Eric Stewart, a professor at Florida State University, has been fired for falsifying data in research papers purporting to show that American society is beset with racism. The New York Post has more.
The academic was fired after almost 20 years of his data — including figures used in an explosive study, which claimed the legacy of lynchings made whites perceive blacks as criminals, and that the problem was worse among conservatives — were found to be in question.
College authorities said he was being fired for “incompetence” and “false results”.
Among the studies he has had to retract were claims that whites wanted longer sentences for blacks and Latinos.
To date, six of Stewart’s articles published in major academic journals like Criminology and Law and Society Review between 2003 and 2019 have been fully retracted after allegations the professor’s data was fake or so badly flawed it should not have been published.
The professor’s termination came four years after his former graduate student Justin Pickett blew the whistle on his research.
Pickett said they had worked together in 2011 researching whether the public was demanding longer sentences for black and Hispanic criminals as those minority populations grew, with the paper claiming they did. But Stewart had fiddled the sample size to deliver that result when the real research did not, Pickett said.
When the investigation into Stewart began in 2020, he claimed he was the victim and that Pickett “essentially lynched me and my academic character”.
After 16 years as a professor of criminology at Florida State University in Tallahassee, Provost James Clark formally notified Stewart he was being terminated in a July 13th letter.
“I do not see how you can teach our students to be ethical researchers or how the results of future research projects conducted by you could be deemed as trustworthy,” Clark wrote to Stewart, who has been absent from his role since March.
Clark said as well as the six officially retracted studies, other work by Stewart was “in doubt”.
The retracted studies looked into contentious social issues, like whether the public perceives black and Latino people as threats and the role of racial discrimination in America’s criminal justice system.
One 2019 study, which has been retracted, suggested historical lynchings make white people today perceive black people as threats.
Stewart floated the idea “that this effect will be greater among whites… where socioeconomic disadvantage and political conservatism are greater”.
Another retracted 2018 study suggested that white Americans view black and Latino people as “criminal threats”, and suggested that perceived threat could lead to “state-sponsored social control”.
And in a third, Stewart claimed Americans wanted tougher sentences for Latinos because their community was increasing in numbers and becoming more economically successful. …
But the disgraced professor was able to rise to prominence as an influencer in his field despite his studies from as early as 2003 now being retracted.
Stewart was a widely-cited scholar, with north of 8,500 citations by other researchers, according to Google Scholar — a measure of his clout as an academic.
He was Vice President and Fellow at the American Society of Criminology, who honoured him as one of four highly distinguished criminologists in 2017.
He was also a W.E.B. DuBois fellow at the National Institute of Justice.
The professor received north of $3.5 million in grant support from major organisations and taxpayer-funded entities, according to his resume.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I always assumed supposed super-spreader events such as the South Dakota bikers or a crowded pub were another COVID myth used to justify restrictions.
Most likely. Gathering restrictions did literally ZILCH to stop the virus at a population level, or even slow it down once it had gathered momentum. The kernel of truth is that large gatherings may temporarily accelerate transmission at the very, very beginning, but by the time the restrictions were imposed the horse was long since out of the barn.
Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega knew that from the beginning, and actually *encouraged* mass gatherings given the futility of banning or restricting them, and their vital functions in preserving a sense of normalcy for the community. And he is a hard leftist, go figure.
The vast majority of lockdown policies, including lockdown itself, were based on flawed evidence, accompanied by the impression that the so-called experts had just gone back to college! We are all still suffering from it – although some have made a profit in the short term.
I’m not criticising the idea that airborne transmission of any kind of virus in poorly ventilated environments though. Although I’m reasonably confident that the last time I caught a minor respiratory infection (lets call it a common cold), in late 2019, was in such a place, I have never believed in the idea that wearing face covers etc was any good. Crass overreaction to the whole affair has been a large part of the panic.
Indeed, the fact that poor ventilation accelerates transmission of airborne viruses was known for nearly a century, even before viruses themselves were discovered. Back then, they simply called it “vitiated air”, and central heating systems then were literally designed to be operated with the windows open. That’s why in very old buildings with old-style steam boiler heating, the temperature always feels significantly hotter than the thermostat says, unless you open the nearest window (or if there’s a draft). That’s a feature, not a bug.
Perhaps in some cases things were done based on flawed evidence in the sense that those doing them genuinely believed the evidence was solid. But in a lot of cases restrictions and decisions were not based on evidence at all – what actually happened was decisions were made and then evidence found or fabricated that appeared to justify the decision.
One of the lesser reasons I will never believe or respect anything any government says again, ever, this is one of the finer ways in which the government cried wolf. It’s almost as if they were actively searching for petty things to ban, to “appear to be doing something”, along with the taped up benches and playgrounds.
Is there an army removing any remaining signs about masks and social distancing? There ought to be.
Although each government takes ultimate responsibility for engineering and promoting the claptrap around a hyped up ‘killer virus’, the opposition parties were just as bad – if not worse, ie Labour – encouraging and egging them on to do their worst.
edit spelling
That period was so dystopian. I went for a walk with my wife. People (all in masks) jumped off pavements. We sat on a bench, were glared at, and wondered what hell we were in. I used to admire the people I shared this country with. Now I pity and, generally speaking have no trust in them. I’m ill.
Masks were things worn by actors in Greek plays. You found yourself in a myth. You could hardly communicate. You were atomised, stereotyped, and thrown apart. God help me recover.
So true.
There are still people out there who leap back from you if you get too close. people also get off the pavement to avoid getting too close. Masks are still in evidence where we live. Shops still have signs about social distancing which are ignored for the most part but are still there. Some people will never get over the nonsense we were fed.