The Washington Post police shootings database as of January 4, 2016, indicated that on-duty police officers in the United States shot dead 91 unarmed persons in 2015: 31 whites, 37 blacks, 18 Hispanics, and 5 persons of another race or ethnicity. The database updates; the screen shot below is the data as of January 4, 2016.
The New York Times search engine restricted to dates in 2015 returned 1,281 hits for "unarmed black", 4 hits for "unarmed white", 0 hits for "unarmed Hispanic", and 0 hits for "unarmed Asian":
And yet the economic benefits of immigration may be the most settled fact in economics. A recent University of Chicago poll of leading economists could not find a single one who rejected the proposition.
For some reason, the New York Times online article did not link to that poll, so readers who do not trust the New York Times -- or readers who might be interested in characteristics of the poll, such as sample size, representativeness, and question wording -- must track down the poll themselves.
It appears that the poll cited by Adam Davidson is here and is limited to the aggregate effect of high-skilled immigrants:
The average US citizen would be better off if a larger number of highly educated foreign workers were legally allowed to immigrate to the US each year.
But concern about immigration is not limited to high-skilled immigrants and is not limited to the aggregate effect: a major concern is that low-skilled immigrants will have a negative effect on the poorest and most vulnerable Americans. There was a recent University of Chicago poll of leading economists on that concern, and that poll found more than a single economist to agree with that proposition; fifty percent, actually:
My comment at the New York Times summarizing this post, available after nine hours in moderation.
describes an experiment:
With more than 1,500 observations, the study uncovered substantial, statistically significant race discrimination. Bus drivers were twice as willing to let white testers ride free as black testers (72 percent versus 36 percent of the time). Bus drivers showed some relative favoritism toward testers who shared their own race, but even black drivers still favored white testers over black testers (allowing free rides 83 percent versus 68 percent of the time).
The title of Ayres' op-ed was: "When Whites Get a Free Pass: Research Shows White Privilege Is Real."
The op-ed linked to this study, by Redzo Mujcic and Paul Frijters, which summarized some of the study's results in the figure below:
The experiment involved members of four races, but the op-ed ignored results for Asians and Indians. I can't think of a good reason to ignore results for Asians and Indians, but it does make it easier for Ayres to claim that:
A field experiment about who gets free bus rides in Brisbane, a city on the eastern coast of Australia, shows that even today, whites get special privileges, particularly when other people aren't around to notice.
It would be nice if the blue, red, green, and orange bars in the figure were all the same height. But it would also be nice if the New York Times would at least acknowledge that there were four bars.
H/T Claire Lehmann
You might have seen a Tweet or Facebook post on a recent study about sex bias in teacher grading:
— Vanessa Bohns, PhD (@profbohns) February 8, 2015
Here is the relevant section from Claire Cain Miller's Upshot article in the New York Times describing the study's research design:
Beginning in 2002, the researchers studied three groups of Israeli students from sixth grade through the end of high school. The students were given two exams, one graded by outsiders who did not know their identities and another by teachers who knew their names.
In math, the girls outscored the boys in the exam graded anonymously, but the boys outscored the girls when graded by teachers who knew their names. The effect was not the same for tests on other subjects, like English and Hebrew. The researchers concluded that in math and science, the teachers overestimated the boys' abilities and underestimated the girls', and that this had long-term effects on students' attitudes toward the subjects.
The Upshot article does not mention that the study's first author had previously published another study using the same methodology, but with the other study finding a teacher grading bias against boys:
The evidence presented in this study confirms that the previous belief that schoolteachers have a grading bias against female students may indeed be incorrect. On the contrary: on the basis of a natural experiment that compared two evaluations of student performance–a blind score and a non-blind score–the difference estimated strongly suggests a bias against boys. The direction of the bias was replicated in all nine subjects of study, in humanities and science subjects alike, at various level of curriculum of study, among underperforming and best-performing students, in schools where girls outperform boys on average, and in schools where boys outperform girls on average (p. 2103).
This earlier study was not mentioned in the Upshot article and does not appear to have been mentioned in the New York Times ever. The Upshot article appeared in the print version of the New York Times, so it appears that Dr. Lavy has also conducted a natural experiment in media bias: report two studies with the same methodology but opposite conclusions, to test whether the New York Times will report on only the study that agrees with liberal sensibilities. That hypothesis has been confirmed.