O’Keefe captures Rutgers professor on tape agreeing to “play with” research data if necessary to “ink a deal” with union group

***UPDATE***

In Project Veritas’ latest installment of ‘To Catch a Journalist’, the indispensable James O’Keefe catches another Rutgers University professor saying he would be willing to play with research data if necessary to produce an outcome that supports the union agenda – and his going rate is $30k-$50k.

In Part V, we went back to Rutgers University to speak to another professor who was willing to take personal payment – up to $50,000 – to create reports for our union decoy.

This professor, Bruce Baker, stated he would only “ink the deal” after he had a chance to “play with the data first to see if it would undermine.”

Ironically, Mr. Baker also serves on the Think Tank Review Panel, a group of researchers that reviews the “validity of assumptions, methodology, results, and strength of links between results and policy recommendations.”

Oh my.

***UPDATE***

In my original headline I stated that Baker agreed to “fudge” research data, and in the post itself I said he agreed to “massage” research data if necessary. Since that is somewhat open to interpretation – he never uses those exact words – I changed both to reflect what he actually said, which is that he’d “play with” the data until he arrived at an acceptable outcome.

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
  • Anonymous

    When Central Government controls research funding, research results inevitably conclude that more government is the answer.

    • B-Funk

      Yep. As if we needed more evidence that the Universities are sold out to statism. Stick it to the Man, America! We know who they are now! What’re we waiting for?!

  • So…we see what it takes to buy a Rutger’s prof.

  • Anonymous

    Typical liberal, trying to take stuff that is not his…

    (laptop, camera)

  • I love James’s videos.

  • Anonymous

    I love how the dean is trying to destroy their equipment… Nice going Douchenozzle.

    • Anonymous

      The topper is when he slams the door in his face then opens it and asks, “Are you coming in or not?” after saying, “No comment” while slamming the door. Are these university deans and professors bipolar?

  • Anonymous

    A professor that is willing to fudge! Noooooooooooooooo!

    • Anonymous

      No, it doesn’t. Go back and listen to that sentence. He said, “..I like to play with the data **first**to see if it would undermine…”

      He also said, “Cause I’m not gonna go outside, you know, I’m not gonna stretch anything…”

  • playing with, fiddling, messing around with, fudging, fixing, lying- what’s in a word anyway?

    • Anonymous

      An awful lot. Go back and listen to that sentence. He said, “..I like to play with the data **first**to see if it would undermine…”

      He also said, “Cause I’m not gonna go outside, you know, I’m not gonna stretch anything…”

  • Anonymous

    Oh, oh! For those who would like to keep abreast of nefarious underpinnings as such displayed here, please feel free to visit this website of an organization who is serving as a pitbull of monitoring and keeping academic malfeasance at bay, if you are not ware of it by now:

    http://thefire.org/

    • An excellent organization. I get a lot of e mail alerts from them.

      • Anonymous

        Beautiful!! One down, several to go, ABC!! Thanks!

  • Is_Sense_Common

    A wise man told me once that you could do any kind of “clinical trial” or “research” and make the numbers come out to be anything you want. This was actually proven true in my Epidemiology class in college (of all places). Always Always Always be wary of any “research studies.” The Europeans just figured out a way to get a study to conclude that water doesn’t prevent dehydration. Amazing what sheep will believe.

    • Water might not prevent or dehydrate but it sure as heck helped me when I had the flu last spring. What a bunch of maroons.

    • Anonymous

      No yeah it’s right. Just go without liquid for say 3 weeks….call me back after that. I’ll be waiting for your call.

  • Maxsteele

    So. let’s see. If I was the dean of an ethical educational institutions and found out that a professor under my watch was doing this kind of thing I would be very willing to see the evidence on camera and say that I would initiate an internal investigation. I would then say that if the alegations were true then I would do all I could to ensure the professor was fired or I would look for work elsewhere myself. As working for an institution that allows this kind of criminal activity would besmirch my own reputation as a researcher and educator. Yet, this dean tries to attack the cameraman and take away the laptop and equipment. Then he is either guilty himself or just a man with no ethical character whatsoever.

  • Anonymous

    Go, JOK!!!

  • So you just subtract out what doesn’t support your pre-ordained findings and, presto, you’ve got yourself one hell of a Satan sandwich.

    • Anonymous

      That door swings both ways. Go back and listen again. Keefe said, “..I like to play with the data **first**to see if it would undermine…”

      He also said, “Cause I’m not gonna go outside, you know, I’m not gonna stretch anything…”

  • Anonymous

    and parents pay and send their kids to college…. for what? they are taught what to think not how to think. idiots don’t fall far from the parental tree.

  • Anonymous

    rutgers is filled w/ nothing but jerzy shore wannabes. trust me.. i know.

  • Anonymous

    This begs the question as to what these uscrupulous jerks are teaching in their classes?

  • Academia is full of corrupt and lazy people.

  • Anonymous

    Yazz55, they are not teaching, they are controlling.

    • Anonymous

      no no no… it’s called indoctrinating. Once your subject is indoctrinated, control is one less detail to attend to.

  • “Playing with data” is not scandalous. That is an expression used by anyone reviewing raw data and trying to extrapolate something sensible to pass along to unscientific idiots like Dan Cleary.

    As used in the context here it is innocuous. Bruce Baker explicitly stated “I’m not going to stretch anything”.

    • Anonymous

      True perhaps but he was saying that if data didn’t support their goals then they wouldn’t use it or “ink a deal” with him. He was stating that you can look as specific data to make something look a certain way. It’s not “playing with” numbers or results but leaving certain things out and adding others obviously will mess with the results. So although he didn’t say he would mess with numbers he was certainly implying that he would find a way to make a report of finding support their desired outcome.

      • It seems odd that you are concerned about someone making “something look a certain way”. Shouldn’t you be critical of Dan Cleary for misleading readers in this article prior to his “***UPDATE***”? Crap flows everywhere. Cast your stones.

        This topic would be a lot more compelling if Veritas had reported on something that was actually done… without trying to entrap someone with vague hypothetical proposals from an actor that wouldn’t dare reveal his true identity to Baker.

  • Anonymous

    Rutgers looks like a sh*t-hole.

  • Anonymous

    “Why did [huffpo reporter Sam Stein] assume we had failed in our investigation? Why?”

    Here’s why I think Stein reached his conclusion:

    First, so what that Keefe wanted his fee “outside the University”? He is doing the work, he’s the one who should get paid.

    Once again I’m disappointed in Veritas.
    “…***I’m going to report on whatever I find in the data*** and report on whatever but that’s why I like to play with the data **first**to see if it would undermine**. And I can’t imagine it would, but you know, we’d figure that out before we ink any deal…***Cause I’m not gonna go outside, you know, I’m not gonna stretch anything*** but I’m also not going to ink a deal with you and have the risk that I create your nightmare scenario. We’ll figure that out before we…”

    That part sounds like an honest researcher saying, “I won’t take your money if I’m not going to be able to give you what you want, because I won’t be dishonest. So before I take your money, I’ll take a look at the data.”

    Now this…
    “…there are a number of different kind of questions you can look at. And you can pull things in and out of that structure. You know, say, well, let’s look at this instead…figure out exactly what the pieces are that are going to come together to make the most compelling story for Ohio.”

    … sounds like a former speech communications professor of mine who said, “You can lead a horse to water, and if he drinks, that’s his fault.”

    It may be intentionally misleading, but it’s not actually dishonest. The difference is small, but it is there. I would NOT hire Keefe, but his comment on “playing with” the data makes it clear that he meant he would do some number-crunching BEFORE he agreed to a deal, because he will not dishonestly change that data to support an unwarranted conclusion. If Keefe can show you how to present parts of the data so that it supports your conclusion, he will, but that’s as far as he will go. (Or would before this audio became public!)

    Keefe did not, in these bits of audio, say “he would be willing to play with research data if necessary ***to produce an outcome that supports the union agenda*** “.