Fair point. I'm here to defend the factual basis for his conclusions, not the logic that got him there. At the end of the day, he told a just-so story; in this

Fair point. I'm here to defend the factual basis for his conclusions, not the logic that got him there. At the end of the day, he told a just-so story; in this, he's no different than the "blame discrimination" camp. At least this story is an empirical one backed by self-reported work place surveys, cross-cultural analyses, etc. The fundamentalists opposing him just have some anecdotes, some unreproducible stereotype threat studies, and a healthy dose of religious conviction.