City Journal Audio: "Re-Grounding Criminology in Reality"
Date: March 7, 2025
Host: Hannah Myers, Director of Policing and Public Safety, Manhattan Institute
Panelists:
- Anthony Braga, Jerry Lee Professor of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania
- John MacDonald, Professor of Criminology and Sociology, University of Pennsylvania
- David Weisburd, Distinguished Professor of Criminology, George Mason University & Hebrew University
Episode Overview
This episode addresses the increasing ideological drift within the field of criminology and its growing distance from empirical, evidence-based study. The three distinguished panelists critically dissect how ideological narratives—particularly around race, procedural justice, and identity—have begun to overshadow scientific rigor in criminology’s research, funding, publishing, and public policy influence. The conversation is both a diagnosis of the field’s current afflictions and a call to return to reality-based practice, in line with the legacy of the late George Kellinger.
Key Discussion Points & Insights
1. The Ideological Drift in Criminology
[00:16-08:10]
- Host (Hannah Myers) introduces the topic, emphasizing the discomfort in confronting realities of crime and punishment and the danger of allowing ideology to erode scientific standards.
- John MacDonald explains how the distinction between disparity (unequal outcomes) and discrimination (unjust treatment) is being lost. Media and academic narratives increasingly conflate the two, undermining nuanced policy discussions.
- Quote (John): “You can't expect that, you know, outcomes in the criminal justice system are going to look like a random sample of the population. ...you should be thinking about what the right benchmark is for any decision disparity.” [06:55]
2. The Effect on Police Collaboration and Data Integrity
[08:10-13:52]
- Anthony Braga discusses the growing negative scrutiny toward researchers working with police departments, citing the University of Chicago Crime Lab as an example.
- Quote (Anthony): “...I've had colleagues politely challenge me on using...biased police data...When I say, well, what do you mean by bias? They say, well, it comes from a police department and they have racial disparities. So of course the data's gonna lead you in the wrong direction.” [10:32]
- John & David defend police data, explaining that multiple independent datasets (calls for service, ambulance pickups, etc.) converge, and that citizen-initiated data makes up the bulk of relevant calls.
- Quote (David): “There are two types of calls. One is citizen initiated, the other is police initiated. …Police initiated calls make up between 20 and 12%, depending on the department...Almost none of them were for violence or drugs. So this idea, something that the police are ratcheting up the data is just wrong. But it fits the ideological argument that people want to have.” [12:57]
3. Procedural Justice vs. Crime Control
[13:53-16:05]
- David Weisburd describes a paradigm shift: Instead of seeing procedural justice as a means to the end of crime control, some academics now treat it as the end itself. He advocates that police must foremost control crime, and procedural justice is the expected standard of how they do it, not their primary function.
- Quote (David): “Procedural justice is not what we hired them for. We hired them for carrying out crime control, safety, all kinds of tasks in the city. And we expect them in a democratic society to do that in procedurally just ways. And I think turning that argument around like that is a disservice.” [15:23]
4. Ideology in Funding and Peer Review
[16:05-26:31]
- David recounts receiving ideologically loaded reviews for a National Science Foundation (NSF) grant. His proposed research on crime concentration was criticized because of assumptions about police brutality embedded in the review—despite the project not being about police tactics.
- Memorable Quote: “But they also clearly know, as respected voices in the discipline, that when police, police black communities, they exhibit brutality, savagery and discrimination...So while hotspots policing research may enhance those researchers’ careers...it is important for them to look into whether their research findings...have been applied in an ethical and procedurally just manner.” (NSF reviewer, paraphrased by David) [16:38]
- Anthony, John, David all highlight how grant calls increasingly exclude police-involved projects and require applicant teams to describe identity diversity, moving beyond scientific merit.
- Quote (Anthony): “I said, okay, perfect for the solicitation. Get into the details...We will not fund any programs that involve the police.” [20:49]
5. Professional Risks for Non-Ideological Scholars
[22:50-27:15]
- Younger scholars risk career stagnation or rejection if they don’t conform to dominant ideological trends. Peer review, hiring, and publishing are all affected.
- Quote (Anthony): “If they aren’t able to place their work in high quality scientific journals because of peer reviewers...for ideological reasons rather than methodological ones, is a really big problem.” [24:11]
- Critical criminology (ideological) positions are increasingly favored in job ads, placing scientific, evidence-focused scholars at a disadvantage.
6. Mission Creep in Professional Organizations
[27:15-33:09]
- John & David critique the American Society of Criminology’s newsletter for promoting polemical essays irrelevant to the field, specifically conflating unrelated political issues (such as U.S. racial justice, Israel/Palestine, etc.).
- Quote (John): “Academic societies...are not supposed to be the critic, it's supposed to be the place for critics. And so, so when it becomes a critic, then you start thinking, all right, this now become a political organization. This isn't really a scholarly organization anymore.” [28:12]
7. Diversity Versus Qualifications in Hiring
[33:09-38:33]
- David gives examples of job advertisements placing diversity requirements above scientific qualifications, leading to exclusion of top candidates (such as his student) due to their policing research interests.
- Quote (David): “All decent people will agree about the importance of having diversity...But when you put a half page like that at the beginning...it says, this for us is the key issue.” [34:04]
8. Academics Leaving or Avoiding the Field
[36:12-38:33]
- Some young scholars now avoid academia, or leave for institutions that value evidence-based research. The shift discourages engagement in policing or criminal offending research.
9. Policy-Making and Media
[39:34-46:37]
- Policymakers increasingly prefer research that supports their chosen narratives, sometimes funding or publicizing “research” that omits critical outcome measures.
- David laments the minimal funding for policing research compared to health research and illustrates how critical evidence is dismissed if it doesn’t fit a prevailing story.
- Quote (David): “Our job is to tell the truth. Sometimes the truth, sometimes what your data show and not what you would want...But that's your job. Our job, tell the truth.” [40:08]
- Anthony gives the example of recidivism research ignored by policymakers and local media because it contradicted a favored “raise the age” reform narrative.
10. Academia Versus Public Opinion and Peer Review Reform
[47:57-52:34]
- Audience Q: Why is academia so disconnected from public safety opinion, and can the peer review system be improved?
- David: Citizens in high-crime areas generally want more policing, contrary to academic dogma. Peer review is flawed, but some boundaries should be set to block unprofessional, ideological reviews.
- John: Suggests open referee comments and abolishing anonymous reviews to increase accountability.
- Quote (John): “I also would actually like to get rid of the anonymous review process. ...there's something wrong when it's anonymous.” [51:41]
11. Defining “Safety” and Hotspots (Audience Q)
[52:43-56:09]
- Audience Q: How should “safety” and “hot spot” be defined—should crime types be more granularly distinguished?
- David: Research is moving there, but micro-disaggregation is difficult. A forthcoming book will address social context and crime types.
- John: Highlights tools like the Cambridge Crime Harm Index for weighing crimes by social cost.
- Anthony: Agrees on the importance of disaggregation in understanding hotspots.
12. The “Crime Drop” and Role of Policy
[56:28-59:53]
- Audience Q: What caused New York’s crime drop?
- David: Many causes (policing, employment, social factors). Political resistance often blocks rigorous evaluation of police innovations.
- John: COVID-era crime upticks show public safety is fragile and responsive to policing and broader policy.
Notable Quotes
- “You can't expect that outcomes in the criminal justice system are going to look like a random sample of the population.” – John MacDonald [06:55]
- “Procedural justice is not what we hired them for. We hired them for carrying out crime control, safety, all kinds of tasks in the city. And we expect them in a democratic society to do that in procedurally just ways.” – David Weisburd [15:23]
- “There is a difference in what you want to believe and what is true.” – David Weisburd [13:36]
- “Academic societies...are not supposed to be the critic, it's supposed to be the place for critics.” – John MacDonald [28:12]
- “Our job is to tell the truth. ...the truth, sometimes what your data show and not what you would want...But that's your job.” – David Weisburd [40:08]
- “It's easy to go after researchers...If you stop doing the research, then somehow the policy is going to change. Yeah, it'll probably get worse.” – John MacDonald [38:33]
Important Timestamps
- 00:16-05:54 – Introduction and framing of the ideological problem in criminology
- 08:43-11:59 – Challenges of academic-police partnerships and bias accusations
- 13:52-16:05 – The procedural justice debate: means or end?
- 16:38-21:27 – Explicit ideological review citations in grant funding
- 23:17-26:31 – Effects on publishing, peer review, and young scholars
- 27:44-33:09 – Professional organizations and ideological polemics
- 33:33-38:33 – How diversity priorities affect hiring and academic freedom
- 39:34-45:13 – Research ignored by media and policymakers if not ideologically convenient
- 47:57-52:34 – Audience Q&A: disconnect between academia and community views; peer review reform
- 54:11-56:09 – Audience Q&A: defining safety/hotspots
- 56:30-59:53 – Audience Q&A: crime drops in New York and lessons for policy
Conclusion & Takeaways
This episode is a comprehensive examination of how criminology has moved—and sometimes been pushed—off its empirical foundations by ideological trends in academia, funding, publishing, and policy. The panelists stress the need to reclaim truth-telling and methodological rigor, warn of the professional perils for dissenters, and highlight the gap between academic dogma and public priorities. As funding and career incentives continue to drift away from scientific inquiry, they call for renewed norms of open debate, accountability in peer review, and transparent, honest research that directly benefits communities and policymaking.
Panelists in their own words:
“Our job: tell the truth. ...not what you would want...But that’s your job.” – David Weisburd [40:08]
“If you put procedural justice first, what happens if it doesn’t lead to crime control?” – David Weisburd [15:07]
“Academic societies...are not supposed to be the critic, it's supposed to be the place for critics.” – John MacDonald [28:12]