chuckee

Unfortunately the metric it uses is whether they were ever incarcerated for any reason. Someone hostile to those results would probably dismiss them as due to police racism.

One could try to use homicide and victim surveys as a mostly objective proxy for all violent crime (very difficult and impossible, respectively, for racist police practices to affect), compare that to the violent crime rate of each racial group, and use any disparity to estimate how racist the police and justice system are being.

But then one would risk getting a result one doesn't like.

The Guardian view on surveillance: Big Brother is not the only watcher now - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/13/the-gu...

Welcome to London, the city that never sleeps because it’s too busy watching you. - https://www.inverse.com/article/22198-london-surveillance-th...

'We are hurtling towards a surveillance state’: the rise of facial recognition technology - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/oct/05/facial-re...

London’s police department said on Friday that it would begin using facial recognition to spot criminal suspects with video cameras as they walk the streets, adopting a level of surveillance that is rare outside China. - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/24/business/london-police-fa...

Britain is at risk of becoming a surveillance state more intrusive than the Oceania of George Orwell’s 1984, a government watchdog has warned. - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/surveillance-state-becomi...

For several years now, the British media have been telling us that theirs is a surveillance society. "It could be the 4 million closed-circuit television cameras, or maybe the spy drones hovering overhead, but one way or another Britons know they are being watched. All the time. Everywhere," Luke Baker wrote in a representative Reuters article published in 2007, going on to note that "Britain is now the most intensely monitored country in the world, according to surveillance experts, with 4.2 million CCTV cameras installed, equivalent to one for every 14 people." - https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/08/londo...

38% of Harvard's undergrads are white: https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/harvard-university/s...

And 10% of those are Jewish: https://www.hillel.org/college-guide/list/record/harvard-uni...

So Harvard is 28% non-Jewish white, compared to 59% of the US overall (And even that is too much, according to the Guardian. White people must be really dumb! Of course the Guardian didn't bother to include direct proof of this, such as, say, average SAT score of undergraduates by race). And 10% Jewish, compared to 2-2.4% of the US.

But the Guardian is more likely to report that until 43 years ago Harvard limited the number of Jewish students, rather than to honestly report on what the status is today:

How elite US schools give preference to wealthy and white 'legacy' applicants [..] Many institutions, including Harvard, used a discriminatory quota system to limit the number of Jewish students. - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/23/elite-school...

Immigrants needed to save west from crisis - Italy pays the price for a declining population, as the UN warns that worse is to come for developed world - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/mar/22/population.mic...

UK needs more immigrants to 'avoid Brexit catastrophe' - Ageing population, labour shortages and low productivity mean UK needs net inward migration of 200,000 a year, says thinktank - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/19/uk-needs-mor...

I imagine most people in the West would find sacrificing parenthood pointless. They have had sub-replacement fertility for about 50 years, yet their population somehow keeps growing. How can you then ask them to reduce their population even faster, and expect to be taken seriously?