Business…after much discussion, the piece on Roland Fryer will finally run. However, due to editorial issues, it won’t run on BV as I previously said. Instead, it will run here at Virtual Bomaniland.
Am I happy about that? Not at all, no. I’d like for this to be as widely read as possible.
That’s where you beautiful people come into play…

I’ll post the full text of the piece, which will be followed by a link to a PDF. Feel free to send this around if you dig it. In fact, if you dig it, I’m asking you to send the link around (please send the link, not just the text. That way, I know if it’s getting around). This is one of the rare times when I think something I wrote needs to get around, that the ideas presented have a place and have not been articulated in this fashion. So feel free to give this some burn, if you like.
And, as always, hit the comments.
The Strange Academic Future of Roland Fryer
By Bomani Jones
”Absolutely, there’s an insulation effect…There’s no question that working with Roland is somewhat liberating.”
Of the 5,687 words Stephen Dubner wrote on Harvard economist Roland Fryer in ‘The New York Times Magazine,’ these words he took from Ed Glaeser, Fryer’s colleague, are those that really matter. They dwarf Dubner’s attempt to make Fryer’s life an inspiring human interest story, one that bears stark similarity to childhoods of 50 Cent, James Brown, and Richard Pryor. Depending upon perspective, they either obscure or illuminate that Dubner’s only mentions of Fryer’s work are brief summaries better suited for press releases. Those words are why Fryer is important and why he has become one of the few black economists whose name is known by the general public.
From what is Fryer insulating white researchers? Many whites have many thoughts about black people that they would love to explore more deeply that they don’t express for fear of committing the taboo of sounding racist. Many blacks will correctly say that most things that sound racist truly are. All parties involved agree that blacks have more freedom to say such things; and when they speak, there will always be whites along for the ride. Having a black co-author would allow Glaeser—or any other white economist—to do research that implies that blacks, as a group, are genetically or culturally dysfunctional and that their poor labor market outcomes are the result of shortcomings thrust upon them by God or sinful negligence.
That Fryer may serve that role, one that allows intelligent but ignorant colleagues to live vicariously through him, is most relevant to the masses. Arguments about the strength of his research aren’t that important to non-academics, and it’s clear that his profile will be higher than many who are twice as accomplished and inarguably more talented. The uncommon level of fame that awaits him is undeniably a result of the circles in which he runs. The three black economists to achieve significant mainstream notoriety in the last quarter-century are Julianne Malveaux, Glenn Loury (one of Fryer’s mentors), and Walter Williams. Malveaux is known for her uncompromising candor and sound analysis, but Williams and Loury took a route steeped in self-loathing, reaffirming that the willingness to disparage black folks and minimize the role of discrimination can be lucrative in a politically correct universe.
So where does Fryer fit? In a conversation with me about a year ago, Fryer made it clear that he wants to help black people. But in the Times, Fryer says he wants to find “where blacks went wrong,” which sounds like the disparity between blacks and whites is to significantly be blamed on their conscious decisions. Perhaps that was just a poor choice of words, but the same statement from a white man would require…well, insulation.
Fryer surely does not want to be marginalized as a virtual asbestos shield to save his colleagues from the heat of controversy, nor should he be. No one that has met him questions the power of his mind and the creativity that resides within it (even though his interdisciplinary approaches are not as unique as Dubner would have one believe). But when one enters any game, he or she must recognize its rules and what strategies the other players are using.
Fryer could be commended for his willingness to explore ideas that make most blacks do double takes, but not understanding what role he plays in the grand scheme would be naïve. Even if scientific curiosity leads him to reexamine the antiquated idea that blacks’ salt sensitivity explains their greater likelihood to suffer hypertension—as opposed to this being explained by poor access to health care or the stress of dealing with all this racism—he must know what is implicitly stated by even picking up that can of worms, let alone opening it. He must see that even the slightest intimation that the state of black America is the result of cultural dysfunction will embed the notion that discrimination does not significantly explain blacks’ condition in the world today.
Before doing anything, people must consider two things—what their actions will be and how those actions will be used. Over the next couple of decades, it will be interesting to see what Roland Fryer will have to say and how he will express those thoughts. But the other side, how his words will be used to further other agenda, will have the most lasting impact. It’s inconclusive whether he really believes that blacks are to blame for the conditions that make their lives difficult. It’s undeniable that others will try to use Fryer’s talents and ancestry to further that belief.
No matter if he’s hip to the game or not, he’s knee-deep in it. That game is why his name is known. Regardless of whether he plays the game or the game plays him, he should be wary.
So should we.
Copyright 2005. All Rights Reserved by author. For permission to reprint or reproduce this piece, contact the author at Bomani@bomanijones.com. Any other questions or comments are welcome at the same address.
Click here to download a PDF of this piece. All rights reserved by the author.