by Christopher Brunet - Karlstack

EXCLUSIVE: Harvard Professor Ryan Enos Found GUILTY in Massive Critical Race Theory Data Fraud

Leaked internal report concludes Enos' pet theory has ''irregularities in data,'' ''unjustified deletions,'' and ''inexplicable non-deletions.'' He might have to retract an entire book.

On March 12, 2022, I quit The Daily Caller News Foundation.

On March 13, 2022, I published this scoop:

EXCLUSIVE: Leaked Report Shows Harvard Professor Fabricated Data

Christopher Brunet

This was a leaked internal Harvard document—that The Daily Caller refused to publish due to the potential legal risks of Harvard suing them. So, I quit, and published it on my own.

This leaked report revealed that Ryan Enos, a tenured professor in Harvard's Department of Government, falsified data to ‘‘prove’’ his pet theory: Racial Threat Theory (RTT). RTT, which cites Claudine Gay extensively, is a branch of Critical Race Theory (CRT) and asserts that white people harbor a fear of black people. It was Enos's work on CRT and RTT that secured him tenure at Harvard.

I broke that Enos scoop on a Sunday night. On Monday morning, Singal sent me an annoyed email. “I was actually looking into the same story.” After emailing me, Singal sent a bitchy tweet:

Jesse Singal @jessesingal

I'm seeing people who should know better circulating this story as though the accusation of data fraud has been proven. I was looking into the same claims for The Chronicle of Higher Ed, and I think Brunet completely botched this. I'll have a newsletter up on it in a bit.

Singal then published the first of many hit pieces against me, claiming I had botched the story. By now, after countless attacks, such criticism barely phases me. But back then, this particular hit piece cut deep

For his hit, Singal interviewed Andrew Gelman, a statistician from Columbia University, one of the most famous statistical bloggers in the world. Gelman actually agreed with me about Enos’ data:

It would have been mathematically impossible for the maximum number of non-voters in a subsample, however peculiar, to exceed the official number of non-voters for the entire sample.

This seems like a big deal.

— Andrew Gelman

However, Singal didn't care what Gelman said.

Singal still said I botched it.

Singal was simply salty I scooped him, and Singal was incompetent.

So I hit back:

Why didn’t you mention the 800+ missing precincts in Chicago, Jesse? This is the single most important fact in this case. Did you omit this because you have an agenda, or are you simply incompetent and unable to parse what is important in a dataset? The latter could be true, as you admit you never really looked into it this deeply:

"I should also note that I don’t love writing this type of halfway article where I criticize another journalist’s efforts but don’t fully investigate the claims myself,"

— Jesse Singal, yesterday

Jesse Singal in 2021 / Jesse Singal in 2024

After more back-and-forth fighting with Harvard and the journal (AJPS) that published Enos’ fraudulent data, it led to AJPS sending me a cease and desist letter, which I fought, and won.

Months of escalating conflict eventually then led me to turn my attention to Claudine Gay. It became clear that she was complicit in shielding Enos, blocking Harvard’s internal investigation into his misconduct due to a clear conflict of interest. Given Enos’s extensive citation to Gay’s work, any fraud in his research would inevitably implicate her as well. So I launched a comprehensive investigation into Gay—and it became my most popular article, getting shoutouts from Joe Rogan and Elon Musk.

I kept autistically feuding with Enos and Gay for several more months in 2022, writing a dozen articles.

This Enos fraud case is already proven dead to rights — Enos should be fired and have his tenure stripped in shame, but the American Journal of Political Science (AJPS) is refusing to investigate on the grounds that I do not have a PhD?! Therefore, I do not have grounds to submit a complaint?! They are adamant about this. They won’t accept my pleb complaint.

Does this make sense to you? Do journals normally refuse to accept ethical complaints unless the complainant has a PhD? Of course not — that would be insane! Normally, journals are even required to accept credible anonymous complaints. So this “we only accept complaints from PhD holders” line is a totally made up rule because they know if they investigate Enos, they will have no choice but to find him guilty. So they are obfuscating

“We can’t and won’t accept anonymous charges, as it undermines our procedures,” they say. Show me the rule that says as much. Show me your policies and procedures that codify that you can’t accept anonymous charges (even though these charges aren’t even anonymous — a reputable PoliSci PhD holder attached their name to it). Such a rule doesn’t exist. They are pulling it out of their ass.

“We are sorry that you have spent time on this and we take seriously your credentials to evaluate the anonymous memo. But unless we have access to the data and analysis in a way that allows us to verify or refute their quality, we aren’t able to take this up. “

They have the code.

They have the analysis.

They have the data.

They can easily verify the fabricated data in 15 minutes by looking at the data tables.

Therefore their excuse about “unless we have access to the data in a way that allows us to verify or refute their quality, we aren’t about to take this up,” is a bold faced lie.

Again — they know that if they investigate Ryan Enos’ data fabrication they will have no choice but to find him guilty and retract the paper — so they are desperately grasping at any fake excuse they can think of to avoid triggering an investigation.

“Brunet appears to believe that he can bully us into acquiescing by continuing to spread his accusations around in every fora he can find. “

Ryan, I’ve known you for over a decade.

Here’s a candid appraisal of the situation. You are unfit to be an academic.

You lack the most basic math and technical skills (you tried to study Congress and this was a barrier so you moved into REP). You need to hire an army of RAs to run your analyses, and editorial services to improve your writing. You routinely source ideas from low-tier journals and student papers, without attribution. When you do come up with your own ideas, the theories are so far-fetched that they would never receive support without extensive data manipulation. Think about it. People vote solely on the basis of who their neighbors are, and they have such short memory that if said neighbors move out, they forget all about it and no longer bother turning out to vote. A brief train ride during which they hear people speak Spanish radically changes Anglos’ views on immigration. How did you imagine this was going to fly?

None of the people who coauthored with you like you (except Lynn, who has very poor judgment). Most of your students did badly on the market (unless they had a powerful senior backer) because you couldn’t bring yourself to give them due credit on coauthored work. I will not even get into your personality issues. It is a good thing that a brave political scientist recently taught you a lesson on humility and the importance of treating all academic colleagues with respect.

You know what you did, and there’s no plausible deniability. Some actors with vested interests are trying hard to delay the inevitable, but it’s only a matter of time. Retract the articles/book, and resign with dignity while you still can.

Find something you are passionate about and can become competent at, and get a job where you can earn a paycheck in an honest manner. You will live a much happier life.

— Anonymous colleague of Ryan Enos

I thought I had such a powerful story on my hands, I followed my instincts, and yet, it didn’t gain any traction. Instead of being disgraced, Claudine was named POTUS of Harvard, ensuring nobody would ever prosecute Ryan Enos under her tenure. The CRT & RTT data fraud bodies will stay buried forever.

''I can’t stress enough how much of a tragedy a Claudine Gay presidency would be — this musn’t be allowed to come to pass. She will ruin Harvard.''

— Karlstack, October 21, 2022

I know Claudine Gay was the one who covered up for Enos… because on December 4th, 2023, I literally published the leaked document to prove it.

Here is a partially redacted document leaked to me by an anonymous source:

The first thing you will notice about this document is that Claudine Gay’s name does not appear anywhere on it… but she saw it, and she was the one who signed off on it. As per Harvard’s Procedures for Responding to Allegations of Misconduct in Research, “The Dean shall be fully informed of the steps to be taken, and the information on which the steps are based.”

That, plus, a Harvard spokesperson acknowledged to Karlstack that Gay had seen the report. Now I finally have proof of what their official justification for dismissing it was: it “does not fall within the purview of the Standing Committee for Professional Conduct.”

A few months later, I forced her to resign for ‘‘plagiarism’’.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-man-behind-claudine-gays-ouster/

Some have claimed that Brunet was actually fired from the Daily Caller in an attempt to persuade his readers that he is not a trustworthy source of information. Yet Geoffrey Ingersoll, the editor-in-chief of the outlet, corroborated Brunet’s story in an email with TAC.

“It made me happy to see his work vindicated, and to see a fraud who was bad for the university and bad for America go down in the process,” Ingersoll said.

It’s been 33 months since March 2022—roughly the time it typically takes Harvard to investigate. In the Hauser case, the story surfaced in 2007, yet he wasn’t placed on administrative leave until 2011—four years later.

https://www.science.org/content/article/harvard-misconduct-investigation-psychologist-released

Today, I’m proud to share part of the new Ryan Enos investigation. How can you be sure it’s authentic? Well, for starters, every single one of my leaked Harvard documents so far has been verified as real. Let’s just say, I have my sources. And before publishing, I reached out to Harvard for comment.

I received a response and had a conversation with a Media Relations & Communications representative for Harvard FAS. There’s a juicy tidbit:

Harvard: I’m James Chisholm with the Harvard Faculty of Arts & Sciences. As you are operating in good faith, could you provide me with the full report of this apparent internal investigation? Otherwise, as I’m sure you understand, it’s challenging to provide you with any comment. Thank you-

Karlstack: I have attached ''AppendixAJPS.pdf'', which is the 9-page appendix to the investigation.

Harvard: Appreciate the prompt response, Chris.And just to be clear- it’s a hard 2pm deadline, correct?

Karlstack: No, it is a soft deadline, I am happy to wait for a response, even if it takes a day or two. My top priority is publishing fair and accurate information.

Harvard: I think it’s likely I will be providing you a statement. I’m hoping to get it to you by about 2:15pm. If it’s going to be later than that, I’ll let you know asap. And understand, you might not hold off much longer to publish. Thanks.

Karlstack: No urgent rush, thanks again for being so polite and professional.

Harvard: Thanks again for holding on the deadline. Below please find a statement that can be attributed to me regarding your upcoming piece. As we haven’t seen the full document yet, I might potentially provide an updated or new statement after we’ve had a chance to review it. Again, thanks for waiting for me.

“The Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences treats allegations of misconduct in scholarship and research with the utmost seriousness and examines all allegations carefully, responsibly and in accordance with our policies. Professor of Government Ryan Enos has been publicly transparent about his research methods and has offered extensive explanations regarding his findings."

— Statement from Harvard University to Karlstack

Here comes the juicy bit. After providing me with that statement, Harvard followed up with another email just 12 minutes later:

Did you catch that?

Harvard sent me a statement that included the phrase, ‘‘Professor of Government Ryan Enos has been publicly transparent about his research methods and has offered extensive explanations regarding his findings." And then, just 12 minutes later, they followed up and asked me to strike that part of the statement.

These comms departments are vast—there are entire meetings with entire teams of people before any email gets sent.

This isn't just a minor revision—it’s a deliberate signal that Alan Garber’s pro-Israel administration is distancing itself from Enos and Gay.

This isn't just a minor revision—it’s a glaring acknowledgment of the fragility of their position. Harvard is actively distancing itself from Enos’s claims of transparency, they know that any further scrutiny would likely unravel their carefully maintained narrative, exposing the extent of their complicity in shielding a scholar whose work has already been proven to be fraudulent.

TODAY’S LEAKED DOCUMENT

Here is the Table of Contents from today’s leaked Ryan Enos investigation😃:

Notice how the irregularities in Enos' AJPS article are said to impact his book, since he essentially turned the fraudulent article into a book. This means he now needs to retract an entire book, which only amplifies the scale of this fraud.

Also, pay attention to how three of the bullet points merely say: "How the author responded"— meaning Harvard interviewed Enos.

I now present the Appendix of the internal Enos investigation, which you can download in full:

Appendixajps2

411KB ∙ PDF file

This Appendix concludes that Enos exhibited "irregularities in data," "unjustified deletions," and "inexplicable non-deletions."

Below are some relevant screenshots:

Enos has since admitted to the deletions. So Karl was right that the precinct deletions were an issue that needed to be investigated. It looks like Enos deleted hundreds more than justified by his files. So basically he lied to Harvard officials, editors, journalists, his students and colleagues ... This is a huge story. I hope Harvard does the right thing this time and gives Enos the same treatment they gave Gino.

— Anonymous Economist

So, there you have it.

Ryan Enos is guilty of massive data fraud, and Claudine Gay covered it up.

Alan Garber appears to be throwing Ryan Enos under the bus.

National media will report on it soon.

Here is an email that the New York Times sent me yesterday:

www.ourcountryourchoice.com

Harvard Professor Ryan Enos Found GUILTY in Massive CRT Data Fraud

Comments