many departments’ records are on clashes between police and civilians, and the fact that it took him and his students 45 minutes to convert each record they examined into one that could be properly coded and categorized in a database.

Of course not. It was this paper that put him in the room and made his opinion wanted.

Al Sharpton was also in the group. Do you believe that makes his opinions beyond reproach as well?

It's pretty clear what's happening here. People often talk about police mistreating black people. This was especially prevalent after George Floyd, etc. This infuriated chuds, who believe only their grievances are legitimate, fuck everyone else.

Along comes this black guy, nice resume, all the bells and whistles, and he has some paper, that says in Houston, an atypical city, where less than 1/4 of their police are even white, racial bias doesn't appear to be a cause for police shootings.

Yes! YES! Checkmate Black Lives Matter! You may shut the fuck up now! This is IRrEfUtAbLE PROOF, motherfuckers, that what you complain about isn't real. What? Nope, no, no...lalalalal can't hear you no debate. It's set in stone. The end. Good day.

It's like the Jordan Peterson phenomenon. It's clear that for all the chud's insults of intellectualism, they're desperate for the trappings of it. If they find someone, slightly more articulate, who even appears to believe the things they do, and can communicate without 4chan memes, they're practically Einstein himself to them.

 

[HOLA]

I'd almost forgot, to give some perspective on what happened back in 2016 in terms of reaction scale.

A week after making the paper available, he was called to the White House and a meeting with Obama & Sharpton that lasted 5 hours.

People were upset, to say the least.

Also, Fryer is neck-deep in DEI philosophy. He isn't right-wing by any measure I know of (except upsetting the left-wing).

He was one of 33 people there. Where were people so upset? I'm plugging his name into Reddit right now, which I've been told is a hellhole of soyboy cuck leftists, and there is hardly any discussion of him at all. And it looks like only one thread with any discussion from 2016. They don't seem very upset: