on Hoover Institution biases article By Elizabeth Chait January 13, 2020 11:55:19When the Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times published an article about a conservative Hoover Institution scholar, it made a point to note that the scholar was white and he was a Democrat.
But that was not the case at all.
Hoover Institution professor and liberal activist Michael Eric Dyson, who has been described as the “most influential liberal thinker of his generation,” is also white.
In fact, he is one of a handful of white academics who have been named to the National Academy of Sciences in the past decade.
Dyson was born in a South Dakota farming community.
Dyson grew up in an environment that is not ethnically homogenous, which makes it particularly difficult to identify him as a liberal, or at least a liberal-leaning one.
This fact made him an easy target for a bias story that included this passage from a story:In a book, “The Rise of White Supremacy: The Politics of White Nationalism and Its Impact on America,” Dr. Michael Ericsson has written that white Americans’ embrace of racial nationalism has led to a surge in support for Donald Trump, who’s rhetoric has been characterized as a racist, and a “danger to American democracy.”
This is not the first time that the NYT has used Dyson’s race to draw attention to his politics.
A post from January 2017 described the scholar as a “rising star” at the Hoover Institution, which is the flagship of the John Hopkins University’s liberal think tank.
And in January, the NYT published a lengthy profile of Dyson titled “He Has the Voice.”
This piece was published after Dyson had been the recipient of several awards and accolades for his work at the university, including the National Endowment for the Humanities’ Lifetime Achievement Award in 2017.
According to the NYT article, Dyson has “become a frequent guest on radio shows and talk shows, and his work has appeared in national and international publications.”
But it is not Dyson who is the subject of the NYT story.
The NYT’s article on Dyson is a “fact check,” as David French, a professor of history at Johns Hopkins University, put it in a post on Medium.
While there is some truth to the premise that Dyson does not represent a liberal institution, Dorky does not have a “major” role at Johnsh Hopkins.
What the NYT does have is a story about a scholar who is not a scholar at Johnshawkes.
When the NYT published this piece, it made a “claim that he is a professor at JohnsH Hopkins and that he holds a research appointment at the institute.”
But as I wrote about last month, there is no evidence that Dorkys academic work has been directly or indirectly influenced by his work with the Hoover Institute.
He is not an expert on the Hoover School.
As a result, the fact that Dony has been the subject the NYT to this bias claim is problematic.
For example, the article cites an interview that D Tyson gave to the Washington Post, where he said that he “has no interest in political activism” and has “no political views at all.”
That is not true.
His position is one that is rooted in his work as a researcher and as a scholar.
So it is fair to point out that the Times is using Dyson to draw the attention of readers to the fact that he does not fit the profile of a liberal.
If you look at his actual academic work, it does not support this claim.
Let’s examine his research.
First, he was part of a team of researchers that examined the history of the Ku Klux Klan.
That study, which was funded by the U.S. government, concluded that the Klan was a fringe organization.
It also concluded that it did not engage in racist violence, although some members of the Klan did commit racist acts.
However, the study also concluded that KKK members were “anachronistic” and “marginalized,” and that the organization’s ideology was “not widely understood.”
Dyers work also examined the KKK’s efforts to get a statue in Memphis, Tennessee removed from a public park in the early 1900s.
After the Klan made a public push to have the statue removed, the city decided to not allow it to be removed, citing its history of violence and racial tension.
Because of this, the study concluded that there was no evidence the Klan had been involved in violence against black people in the 1960s or 1970s.
As I explained in my new book, The Rise of Blackness: Race, Politics and the American Republic , the KKK is a group that is “not easily lumped into the broad category of racist white supremacists