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."
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.