Join the fight and contribute to our war chest

Ditch the ads for $5 per month or $49 per year

If you’re a black person in America and you step out of line with the progressive playbook, it’s like walking into a minefield. If you don’t buy into every piece of the left-wing script, no matter how out there and nonsensical it might be, you will have a giant neon target on your back. This is exactly what Roland Fryer, a black Harvard economist, found out the hard way. He put out a study showing that the police aren’t killing black people more than others, contrary to the popular narrative pushed by BLM. And just like that, he wasn’t just an academic stirring the pot; he became public enemy number one.

His colleagues told him that he would likely torpedo his entire career with this study. But what really shook him was realizing that his findings could put his life at risk. The backlash was so intense that he needed armed guards just to pick up diapers for his baby. That’s the level of left-wing crazy we’re dealing with here. Fryer’s experience is a real eye-opener about the price of challenging the progressive machine, showing just how tough it can be to speak the actual truth in this country if it’s not “regime” approved.

To prove this point even more, his colleagues also suggested that if the second half of his study did find evidence of bias in police actions, then sure, go ahead and publish the whole thing. But as his findings stood, challenging the prevailing propaganda narrative of BLM, they could not endorse it as a single study. In other words, our “experts” can’t support the truth, if it doesn’t fit the appropriate social and political agenda. Making matters even more absurd, Claudine Gay, the disgraced former Dean of Harvard who left her post amidst a humiliating plagiarism scandal, criticized Fryer’s research, saying it didn’t align with Harvard’s high standards. The irony of such a statement coming from some DEI hire who exited under a cloud of disgrace is really rich, to say the least.

Fryer sat down with former New York Times reporter Bari Weiss and shared just how intense the fallout was when he dared to go against the regime-approved messaging.

The Constitutional Conservative:

Havard academics tried to hide a robust & thorough study that destroyed the left’s narratives about police brutality when it comes to race.
🔸In an interview with Bari Weiss, Harvard Economics professor Roland Fryer spoke about having to live with armed protection just for telling the truth.
🔸He was so shocked about the findings of his own year-long study that he hired 8 more people to conduct it again & they came up with the same results.
🔸This interview is eye-opening.

In addition, Fryer doesn’t buy into DEI, or the so-called progressive language. He’s pretty clear that in real black neighborhoods, this kind of talk doesn’t fly—it might even land you in hot water. He’s calling out what he sees as a gap between academic ideals and street-level reality.

Fryer never expected his paper to ignite such a firestorm. He holds onto the belief that “the truth shall set you free.” It’s a noble thought, but it’s not quite how things work in today’s America.

Western Journal:

He recalled that people around him approved of the first portion of the paper that found police were twice as likely to use nonfatal force against blacks and Hispanics than those of other races.

The issue came with the latter part of his study that found not only were blacks not more likely to be shot at than their white counterparts, but it was more likely police would use their firearms against the white suspects.

Fryer shared that even he was surprised with the results. He recruited eight fresh research assistants to redo the data, and they found the same results as before.

But after he confirmed the data and was ready to share, that’s when “all hell broke loose,” according to the professor.

“It was a 104-page dense, academic economics paper with a 150-page appendix, OK?” he stated. “It was posted for four minutes before I got my first email ‘This is full of s–t!’”

He shared that his colleagues doubted the results, pointing to flaws in the methods he used despite the fact that they used the same methods in their own research.

“I had colleagues take me into the side and say, ‘Don’t publish this, you’ll ruin your career,’” he said. “I said, ‘What are you talking about?’ I said, ‘What’s wrong with it? Do you believe the first part? Yes. Do you believe the second part? Well … the issue is they don’t fit together.’”

You can watch the entire interview here:

JOIN THE FIGHT — DITCH THE ADS — READ THE NEWSFEED — FOLLOW ON X — GAB — GETTR — TRUTH SOCIAL