BLM, Thomson Reuters, and the Price of Dissent(city-journal.org)
city-journal.org
BLM, Thomson Reuters, and the Price of Dissent
https://www.city-journal.org/black-lives-matter-thomson-reuters-and-the-price-of-dissent
2 comments
It's interesting that he identified statistics issues (eg a third variable, poverty, explains some of the correlation between race and police incidents) but there doesn't seem to be much interest in the next step: if poverty, ghettoisation, and wider systemic issues are the real problem, how to solve them?
An analysis concluding that 'defund the police is just a distraction' should logically conclude that the real response required is much bigger (reducing inequality, the effects of historical racism, and systemic racism), not that no action is required.
An analysis concluding that 'defund the police is just a distraction' should logically conclude that the real response required is much bigger (reducing inequality, the effects of historical racism, and systemic racism), not that no action is required.
And also a dishonest portrayal of the chain of events:
He was sent to Human Resources and Diversity & Inclusion for the chance to reform his thoughts. He refused—so they fired him.
There was a bit more to the story than that, unfortunately. First he published a dubiously argued 12,000-word "rant" (using the article's own term). True, he may have been unfairly attacked for it. But if you just read the thing - on the face of it, it was plainly just poorly reasoned (and arguably, inflammatory).
Then came the final "self-immolating" gesture - which was to violate an explicit request by the company not to use company communications (including email) to discuss these matters. And not to just to email a handful of close colleagues, but apparently a mass, unsolicited mailing:
https://kriegman.substack.com/p/email-for-which-i-was-fired
Maybe he's right in some of his other arguments (e.g. maybe books like Race Cars really are poisoning the country). But to pain this episode simply as a matter of "dissent" and a lone scientist's brave defense of the truth is, in itself -- wildly misleading.