Blaine Stum

@bstum.bsky.social

442 Followers 626 Following

DC Council Staffer 🏛️ Staunchly Pro-Democracy Former CJ TA Provider/Researcher Gay Cat Owner 🏳️‍🌈😸 Movie and Music Nerd 🎥🎶🤓 **All Opinions My Own**

From Ousey and Kubrin (2018): Our meta-analysis findings reveal substantial evidence of differing effect-size estimates based on whether studies utilized a cross-sectional or longitudinal design. Although the mean immigration-crime association in cross-sectional analyses is essentially zero (r = 0.0001, p = 0.989), the average association in longitudinal analyses is significantly larger and negative at −0.147 (p-value < 0.001) (p-value of the difference in estimates = 0.001). This finding is important for at least three reasons. First, longitudinal research designs are generally regarded as stronger than cross-sectional designs because they offer a greater ability to control for confounding variables. Second, because immigration is a process of social and demographic transition, longitudinal research that measures within-place change in the immigrant base is a better representation of the phenomena of interest than are cross-sectional studies that measure between-place differences in the immigrant population share. Third, the immigration-crime relationship in the longitudinal studies is by far the largest effect-size estimate that we observed in any of our meta-analysis models. Thus, our findings strongly underscore the fact that the choice between cross-sectional or longitudinal data and analysis procedures is a critical one that likely impacts findings and conclusions in this area. In light of the strengths that accompany longitudinal research, it seems reasonable to suggest that the stronger, negative, and statistically significant association that emerges from the smaller body of longitudinal studies may be due more weight than the weak and nonsignificant association that emerges in the larger body of cross-sectional studies.
In their New York Times Op-Ed, Professors Steven LevitskyLucan Way and Daniel Ziblatt critique the strategy of acquiescence to authoritarian regimes, stating: “Strategies of self-preservation have led too many civil society leaders to retreat into silence or acquiesce to authoritarian bullying. Small acts of acquiescence, framed as necessary defensive measures, feel like the only reasonable course. But this is the fatal logic of appeasement: the belief that quietly yielding in small, seemingly temporary ways will mitigate long-term harm. It usually doesn’t. And acts of individual self-preservation have serious collective costs. For one, acquiescence will probably embolden the administration, encouraging it to intensify and broaden its attacks. Autocrats rarely entrench themselves in power through force alone; they are enabled by the accommodation and inaction of those who might have resisted. Appeasement, as Churchill warned, is like feeding a crocodile and hoping to be the last one eaten. Individual acquiescence also weakens America’s overall democratic defenses. Although the retreat of a single donor or law firm may not matter that much, collective retreat could leave opponents of the Trump administration without adequate funding or legal protection. The cumulative effect on public opinion of every newspaper story not published, every speech or sermon not delivered and every news conference not held can be substantial. When the opposition plays dead, the government usually wins. The acquiescence of our most prominent civic leaders sends a profoundly demoralizing message to society. It tells Americans that democracy is not worth defending — or that resistance is futile. If America’s most privileged individuals and organizations are unwilling or unable to defend democracy, what are ordinary citizens supposed to do?”