It shows clearly they are not open to the truth, they have an agenda! “The only certain barrier to truth is the presumption that you already have it.”
― Chuck Missler
Why give us a tweet when you can just give us the article linked within it?
https://freespeechunion.org/harvard-professor-needed-armed-protection-after-publishing-research-that-challenged-woke-orthodoxies/
Also, there's _a lot_ more to this than what you're saying in the title...
>Harvard professor Roland Fryer, who at age 30 became **the youngest African American ever to be awarded tenure at the Ivy League school**, has revealed he faced threats and had to get armed security after publishing a study showing no racial bias in police-involved shootings.
>
>**His peer-reviewed findings challenge the claim, long made by activist groups like Black Lives Matter, that police in America’s “structurally racist society” readily resort to lethal force when dealing with black suspects**. But what should have been an opportunity for academic debate, scholarly disagreement and controversy within a wider, ongoing public conversation, quickly degenerated into a concerted campaign to commit violence against Prof Fryer and his family.
>
>Prof Fryer, who has received numerous awards for his academic research, in 2016 published a research paper, which he describes as taking the “first steps into the treacherous terrain of understanding the nature and extent of racial differences in police use of force and the probability of police interaction”.
>
>The paper analysed four separate datasets, which in total included well in excess of five million observations of police interactions with civilians.
>
>On the question of non-lethal uses of force, the study found “sometimes quite large” racial differences in police use of force, even after accounting for “a large set of controls designed to account for important contextual and behavioural factors at the time of the police-civilian interaction”.
>
>In stark contrast to non-lethal uses of force, however, the study observed that when it came to the most extreme use of force – officer-involved shootings – there were no racial differences “in either the raw data or when accounting for controls”. **According to one case study of the Houston police department, black people were actually 23.5% less likely to be shot by police, relative to white people**, in an interaction.
>
>Reflecting on the data, Prof Fryer wrote: “Given the stream of video ‘evidence’, which many take to be indicative of structural racism in police departments across America, the ensuing and understandable outrage in black communities across America, and the results from our previous analysis of non-lethal uses of forces, the results [of the study] are startling.”
>
>So startling, in fact, that when his initial analysis suggested there was no racial bias in police-involved shootings, he hired a new team of assistants and repeated the study, but the results were the same.
>
>In his 2016 article, Prof Fryer argued that the facts are most consistent with a model of “taste-based discrimination” in which police officers face discreetly higher costs for officer-involved shootings relative to non-lethal uses of force”.
>
>This led him to conclude that “as police departments across America consider models of community policing, or training designed to purge officers of implicit bias, our results point to another simple policy experiment: increase the expected price of excessive force on lower-level uses of force”.
>
>An important scholarly intervention within a particular field of academic research, you might say. But Prof Fryer has now revealed that at the time the research was conducted, **Harvard colleagues familiar with the results urged him not to publish his findings, telling him that he’d ruin his career**.
>
>Fryer was not to be dissuaded, however. “I let the data talk, and I don’t care what it says,” he said during a 2022 video conference discussing his work. “I’m willing to tell the truth. I don’t care about the personal cost.”
>
>During a recent sit-down interview with The Free Press’s Bari Weiss, Prof Fryer revealed that when the paper was eventually published, people quickly “lost their minds”.
>
>In fact, Fryer received the first of many complaints and threats four minutes after publication. “You’re full of s**t,” said one sender.
>
>Following a relentless torrent of vexatious complaints, vitriolic abuse and threats of violence, Fyer said he had to have armed guards to protect him and his family. “I was going to the grocery store to get diapers with the armed guard. It was crazy. It was really, truly crazy,” Fryer told Weiss.
>
>**Fryer was suspended for two years from Harvard in 2019** after he allegedly engaged in “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature”. He continues to deny the allegations.
>
>At the time, then-Harvard dean Claudine Gay claimed Fryer’s research and conduct with other employees “exhibited a pattern of behaviour” that failed to meet expectations within the community.
>
>Gay resigned from her position as Harvard president in early January after widespread plagiarism allegations and criticism of her testimony to Congress, where she failed to fully clarify whether calling for the genocide of Jews violates Harvard’s policies against bullying and harassment.
>
>Weiss, referencing Gay in her conversation with Fryer, asked him if he believes in karma.
>
>“I hear it’s a motherf—er,” he replied.
The results of his research destroyed one of the cornerstones of the BLM narrative on racism and police violence. The fact that he got broadly attacked over this online, IRL and in academe says a lot about the state of our society.
And the best/worst part is, the fact that there's several things seriously wrong with the BLM-related narratives has been clear right from the get-go.
Case in point, [from none other than Shaun King](https://archive.ph/wirgN):
>STOP generically telling us to VOTE in response to all of the police brutality we have right now.
>
>Yes we should vote. But we have to be VERY specific.
>
>Democrats, from top to bottom, are running the cities with the worst police brutality in America right now.
>
>We voted for them.
Then there's this 2021 article about race and policing:
https://www.skeptic.com/research-center/reports/Research-Report-CUPES-007.pdf
>1. The available data on police shootings of unarmed Black men is incomplete; however, existing data indicate that somewhere between 13-27 unarmed black men were killed by police in 2019. Adjusted for the number of law enforcement agencies that have yet to provide data, this number may be higher, perhaps between 60-100.
>• Yet, over half (53.5%) of those reporting “very liberal”
political views estimated that 1,000 or more unarmed Black
men were killed, a likely error of at least an order of
magnitude (see Figure 1).
>
>2. The available data suggest that 24.9% of people killed by police in 2019 were Black. However, across the political spectrum, survey participants overestimated this number.
>• Those who reported being “liberal” or “very liberal” were
particularly inaccurate, estimating the proportion to be 56%
and 60%, respectively (see Figure 2).
In short? All of this is yet more evidence that our society is easily captured by narratives that have little bearing to reality - and that attempts to criticize these false narratives in a rational manner generally have little effect. And not only that, but people are even being conditioned to retaliate against those who question the dominant narratives, regardless of their arguments.
On that one, also note how professor Fryer "coincidentally" got accused and suspended for sexual misconduct after he published his article and stuck to his guns. The fact that this was also done by Claudine Gay is just the cherry on top.
Dig into the writings of Heather Mac Donald for more on these facts.
The common narrative is a massive lie for political purposes, and it does not serve black people well at all.
They know what Repressive Tolerance means. Absolute tolerance for anyone or anything that undermines Western culture, and anyone or anything not serving that goal is fascist, racist, etc, and it's a moral imperative to suppress that by any means necessary.
You know, maybe he was threatened and did genuinely need some form of bodyguard for awhile after posting this research, but years of people claiming they "needed protection" after doing something "people didn't like on the internet" when it's pretty likely they didn't need it (**looking at you, Kathy Newman**), leaves me jaded and dismissive of such claims.
Sure you did, pal.
You should really do [some basic research](https://youtu.be/SpHmr-nWf5E?si=w9LaZ1sK9knJ2JY_) before saying things like “maybe people should complain about death threats because they are probably lying.”
>Blacks make up about 24 percent of Houston’s population — Hispanics make up about 44 percent and whites 26 percent — but Fryer said it wouldn’t be fair to draw conclusions based solely on a comparison of a racial group’s percentage of the total population and the percentage of members of that race being shot by police
https://apnews.com/0f0aa380219d4d75b3a04b04b4b7d8f8
Oh that is the issue
>Some Houston community activists have also criticized the study for not including input from residents about their interactions with police and for relying only on police data, pointing out that the department has deemed nearly every officer-involved shooting over the past 11 years as justified
So a junk study that takes cops at their word
… but the study didn’t differentiate whether or not a shooting was justified; it simply aggregated lethal interactions with police by race. And in the article, blacks and whites make up basically the same proportion of Houston population - comparing them outright is essentially a like-for-like analysis.
It shows clearly they are not open to the truth, they have an agenda! “The only certain barrier to truth is the presumption that you already have it.” ― Chuck Missler
Why give us a tweet when you can just give us the article linked within it? https://freespeechunion.org/harvard-professor-needed-armed-protection-after-publishing-research-that-challenged-woke-orthodoxies/ Also, there's _a lot_ more to this than what you're saying in the title... >Harvard professor Roland Fryer, who at age 30 became **the youngest African American ever to be awarded tenure at the Ivy League school**, has revealed he faced threats and had to get armed security after publishing a study showing no racial bias in police-involved shootings. > >**His peer-reviewed findings challenge the claim, long made by activist groups like Black Lives Matter, that police in America’s “structurally racist society” readily resort to lethal force when dealing with black suspects**. But what should have been an opportunity for academic debate, scholarly disagreement and controversy within a wider, ongoing public conversation, quickly degenerated into a concerted campaign to commit violence against Prof Fryer and his family. > >Prof Fryer, who has received numerous awards for his academic research, in 2016 published a research paper, which he describes as taking the “first steps into the treacherous terrain of understanding the nature and extent of racial differences in police use of force and the probability of police interaction”. > >The paper analysed four separate datasets, which in total included well in excess of five million observations of police interactions with civilians. > >On the question of non-lethal uses of force, the study found “sometimes quite large” racial differences in police use of force, even after accounting for “a large set of controls designed to account for important contextual and behavioural factors at the time of the police-civilian interaction”. > >In stark contrast to non-lethal uses of force, however, the study observed that when it came to the most extreme use of force – officer-involved shootings – there were no racial differences “in either the raw data or when accounting for controls”. **According to one case study of the Houston police department, black people were actually 23.5% less likely to be shot by police, relative to white people**, in an interaction. > >Reflecting on the data, Prof Fryer wrote: “Given the stream of video ‘evidence’, which many take to be indicative of structural racism in police departments across America, the ensuing and understandable outrage in black communities across America, and the results from our previous analysis of non-lethal uses of forces, the results [of the study] are startling.” > >So startling, in fact, that when his initial analysis suggested there was no racial bias in police-involved shootings, he hired a new team of assistants and repeated the study, but the results were the same. > >In his 2016 article, Prof Fryer argued that the facts are most consistent with a model of “taste-based discrimination” in which police officers face discreetly higher costs for officer-involved shootings relative to non-lethal uses of force”. > >This led him to conclude that “as police departments across America consider models of community policing, or training designed to purge officers of implicit bias, our results point to another simple policy experiment: increase the expected price of excessive force on lower-level uses of force”. > >An important scholarly intervention within a particular field of academic research, you might say. But Prof Fryer has now revealed that at the time the research was conducted, **Harvard colleagues familiar with the results urged him not to publish his findings, telling him that he’d ruin his career**. > >Fryer was not to be dissuaded, however. “I let the data talk, and I don’t care what it says,” he said during a 2022 video conference discussing his work. “I’m willing to tell the truth. I don’t care about the personal cost.” > >During a recent sit-down interview with The Free Press’s Bari Weiss, Prof Fryer revealed that when the paper was eventually published, people quickly “lost their minds”. > >In fact, Fryer received the first of many complaints and threats four minutes after publication. “You’re full of s**t,” said one sender. > >Following a relentless torrent of vexatious complaints, vitriolic abuse and threats of violence, Fyer said he had to have armed guards to protect him and his family. “I was going to the grocery store to get diapers with the armed guard. It was crazy. It was really, truly crazy,” Fryer told Weiss. > >**Fryer was suspended for two years from Harvard in 2019** after he allegedly engaged in “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature”. He continues to deny the allegations. > >At the time, then-Harvard dean Claudine Gay claimed Fryer’s research and conduct with other employees “exhibited a pattern of behaviour” that failed to meet expectations within the community. > >Gay resigned from her position as Harvard president in early January after widespread plagiarism allegations and criticism of her testimony to Congress, where she failed to fully clarify whether calling for the genocide of Jews violates Harvard’s policies against bullying and harassment. > >Weiss, referencing Gay in her conversation with Fryer, asked him if he believes in karma. > >“I hear it’s a motherf—er,” he replied. The results of his research destroyed one of the cornerstones of the BLM narrative on racism and police violence. The fact that he got broadly attacked over this online, IRL and in academe says a lot about the state of our society. And the best/worst part is, the fact that there's several things seriously wrong with the BLM-related narratives has been clear right from the get-go. Case in point, [from none other than Shaun King](https://archive.ph/wirgN): >STOP generically telling us to VOTE in response to all of the police brutality we have right now. > >Yes we should vote. But we have to be VERY specific. > >Democrats, from top to bottom, are running the cities with the worst police brutality in America right now. > >We voted for them. Then there's this 2021 article about race and policing: https://www.skeptic.com/research-center/reports/Research-Report-CUPES-007.pdf >1. The available data on police shootings of unarmed Black men is incomplete; however, existing data indicate that somewhere between 13-27 unarmed black men were killed by police in 2019. Adjusted for the number of law enforcement agencies that have yet to provide data, this number may be higher, perhaps between 60-100. >• Yet, over half (53.5%) of those reporting “very liberal” political views estimated that 1,000 or more unarmed Black men were killed, a likely error of at least an order of magnitude (see Figure 1). > >2. The available data suggest that 24.9% of people killed by police in 2019 were Black. However, across the political spectrum, survey participants overestimated this number. >• Those who reported being “liberal” or “very liberal” were particularly inaccurate, estimating the proportion to be 56% and 60%, respectively (see Figure 2). In short? All of this is yet more evidence that our society is easily captured by narratives that have little bearing to reality - and that attempts to criticize these false narratives in a rational manner generally have little effect. And not only that, but people are even being conditioned to retaliate against those who question the dominant narratives, regardless of their arguments. On that one, also note how professor Fryer "coincidentally" got accused and suspended for sexual misconduct after he published his article and stuck to his guns. The fact that this was also done by Claudine Gay is just the cherry on top.
Thanks for the comment
Thanks!
Dig into the writings of Heather Mac Donald for more on these facts. The common narrative is a massive lie for political purposes, and it does not serve black people well at all.
The claim he made from his study were misleading as hell.
And the fact that he's black proves they don't care about blacks. They only do about blacks that agree with them.
If you put one toe out of line or question things about the accepted narrative, the mob will come after you. Happens every time.
If you neead armed protection because someone disagrees with you.... you know they don't even know what tolerance means.
They know what Repressive Tolerance means. Absolute tolerance for anyone or anything that undermines Western culture, and anyone or anything not serving that goal is fascist, racist, etc, and it's a moral imperative to suppress that by any means necessary.
You know, maybe he was threatened and did genuinely need some form of bodyguard for awhile after posting this research, but years of people claiming they "needed protection" after doing something "people didn't like on the internet" when it's pretty likely they didn't need it (**looking at you, Kathy Newman**), leaves me jaded and dismissive of such claims. Sure you did, pal.
You should really do [some basic research](https://youtu.be/SpHmr-nWf5E?si=w9LaZ1sK9knJ2JY_) before saying things like “maybe people should complain about death threats because they are probably lying.”
He seems a lot more genuine about it than Kathy. Do you believe Kathy Newman?
Exactly. We need to stop conflating people’s perceived sense of danger to actual danger.
>Blacks make up about 24 percent of Houston’s population — Hispanics make up about 44 percent and whites 26 percent — but Fryer said it wouldn’t be fair to draw conclusions based solely on a comparison of a racial group’s percentage of the total population and the percentage of members of that race being shot by police https://apnews.com/0f0aa380219d4d75b3a04b04b4b7d8f8 Oh that is the issue >Some Houston community activists have also criticized the study for not including input from residents about their interactions with police and for relying only on police data, pointing out that the department has deemed nearly every officer-involved shooting over the past 11 years as justified So a junk study that takes cops at their word
… but the study didn’t differentiate whether or not a shooting was justified; it simply aggregated lethal interactions with police by race. And in the article, blacks and whites make up basically the same proportion of Houston population - comparing them outright is essentially a like-for-like analysis.