Roland Fryer is best known for two things: 1) The very meticulously conducted research(spanning multiple years) on thousands upon thousands of data points not only from police precincts in different states, but also FBI and WaPo databases. 2) Being persecuted and having his career threatened by Harvard for finding a conclusion that the Woke Aristocracy find offensive. I guess they were pissed that he used resources afforded him, only to find the “wrong conclusion”.
He’s also done amazing work in development of young minds with alternative education methods and sources.
Roland Fryer’s story is yet another example of the “burn the heretic” politics of the progressive left.
Data-led analysis that keeps the focus on a clear hypothesis and derives analytically defensible conclusions, as opposed to ideological viewpoints, is essential if we are to get beyond the endless destructive discussions in otherwise greatly biased media and academic coverage. As the author notes, the outcome here suggests neither that policing is perfect in any way nor that the violent circumstances in which police are forced to operate permit neat and better choices in the moment.
"Perhaps this is as it should be—if you could be deterred from using deadly force against someone by fear of your actions’ being scrutinized". There is a line between being scrutinized and being screwed. (screwtinized?)
It’s actually more likely that the higher incidence of non lethal use of force against blacks is not due to racial discrimination or racial profiling. A big thing about Fryer’s non lethal use of force study is that is used data from stop and frisk in New York and he was only able to gather data on the incidents but not the demographics of the individual officers who conducted them. It was enough to show disproportionate use of non lethal force but because of limitations it could not posit reasons for this from officer demographics. Back around the time data was being collected, nypd had a policy of training young officers by throwing them in the deep end once they finish training. They pair up young officers once they were experienced enough to be without their T.O. Later, work from Philip Atiba Goff found that older more experienced officers seemed to be less violent then younger officers and decreased racial bias when they policed in majority-minority areas. All of this makes sense from the perspective of incentive structures even without the nypd policy. The whole point of seniority is that you accrue benefits from the work you do over time, which enables companies and apartments to keep employees. A part of the benefits is that you get to do less burdensome jobs overtime which means for more experienced officers you get to police the less crime ridden neighborhoods which would correlate with white neighborhoods. To fix this, Goff suggested pay increase incentives for older offers to patrol with younger officers in minority neighborhoods to keep them in check and take command since they are more adept at handling violent incidents. In summary what many people see as bias induced racial discrimination in non lethal use of force is probably just a perverse incentive where more inexperienced cops are more likely to patrol the more violent neighborhoods which correlate towards minority neighborhoods.
“ Usually, when police make contact with a suspect, this is because a member of the community has called the police to report some apparent criminal behavior. ” No. Police deliberately encounter a substantial number of “suspects” in pretextual contacts , mostly traffic stops. This is no longer really subject to dispute; numerous law enforcement agencies have acknowledged this, and SCOTUS has permitted it. Doubt it? Go watch “Fridays With Frank” on YouTube, and see the number of folks stopped for “illegal window tint”, or “insufficient mudflats on a raised truck”.
Roland Fryer is best known for two things: 1) The very meticulously conducted research(spanning multiple years) on thousands upon thousands of data points not only from police precincts in different states, but also FBI and WaPo databases. 2) Being persecuted and having his career threatened by Harvard for finding a conclusion that the Woke Aristocracy find offensive. I guess they were pissed that he used resources afforded him, only to find the “wrong conclusion”.
He’s also done amazing work in development of young minds with alternative education methods and sources.
Roland Fryer’s story is yet another example of the “burn the heretic” politics of the progressive left.
The Woke Aristocracy. Nice. I have my own name for them, but man, that's good.
Feel free to use it. I think it’s accurate.
Thank you. In the spirit of cameraderie, I'll tell you mine. Social Retribution Warriors
Data-led analysis that keeps the focus on a clear hypothesis and derives analytically defensible conclusions, as opposed to ideological viewpoints, is essential if we are to get beyond the endless destructive discussions in otherwise greatly biased media and academic coverage. As the author notes, the outcome here suggests neither that policing is perfect in any way nor that the violent circumstances in which police are forced to operate permit neat and better choices in the moment.
Inconvenient truths will get you into trouble.
"Perhaps this is as it should be—if you could be deterred from using deadly force against someone by fear of your actions’ being scrutinized". There is a line between being scrutinized and being screwed. (screwtinized?)
It's just people doing their job. Progressives have a problem with that
It’s actually more likely that the higher incidence of non lethal use of force against blacks is not due to racial discrimination or racial profiling. A big thing about Fryer’s non lethal use of force study is that is used data from stop and frisk in New York and he was only able to gather data on the incidents but not the demographics of the individual officers who conducted them. It was enough to show disproportionate use of non lethal force but because of limitations it could not posit reasons for this from officer demographics. Back around the time data was being collected, nypd had a policy of training young officers by throwing them in the deep end once they finish training. They pair up young officers once they were experienced enough to be without their T.O. Later, work from Philip Atiba Goff found that older more experienced officers seemed to be less violent then younger officers and decreased racial bias when they policed in majority-minority areas. All of this makes sense from the perspective of incentive structures even without the nypd policy. The whole point of seniority is that you accrue benefits from the work you do over time, which enables companies and apartments to keep employees. A part of the benefits is that you get to do less burdensome jobs overtime which means for more experienced officers you get to police the less crime ridden neighborhoods which would correlate with white neighborhoods. To fix this, Goff suggested pay increase incentives for older offers to patrol with younger officers in minority neighborhoods to keep them in check and take command since they are more adept at handling violent incidents. In summary what many people see as bias induced racial discrimination in non lethal use of force is probably just a perverse incentive where more inexperienced cops are more likely to patrol the more violent neighborhoods which correlate towards minority neighborhoods.
I appreciate all these data! It makes my arguments all the more cogent. Thank you, Michael!
Bicycling organizations and the LA Times pushed this myth in California too.
https://principledbicycling.substack.com/p/la-times-bicycle-stop-report-may?utm_source=publication-search
“ Usually, when police make contact with a suspect, this is because a member of the community has called the police to report some apparent criminal behavior. ” No. Police deliberately encounter a substantial number of “suspects” in pretextual contacts , mostly traffic stops. This is no longer really subject to dispute; numerous law enforcement agencies have acknowledged this, and SCOTUS has permitted it. Doubt it? Go watch “Fridays With Frank” on YouTube, and see the number of folks stopped for “illegal window tint”, or “insufficient mudflats on a raised truck”.