Please see the evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_La_Vigne - Nancy LaVigne was the head of the institute where the article in question was drafted. Nancy La Vigne is a criminologist who is the Dean of the Rutgers School of Criminal Justice. In 1991, she received her M.P.A. at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin. In 1996, she received her Ph.D. in criminal justice at Rutgers. Her writings include "fostering a more equitable justice system." She "outlined four best practices for encouraging inclusive terminology: be aware, reduce stigma, consider the whole person, and respect preference." Equitable, inclusive, reduce stigma, respect preference - all liberal-leftist buzzwords and phrases. It appears that her biases could have easily slanted the statistics in the study that the current administration deleted. Fr. Gregory, I'm surprised that you didn't do this research yourself before posting an open-ended questioning of the reasons for the study's deletion.
Besides what I presume is your ideological disagreement with LaVigne, do you have any concrete reason to suggest the report is biased? As I said below, a charge of bias needs evidence. Specifically, evidence that the data are false. You could also argue that the report misconstrues the data.
I went back and double-checked the report. LaVigne isn't listed as a contributor. As director of research at the NIJ, it is likely she had no direct involvement in the report. So, even assuming her politics were germane, she would need to have had hands on involvement with the report.
Forgive me, but both this and the comment below are examples of the logical fallacy "guilt by association."
And, for the record, a Wikipedia link is not evidence.
A charge of bias by the previous administration needs evidence. Pulling the study without explanation reflects poorly on the current administration. This isn't directed at you, it has become all too common in America politics and public discourse to raise the possibility of wrong doing without an offer of proof. Usually, the justification for this is something along the lines of "I'm just asking questions." Doing this, however, doesn't clarify the situation. If anything, it muddies the waters and undermines public trust. There is no virtue in making open-ended statements or asking open-ended questions. Doing so is propaganda or sophistry; it undermines our confidence in our ability to know and express the truth.
Please see the evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_La_Vigne - Nancy LaVigne was the head of the institute where the article in question was drafted. Nancy La Vigne is a criminologist who is the Dean of the Rutgers School of Criminal Justice. In 1991, she received her M.P.A. at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin. In 1996, she received her Ph.D. in criminal justice at Rutgers. Her writings include "fostering a more equitable justice system." She "outlined four best practices for encouraging inclusive terminology: be aware, reduce stigma, consider the whole person, and respect preference." Equitable, inclusive, reduce stigma, respect preference - all liberal-leftist buzzwords and phrases. It appears that her biases could have easily slanted the statistics in the study that the current administration deleted. Fr. Gregory, I'm surprised that you didn't do this research yourself before posting an open-ended questioning of the reasons for the study's deletion.
Besides what I presume is your ideological disagreement with LaVigne, do you have any concrete reason to suggest the report is biased? As I said below, a charge of bias needs evidence. Specifically, evidence that the data are false. You could also argue that the report misconstrues the data.
I went back and double-checked the report. LaVigne isn't listed as a contributor. As director of research at the NIJ, it is likely she had no direct involvement in the report. So, even assuming her politics were germane, she would need to have had hands on involvement with the report.
Forgive me, but both this and the comment below are examples of the logical fallacy "guilt by association."
And, for the record, a Wikipedia link is not evidence.
Perhaps the politcal bais of the study from the previous administration muddy the study.
A charge of bias by the previous administration needs evidence. Pulling the study without explanation reflects poorly on the current administration. This isn't directed at you, it has become all too common in America politics and public discourse to raise the possibility of wrong doing without an offer of proof. Usually, the justification for this is something along the lines of "I'm just asking questions." Doing this, however, doesn't clarify the situation. If anything, it muddies the waters and undermines public trust. There is no virtue in making open-ended statements or asking open-ended questions. Doing so is propaganda or sophistry; it undermines our confidence in our ability to know and express the truth.