Friday, July 12, 2019

Harvard Suspends Economist For Two Years Without Pay

Roland G. Fryer
They got him.

Harvard University suspended economist Roland G. Fryer for two years without pay and will close Education Innovation Laboratory, his off-campus research facility, reports The New York Times.

Frye has been the subject of several concurrent university investigations, which concluded that

he had engaged in “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature” against at least five employees over the course of a decade, according to the Times.

Fryer will not be able to take on advising or supervisory roles and his teaching will be limited upon his return. 

That Fryer holds politically incorrect views probably didn't help his case.

Justin Feldman, a social epidemiologist at NYU who "examines the ways in which structural racism and economic inequality influence population health," wrote in July 2016:

Roland Fryer, an economics professor at Harvard University, recently published a working paper at NBER on the topic of racial bias in police use of force and police shootings. The paper gained substantial media attention – a write-up of it became the top viewed article on the New York Times website. The most notable part of the study was its finding that there was no evidence of racial bias in police shootings, which Fryer called “the most surprising result of [his] career”. In his analysis of shootings in Houston, Texas, black and Hispanic people were no more likely (and perhaps even less likely) to be shot relative to whites.
 Fryer’s analysis is highly flawed, however. It suffers from major theoretical and methodological errors, and he has communicated the results to news media in a way that is misleading. While there have long been problems with the quality of police shootings data, there is still plenty of evidence to support a pattern of systematic, racially discriminatory use of force against black.
Fryer did try to play the race card. I reported back in February:
Harvard's Winthrop House Faculty Dean Ronald S. Sullivan, Jr. has sharply criticized the university's handling of sexual harassment allegations against Economics Professor Roland G. Fryer, Jr., reports the Harvard Crimson. And Sullivan is apparently testing to determine whether the race card trumps the sexual harassment card.

RealClearInvestigations article, says Sullivan called Harvard's Office for Dispute Resolution investigations into Fryer “deeply flawed and deeply unfair.” He alleged investigators “weighted the credibility of white witnesses far above minority witnesses” and ignored the testimony of several EdLabs employees who spoke in support of Fryer.

“It shows what the current [#MeToo] movement, some blood in the water, and good coaching [of witnesses] can produce,” he said.

Sullivan alleged Harvard investigators acted without a “semblance of due process or the presumption of innocence” and their report used racial stereotypes.

“Roland was constantly portrayed as an over-sexualized black man who no one could tell no,” Sullivan said. “Yet, there was not one piece of evidence of someone telling him no and him doing something mean to them. Even [a hostile witness whom he had fired] said in her interview that Roland’s so-called ‘yelling’ is not about raising his voice but it’s the intensity of his look and how his voice sounds.”
But, in the end, Fryer was just too politically incorrect to be able to successfully use the race card. The Left sees him as working in the house while they are out in the field. They are not going to let any houseboy, regardless of the soundness of his scholarly effort, use the race card.

MLK gets a pass but not Roland Fryer.

Robert Wenzel is editor and publisher of Follow Wenzel here.


  1. I have a friend who is a professor at Syracuse University. He once told me that when he is walking on campus he is afraid to even make eye contact with a female student.

  2. "But, in the end, Fryer was just too politically incorrect to be able to successfully use the race card." Think about what this says about the faculty or the school as a whole. It means that the rest of the effete faculty gladly adopt cowardly, soul-destroying line of politically-correct thought to keep the administrative wolves at bay. You're right--any PinC narrative draws hostile attention. Even if your work is innovative or insightful, if you're white and male and straight, forget about it; you are by default a member of the power structure and circumspect and a chopping block is placed nearby as a prop in communist red theater. The fact that you've made advancements in your field and your work has provided a PR boon to your school is of little consequence. Seek an exclusive friendship in a devitalizing environment, why, they'll find a way to kill you.
    The blackbird of envy: the state bird of the PC crowd.