But after the
Fourth Amendment was imposed on the states, the police were no longer permitted
to simply stop and search people at will.
So did drug arrests go down?
No. Arrests remained the same,
except that police could no longer write in their reports that they were
stopping people and searching them for no reason. So the percentage of reports where drugs magically
fell out of the defendants’ pockets instantly increased to 50 percent (from 14
percent), while the percentage of reports that admitted to actively searching
the suspects fell to 5 percent (from 33 percent).
Obviously, drugs didn’t
magically start falling out of suspects’ pockets at the very same time that it
became illegal for the police to stop and search people with no justification. What was happening was that the police
started lying. These lies are now widely
accepted as part of the criminal justice system. Judges routinely rubber-stamp the lies, and
the police even admit to telling the lies.
They’ve even coined a phrase for when they lie under oath: “testi-lying.”
Now let’s shift gears to
law schools. Consider the case of law
school bureaucrats that report the employment statistics of their school’s
graduates. These numbers are important
because if graduates are able to land jobs, the school’s ever-important US News
ranking will go up. (The US News ranking
is so important that law schools and colleges have been caught fabricating
numbers in order to boost their rank.) So in order to paint a rosy
picture of their graduates’ employment outcomes, some schools have categorized
a huge percentage of their unemployed graduates as not seeking
employment. In fact, 35 schools categorized more than
twice as many of their unemployed graduates as not seeking employment than seeking
employment.
There are two possible explanations
for this. One, the schools like to
categorize their unemployed graduates as not seeking employment because
that categorization doesn’t hurt the school’s US News ranking. Or two, it is possible that large numbers of
law school graduates truly decided they didn’t want to work at all, despite
their staggering debt loads and their desire to eat and pay their rent. So which answer is correct? Once again, a before-and-after statistical comparison is
helpful.
Let’s take the recent
point in time when the US News changed its ranking methodology and announced
that it would simply have one category—“unemployed”—regardless of
whether the unemployed graduates were seeking employment, or, as alleged by the
law schools, were sitting on their duffs, doing nothing, and refusing to look
for work. Once the US News made that
change, “the number of schools that reported having more than twice as many unemployed not-seeking graduates as unemployed-seeking fell from 35 to 4.”
Of course, just as drugs
didn’t magically start dropping out of defendants’ pockets, unemployed
graduates didn’t magically start looking for jobs only when the US News changed its ranking criteria. Further, I’ll bet that not a single
unemployed law school graduate even knew of, or cared about, this change in the
US News methodology. Law school
bureaucrats, on the other hand, both knew and cared. Obviously, what happened was that once the US News
changed its ranking criteria, law school bureaucrats had no incentive to
continue lying about their unemployed graduates’ desire (or lack of desire) to
seek work, as that particular lie no longer produced any benefit for the law
school.
Ahhh . . . statistics. Sometimes, the numbers reveal the truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment