Part of the scientific process is being skeptical and considering cases and asking probing questions. He didn’t make a blog post that said “lol racial bias is fake.” He discusses it with respect to research on the matter.

It seems you don’t feel that’s an acceptable question to ask: is racial bias in police shooting real?

I’d call that a dangerous question to ask, and try to answer honestly, because it could get a person fired.

First objection: He has tenure. Getting fired is very hard when you have tenure. As a tenured professor you can scream for years that the sky is neon green and you'll be fine.

Secondly, he doesn't particularly discuss it with respect nor realism. However, let's assume for the sake of discussion that we have the same view on that.

What about the second and third ones?

To be totally clear, being interviewed by someone implies absolutely nothing about agreement. For example, here's Noam Chomsky being interviewed by Molyneux:

https://youtu.be/MautscPF5wE

Even more shockingly, you can interview with someone because they actually share some interest in what you research or do, and still not be in agreement with the interviewer's platform, as is the case in the linked interview.

Edit: removed section on 'misleading narratives' as, truthfully, I don't know enough about this specific case to comment much on it other than it has the hallmarks of a political hit job.

I agree with you on being interviewed. Bringing someone onto your podcast is more of an implicit endorsement unless you actively push back on their other views. If you don't know about those views, you should have done your research. But, if that was the case, he could have stated it. Imagine that he invited on a vocal flat earther, but discussed gardening with him. In his position, it raises doubts about judgement. If he says, "I didn't realize he was a flat earther--the earth is not flat", he probably keeps his job. But if he threatens to sue people who talk about his appearance on the show, it's a different story.

What concerns me primarily is the guilt by association. You also will see criticism about 'normalising' deviant perspectives merely with the act of engaging in debate (which has some merit, but is applied too generally), which would likely condemn many more. There's no way that can end without people with legitimate points being terrified of speaking.

> racial bias in police shootings

The science clearly shows there is not much bias, he did not downplay anything.

> lack of segregation is the reason for racial underperformance

Where?

> Interview with an open white supremacist

Lots of people interviewed with Molyneux, this doesn't prove anything.

> The science clearly shows there is not much bias, he did not downplay anything.

I think this is pretty much corroborated by this scientific review in Slate star codex: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/25/race-and-justice-much-...

I can't tell if it's ignorance or cynicism at work here.

Let me fix your summaries:

> In which he downplays racial bias in police shootings

In which a guest on Hsu's podcast, psychologist Joe Cesario, presents in detail his research, some of which is experimental, demonstrating no racial bias in police shootings (not the case in police interactions in general though).

> In which he says lack of segregation is the reason for racial underperformance

In which a guest on Hsu's podcast, Claude Steele, a[n African American] social psychologist, discusses his research in detail and his [African American] co-host, Corey Washington, discusses his daughter's educational experience. (And in which no one suggests that racial segregation in education would be desirable.)

> Interview with an open white supremacist

Interview with a YouTube personality who's also had Noam Chomsky and Peter Boghossian on his show, e.g.:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MautscPF5wE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukeCmR2S5Vg