17 ms·
Context for others who missed this particular storm in a teacup: https://freespeechunion.org/harvard-professor-needed-armed-protection-after-publishing-research
by resolutebat 2y ago
Context for others who missed this particular storm in a teacup: https://freespeechunion.org/harvard-professor-needed-armed-protection-after-publishing-research-that-challenged-woke-orthodoxies/ https://freespeechunion.org/harvard-professor-needed-armed-p...
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.
- rendall 2y agoFry's treatment was a travesty on multiple levels.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y agoWow, I hadn't heard this before l, and it made me pretty furious: > 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. This whole article is sad and disgusting, especially because, as a result of this research, Prof Fryer was proposing some actual interventions to reduce biased applications of non-lethal use-of-force, but because the data didn't fit the prevailing narrative, it was attacked. Just gross.
- nucleardog 2y agoAny media coverage that isn’t from a niche right wing news site yelling about the woke kids?
- clarionbell 2y agoSo it's not true?
- hnben 2y agoground-news says "low factuality" and "100% right wing coverage". https://ground.news/article/all-hell-broke-loose-when-racist-police-shootings-narrative-challenged https://ground.news/article/all-hell-broke-loose-when-racist...
- Palmik 2y agoSeems like ground.news is just very bad, I wouldn't rely on it. It was very easy to find other sources: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evidence-shows-bias-in-police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evi... Note that the work is from 2016.
- ethbr1 2y agoAlso, the Crimson, which would probably have little reason to be biased in this. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2021/7/7/fryer-returns-from-suspension/ https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2021/7/7/fryer-returns-fr...