The social sciences in general are suffering what is known as a replication crisis — that is, the results of as many as two-thirds of all previous studies cannot be reproduced. What it means is that when you hear about a new study, there’s a good chance it is bunk.
Why does this happen? One reason is that academics feel intense pressure to “publish or perish,” which incentivizes sensationalism, the manipulation of data, and even fabrication. Add to this the incentives involved in race-grifting, and you have a perfect storm of academic fraud on your hands.
A $190,000-a-year criminology professor named Eric Stewart has just abruptly departed Florida State University under a cloud, the Florida Standard reported last week. His story is interesting because it reveals how long he got away with publishing false results (his earliest now-retracted paper is from 2006) and how the first reaction among many colleagues was to circle the wagons.
In 2011, Stewart had co-authored a study that purported to show that as the black and Hispanic populations grew, the public increasingly demanded longer, discriminatory sentences for black and Hispanic criminals. The problem is that the data from the study showed no such thing. Stewart allegedly solved this problem by changing the data and publishing a final product that did not at all reflect the original work.
This problem was brought to the co-authors’ attention eight years later. Only one of them, Justin Pickett of SUNY Albany, was willing to pursue the matter to its logical endpoint and expose what, as he argued in a 27-page essay, definitely looks like something much worse than just a few honest mistakes. Among his complaints:
1) The article reports 1,184 respondents, but actually there are 500.
2) The article reports 91 counties, but actually there are 326.
3) The article describes respondents that differ substantially from those in the data.
4) The article reports two significant interaction effects, but actually there are none.
5) The article reports the effect of Hispanic growth is significant and positive, but actually it is non-significant and negative.
6) The article reports many other findings that do not exist in the data.
7) The standard errors are stable in our published article, but not in the actual data or in articles published by other authors using similar modeling techniques with large samples.
8) Although never mentioned in the article, 208 of the 500 respondents in the data (or 42%) have imputed values.
That’s pretty serious stuff. The good news is that the actual data suggest the country is not so racist after all — or at least, not in the specific manner that the original paper had claimed. No, people do not demand heavier sentences for black or Hispanic defendants just because the black and Hispanic populations around them are growing.
The bad news is that the information had been twisted and manipulated, like so many media narratives related to race, in a way calculated to sow additional distrust and resentment. Why? Because there is a publicity reward for publishing such results, true or false.
After Pickett made his concerns public, Stewart complained to the resulting Committee of Inquiry that Pickett had “lynched me and my academic career.” Like any race grifter, he believed he could get away with saying things like this because he is black. And the committee, incredibly, took a hint and let him off the hook. Without even demanding to examine his original data, the three-member panel gave him the benefit of the doubt that this was just a case of simple error, not dishonesty.
Only later, after a sixth Stewart paper had to be retracted, was a serious investigation launched. And now Stewart is off to pursue new opportunities.
The lessons? First, don’t put your faith in conclusions drawn by the social sciences. As in this case, they can be printed, cited in hundreds of other papers for decades, and then abruptly retracted. Second, there is an underlying culture of cheating, dishonesty, and covering for one another at some of America’s top universities, which should only reinforce that first point.
Finally, the racialist ideology that now permeates academia creates a culture of fear and coverups. Most people know they should do the right thing when they come across an academic such as Stewart. But the Stewarts of this world have figured out that you can silence honest people just by flinging accusations of racism at them. How many other would-be witnesses are out there, intimidated, allowing academic fraudsters to poison the culture while growing plump and comfortable?
Finally, though, a bit of happy news: Sometimes, the bad guys lose.
* Article From: The Washington Examiner
