Paul, just cut to the chase. You forced me to remove ALL of the minority scores in the TIMSS assessment. Explain to all of us here why you did that and what that means in terms of "minimum requirements"? I am really not following your stance on this. You seem to be saying that if a protected class makes up 20% of the population then "perhaps" 20% of all doctors, and 20% of all physicists and 20% of all NBA players, etc. should be members of the protected class. And yet you stripped the TIMSS assessment of ALL minority scores. It's just not adding up. Take a step back and try to put it all together in a way that makes sense. What do you mean by "minimum requirements". What do you mean by "perhaps". What do you mean by removing all the minority scores from the TIMSS assessment.
On Jun 3, 2012, at 3:22 PM, Paul Tanner wrote:
> The proper, non-racist interpretation is based on the first one you > gave below, this non-racist interpretation being that enough of the > protected class can meet the minimum requirements to become qualified > so that a continuing pattern of the protected class being > underrepresented raises a red flag that perhaps there is some > discrimination against the protected class causing that continuing > pattern of the protected class being underrepresented.