The authors of a 2019 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that examined “917 fatal police shootings of civilians from 2015 to test whether the race of the officer or the civilian predicted fatal police shootings” was withdrawn by the authors after being cited by noted conservative author and essayist Heather MacDonald.
Psychologists Joseph Cesario of Michigan State and David Johnson of the University of Maryland say they stand behind their work, which concludes there was “no significant evidence of anti-black disparity in the likelihood of being fatally shot by the police.” But they objected to its “misuse.”
MacDonald cited the study in congressional testimony last September and again in an article for City Journal. But it wasn’t until her June 3 op-ed for the Wall Street Journal that cited the study when there were “complications” on campus and outraged wokesters demanded that the profs be flogged — or something. …
“Publish or perish” is now passe. It’s “Publish and pray you don’t offend the snowflakes” that matters now. …
You want to tell the spineless academics that they deserve whatever they get from the mob, but the realities of today’s academic world make conforming to orthodoxy an absolute career necessity.
Sounds like climate “science.” Only some conclusions are acceptable.
In political correctness, everyone knows the currently approved conclusions. The task of writers and researchers is then to select and spin what ever material is at hand to fit the conclusions.
People like Philip Adams at the ABC or Ross Gittins at the SMH are masters at it.
But as the episode above attests, it gets trickier when the required conclusions change. The mob can now reach back in time, via publications or social media, to find out what you said before. Here’s CNN: