Administrators at Michigan State University have forced Professor Stephen Hsu to resign from the graduate student union after he had the gall to share research that shows that police violence is not particularly related to the race of either the cop or the victim.
This research, which has been completely ignored by the activists in the streets shouting “Black Lives Matter” as loudly as they can, is peer-reviewed and thought to be extremely credible. For the most part, it’s been done by researchers and academics who thought their studies would come to the opposite conclusion. It’s exactly the kind of research that should be informing our current debate about racism and police brutality.
Unfortunately, the story of Hsu’s ousting illustrates exactly why it isn’t.
From the College Fix:
The union has criticized Hsu’s promotion of a study that found there is no racial bias in police shootings.
“We found that the race of the officer doesn’t matter when it comes to predicting whether black or white citizens are shot,” according to the Michigan State-based research Hsu had quoted that drew the ire of many.
Hsu said that the attacks against him are baseless.
“The GEU alleged that I am a racist because I interviewed MSU Psychology professor Joe Cesario, who studies police shootings,” he wrote in an email to The College Fix. “But Cesario’s work (along with similar work by others, such as Roland Fryer at Harvard) is essential to understanding deadly force and how to improve policing.”
It used to be that a university was a place that prized independent, thought-provoking research, championed free speech, and put all of their resources towards following the evidence to its logical conclusions – no matter how controversial those conclusions might be. This is the backbone of intellectual progress, it is the absolute standard by which science is conducted, and it is why we are further ahead as a species than we were in the Middle Ages.
Make no mistake: Going backwards on these central tenets isn’t an annoyance like political correctness or canceling Aunt Jemima – it is a devastating move that could, with no exaggeration whatsoever, plunge us into a new age of scientific darkness.
That’s why a story like this one is so disturbing. This is angering on a personal level, of course, because a good professor lost his standing in the union. But it’s so much more than that. This is a terrifying glimpse at our future – one where we will build policies and solutions based on anecdotal evidence and “lived experience.” In other words, a future based not on science but on identity politics. Ready to have unqualified, uneducated black transgender women take over science and academia and shape our future as our nation?
You might want to learn how to speak Chinese. Fast.