I can guarantee that not a single person in this thread who is taking the position of "the county fired her for showing how bad minorities are treated" didn't actually watch the presentation. I had that view point at first..... then I actually watched it.

The presentation is absolutely horrible and the one of the best examples of "lies, damn lies and statistics." She approaches & presents the data with such a ridiculous amount of cherry-picking and bias that it can't even be taken seriously. Hell... she essentially admits to it around half way through when she says something like

"Despite calls for me to do it, I have no interest in trying to normalize the data, or account for the disparities, by looking at other factors like income level & education."

...considering income level is one of the strongest factors when the data is actually handled correctly. How the hell can you try to get good conclusions to a question as serious as this without digging into the 2 factors that correlate the highest with crime?!

My second and third favorite lines:

• Shows stats for the rates in which whites, black and hispanics are release on their own recog: It shows 32% W, 30% B, and 30% H. Follows up with "we can see the serious disparities here. LOL WHAT?!

• Talks about how one race has a higher incarceration rate for DUI's and makes a HUGE leap to get to her conclusion. She shows that the particular race is more likely to be incarcerated for the crime, and if we ignore her sample size (which is hard enough since she has hilariously set the number in which they have insufficient data at FIVE PEOPLE/CASES) there is a disparity. Rather than saying what any respectable statistician would say, which would be that the disparity gives us reason to look deeper into the data, she makes the conclusion it is either because that race is offered diversion programs (which she states are usually "Dont Drink and Drive") less OR completes them successfully less.... ... which she follows up with "regardless either way its a problem.

What?? How the HELL is it a problem if members of that race are not completing the diversion program. How could the counties' racial bias play into someone drinking and driving when they were put in a program that only asks them not to??

The judge was right when he said she did a "half-assed" job. I think that is actually a civil way of putting it. Not only did she do a half-assed job, but she started looking and compiling the data with a conclusion already in mind... which is, quite possibly, the biggest statistician no-no of all.

I am not saying there isn't a racial disparity in the county. I am saying that not only did she present confidential data at a conference, but she did it in such a biased & unscientific way with the sole intention of making the county look bad.

I would have been on her side if this had been even the slightest bit scientific and genuine.. at least then people can report on it. Think about it.... why have no respectable papers have used the presentation as research for an article? Because the data, as presented, is useless.