This page provides links to the peer-reviewed research and data that appear in stories told in my book Unlocking Justice. While the book strives to tell these stories in a broadly accessible manner, this page allows those interested to explore the technical details behind the work.
Chapter 1. Data for Justice
U.S. art museums overwhelmingly feature white male artists in their collections. This first large-scale study of artist diversity reveals that 85% of artists in 18 major museums are white, and 87% are men. The findings suggest that museums can improve diversity without altering their collection focus on certain periods or regions.
Read the research: C.M. Topaz, B. Klingenberg, D. Turek, B. Heggeseth, P. Harris, J. C. Blackwood, C. Ondine Chavoya, S. Nelson, K. M. Murphy. Diversity of artists in major U.S. museums, PLOS One 14 (3) (2019).
Chapter 2. Positionality: The Intricate Web of Subjectivity
Women hold just 8.9% of editorial positions on the boards of 435 mathematical sciences journals, even though they make up 15% of tenure-stream faculty in the field. This study uncovers a significant gender gap, identifying specific journals, subfields, and countries where the disparity is especially pronounced. These findings mark the first large-scale measure of gender representation in editorial leadership within mathematics.
Read the research: C.M. Topaz, S. Sen. Gender representation on journal editorial boards in the mathematical sciences, PLOS One 11 (8) (2016).
Chapter 3. Policing: Hitler’s Shadow in the Village Beautiful
In Williamstown, MA, police services are disproportionately utilized by white and higher-income residents. Data shows that white individuals and those with middle-to-high incomes place calls for service at significantly higher rates than non-white and lower-income residents, revealing disparities in how public safety resources are distributed.
Read the research: A. Haensch, D. Gordon, K. Knudson, J. Cheng. A multi-method data science pipeline for analyzing police service, The American Statistician (2024). [Note: as of October 2024, the article was published online but the volume and issue numbers had not yet been designated.]
Chapter 4. Bail: The Cost of Discretion
In New York City, 14 disproportionately carceral judges caused an estimated 580 additional bail detentions over 2.5 years, leading to 154 extra years of pretrial detention and over $77 million in taxpayer costs. Their harsh bail decisions likely increased recidivism, and undermined public safety.
Read the research: O. Oren, C.M. Topaz, C. Oliva. Cost of discretion: Judicial decision-making, pretrial detention, and public safety in New York City, report of Scrutinize, Institute for the Quantitative Study of Inclusion, Diversity, and Equity, and the Zimroth Center on the Administration of Criminal Law (2023).
Chapter 5. Jail: Rikers, COVID, and the Three Races
Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, to stymie the spread of disease, New York City released individuals from Rikers Island jail, including those deemed low risk for reoffending. Data shows these individuals indeed had lower rates of reoffense as compared to individuals released on similar calendar dates in previous years. This success begs the question: why aren’t such targeted releases standard practice? Additionally, poor racial data reporting (“Black,” “Asian,” “Other”) in public records effectively prevents any meaningful analysis of racial inequities in the jail system.
Read the research: E. Miller, B.D. Martin, C.M. Topaz. New York City jails: COVID discharge policy, data transparency, and reform, PLOS One 17 (1) (2022).
Chapter 6. Sentencing: What I Learned from Paul Manafort
Federal sentencing records omit judge names, concealing the well-documented racial bias that we know exists in sentencing outcomes overall. Despite our Constitutional right to courtroom transparency, this lack of information makes it difficult to track racial disparities. A painstaking reidentification of judges can reveal how racial inequities manifest at the individual judge level, shedding light on patterns previously hidden from public view.
Read the research: M.-V. Ciocanel, C.M. Topaz, R. Santorella, S. Sen, C.M. Smith, A. Hufstetler. JUSTFAIR: Judicial System Transparency through Federal Archive Inferred Records, PLOS One 15 (10) (2020).
Chapter 7. Risk Scores: Algorithms in Judges’ Hands
Risk assessment algorithms like COMPAS guide sentencing by—allegedly—predicting recidivism. Despite evidence of racial bias and inaccuracy, judges can choose to use or ignore these scores. A new analysis in Broward County, Florida, shows that after COMPAS was introduced, overall incarceration rates fell, but racial disparities worsened. White defendants benefited more than Black defendants, raising a dilemma: COMPAS may reduce incarceration overall but deepens racial inequities in sentencing.
Read the research: U. Bahl, C.M. Topaz, L. Obermüller, S. Goldstein, M. Sneirson. Algorithms in judges’ hands: Incarceration and inequity in Broward County, Florida, UCLA Law Rev. (2024).
Chapter 8. Math: Secrets the Elite Don’t Want You to Know
The vice president of the American Mathematical Society sparked controversy by criticizing diversity statements—often required for academic job applications—as a form of McCarthyism. This claim ignited debate within the mathematical community, with public letters circulating in response. One letter supported diversity statements for promoting equity, while another claimed that focusing on diversity is wrong and diminishes mathematical achievement. Notably, supporters were largely women and underrepresented groups, while opponents were predominantly white, tenured men. This disparity highlights entrenched power imbalances and deeply rooted divisions over diversity in academia.
Read the research: C.M. Topaz, J. Cart, C. Diaz Eaton, A. Hanson Shrout, J.A. Higdon, K. Ince, B. Katz, D. Lewis, J. Libertini, C.M. Smith. Demographic study of signatories to public letters on diversity in the mathematical sciences, PLOS One 15 (4) (2020).