1/n Spent some time on LexisNexis over the weekend. Depending on your political orientation, what follows will either disturb or encourage you. But regardless of political orientation, I'm sure we can all say 'holy fucking shit'
2/n Here's 'holy fucking shit' #1
#2
#3
#4
#5
(#6) So many of these graphs look the same that, without the title, it looks like I'm simply reposting a single chart
(#7) If you're looking for a job in a booming industry....
(#8) Some of these terms (such as the one below) turn up so many results that I had to limit the search to a single news source
(#9)
(#10)
#11
#12
#13 I was telling @rasmansa that I don't recall the term 'people of color' being used so frequently in previous years/decades. Maybe there's something to this...?
#14: One important thing to keep in mind is that only results for articles which LexisNexis has inventorized are going to turn up. For instance, the trend below technically begins in the 1980s; but only a handful of articles that LexisNexis has for this period mentions 'racism'.
#15: Clear Charlottesville effect
#16 Our future is intersectional
Have a couple more I'm currently working on (including political correctness). Anybody have any other suggestions?
#17 'Unconscious bias' is more frequency referred to than 'implicit bias', but had to check
#18 During the 90s, the number of articles (at least on LexisNexis) mentioning 'political correctness' ranged from 4 (1990) to 380 (1990). 2007 was the first year this number entered into the 1000s (1056), which is where it's stayed since 2013.
@C_Kavanagh You asked for RW-related terms. Here's one.
As some of you pointed out, any search term is likely to see an overtime increase (if only due to growth in the number of news outlets/publications). As such, I think it's better to limit the searches to single publications. So here's the trend for 'PC' in the NYT
And here's the number of NYT articles mentioning 'diversity'
Original NYT Racism graph was actually an undercount. The search was generated with racism in quotations (and quotations should only be used when connecting two words). Here's the corrected figure. Let me see if other graphs are similarly affected.
The 'privilege' NYT graph was also an undercount. Obviously, the word 'privilege' need not refer to social/racial privilege. I nevertheless find it interesting that its use has grown tremendously over the past few years. It could be just a coincidence, but I'm skeptical.
Update: Currently working on tallying the annual number of NYT articles between 1980-2018 so I can calculate percentages. The NYT doesn't make this information readily available so I have to 'cheat' by using noise words (e.g. 'the') as search terms.
Update #2: Okay, I've finished one of them. Once again, using 'the' as a search term, I tabulated the number of results for NYT each year between 1980-2018. In the end, it seems that 'racism' mentions grew both in absolute terms *and* as a percent of all listed articles.
For instance, for 2018, LexisNexis produces results for 113,596 articles--2.07% of which mentioned 'racism'
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/Thrilled to share @fsuigc’s latest report, based on a national survey of 1,447 U.S. adults we conducted in late September—one week after the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
We examine how Americans think about harmful speech and whether physical violence can ever be justified to stop its public expression.
1/ I'm delighted to finally share some of the work I've done since joining @fsuigc.
Last month, we published a report about political tolerance based on national survey data (N=1,004) we collected during the summer. In this study, we measure political tolerance as the willingness to interact with or accept people with opposing political views across different relational contexts. For comparison, we also measured tolerance towards ex-felons and flat earthers.
2/ As shown in the table below, across all contexts, people are much more willing to engage with people with opposing political views than the other two target groups. Regardless of the target group, though, openness tends to decline as the intimacy of an engagement increases. For instance, whereas 73% would engage in a social/recreational activity with political opponents (ex-Felon: 54%, flat-earther: 49%) without reservation, just 41% would be willing to date them (ex-Felon: 22%, flat-earther: 19%)
3/Consistent with this intimacy 'gradient', our analysis finds that our 7 tolerance items best fit a 3-factor structure, which is depicted in the table below.
1/ Updated racial ingroup vs. outgroup feeling thermometer differentials from the ANES. In sum, while the 'curve has flattened', the attitudinal effects of the Great Awokening persist (at least wrt race). If you thought or hoped otherwise, sorry to disappoint.
2/ In fact, coverage linking Israel to “genocide” now exceeds that of every actual or widely recognized genocide of the last 40 years, including:
Rwanda (1994)
Darfur (2003–2008)
Bosnia (Srebrenica, 1995)
Myanmar (Rohingya, 2017–Present)
Yazidis (ISIS, 2014–2017)
3/ In The New York Times, for example, the spike in 2023–2024 mentions of “genocide” alongside “Israel” is more than 9x larger than the peak for Rwanda in the mid-1990s and nearly 6x the peak for the more recent Darfur genocide.
1/ One of the more counterintuitive findings in my latest article:
Historically, when Democrats only control the House, an average of just over 10 race-conscious provisions are added to the NDAA per year.
When they control both the House and Senate? That number drops to about 4.
But why?
2/ First, what makes the House so powerful here?
Simple: the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) writes the first draft of the NDAA.
If you control the House, you control the blueprint—and the early language that often survives reconciliation. That’s where ideological riders get embedded.
3/But why are more race-conscious provisions added under divided government?
While I can’t say for sure, my reasoning is this: when Democrats only control the House, the NDAA becomes one of the few legislative vehicles guaranteed to pass.
Standalone race-conscious or DEI bills are less likely to survive the Senate.
🚨1/ Just released what may be my most significant project to date:
The first in-depth, data-driven account of how racial preferences actually operated at a U.S. service academy (the U.S. Naval Academy)—and the recent federal court case that challenged them (and lost).
Published on my Substack, the report draws on thousands of pages of filings, depositions, internal admissions data, and expert reports from Students for Fair Admissions v. USNA—a case that flew under the radar, despite its profound constitutional and institutional stakes.
2/ The full report runs ~115 pages—so there’s a lot to unpack. Too much for a single thread.
Thus, over the coming days, I’ll be posting a series of threads, each walking through key sections.
Note that these threads are high-level summaries—many important details are left out. I strongly encourage reading the full report for the complete picture.
Here’s the outline for this series of threads:
Thread 1 (this one): What the internal data reveal about USNA’s use of race—and how the Academy tried (and failed) to discredit the revelations.
Thread 2: The government’s sweeping (and evidence-free) justification for race-based admissions—and why it collapses under scrutiny.
Thread 3: How a federal judge upheld the policy—and why his ruling still matters, even after Trump’s executive order rescinded the policy.
Thread 4: What can be done to permanently outlaw race-based admissions at the service academies—or at least make it far harder for future administrations to reinstate them.
3/ Thread #1: What the Data Reveal
Like Harvard, USNA didn’t deny using race in admissions. It simply described it as “limited” and non-determinative.
At the same time, USNA admitted it never even attempted to measure race’s impact on outcomes—begging the question: how can it call race a “limited” factor if it never quantified its effect?