Economist Roland Fryer faced backlash after publishing a study on racial bias in police shootings that found blacks were not more likely to be shot than whites, ultimately needing armed security due to the threats he received following the study’s release.
While the first part of the study found racial bias in non-fatal use of force, the second part surprised Fryer by not finding bias in shootings.
“It was a 104-page dense, academic economics paper with a 150-page appendix, OK?” Fryer stated. “It was posted for four minutes before I got my first email ‘This is full of [expletive]!’”
Despite redoing the analysis with multiple teams finding the same results, Fryer faced immense criticism, with colleagues warning him not to publish or it could ruin his career.
Even his university dean claimed his research exhibited unacceptable behavior.
“I had colleagues take me into the side and say, ‘Don’t publish this, you’ll ruin your career,’” he said.
“I said, ‘What are you talking about?’ I said, ‘What’s wrong with it? Do you believe the first part? Yes. Do you believe the second part? Well … the issue is they don’t fit together.’”
Fryer had to be escorted for safety after facing backlash for results that did not fit the narrative of racial bias in police shootings.
The experience raises questions about whether tolerance of diverse viewpoints only extends to those that conform to preferred narratives, and how much research may be suppressed or diluted to avoid controversy.
