Monthly Archive: August 2025

Compulsory Drug Treatment

by · Aug 21, 2025 1:15 pm

As I have noted before on this blog (see, e.g., this post) a major part of the homelessness problem is addiction. Charles Lehman has an article at City Journal titled Compulsory Drug Treatment Works: Activists who say otherwise hide their views behind a cloak of scientific objectivity.

The actual state of the research is not as definitive as that title implies. A big part of the difficulty in evaluating efficacy is the lack of a good comparison group, and there is disagreement as to what comparison is appropriate. Do people compelled to accept treatment do as well as those who seek it out? A “no” answer to that question would prove nothing, as the seekers had a better attitude out of the gate. The actual evidence is mixed.

Is compulsory treatment better than no treatment at all? Lehman cites a couple of studies that find an improvement while conceding that there is a selection bias problem in these studies as well. Random and quasi-random assignment studies are better, and they provide some evidence of a benefit. Continue reading . . .

Studies Confirm Leftward Bias in Higher Education

by · Aug 17, 2025 9:15 am

Anyone who is both honest and paying attention has known for a long time that higher education in the United States is tilted sharply leftward, and the bias has only gotten worse over the years. Two recent studies confirm how bad it has gotten.

Jon Shields and Yuval Avnur have an op-ed in the WSJ with the unfortunate title, Evidence Backs Trump on Higher Ed’s Bias: A massive database shows college courses dealing with race and the Middle East lean sharply left. I say unfortunate because any mention of President Trump triggers vehement reactions among people with TDS, and the issue is not about him. It existed long before he was President, and any solution will take time well beyond his departure.

The study uses a database that scrapes college syllabi from the web, including the assigned reading. The authors look particularly at the issue of race in the criminal justice system, and the result confirms what I have observed over years of hiring recent graduates. Continue reading . . .

San Francisco’s Summer of Tough Love

by · Aug 16, 2025 10:36 am

Maggie Grether reports in the WSJ:

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court granted cities more power to penalize people for sleeping outside, handing city leaders a new tool with which to clear homeless people from the streets.

Since then, San Francisco has been among the most aggressive in wielding it.

Wow. For over 30 years, it has been an article of faith on the political left that taking any action against people who live on the streets and refuse to take any of the steps needed to be functional and self-supporting members of society was mean, cruel, heartless, and possibly Nazi. I wish I had a dollar for every time I’ve been called one of those names in this regard.

And now the epicenter of the American left is “among the most aggressive” in cracking down. There is nothing like the convert zeal. When decades of so-called “progressive” mismanagement has given a city a problem that is among America’s worst, it becomes the strongest in the opposite direction. Continue reading . . .

Combining IQ Scores in Atkins Cases

by · Aug 8, 2025 3:24 pm

When the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Atkins v. Virginia in 2002 that people who are mentally retarded (now called intellectually disabled) can’t be executed no matter how heinous the crime, it opened a can or worms regarding deciding who actually qualifies for that category. The line between that condition and the next level up (borderline intellectual functioning) is a matter of convention, not really science, so there is a range of disagreement.

A case now being briefed before the court, Hamm v. Smith, deals with the question of how to assess the IQ of someone who has been tested multiple times. The court briefly touched on that issue in 2014 in Hall v. Florida. The year before, Joel Schneider of Temple University proposed a method in a chapter of an edited book. The opinion of the court cited that chapter but brushed it off with the comment that his method is “a complicated endeavor.” Really? It’s not all that complicated. I ran the numbers myself on the data in the Smith case. It wasn’t simple, but it was simpler than computing my 2024 income tax return.

As a preliminary matter, the makers of IQ tests regularly publish a “standard error of measurement” (SEM). That number represents, in a statistical way, the scatter one could expect in giving a test multiple times to the same person or to multiple people with identical true IQs. It doesn’t account for a host of other possible errors such as incorrect administration of the test, poor testing conditions, transient mental or physical problems of an examinee having a bad day, or–the big one in criminal cases–malingering.

So, putting those aside, here is how we do the math on the Smith case with the Schneider method. Continue reading . . .