Roland Fryer is the most gifted economist of his generation. Not the most gifted black economist of his generation, the most gifted economist of his generation. Period. He was tenured at Harvard at the age of 30, he was awarded the American Economics Association’s John Bates Clark Medal, he received a MacArthur “Genius” grant, his publications appeared in some of the most distinguished journals in the field, and his scholarship was regularly covered in the mainstream media. His research upends many commonly held assumptions about race, discrimination, education, and police violence. It is
More proof that Harvard, founded on the opium trade and funded by deep state crimes against humanity, existence is threatened by educated truth seekers and truth speakers. This institution is dying. None of these satanic universities will survive this information war we are profoundly immersed in.
depressing, in the 21st century and we are still plagued by bullies and cowards. I am really sorry to hear this about the man.
Fryer’s sexual harassment claim seems to have been a major factor. Neil DeGrasse Tyson was put in a timeout for a white after a similar complaint, that could not be supported was filed against him. I don’t know his politics. The former Lt. Gov. of Virginia, Justin Fairfax a Democrat had is career derailed by harassment charges that were never fully investigated.
Getting back to Fryer, his controversial paper found that there was police abuse when it came to lower level crimes. He did not find interested use of firearms by police when it came to higher level crimes. In an interview with Coleman Hughes, he not given experiences with police, Black people were going to be suspicious when a Black person was killed by police. There was no trust.
When you hear that the Louisville police department was full of racist behavior according to the DOJ, you can’t be surprised by the distrust.
Hey what happened to the link? Whocanceledroland doesn't work; the page says that it's expired.
Dear Prof. Loury, I see that The Truth about Roland Fryer remains one of your most popular articles. You may have seen that Claudine Gay will become Harvard University's next President. She was among those who tried to destroy Roland Fryer's career at Harvard. Might you take this subject on? Here is a December 16 post in Francis Menton's Manhattan Contrarian. https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2022-12-15-goodnight-poor-harvard
Fryer and Sowell literally changed my perspective and my life. Please help Fryer.
GEORGE: I really can't comprehend how stupid people can be sometimes. Can you comprehend it?
KRAMER: No, no I can't comprehend it?
I cannot say my mind is blown or heart is broken. I’ve seen injustice happening too many times. I have a few questions though. Why has Roland taken it/gone along with Harvard’s punishment? Aren’t there reputable institutions left interested in luring a mind of Roland’s magnitude? Where are all the wealthy people with integrity willing to finance continuation of the Roland’s brilliance? There gotta be some? If they step forward, what would Roland’s response be?
Watched your clip with John McWhorter on the talk and the findings of Roland. I disagree with John that Roland has proven bias in non lethal contact. The data is too incomplete to do that. There are a bunch of things Roland Fryer does not account for. In his Stop and Frisk analysis he does not factor for poverty. In his PPCS analysis, he factors for civilian income and the civilian population at the civilian's address. What he didn't or couldn't factor in was average income and crime rates at the point of the stop. He also couldn't factor for average biased fear of civilians by factors such as 'the talk' that could lead to different perception of the interaction (i.e microaggressions for example), and how they react to that perception, and how they recall it for the PPCS. Similarly in the Stop and Frisk there is no way to assess what the behavior of the person stopped was, based on prior perception and minor escalations. All these things could show a discrepancy in interactions. If you have a higher rate of perception of offense, a higher rate of visiting lower income, relatively higher crime areas (friends, family, etc), and higher rates of recidivism (people who gain higher income but come from higher crime areas tend to have higher rates of recidivism), there could be a higher risk of police escalation. Until all those elements are factored in, racism, or even any subliminal bias is not proven.
Thank you for speaking the truth and sharing this video. I shall repost it.
I listened to a podcast on Coleman Hughes interviewing Roland Fryer and was very impressed. The man is brilliant and so clear minded. His view is desperately needed in this half truth media obsessed environment. Then I watched the documentary and was frustrated, angry but not surprised. Particularly knowing about the ideologs who took Roland down. I wish there was a way for him to sue Harvard for this but suspect not at this point.
So very interesting to me that absolutely none of the 78 people who reviewed this post when I shared on LinkedIn in, including friends and family, people I think highly of, liked or disliked or commented at all. The fear is real.
I appreciate the efforts that went into creating and presenting this doc.This is the first really 'fleshed-out' description I've seen of the Roland Fryer incident. Can't say that any of the facts in the case surprise me. Sadly.
As a former educator, I have great hope for his Reconstruction project.
Why didn't Roland sue Harvard? That's the only way things ever get fixed in this country. Hude damage awards and forced reinstatement of your job.
Given his childhood, I'm not surprised that Fryer has acted out in the ways of which he has been accused. Ditto Clarence Thomas. Depth psychotherapy works wonders--though not quickly. Conservatives should learn about it and talk it up regularly.
As an Academic, I am very concerned with the new tendency to "follow the ideology" (like Harvard has been following to), and use the data to confirm your expectations, and hide the true data If they don´t '"conform"... Moreover, what about the integrity of us, researchers? what will be the consequences to the true Science? Finally, going against the real data will just divide people regardless their color, because true data and academic integrity are not the framework of social related research anymore.