I understand where you’re coming from, but I think some points here warrant closer examination. Fryer’s study, particularly on lethal force, is actually based on detailed datasets from several police departments, which makes it more robust than it might seem at first glance. His conclusions about no racial bias in shootings are supported by the controls he used, like suspect behavior and the presence of weapons. While limited data is always a concern, his work didn’t rely solely on generalized stats but on context-specific analysis.
Regarding video evidence from cases like Minneapolis and Memphis, these are indeed critical examples of egregious failures, but they don’t provide the full statistical picture. Tragic cases are important for understanding the human cost of police failures, but broader conclusions about systemic bias require looking at patterns across thousands of incidents, not just high-profile ones. It’s also worth noting that this representation is largely media-driven, as many less-publicized cases follow a similar pattern of police misconduct, but the victims in those instances were not Black or Brown.
You’re absolutely right about the lack of consistent standards in policing. The decentralized, “fiefdom-like” nature of police jurisdictions leads to wildly varying practices. This inconsistency often affects lower-income communities disproportionately, which includes, but is not exclusive to, Black and Brown people. The zip code issue you mention is a reflection of socioeconomic disparities more than race specifically, as police focus tends to follow crime rates, which are often higher in economically disadvantaged areas.
The need for enforceable national or state standards is undeniable. Uniform hiring practices, training protocols, and rules of engagement would go a long way toward reducing disparities in outcomes. It’s not just about race—it’s about creating a system where geography or socioeconomic status doesn’t dictate the quality of policing someone receives. That’s where the real, sustainable reform lies.
It can be true that Mr. Fryer is a brilliant economist AND that he repeatedly crossed the line with 5 different women, not just his assistant and created a hostile work environment by sexually harassing these women. 5. Not 1.
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.
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.
The paper said that Black suspects were less likely to be killed by police in similar situations, but more likely to be beaten. The main comment on the academic site disputing this was the claim that the difference was that the white suspects were on drugs. Considering subsequent events, this is interesting at the least.
Robert, please edit your post. Parts were impossible to understand.
"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,"
Tyson was accused of rape and sexual advances by 4 women and Fairfax of sexual assualt. Whereas Fryer was accused of telling off color jokes. They are not remotely similar.
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
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.
I read Fryer's Police & Blacks work years ago -and am unimpressed with his study due to :
His reliance on very limited data sets to posit a very broad narrative ; that alone should ,at the least, call his conclusions into question - particularly in light of the very high profile court cases , replete video evidence from Minneapolis & Memphis . Often , in my observation, visual and physical evidence/ is a better indicator of fact than spreadsheets from "on high" .
I've maintained for years : The USA has poor consistency in police standards in hiring , training and rules of engagement - and that's a major and often ugly problem ,especially for the Black , Brown and/or Poor among us .
Yes police in some zip codes abuse Whites , but zip codes should not be determinative in the matter of treatment by police .
With few exceptions -every police jurisdiction is a fiefdom with dictatorial and sometimes "feudal adjacent" powers .
The US needs enforceable basic police standards that are upheld at the State and Federal levels ,as we do with food safety and prescription drugs
Good questions. To the first, the variables I mentioned, like poverty at the point of the stop or crime rates at the location, aren’t explicitly addressed in Fryer’s methodology as outlined in his paper. He controlled for factors like civilian income and neighborhood demographics but didn’t account for localized conditions at the time and place of the interaction. This isn’t a criticism of his work as much as a recognition of the limitations inherent in the datasets available to him. Some of this data simply isn’t collected or isn’t granular enough to be included.
As for why these variables should be factored in, it’s because they directly influence the context of police encounters. For example, higher crime areas tend to see more aggressive policing, which can increase the likelihood of force being used. Similarly, perceptions of threat or hostility—by both officers and civilians—are shaped by socioeconomic factors and local crime rates. Without accounting for these influences, it’s hard to isolate race as the driving factor in disparities, as opposed to other environmental or situational elements. If the goal is to determine whether race itself plays a unique role, these other variables need to be controlled for to avoid conflating correlation with causation.
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 understand where you’re coming from, but I think some points here warrant closer examination. Fryer’s study, particularly on lethal force, is actually based on detailed datasets from several police departments, which makes it more robust than it might seem at first glance. His conclusions about no racial bias in shootings are supported by the controls he used, like suspect behavior and the presence of weapons. While limited data is always a concern, his work didn’t rely solely on generalized stats but on context-specific analysis.
Regarding video evidence from cases like Minneapolis and Memphis, these are indeed critical examples of egregious failures, but they don’t provide the full statistical picture. Tragic cases are important for understanding the human cost of police failures, but broader conclusions about systemic bias require looking at patterns across thousands of incidents, not just high-profile ones. It’s also worth noting that this representation is largely media-driven, as many less-publicized cases follow a similar pattern of police misconduct, but the victims in those instances were not Black or Brown.
You’re absolutely right about the lack of consistent standards in policing. The decentralized, “fiefdom-like” nature of police jurisdictions leads to wildly varying practices. This inconsistency often affects lower-income communities disproportionately, which includes, but is not exclusive to, Black and Brown people. The zip code issue you mention is a reflection of socioeconomic disparities more than race specifically, as police focus tends to follow crime rates, which are often higher in economically disadvantaged areas.
The need for enforceable national or state standards is undeniable. Uniform hiring practices, training protocols, and rules of engagement would go a long way toward reducing disparities in outcomes. It’s not just about race—it’s about creating a system where geography or socioeconomic status doesn’t dictate the quality of policing someone receives. That’s where the real, sustainable reform lies.
Watch the Rob Montz mini-doc
It can be true that Mr. Fryer is a brilliant economist AND that he repeatedly crossed the line with 5 different women, not just his assistant and created a hostile work environment by sexually harassing these women. 5. Not 1.
It _is_ true that we live in a society in which no justice can exist without the presumption of innocence until guilt is _proven_.
Failure to presume innocence is the inception of tyranny.
Cite your evidence. Not hearsay -- fully documented legally admissible evidence, taken under oath.
And now we've learned more about Claudine G.
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.
The paper said that Black suspects were less likely to be killed by police in similar situations, but more likely to be beaten. The main comment on the academic site disputing this was the claim that the difference was that the white suspects were on drugs. Considering subsequent events, this is interesting at the least.
Robert, please edit your post. Parts were impossible to understand.
"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,"
Tyson was accused of rape and sexual advances by 4 women and Fairfax of sexual assualt. Whereas Fryer was accused of telling off color jokes. They are not remotely similar.
DeGrasse Tyson said that he was innocent. Fairfax wanted an open trial. Fryer sent a letter of apology.
Yes, he admitted to his bad behavior and apologized. I can respect that and as I stated above, it was 5 women who accused him, not just his assistant.
If those same women watched "Blazing Saddles" or "Robin Hood; Men in Tights" would they file complaints against Mel Brooks?
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.
I read Fryer's Police & Blacks work years ago -and am unimpressed with his study due to :
His reliance on very limited data sets to posit a very broad narrative ; that alone should ,at the least, call his conclusions into question - particularly in light of the very high profile court cases , replete video evidence from Minneapolis & Memphis . Often , in my observation, visual and physical evidence/ is a better indicator of fact than spreadsheets from "on high" .
I've maintained for years : The USA has poor consistency in police standards in hiring , training and rules of engagement - and that's a major and often ugly problem ,especially for the Black , Brown and/or Poor among us .
Yes police in some zip codes abuse Whites , but zip codes should not be determinative in the matter of treatment by police .
With few exceptions -every police jurisdiction is a fiefdom with dictatorial and sometimes "feudal adjacent" powers .
The US needs enforceable basic police standards that are upheld at the State and Federal levels ,as we do with food safety and prescription drugs
Just curious, how do you know that all variables you mentioned have not been factored in? Another one, why should any of them be?
Good questions. To the first, the variables I mentioned, like poverty at the point of the stop or crime rates at the location, aren’t explicitly addressed in Fryer’s methodology as outlined in his paper. He controlled for factors like civilian income and neighborhood demographics but didn’t account for localized conditions at the time and place of the interaction. This isn’t a criticism of his work as much as a recognition of the limitations inherent in the datasets available to him. Some of this data simply isn’t collected or isn’t granular enough to be included.
As for why these variables should be factored in, it’s because they directly influence the context of police encounters. For example, higher crime areas tend to see more aggressive policing, which can increase the likelihood of force being used. Similarly, perceptions of threat or hostility—by both officers and civilians—are shaped by socioeconomic factors and local crime rates. Without accounting for these influences, it’s hard to isolate race as the driving factor in disparities, as opposed to other environmental or situational elements. If the goal is to determine whether race itself plays a unique role, these other variables need to be controlled for to avoid conflating correlation with causation.
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.
certainly is