We have previously discussed how many professors seem to compete in finding new forms of racism in every facet of society and education. Astrophysics, math, runoffs, science, statistics, and meritocracy have all been denounced as racist. In this academic cottage industry, professors secure publications and speaking opportunities by identifying racism in expressions, images, or entire fields. Even time itself has been declared racist. Now, however, academics have found another undiscovered continent of white privilege: niceness.
When I saw a story in The College Fix on a study of “niceness as Whiteness,” I was skeptical and decided to take a look. The study by Vanderbilt Postdoctoral Research Fellow Abigail Beneke, Professors Benjamin Fisher (U. Wisconsin-Madison), F. Chris Curran (U. Florida), and Samantha Viano (George Mason) was first flagged by Dr. James Nuzzo.
The paper “Niceness as Whiteness in School Police Officers’ Perceptions of Student Arrest” addresses the “perceptions of arrest” by school resource officers, or SROs) in two school districts.
The officers appear to be precisely what you are looking for in an SRO: empathetic and reluctant to make arrests. The researchers admit that they try to avoid arrests. However, according to the authors, hidden behind those sympathetic approaches was, of course, a boiling caldron of racism in terms of the racial disparity of those arrested.
Indeed, the researchers realized that it was the niceness itself that was the evidence of oppressive “Whiteness.” Indeed, the officers may not want to be engines of racism and use “niceness” as a “coping mechanism,” but do so by deluding themselves and others that they are nice:
“Nice SROs did not want to arrest children. Nice police officers thought of themselves as well-meaning. Yet, they expressed being required to arrest children because of real or imagined mandates. They used niceness as a strategy for upholding a system of Whiteness that systematically privileges White people and excludes those who fall outside of Whiteness. Niceness hinders possibilities for the types of political, communal relationships central to authentic care.”
The paper makes it sound like everyone would be better off, or at least more honest, to return to hostile, racist-spewing officers. The reason is that niceness is an “enduring component of Whiteness” which “allows predominantly White people to elide how their own actions contribute to inequality by maintaining a sense of their own benevolence.”
The evidence of niceness includes such findings as how officers work at “minimiz[ing] the negative impact of arrest by highlighting their own goodness.” (This includes saying things like “You want to listen to the radio? You want the window down? Is there a station you want to listen to?” after an arrest.)
Then there is the fact that these officers have good relationships and perspectives of the students. Again, it is just a shield of “whiteness”:
“SROs used niceness as Whiteness in their recounts of arrest … by highlighting the positive relationships they had with students they arrested…As with highlighting their own goodness, highlighting these positive relationships reframes violence (i.e., arrest) that contributes to racial inequality as a positive, since students still like the SROs. This strategy emphasizes the officer’s ability to retain his niceness—by virtue of the maintained interpersonal relationship—despite having arrested the student.”
The paper is an example of ideological screeds posing as academic research. Based on a few interviews, the researchers simply declare the empathy and relationships to be shields perpetuating “whiteness.” They cite other studies identifying niceness as a whiteness tactic:
“Prior research has demonstrated how primarily White women educators use niceness to uphold Whiteness in their work with children (Bissonnette 2016; Drake & Rodriguez 2022; Gardiner et al., 2023; Vlach et al., 2022; Wiborg, 2022). We found niceness was also present in the work of SROs, suggesting the potential for broader application of niceness to well-intentioned actors working in structurally violent systems. In addition to framing niceness as a means of excusing behavior that upholds Whiteness, we equally center the structural binds that delimit SROs’ capacity for providing care. In doing so, we identify niceness as a coping mechanism for arresting children.”
At these universities (Vanderbilt, Wisconsin, George Mason, and the University of Florida), these faculty members and their obvious agenda are viewed as ideal choices to teach their students.
With four kids, I found the SROs at their schools to be extraordinary and popular figures. They would routinely intervene with kids to see if they were having trouble or try to direct them away from trouble. It turns out that everything that parents valued in their SROs was a perpetuation of privilege, according to these researchers.
While the researchers insist that “we do not intend to demonize individual SROs,” they reward the cooperating officers by twisting their every comment as revealing their deep white privilege. Presumably, they conveyed to the SROs that this would be a fair, unbiased study. It was neither, and, perhaps reaffirming their own triumph over racism, they were not a bit nice about it.
In Frank Herbert’s Dune there was a place that the Bene Gesserit Reverend Mothers dared not look. Only the Kwisatz Haderach Paul Atreides could look there. Whiteness dares not look at the at the SRO’s who are not “white” by skin tone. In the real world this Whiteness of niceness looks to make racist Roper v Simmons 543 U.S. 511(2005) when it holds that there shall not be the death penalty for children who commit crimes when under age 18.
I wonder how much money was wasted on this study. Only in academia.
I guess this means we can go back to being scurrilous scum, with bad manners, with a toothpick in our teeth, saying a few damns and sh-t, wearing food on our ties and scuffed up shoes. Thank god. It has become so burdensome carrying around this smiling happy face. I yearn for the days of curmudgeon hood and the life of Ebenezer Scrooge where I can squeeze the light of happiness out of the various poor souls who scurry about with the vapid smiles and niceness. Oh Liberation from niceness!
Wasted money? You and your ilk didn’t pay for it, so its none of your business. BTW there is a study about the internet habits of old males, no life, counting the days to the demise, no family, no friends, just wasting away on the internet. Sound familiar?
Yes, there’s also a study for worthless unproductive youngsters that live with their mothers, never achieved higher education, never had a girlfriend, and never accomplished anything of true significance in their lives. They seem to have found their life’s calling playing fortnight and halo while binge drinking Redbull.
It concludes that they dispose of their self loathing through spreading their self perceived infinite wisdom (s/) and internalized self hatred across Professor Turley’s blog.
You are Ground Zero!
“This project was supported by Award Nos. 2016-CK-BX-0017 and 2016-CK-BX-0020, awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.”
So it was paid for by all taxpayers. That probably includes GEB.
One more completely unnecessary government grant-funded waste-of-money “study”.
If it is none of GEB’s business, the why didnt they put their paper behind a paywall?
Funny, annony, you are here all day everyday. No life. No friends. Nearly totally dependent on your parents for everything. A failure to launch. How sad.
Have you seen the studies showing 77% of Gen Z takes their parents to job interviews with them? Or how many are still dependent on their parents to pay their bills? Or how managers at companies have fired recent grads within six months of hiring them?
I’ll own it. It’s too late to start anything new. I had an idea today of starting a solar cell washing service otoh.
Thanks anon, you ain’t white. 😂
GEB,
“I wonder how much money was wasted on this study. Only in academia.”
Yes! Only in academia indeed. All the more reason why higher education needs to be refocused, revamped to concentration on core studies and eliminate a lot of useless chaff.
But hey! I got good news for your GEB! Just the other day, some woman, while out for her morning run, said “good morning” to a guy and he got into his car and tried to run her over. Not once. Not twice. But three times! It was only when he hit another vehicle did he stop. Guess saying “good morning” to this guy set him off to attempt to stomp out, or run over, this blatant display of whiteness.
I wonder how Mr Rogers would fare in the brave new woke world of ours
Free at last! 😂
Asserts the blog’s Deceiver (in yet another lame attempt to correct JT and smear him):
“The authors are pointing out a *systemic* racist issue, not *individual* SRO’s racism.” (emphases added)
Anyone care to explain how you conclude: The barrel of apples is rotten — without looking at individual apples, and without implying that any individual apple is rotten.
Sam, maybe you can answer your question by actually reading the study itself. It’s obvious Turley did not actually read the study. He just got the ‘summary’ from the College Fix which also got the study’s conclusion wrong. Actually reading the study will show you it does not say what both Turley and the College Fix says it does.
Of what value was a study on this topic?
It helped me avoid boredom in dropping off my morning Obama.
It is the same value most studies offer. Even if they are obscure or odd or not “mainstream”. It adds the value of data.
“It adds the value of data.”
@GSX: Tell us what hard data the study provided. It did, but in the example I already provided you, their evidence showed that black homicide rates correlated with black arrests in the study.
LOL!! S. Meyer, you are hilarious. You did NOT read the study. It never mentions homicide rates or correlation to arrests. None. You did not point out exactly where in the study it’s mentioned or any evidence that it does. I’ve already shown data directly from the study in earlier posts. If you DID read the study you would know the data is accurate. It’s obvious you’re FOS. LOL!!
X, your reading comprehension is really lacking.
You did NOT read the study before posting your first criticism this morning,, and only after you were criticized for not reading it (see time stamps)
Look one step further than the AI quote you copied. The response tells why the person quoting it doesn’t understand statistics.
Homicide rates weren’t mentioned but are an important rebuttal to the sentence you thought was so important. Even when pointed out, you don’t recognize what you missed. That is how ignorant and laughable you are.
So X, yes or no…do you agree with the “study”? Or should I say does your AI agree with it?
Hullbobby, I agree with the study’s conclusions. Did you read it? Or are you just relying on Turley’s take? Because it’s obvious Turley didn’t read the study and relied on the College Fix’s flawed reading of the study.
X: “…it’s obvious Turley didn’t read the study and relied on the College Fix’s flawed reading of the study.”
Is that a declarative statement made without any evidentiary backup–(a criticism you routinely throw out at others)?
Did YOU read the entire study?
If so, you should have no problem specifically citing excerpts from the study that disprove or diminish Turley’s (and Dr. Nuzzo’s) general take. Please do us the honor of supporting your conclusion with excerpts from the study.
Otherwise, as commonly noted by others, yours is again a Nothingburger unsupported by academic, [sub]-academic, or even non-academic opinion of your own, and we will conclude as such. Thanks in advance.
Lin,
It is quite obvious, in his responses to OLLY, the slow and dumb one had to resort to using AI, and not very good AI at that.
Nothing worth reading. Just scroll past.
Upstate. It’s quite obvious nobody read the study. Including you.
@GSX: The Brooklyn Bridge is on sale; you are invited to participate in the bidding. The price starts at $1.00.
S. Meyer, as usual, you make zero sense. Did YOU read the study?
Do you want to buy the Brooklyn Bridge or not?
You are demonstrating how crazy you are.
Have you already placed your bid on the Brooklyn Bridge? What was it?
All you need to do is read the study. I find it fascinating how so many people take it for granted instead of actually reading it.
Turley implies the researchers are diagnosing a hidden, internal “boiling caldron of racism” inside individual empathetic officers.
That’s not what the study says. What it actually says,
“Here, we do not intend to demonize individual SROs, but to suggest that the structures of policing in which SROs operated prevented them from providing authentic care…”
He states that “the paper makes it sound like everyone would be better off, or at least more honest, to return to hostile, racist-spewing officers.”
The study says,
“…provide authentic care in other roles that did not position them to enact coercive power over students.”“…we encourage policymakers to resist [hiring more SROs] and instead invest in alternative responses for the problems SROs are in place to address.”
You should read the study itself. It will show you why Turley is wrong in his characterization.
@GSX: Bullsh1t accepts Bullsh1t.
Did you read the study S. Meyer? Can’t call BS without reading it first. Right?
Actually one can, but you are too ignorant to know that.
“the structures of policing in which SROs operated prevented them from providing authentic care…””
@GSX: What structures of policing did they suggest; Bullsh1t?
S. Meyer, it’s so obvious you have absolutely no understanding of what you’re getting yourself into. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. None. If you want to find out, perhaps you could….read the study. But I suspect you can’t because it’s beyond your reading level and and ability to cobble together some sort of comprehension. So your only option is to yell BS and hope it’s enough. You really don’t know what you are talking about or reading. It’s truly sad.
@GSX: Prove ir. You can’t. Why? Because you are a dummy. You listen to no one, not even to your posted AI responses.
S. Meyer, you have not shown anything, nothing providing any sense that you read the study. None. Here’s a challenge. I’ll post an excerpt from the study and YOU tell me in your own words what it is saying. Show me why it means what you think it means.
“Findings
In what follows, we present our findings. First, we demonstrate that SROs expressed that they avoid arrest when possible. Nevertheless, because of their roles as police officers in schools, there were instances when SROs described choosing to or being required to arrest children. When they recounted making arrests, we show how SROs used niceness as Whiteness to: (1) shed responsibility for making the arrest, (2) minimize the negative impact of arrest by highlighting their own goodness, and (3) point to positive relationships with children whom they had arrested.”
In case you have doubts, here’s the link to the study.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/08959048261448551#bibr80-08959048261448551
What comes after this, what is their recommendation for a change of course?
“I’ll post an excerpt from the study and YOU tell me in your own words what it is saying. Show me why it means what you think it means.”
Your problem is not whether I read the study or know what a particular study means; rather, you don’t know what the sentence you copy means. It is not the study that is being questioned; it is your intelligence.
X, your reading comprehension is really lacking.
You did NOT read the study before posting your first criticism, and after you received a criticism for not reading it
.
I read it. I know YOU didn’t.
the point, clown, which you missed due to lack of reading comprehension, is that ONLY AFTER YOU WERE CRITICIZED for not reading it before you started attacking, did you read it. you are truly dense.
I was not criticized for not reading it. I was the one pointing out first that everyone else didn’t read it. Only AFTER I started pointing out others have not read that you claim I was “criticized”. Like S. Meyer you’re FOS.
I know you are trying to muddy the waters by claiming something that did not occur. You still didn’t read it. I know you won’t because you don’t care. You just want to join in on the fun bashing the authors based on Turley’s false characterization of their study.
I was just doing a comparison of Turleys claims about the study and what the study actually said. Turns out Turley is being intellectually dishonest and you’re just here to join in on the ‘fun’ of spreading it.
“Turley did not actually read the study.”
Your AI responses didn’t read the study, and when it read the online abstracts, it didn’t compare the hard data to what is seen in other areas. You are a fool trying to present yourself as knowledgeable and accusing others of not reading the article, which you couldn’t comprehend and dissect even if the article was in large print.
S. Meyer, with every response you make it more and more obvious you did not read a damn thing. You STILL have not provided any evidence that you have by citing data or anything related to the study itself that you understand.
Blaming AI for providing me with the actual study and it’s entire contents for me to read is not an excuse for the obvious fact you did not read the study.
Show me any section of it and tell me exactly what it means in your own words what it means and why you disagree with it. Prove to me you have read it and why the specific claims you read you disagree with. Go ahead. I’ve got all day. I know you won’t be able to do it because you’re FOS.
X’s response to S. Meyer is PRECISELY the same criticism that was sent to X earlier today, so funny. Copycatter, lifter, no original thoughts or arguments, X has no brain, which is why people think he is an AI Bot. I think he is just an old, sour grapes nobody who wants to criticize Turley every day for some unknown reason.
Turley’s articles, opinions, accusations, etc. are fair game. Just as mine and yours are. Pretty simple. I’m shocked you have not grasped that concept still.
what is that “concept,” X?
I am not obligated to provide data to prove I have or haven’t read the study. I showed that your quotes were inadequate to show the article was worthwhile to read. You said you read the article, but you inappropriately used AI and couldn’t understand how your input shaped AI’s answers. That makes you look even more foolish.
Sam,
That would require critical thinking.
Critical thinking requires that you read the actual study. Which is what I did. Did you?
Liar.
Did YOU read it? I know you didn’t.
You know I didn’t read it, but you say you did, yet I know more about the study than you. You are worthless.
I suppose laughing at their ridiculous analysis is also racist?
Yes, you racist.
I was right! Is being right also racist?
Only if you’re white.
This is what happens when ideology goes looking for evidence instead of the other way around. Start with a boogeyman, “Whiteness,” and work backwards until every behavior confirms it. Harsh officer? Racism. Kind officer who builds real relationships and keeps kids out of the system? Also racism, just better disguised. When your theory explains everything, it explains nothing. That’s a tautology with a grant attached.
Notice the language too. Not a “gap” in arrest rates, a “disparity.” That word smuggles in the verdict before any evidence gets examined.
Here’s what nobody wants to touch: kids are formed. Individual, family, neighborhood, community. That deserves real study on its own terms.
But which academic builds a career asking what these kids are actually being raised to value, and by whom? Do that honestly and you’re one headline away from “white supremacist.” So the incentive isn’t finding the truth. It’s finding the version that keeps you employed.
What BS.
Olly, that is not what the study says. At all. You should read the study. Turley provided the hyperlink.
You assume the study is evaluating the moral purity or hidden malice of the officers. The study explicitly does the opposite: it states that the officers are genuinely well-intentioned and personally dislike making arrests. The study defines “niceness” not as a malicious disguise, but as a psychological coping mechanism that allows good people to perform harmful systemic tasks (like arresting children) without feeling like bad people. It says nothing about “niceness” as maliciously hiding behind “white privilege”. That’s not what the study is saying at all.
You assert that using the word “disparity” instead of “gap” “smuggles in the verdict before any evidence gets examined.”
In statistics and sociology, “disparity” is the standard, neutral term for a noticeable and disproportionate difference between two groups. The authors did not “smuggle in” a verdict; they provided the raw evidence. For example, in one of the studied districts, Black students made up only 17% of the student body but accounted for 47% of all school arrests. Pointing out that a group is arrested at nearly three times its population rate is a mathematical disparity, not an ideological assumption.
You say the study is a tautology because whether an officer is harsh or kind, the conclusion is always “racism.”. No.
The study is highly specific and does not claim all interactions are racist. It focuses strictly on a narrow paradox: how can a school district have officers who universally describe themselves as compassionate, yet the district still produces highly unequal racial arrest rates?. The authors look at “niceness” specifically to explain this gap between an individual’s good intentions and the system’s bad outcomes.
Turley is making the study out to be something that the study clearly is not saying. You’re being misled by either Turley’s laziness or intentionally fabrication of what the study is about.
Perhaps the arrest rate has nothing whatever to do with the arresting officer but rather the failure of the arrestees to conform to social norms.
Notice what you didn’t touch. You corrected me on “disguise” versus “coping mechanism,” fine, and you corrected me on the word “disparity,” fine. Small stuff. But you went nowhere near the actual argument.
You didn’t address the tautology. A theory that treats kindness as evidence of Whiteness and would treat harshness as evidence of Whiteness too has no outcome that could ever disprove it. That’s not me editorializing, that’s just what the paper’s own quotes show. Say something about that instead of dodging to vocabulary.
You didn’t address formation. Individual, family, neighborhood, community, that’s the actual causal chain behind youth behavior, and the study never engages it at all. It jumps straight from “arrest gap exists” to “Whiteness” without ruling out a single competing explanation. Explain why that’s not a gap in the research.
And you definitely didn’t address the reason nobody studies formation honestly. Because the researcher who goes looking for answers outside the approved framework risks their career over it. You picked off two word choices and called it a rebuttal. Come back when you’ve got something for the actual argument.
Olly,
The core issue is that you are evaluating a sociological study of an institution using the rules of a clinical study of individual behavior.
The paper is not a tautology, nor is it a failed attempt to explain student behavior. It is an analysis of how systems handle a specific outcome. Here is the direct answer to your two core arguments.
Your argument is that whether an SRO is harsh or kind, the conclusion is always “Whiteness,” making the theory unfalsifiable. This is a misreading of how the authors’ framework operates.
You say the theory of “Niceness as Whiteness” would be disproved if SRO kindness and interpersonal bonds resulted in equitable disciplinary outcomes.
The study was initiated precisely because the data presented a contradiction: SROs universally reported using empathy, de-escalation, and a desire to keep kids out of the system. Yet, the hard data showed that Black students were still arrested at 3 to 4 times the rate of White students in those exact same schools.
“Niceness” isn’t labeled problematic because it is inherently bad. It is analyzed because it coexists with racially disparate policing outcomes. If an officer’s kindness successfully dismantled the arrest gap, the authors’ thesis would fall apart. It is the failure of individual kindness to change systemic numbers that the paper is investigating.
You argue that the study is flawed because it fails to evaluate student “formation” (family, neighborhood, culture) as the root cause of the arrest gap.
A study analyzing why an engine overheats does not need to explain how the roads were built. Criminologists and sociologists already heavily study youth formation, poverty, and community structures. This specific paper, however, is a case study of institutional actors (SROs), not a longitudinal study of youth psychology.
The reason the authors look at the institution rather than student “formation” is because decades of existing empirical data show that student behavior alone does not explain discipline gaps. Extensive research (such as studies by Skiba, Losen, and the Department of Education) shows that when Black and White students commit the exact same infractions—with the exact same “formation”—Black students are statistically far more likely to be referred to police or arrested, rather than given detention or a warning.
Because the behavior is often identical but the punishments differ, the causal chain lies in institutional discretion, not student upbringing. The authors are studying the person holding the handcuffs, not the child wearing them.
You claim researchers only use this framework to keep their jobs. In reality, evaluating institutions by their measurable outputs rather than the good intentions of their employees is standard practice across every professional field.
If a hospital has incredibly kind, well-meaning doctors, but a specific demographic of patients is dying at three times the rate of everyone else, an auditor doesn’t look at the doctors’ pleasant bedside manner and declare the job done. They look at the systemic processes causing the disparity. That is what this study is doing with school policing.
“Yet, the hard data showed that Black students were still arrested at 3 to 4 times the rate of White students in those exact same schools.”
@GSX: That parallels the proportional breakdown of homicide arrests. Do you know how to read a study? Does your AI know how to read a study to obtain a valid answer?
SM, here’s the actual order of operations that should be happening, and isn’t. Gather the hard data first. Then theorize possible root causes, plural, not just one. Then run further evidence gathering studies designed to test those competing theories against each other. Only after that do you get to a conclusive root cause, or more likely, a mix of them.
What this study does instead runs backward. The conclusion, niceness as Whiteness, comes first, stated right in the methods section before a single finding is reported. Then the hard data, officer interviews, gets read through that already chosen conclusion and reported as support for it. That’s not root cause analysis. That’s working backward from an answer and calling the trip a discovery.
The data is real. The gap is real. But real data still needs an honest process to find out why, and this isn’t that process.
Olly, before reading a scientific study and gathering the hard data, as I did with this article, I look for a few things including confirmation bias and the selection process. This article failed both based on GSX’s AI responses.
SM, X comments that “you didn’t even read the study,” as if that’s a valid rebuttal. What he’s not saying is “you didn’t come to the same conclusion I did.” That would be a more intellectually honest starting point. This is a closed-loop study using circular logic to draw its conclusion, one where niceness confirms the framework and, by the study’s own logic, harshness would too. No outcome was ever available to disprove it.
Saying “you didn’t come to the same conclusion I did” implies this is just a subjective matter of opinion. It isn’t.
Dismissing the study as a “closed loop” allows you to completely ignore the hard data the researchers were trying to explain—such as one district having a student body that was 17% Black but an arrest rate that was 47% Black.
The authors used a standard qualitative framework to explain how good intentions coexist with bad systemic outcomes. Rejecting their conclusion without offering an alternative explanation for that mathematical disparity isn’t an “intellectually honest starting point”—it is just an ideological rejection of the numbers.
What is interesting is I have been citing from the study while S. Meyer has just been shooting his mouth off and reciting my citations as if he knows what they mean.
It’s is patently obvious most here did not care for or made any effort to really read the study in its entirety. S. Meyer resorts to insults and accusations when he knows he cannot support his claims or discuss with actual substance in mind.
X, a few things.
First, alternative explanations have been offered in this thread. More than once. Different enforcement, different referral patterns, and how these kids are formed, family, neighborhood, community, long before any officer ever shows up. You don’t have to buy any of them. But saying nobody offered one just isn’t true.
Second, nobody’s ignoring the 17 to 47 number. It’s real and it needs an answer. The disagreement was never about whether the gap exists. It’s about whether “niceness as Whiteness” is actually what explains it, or just the answer the study showed up already believing. Calling it a closed loop isn’t dodging the math. It’s describing exactly what they did with it. Take the framework as a given, then read every interview through that lens.
Third, you say this isn’t a matter of opinion, and you’re right, it shouldn’t be. So answer this straight. What would an officer have had to say for the study to conclude the framework was wrong? If the honest answer is nothing, if being nice confirms it and being harsh would confirm it too, then this was never a fair test to begin with. That’s not me being ideological about your numbers. That’s just pointing out the study was rigged before it started.
And honestly, I’ll take you at your word that you actually read the whole thing, since you keep insisting the rest of us didn’t. That’s not the flex you think it is. It means you read a study built so no answer could ever count against it, and walked away calling it good work anyway. That’s not more credible. It’s more embarrassing.
“What is interesting is I have been citing from the study while S. Meyer has just been shooting his mouth off and reciting my citations”
No, you have been asking AI a set of loaded questions, and AI responded. It didn’t do comparative analysis or mention the results. That is why your rhetoric sounds stupid.
S. Meyer, you didn’t read squat. You look for a few words and make up your mind without any context or substance. You’re FOS.
All this time and you have provided zero citations of what you’re seeing as confirmation bias. You’re just saying it and hope nobody challenges you on your assertion. We all know you’re FOS.
OK, GSX, quote paragraphs 12 and 19-20 and tell us how the study was broken up.
I saw your response again and want to agree with you. The article started with the conclusion and worked backward. The writers were either very young or poor researchers.
S. Meyer. The study has nothing to do with homicide arrests. It says nothing of a correlation. Not one thing. You’re adding stuff irrelevant to the issue and the study’s scope.
You’re making it abundantly clear that you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about or what you’re trying to argue.
Read the study man. Just read it and show us you finally understand.
OLLY,
Dont bother engaging with the slow and dumb one. After having to resort to two words, the slow and dumb one had to resort to using AI and using bold as a rebuttal.
Upstatefarmer, you and Olly can’t refute what I posted because it’s factually correct. Nobody has said what I posted is incorrect.
Use those critical thinking skills, put them to good use instead of reflexively going for the ignorant route.
“Nobody has said what I posted is incorrect.”
@GSX: I did.
No you didn’t. You simply hurled insults and made nonsensical claims. You didn’t show how I was incorrect.
Go read my responses. Comprehension problems?
OLLY,
Is that not what these so-called studies are for?
They do not like something like, grades, tests, meritocracy, etc. so they declare it racist and then make up a bunch of mental gymnastics academia mumbo jumbo to defend their absurd conclusions.
A study like you suggest? Oh, boy. That could open a whole can of worms.
And if the study focused on only successful students/adults from differing races? And what made them successful?
Oh, boy.
Upstate, that’s actually the study nobody wants to fund. Not “why are outcomes unequal” but “what did the kids who succeeded, across every background, actually have in common, at home, in their formation, in what was expected of them.” That’s a testable question with a real answer sitting somewhere in the data. But it doesn’t hand you a villain, no system to indict, no framework with a name like “niceness as Whiteness.” Just individual and family factors that don’t fit neatly into an ideology. That’s probably exactly why it doesn’t get written.
This race to racism was to be expected. These so-called academics are merely career building. The editors of the journals are frightened to reject their papers, even if the referees see nothing publishable. The referees are frightened to be critical. Both fear being called racist.
Just fifty years ago, every college just had to have gender studies and black studies department. No jobs resulted.
This game is not new. Recall Stalin declared biologist Trofim Lysenko’s doctrines as absolute state-enforced dogma, making him immune to scientific criticism. This set back genetics in the USSR for decades. Of course, the Catholic church declared the heliocentric models of the solar system were wrong. Many were punished, including Galileo, for supporting it.
It’s the same old playbook. We have the power and we will use it against violators of our precepts. But the niceness from whiteness may be the bridge too far – and just could backfire.
Leave it to professor Turley to put things out of context and use this as a vehicle to incite rage on those less likely to actually read the study and understand it is not saying what Turley says it does.
I find it amusing, almost entertaining, to watch readers go off on wild speculation ‘rage’ by the idea falsely portrayed by the professor. The actual study says nothing of what the professor is claiming is says. It’s not even close.
He claims the researchers believe that hidden behind the officers’ sympathetic approaches is a “boiling caldron of racism.” No. That is not what the study is saying at all.
The study explicitly states, “Here, we do not intend to demonize individual SROs…“. The authors of the study focus on institutional outcomes, not personal hatred. They argue that even when an individual officer is genuinely kind, the systemic data shows that Black students are arrested at 3 to 4 times the rate of White students. The study notes that even SROs of color</b? used these justifications, proving the paper is critical an institutional framework, not an individual’s internal racial animus.
There’s a reason why universities are places where the free exchange of ideas occurs, but Turley seems to go looking for articles to manipulate into rage-bait for his readers so he can sell his book. Smarter people do notice and that is why it seems he caters to lower IQ folks or the intellectually lazy.
For example: Turley asserts that “the paper makes it sound like everyone would be better off, or at least more honest, to return to hostile, racist-spewing officers.”
The study makes no such claim, at all. The study never suggests or implies that hostile policing is a preferred alternative. Instead, the authors’ actual policy conclusion is divestment from school policing entirely. They argue that the skills these “nice” SROs possess (mentoring, de-escalation) would be highly valuable if repurposed into non-coercive school roles—such as counselors or social workers—who lack the legal power to arrest children.
He’s completely detached from the study’s actual conclusion. He argues that the researchers view an officer’s empathy as a calculated “shield” or deceptive tactic used to perpetuate white privilege.. It says no such thing.
The authors explicitly label niceness as a psychological “coping mechanism” for officers caught in a institutional bind. The study frames SROs as well-meaning individuals who personally dislike arresting kids, but are legally or institutionally required to do so. The “niceness” is analyzed as a way for the officer to emotionally manage the discomfort of doing something harmful to a child, which unintentionally obscures the severe, long-term life consequences of juvenile arrest records.
Turley’s portrayal of the study has nothing to do with white officers exercising “white privilege”. Turley never mentions the fact the study includes both white and black SRO’s. This was a study about disparate arrests between affluent conservative school districts and metropolitan ethnically mixed school districts. It’s about a systemic issue that the data shows is an ongoing problem. Not what Turley is saying.
Leave it to George X to put things out of context and use this as a diatribe of his inability to understand …more George cra_p.
LOL! You barely understand anything. Did you read the study? I bet you didn’t.
I suggest the authors using “Niceness as Whiteness…” in the title of their article were looking for a headline, and they got one. It was bound to be misinterpreted, misconstrued, and about everything else, notably that whites are the causative factor in everything bad in society today.
“I find it amusing..”
One of the earliest copycatted tactics that george/X picked up and started using himself. Gawd, hope he is not getting paid for his copycatted words.
If any other organization’s sole purpose was to support hate and division, the entire country would ridicule and banish them ie the KKK. In the case of the country’s “higher education,” we subsidize them!
time to END Federal Aid to colleges and states to fund college. They HATE US!
Us? No YOU. No one wants to be associated with stupid ignorant anonymous fools… YOU!
These people might as well wear a sign that says “Yes a moron can get a PHD!” I wonder if they have any idea that the majority of people laugh at their article?
The majority of the people, including YOU did not read their article or more accurately their study. Because you and a majority of the people have no idea how to read for comprehension. Much less understand what the point is.
I read this article twice, trying to wrap my head around the “concepts” the so called researchers are putting forth. Now I feel like I fell down the rabbit hole with Alice. So, in the world they envision, if an SRO is a minority, and he’s arrested a student, and he tries to make the kid comfortable, he’s being “White” and “Racist” ???? Does this theory only apply where someone is holding power over the other? If I see an older black gentleman struggling to carry something and I offer to help, am I being racist? It’s going to take me all day to bring my brain back to reality because this makes no sense at all, unless the true goal is to divide us all, make each of us suspicious of every one’s intentions. ‘Feels like some sort of commie strategy to me.
Mojaverose22, that’s not what the article said. Perhaps you should read it more carefully. It is not talking about the officer’s specifically. It’s talking about a systemic issue. The study includes. SRO’s that are both white and black. It’s about the disparate arrests of black kids and white kids and the officers having to abide by mandates and legal requirements that force them to do things they don’t really want to do like arrest kids. Turley is completely mischaracterizing the study.
The authors are pointing out a systemic racist issue, not individual SRO’s racism.
George, so you’re interpreting Turley’s words. You inability to think is obvious, preferring to play childish words games. Listen, you have no expertise in anything, Turley has an abundance of credibility, legal knowledge etc… You? Just a common idiot.
I’m comparing Turley’s claims against the actual study.
Reading the study and reading Turley’s take on what the study actually said makes it obvious that either he didn’t read it or relied exclusively on the College Fix’s flawed reading of the study.
Turley may be a college professor and an ‘esteemed scholar’, but that doesn’t mean can be lazy and sloppy. In this case he clearly is. Read the study.
When you think the left can’t get any more racist, they unleash another “study.”
“. . . finding new forms of racism in every facet of society and education.”
And yet the one place with rampant racism, they can’t find: In the mirror.
Sonic BOOM Sam!
Well done!
Elegant!
An elegant example of ignorance.
Sam,
Good one!
“Niceness hinders possibilities for the types of political, communal relationships central to authentic care.”
What a stupid sentence. I prescribe a few hours of cop cam videos on YouTube. They’re an effective antidote to MSM race propaganda.
Separately, it’s worth noting that one tiny tribe positively revels in its reputation for anti-social behavior — toward outgroups, of course. They’re very influential.
When you hear a person say that Niceness is Whiteness, the first question you should ask yourself is this: Why are you paying any attention to that person?
Stupid comemnt.
As expected, you continue to use your favorite word “Stupid”. Look in the mirror to find the problem.
Quiet Neville.
Stephen B. Benisch, Esq.,
Exactly!
You hear the village idiot once. No need to hear him a second time.
So what does he propose? All white people kill themselves? Including the liberal trolls on this site.
The only privilege edge I see is money. Do I have more privilege than Oprah, Spike Lee, Barrack and Michelle Obama or most any pro athlete? No.
Top 10 Richest Blacks In America 2026 (Black Billionaires)
https://nubiapage.com/top-10-black-billionaires-in-america-2020-richest-black-man/
Top 10 Richest Black People In America 2026
1. Robert F. Smith Net worth: $5B
2. David Steward Net worth: $3.9B
3. Oprah Winfrey Net worth: $2.7B
4. Michael Jordan $3 billion
5. Jay-Z Net worth $2.5 B
6. Rihanna Net worth: $1.4 billion
7. Tyler Perry $1 billion
8. P Diddy Net worth: $850 Million
9.. Sheila Johnson Net worth: $820 million
10. Dr Dre Net worth: $800 million
Those poor people they never had a chance in American because they are black!
Just imagine how much wealthier they’d be if the racist white Americans were not keeping them down!
I guess the only way to avoid the Charge of racist cops, besides putting NPR on the radio, is don’t arrest that kid for fighting, robbery or murder.
Long time ago, but in my school we didn’t waste money on that crap. We just bullied each other. Saved money and probably worked as well. But we weren’t ‘diverse’ and that almost certainly worked to our advantage.
Nuts
Some folks just need to grow up. Let me guess, next thing (white snow) will be racist.
It is racist you jerk.
Only you losers.
DustOff,
Just look how well Disney’s recent, live action, Snow White worked out for them in their attempt to be woke, all inclusive, non-racist. All to the sum of a $170 million loss, according to Forbes.
Come On Man – it’s been the LAW OF THE JUNGLE since the demise of Saint George Floyd! When WHITEY snuffed out all that was good in St George Floyd it was time to Burn & Pillage to get restitution for 1000 years of bondage! We never left that cycle and but this brief 4 year hiatus because of Orange Man Bad is just a temporary setback and once the DSA and President AOC get hold of the system’s gonads’ Restitution will be JOB #1. Know what I mean Man!!!