Straw men, fibs, and other academic sins.

• Author: Cohen, Lloyd
• Position: Response to article by Daniel A. Domenech in this issue, p. 279

Superintendent Domenech's (1) rhetorical technique can be summarized as: (1) ignore my arguments and evidence; (2) create a straw man; (3) throw a dollop of irrelevant and deceptive statistics at the straw man; (4) add a bit of personal insult; and (5) claim victory. How do I now respond?

Here is the plan of action. I will discuss only some of Domenech's mistakes and sins and in the process restate and elaborate my case. I will not point out every error and deceit in his short paper--it would be too boring a read and a write. I will be very blunt in my criticism. That is important here, because the nature of the Superintendent's reply to my article reinforces my original point: that his racially discriminatory admissions policy, like so many across the country, is a deceitful and obfuscatory one. Aside from restating the truth about the admissions process at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology ("TJ"), if I can nurture in the reader a more critical eye and mind to recognize and root out cant and error it will be time well spent.

There were two core arguments in my original article, A Study of Invidious Racial Discrimination in Admissions at Thomas Jefferson High School For Science and Technology: Monty Python and Franz Kafka Meet a Probit Regression (2) each captured by the respective halves of its title: (1) that TJ is guilty of racial discrimination in its admissions process; and (2) that the entire admissions process is a ridiculous farrago, expressing at one and the same time the dark and sinister themes of Kafka and the comic absurdity of Monty Python. Putting race aside, there is something grotesque and comical in a system in which fifty-four special education teachers, guidance counselors, administrators and the like, arranged in a nine committee hierarchy, provided with tiny shards of data--pureed so as to be more easy for them to digest given their limited arithmetic talents--convene for four days and employ their "expertise" to determine which 450 of the remaining 800 applicants are likely to be the most gifted in math and science.

The second argument, though it takes up the major part of the prose and is by far the more interesting, Domenech addresses not at all. Instead he butts his head up against the wall of my intellectually uninteresting--because irrefutable--claim of racial discrimination.

My claim that there is racial discrimination in admissions was supported by a great body of evidence consisting of: (1) unremitting political pressure directed to increasing "minority" admissions; (2) periodic pronouncements by Mr. Domenech and the principal he appointed to TJ, Mrs. Lodal, of the efforts to foster that result; (3) requiring race data on each applicant; (4) passing on this information to the selection committees (while withholding and distorting GPAs, test scores and the like); (5) staffing the selection committees on the basis of race; and (6) expressly directing the committees to give preference to "minority" applicants. (3) The evidence is overwhelming. While I elaborate and measure the magnitude of the discrimination by employing a Probit regression, those inferential statistics are merely frosting on the cake at the end of a complete meal. What is Domenech's response to this deluge of evidence? Dead silence.

1. DOMENECH'S DATA: DO THEY REFUTE COHEN'S?

   Domenech attaches an exaggerated importance to the statistical portion of my paper, and focuses his entire effort at undermining my results. Though my statistical results are robust and impervious to any attack had I not included them, my argument would still have been irresistible.

   The howler in his effort to refute my statistics is that he has nothing at all to say about my regression technique or results, except for one cryptic, incoherent, and erroneous footnote (4) and the following gross misstatement of what I claim my Probit regression demonstrates.

   Relying on the fact that some African-American students who were admitted ranked lower in the pool of 800 than some white students who were rejected, Cohen asserts that his regression analysis shows that the differences in academic merit between these two groups were so disparate that the only plausible explanation is that the admissions committee used race as the predominant factor in making its selections. (5) Domenech either does not understand regression analysis or is being purposely deceitful. To arrive at my statistical results I employed a standard unbiased regression technique and brought it to bear on the entire set of 791 admissions decisions, not on some convenient and favorable subset. The regression does not impose my beliefs as to the merits of the applicants or the weight that should be attached to the admissions index or its component parts, but rather derives the admission committees' own implicit measure of merit. The committees may be absolutely correct in the weight that they give to test scores and grades as measures of academic merit, or totally wrong. It matters not one whit. What the regression shows is that after weighing all those indicators of academic merit as they see fit the committees then place a heavy thumb on the scales in favor of the black and Hispanic applicants.

   Perhaps mistakenly thinking that the issue between us turns on some great statistical battle, Domenech marshals his own numbers to battle against mine. By focusing on statistics he gains the added benefit of avoiding an unpleasant confrontation with the discursive evidence including that the Guidelines to the admissions committees expressly instruct them to engage in racial discrimination.

   Domenech spends most of his article discussing the standard errors of measurement ("SEMs") of the TJ admissions test and then tries to bluff and bluster his way through with the assertion that "Cohen's disregard of the SEM is so fundamental that it taints the rest of his analysis." (6) The general mathematics of his discussion of the SEMs appears to be entirely unexceptionable. (7) But how do the SEMs speak to my theses or my evidence? Does he show any mathematical relationship between the SEMs and my regression results? He does not and he can not. Were the SEMs ten times larger, or one tenth as large, as those he reports it would still not have made the slightest impression on my coefficients or their measures of statistical significance. Why not? My regression is explaining and measuring how the committees made their admission decisions. His discussion of SEMs is directed at the reliability of the TJ entrance exam. Apples and orangutans! Even had Domenech's discussion of SEMs been entirely accurate and honest--which as I will show in section III.A. below it is not--it would have had as little connection to my regression results as a discourse on the Pythagorean Theorem.

   In concluding his discussion of SEMs Domenech attempts to tie his statistical argument back to my work. He states: "Table 2 illustrates that Cohen treated individual rankings as precise measures of merit, when they were not." (8) That would be a telling blow if it were true. Its failing is that nowhere in my article do I state, suggest, or imply that the rankings are precise measures of merit. Perhaps he got confused when several times I said something close to the opposite. (9) Domenech has constructed a classic straw man and slain him.

2. DOMENECH'S PURPOSE: JUSTIFYING UNFETTERED DISCRETION AND RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

   Domenech's excursion into the land of SEMs is not really intended to join with and refute my evidence, statistical or otherwise. It has a different purpose. His intent is to use it to change the framework of the debate, to jury-rig an argument that justifies unfettered discretion for his admissions committees and implicitly excuses and masks racial discrimination.

   Domenech lays out his position in the following paragraph:

   In short, a methodologically sound analysis shows that the vast majority of students in the pool of 800 semifinalists have no meaningful differences in their levels of academic skills and achievement. These extremely talented students are all qualified and likely to succeed at TJ. Any other conclusion is simply untrue. That is why the admissions process must take a closer look at the "whole person" when determining who among these gifted students should be admitted to TJ considering a variety of factors, including how a student may contribute to sustaining a well-rounded and...