But over the years, that awe has soured. Why? Because far too many academics are nothing more than political hacks trying to manipulate data to advance a narrative.

A case in point comes from Columbia University, one of the supposedly top schools in the nation.

You see, Teachers College there decided to take "A Glimpse at Gun Violence Right Now." That's fair.

Let's look at how things start:

Bullets are on the ballot this November, from the battle for the White House to state and local elections after another summer in the United States marked by violence and tragedy. There have been 428 mass shootings in 2024 alone and firearms remain the leading cause of death among children and teens in the U.S., according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“We are in a constant state of reaction,” says TC’s Sonali Rajan, Professor of Health Education and the first and founding president of the Research Society for the Prevention of Firearm-Related Harms, who studies evidence-based solutions that can curb the public health threat. 

“What we need to be doing is investing in resources and efforts that are focused on the meaningful prevention of gun violence and scaling up the many multilevel solutions we know work,,” says Rajan. “It’s complicated; we need to think about preventing all forms of firearm-related harms, as well as doing all we can to support schools and communities in the aftermath of gun violence — both in the short- and long-term.” 

Now, on the surface, I don't find a lot of that objectionable in and of itself. Preventing firearm-related harm is probably a good thing depending on how you go about it, and supporting schools and communities and hoping to break the cycle of shootings is a noble enterprise.

But here's where things go sideways. 

It seems Rajan has a preconceived notion of what should be done. One that just happens to align with a particular candidate.

“My read of her plan’s overview is that it's not limited to the policies that she has explicitly stated here,” explains Rajan, also emphasizing the complexities of positioning gun violence prevention and gun safety in the national political dialogue. “Rather, Vice President Harris has identified examples of reasonable gun safety legislation that we know work to contribute to reductions in firearm violence in communities across the nation, and she is speaking to these specific examples with voters.” 

“It’s also important to note that Vice President Harris has shown her clear commitment to prioritizing this issue,” Rajan continues. “For example she currently oversees the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention and the Biden/Harris administration passed the historic Bipartisan Safer Communities Act in 2022, which included significant investments in gun violence prevention, mental health and school safety efforts.”

There is absolutely no discussion of Trump's plans.

But what's funny here is that Rajan touts the fact that Harris won't stay within the framework of specific gun control policies as a good thing, that she'd definitely pass more gun control if she got the chance. Strangely, we get called liars for saying similar things.

Where there's a difference is that she likes the idea whereas we don't.

Yet the fact that she's clearly backing one candidate over another rather than taking a calm, rational look at the positions of both candidates and discussing the potential impact on violent crime means she's not even trying to hide her own biases, which really aren't based on sound research but on personal feelings.

She's clearly in the tank for Harris.

Couple this with how gun research as a whole is hot, steaming garbage that seems tailormade to advance a narrative rather than our understanding of reality and it's not hard to see why any luster academia had is now gone.

It's nothing more than a propaganda machine for the anti-gun side and most of us are sick of it.