TJ Students by FCPS Pyramid 2022-23

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That really depends on how the holding is phrased. Are you counting on this Court to rule narrowly? I'd think think it's more likely we get a language barring the use of race in admissions that we get language restricting the holding to the university level.

FCPS is claiming they are not using race in admissions to TJ. If a county opened a brand new school with the current admissions policy, there would be no case.
The racial discrimination is a finding by the judge that FCPS made these changes with intent to discriminate against Asians.
LCPS was more blatant in putting in a maximum quota per school, and claiming they weren't using geography as a proxy for race.

This. The supporters of the admissions change want to pretend the factual record of the motivations behind the change doesn't exist and that the new policy can only be judged in the abstract. It is by no means clear, and in fact seems rather unlikely, that this will fly. There will be some language in at least one of the pending Supreme Court cases that those challenging the TJ changes will latch onto.

Didn't the later judge state they couldn't show any harm done since the selection was still roughly 70% Asian even after the changes?

Yes, the group in question is doing better than any other so hard to show harm from these changes.

Unless unintelligent and unwise fcps board members put it in wring they want to see fewer Asian students at TJ.

No, 1 board member sharing her view that the new policy was anti Asian does not mean that the goal of ANY of the BOD members was to result in fewer Asian kids at TJ.

https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/fairfax_county/school-board-members-called-process-for-tj-admissions-changes-anti-asian-racist-embarrassing/article_7ba0320e-74a0-11ec-bf93-4bf5ff6732bd.html

"...school board member Abrar Omeish wrote a text to fellow board member Stella Pekarsky about the admissions changes: “I mean there has been an anti asian feel underlying some of this, hate to say it lol.” And she pressed send.
Pekarsky, now the board chair, responded: “…I always told people that talking about TJ is a stupid waste of tome [sic]. It’s about making a political point.” Speaking about Asians, Omeish answered: “Of course it is…They’re discriminated against in this process too.”"

There are other additional evidence.

There really isn't. Nomani and her clown car have been trying to make hay out of a couple of text messages that were concerned mostly about the perception of different policies that were under consideration.

Omeish was mostly upset with Brabrand because the way he spoke about the issues with the previous process made it sound like he was blaming the families for taking advantage of the situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That really depends on how the holding is phrased. Are you counting on this Court to rule narrowly? I'd think think it's more likely we get a language barring the use of race in admissions that we get language restricting the holding to the university level.

FCPS is claiming they are not using race in admissions to TJ. If a county opened a brand new school with the current admissions policy, there would be no case.
The racial discrimination is a finding by the judge that FCPS made these changes with intent to discriminate against Asians.
LCPS was more blatant in putting in a maximum quota per school, and claiming they weren't using geography as a proxy for race.

This. The supporters of the admissions change want to pretend the factual record of the motivations behind the change doesn't exist and that the new policy can only be judged in the abstract. It is by no means clear, and in fact seems rather unlikely, that this will fly. There will be some language in at least one of the pending Supreme Court cases that those challenging the TJ changes will latch onto.

Didn't the later judge state they couldn't show any harm done since the selection was still roughly 70% Asian even after the changes?

Yes, the group in question is doing better than any other so hard to show harm from these changes.

Unless unintelligent and unwise fcps board members put it in wring they want to see fewer Asian students at TJ.

No, 1 board member sharing her view that the new policy was anti Asian does not mean that the goal of ANY of the BOD members was to result in fewer Asian kids at TJ.

https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/fairfax_county/school-board-members-called-process-for-tj-admissions-changes-anti-asian-racist-embarrassing/article_7ba0320e-74a0-11ec-bf93-4bf5ff6732bd.html

"...school board member Abrar Omeish wrote a text to fellow board member Stella Pekarsky about the admissions changes: “I mean there has been an anti asian feel underlying some of this, hate to say it lol.” And she pressed send.
Pekarsky, now the board chair, responded: “…I always told people that talking about TJ is a stupid waste of tome [sic]. It’s about making a political point.” Speaking about Asians, Omeish answered: “Of course it is…They’re discriminated against in this process too.”"

True, and the fact that TJ remains overwhelming Asian suggests it never happened.

it would be 80% without any illegal discrimination against Asians.

Exactly, NBA is about 80% blacks and when diversity plan is implemented in favor of Asians, whites and Hispanics and NBA becomes 60% blacks, are you still going to argue there is no discrimination against black players because blacks are overwhelmingly over-represented at 60%? GTFOH.

The NBA is a.... private enterprise.... not a publicly funded educational opportunity....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That really depends on how the holding is phrased. Are you counting on this Court to rule narrowly? I'd think think it's more likely we get a language barring the use of race in admissions that we get language restricting the holding to the university level.

FCPS is claiming they are not using race in admissions to TJ. If a county opened a brand new school with the current admissions policy, there would be no case.
The racial discrimination is a finding by the judge that FCPS made these changes with intent to discriminate against Asians.
LCPS was more blatant in putting in a maximum quota per school, and claiming they weren't using geography as a proxy for race.

This. The supporters of the admissions change want to pretend the factual record of the motivations behind the change doesn't exist and that the new policy can only be judged in the abstract. It is by no means clear, and in fact seems rather unlikely, that this will fly. There will be some language in at least one of the pending Supreme Court cases that those challenging the TJ changes will latch onto.

Didn't the later judge state they couldn't show any harm done since the selection was still roughly 70% Asian even after the changes?

Yes, the group in question is doing better than any other so hard to show harm from these changes.

Unless unintelligent and unwise fcps board members put it in wring they want to see fewer Asian students at TJ.

No, 1 board member sharing her view that the new policy was anti Asian does not mean that the goal of ANY of the BOD members was to result in fewer Asian kids at TJ.

https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/fairfax_county/school-board-members-called-process-for-tj-admissions-changes-anti-asian-racist-embarrassing/article_7ba0320e-74a0-11ec-bf93-4bf5ff6732bd.html

"...school board member Abrar Omeish wrote a text to fellow board member Stella Pekarsky about the admissions changes: “I mean there has been an anti asian feel underlying some of this, hate to say it lol.” And she pressed send.
Pekarsky, now the board chair, responded: “…I always told people that talking about TJ is a stupid waste of tome [sic]. It’s about making a political point.” Speaking about Asians, Omeish answered: “Of course it is…They’re discriminated against in this process too.”"

There are other additional evidence.

There really isn't. Nomani and her clown car have been trying to make hay out of a couple of text messages that were concerned mostly about the perception of different policies that were under consideration.

Omeish was mostly upset with Brabrand because the way he spoke about the issues with the previous process made it sound like he was blaming the families for taking advantage of the situation.

That's putting it euphemistically. Brabrand made a number of anti-Asian comments because he incorrectly thought at the time that his only way to stay in the good graces of the School Board and perhaps get a contract extension was to hop on the equity bandwagon. If tossing the Asian kids at TJ under the bus was necessary to make that happen, he was there for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That really depends on how the holding is phrased. Are you counting on this Court to rule narrowly? I'd think think it's more likely we get a language barring the use of race in admissions that we get language restricting the holding to the university level.

FCPS is claiming they are not using race in admissions to TJ. If a county opened a brand new school with the current admissions policy, there would be no case.
The racial discrimination is a finding by the judge that FCPS made these changes with intent to discriminate against Asians.
LCPS was more blatant in putting in a maximum quota per school, and claiming they weren't using geography as a proxy for race.

This. The supporters of the admissions change want to pretend the factual record of the motivations behind the change doesn't exist and that the new policy can only be judged in the abstract. It is by no means clear, and in fact seems rather unlikely, that this will fly. There will be some language in at least one of the pending Supreme Court cases that those challenging the TJ changes will latch onto.

Didn't the later judge state they couldn't show any harm done since the selection was still roughly 70% Asian even after the changes?

Yes, the group in question is doing better than any other so hard to show harm from these changes.

Unless unintelligent and unwise fcps board members put it in wring they want to see fewer Asian students at TJ.

No, 1 board member sharing her view that the new policy was anti Asian does not mean that the goal of ANY of the BOD members was to result in fewer Asian kids at TJ.

https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/fairfax_county/school-board-members-called-process-for-tj-admissions-changes-anti-asian-racist-embarrassing/article_7ba0320e-74a0-11ec-bf93-4bf5ff6732bd.html

"...school board member Abrar Omeish wrote a text to fellow board member Stella Pekarsky about the admissions changes: “I mean there has been an anti asian feel underlying some of this, hate to say it lol.” And she pressed send.
Pekarsky, now the board chair, responded: “…I always told people that talking about TJ is a stupid waste of tome [sic]. It’s about making a political point.” Speaking about Asians, Omeish answered: “Of course it is…They’re discriminated against in this process too.”"

True, and the fact that TJ remains overwhelming Asian suggests it never happened.

it would be 80% without any illegal discrimination against Asians.

It would be a lot less than 80% if FCPS had long ago abandoned the outdated practice of standardized testing as a mechanism for evaluating applicants.

And it would certainly be less if FCPS actually engaged in a process that sought to admit students of varying interests and backgrounds, thus creating the sort of strengthened academic community that is backed by decades of peer-reviewed research.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That really depends on how the holding is phrased. Are you counting on this Court to rule narrowly? I'd think think it's more likely we get a language barring the use of race in admissions that we get language restricting the holding to the university level.

FCPS is claiming they are not using race in admissions to TJ. If a county opened a brand new school with the current admissions policy, there would be no case.
The racial discrimination is a finding by the judge that FCPS made these changes with intent to discriminate against Asians.
LCPS was more blatant in putting in a maximum quota per school, and claiming they weren't using geography as a proxy for race.

This. The supporters of the admissions change want to pretend the factual record of the motivations behind the change doesn't exist and that the new policy can only be judged in the abstract. It is by no means clear, and in fact seems rather unlikely, that this will fly. There will be some language in at least one of the pending Supreme Court cases that those challenging the TJ changes will latch onto.

Didn't the later judge state they couldn't show any harm done since the selection was still roughly 70% Asian even after the changes?

Yes, the group in question is doing better than any other so hard to show harm from these changes.

Unless unintelligent and unwise fcps board members put it in wring they want to see fewer Asian students at TJ.

No, 1 board member sharing her view that the new policy was anti Asian does not mean that the goal of ANY of the BOD members was to result in fewer Asian kids at TJ.

https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/fairfax_county/school-board-members-called-process-for-tj-admissions-changes-anti-asian-racist-embarrassing/article_7ba0320e-74a0-11ec-bf93-4bf5ff6732bd.html

"...school board member Abrar Omeish wrote a text to fellow board member Stella Pekarsky about the admissions changes: “I mean there has been an anti asian feel underlying some of this, hate to say it lol.” And she pressed send.
Pekarsky, now the board chair, responded: “…I always told people that talking about TJ is a stupid waste of tome [sic]. It’s about making a political point.” Speaking about Asians, Omeish answered: “Of course it is…They’re discriminated against in this process too.”"

There are other additional evidence.

There really isn't. Nomani and her clown car have been trying to make hay out of a couple of text messages that were concerned mostly about the perception of different policies that were under consideration.

Omeish was mostly upset with Brabrand because the way he spoke about the issues with the previous process made it sound like he was blaming the families for taking advantage of the situation.

That's putting it euphemistically. Brabrand made a number of anti-Asian comments because he incorrectly thought at the time that his only way to stay in the good graces of the School Board and perhaps get a contract extension was to hop on the equity bandwagon. If tossing the Asian kids at TJ under the bus was necessary to make that happen, he was there for it.

Such as?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That really depends on how the holding is phrased. Are you counting on this Court to rule narrowly? I'd think think it's more likely we get a language barring the use of race in admissions that we get language restricting the holding to the university level.

FCPS is claiming they are not using race in admissions to TJ. If a county opened a brand new school with the current admissions policy, there would be no case.
The racial discrimination is a finding by the judge that FCPS made these changes with intent to discriminate against Asians.
LCPS was more blatant in putting in a maximum quota per school, and claiming they weren't using geography as a proxy for race.

This. The supporters of the admissions change want to pretend the factual record of the motivations behind the change doesn't exist and that the new policy can only be judged in the abstract. It is by no means clear, and in fact seems rather unlikely, that this will fly. There will be some language in at least one of the pending Supreme Court cases that those challenging the TJ changes will latch onto.

Didn't the later judge state they couldn't show any harm done since the selection was still roughly 70% Asian even after the changes?

Yes, the group in question is doing better than any other so hard to show harm from these changes.

Unless unintelligent and unwise fcps board members put it in wring they want to see fewer Asian students at TJ.

No, 1 board member sharing her view that the new policy was anti Asian does not mean that the goal of ANY of the BOD members was to result in fewer Asian kids at TJ.

https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/fairfax_county/school-board-members-called-process-for-tj-admissions-changes-anti-asian-racist-embarrassing/article_7ba0320e-74a0-11ec-bf93-4bf5ff6732bd.html

"...school board member Abrar Omeish wrote a text to fellow board member Stella Pekarsky about the admissions changes: “I mean there has been an anti asian feel underlying some of this, hate to say it lol.” And she pressed send.
Pekarsky, now the board chair, responded: “…I always told people that talking about TJ is a stupid waste of tome [sic]. It’s about making a political point.” Speaking about Asians, Omeish answered: “Of course it is…They’re discriminated against in this process too.”"

True, and the fact that TJ remains overwhelming Asian suggests it never happened.

it would be 80% without any illegal discrimination against Asians.

Exactly, NBA is about 80% blacks and when diversity plan is implemented in favor of Asians, whites and Hispanics and NBA becomes 60% blacks, are you still going to argue there is no discrimination against black players because blacks are overwhelmingly over-represented at 60%? GTFOH.

The NBA is a.... private enterprise.... not a publicly funded educational opportunity....

Answer the question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That really depends on how the holding is phrased. Are you counting on this Court to rule narrowly? I'd think think it's more likely we get a language barring the use of race in admissions that we get language restricting the holding to the university level.

FCPS is claiming they are not using race in admissions to TJ. If a county opened a brand new school with the current admissions policy, there would be no case.
The racial discrimination is a finding by the judge that FCPS made these changes with intent to discriminate against Asians.
LCPS was more blatant in putting in a maximum quota per school, and claiming they weren't using geography as a proxy for race.

This. The supporters of the admissions change want to pretend the factual record of the motivations behind the change doesn't exist and that the new policy can only be judged in the abstract. It is by no means clear, and in fact seems rather unlikely, that this will fly. There will be some language in at least one of the pending Supreme Court cases that those challenging the TJ changes will latch onto.

Didn't the later judge state they couldn't show any harm done since the selection was still roughly 70% Asian even after the changes?

Yes, the group in question is doing better than any other so hard to show harm from these changes.

Unless unintelligent and unwise fcps board members put it in wring they want to see fewer Asian students at TJ.

No, 1 board member sharing her view that the new policy was anti Asian does not mean that the goal of ANY of the BOD members was to result in fewer Asian kids at TJ.

https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/fairfax_county/school-board-members-called-process-for-tj-admissions-changes-anti-asian-racist-embarrassing/article_7ba0320e-74a0-11ec-bf93-4bf5ff6732bd.html

"...school board member Abrar Omeish wrote a text to fellow board member Stella Pekarsky about the admissions changes: “I mean there has been an anti asian feel underlying some of this, hate to say it lol.” And she pressed send.
Pekarsky, now the board chair, responded: “…I always told people that talking about TJ is a stupid waste of tome [sic]. It’s about making a political point.” Speaking about Asians, Omeish answered: “Of course it is…They’re discriminated against in this process too.”"

True, and the fact that TJ remains overwhelming Asian suggests it never happened.

it would be 80% without any illegal discrimination against Asians.

Exactly, NBA is about 80% blacks and when diversity plan is implemented in favor of Asians, whites and Hispanics and NBA becomes 60% blacks, are you still going to argue there is no discrimination against black players because blacks are overwhelmingly over-represented at 60%? GTFOH.

The NBA is a.... private enterprise.... not a publicly funded educational opportunity....

Answer the question.

I did. Your point isn't relevant because you're comparing apples and cannonballs. Questions like yours don't merit a response.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That really depends on how the holding is phrased. Are you counting on this Court to rule narrowly? I'd think think it's more likely we get a language barring the use of race in admissions that we get language restricting the holding to the university level.

FCPS is claiming they are not using race in admissions to TJ. If a county opened a brand new school with the current admissions policy, there would be no case.
The racial discrimination is a finding by the judge that FCPS made these changes with intent to discriminate against Asians.
LCPS was more blatant in putting in a maximum quota per school, and claiming they weren't using geography as a proxy for race.

This. The supporters of the admissions change want to pretend the factual record of the motivations behind the change doesn't exist and that the new policy can only be judged in the abstract. It is by no means clear, and in fact seems rather unlikely, that this will fly. There will be some language in at least one of the pending Supreme Court cases that those challenging the TJ changes will latch onto.

Didn't the later judge state they couldn't show any harm done since the selection was still roughly 70% Asian even after the changes?

Yes, the group in question is doing better than any other so hard to show harm from these changes.

Unless unintelligent and unwise fcps board members put it in wring they want to see fewer Asian students at TJ.

No, 1 board member sharing her view that the new policy was anti Asian does not mean that the goal of ANY of the BOD members was to result in fewer Asian kids at TJ.

https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/fairfax_county/school-board-members-called-process-for-tj-admissions-changes-anti-asian-racist-embarrassing/article_7ba0320e-74a0-11ec-bf93-4bf5ff6732bd.html

"...school board member Abrar Omeish wrote a text to fellow board member Stella Pekarsky about the admissions changes: “I mean there has been an anti asian feel underlying some of this, hate to say it lol.” And she pressed send.
Pekarsky, now the board chair, responded: “…I always told people that talking about TJ is a stupid waste of tome [sic]. It’s about making a political point.” Speaking about Asians, Omeish answered: “Of course it is…They’re discriminated against in this process too.”"

True, and the fact that TJ remains overwhelming Asian suggests it never happened.

it would be 80% without any illegal discrimination against Asians.

It would be a lot less than 80% if FCPS had long ago abandoned the outdated practice of standardized testing as a mechanism for evaluating applicants.

And it would certainly be less if FCPS actually engaged in a process that sought to admit students of varying interests and backgrounds, thus creating the sort of strengthened academic community that is backed by decades of peer-reviewed research.

Varying interests and backgrounds, thus creating the sort of strengthened academic community, in fact the opposite is true in general in this specialized and becoming an expert in a single area era we are living in. We can have varying interests in social settings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That really depends on how the holding is phrased. Are you counting on this Court to rule narrowly? I'd think think it's more likely we get a language barring the use of race in admissions that we get language restricting the holding to the university level.

FCPS is claiming they are not using race in admissions to TJ. If a county opened a brand new school with the current admissions policy, there would be no case.
The racial discrimination is a finding by the judge that FCPS made these changes with intent to discriminate against Asians.
LCPS was more blatant in putting in a maximum quota per school, and claiming they weren't using geography as a proxy for race.

This. The supporters of the admissions change want to pretend the factual record of the motivations behind the change doesn't exist and that the new policy can only be judged in the abstract. It is by no means clear, and in fact seems rather unlikely, that this will fly. There will be some language in at least one of the pending Supreme Court cases that those challenging the TJ changes will latch onto.

Didn't the later judge state they couldn't show any harm done since the selection was still roughly 70% Asian even after the changes?

Yes, the group in question is doing better than any other so hard to show harm from these changes.

Unless unintelligent and unwise fcps board members put it in wring they want to see fewer Asian students at TJ.

No, 1 board member sharing her view that the new policy was anti Asian does not mean that the goal of ANY of the BOD members was to result in fewer Asian kids at TJ.

https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/fairfax_county/school-board-members-called-process-for-tj-admissions-changes-anti-asian-racist-embarrassing/article_7ba0320e-74a0-11ec-bf93-4bf5ff6732bd.html

"...school board member Abrar Omeish wrote a text to fellow board member Stella Pekarsky about the admissions changes: “I mean there has been an anti asian feel underlying some of this, hate to say it lol.” And she pressed send.
Pekarsky, now the board chair, responded: “…I always told people that talking about TJ is a stupid waste of tome [sic]. It’s about making a political point.” Speaking about Asians, Omeish answered: “Of course it is…They’re discriminated against in this process too.”"

True, and the fact that TJ remains overwhelming Asian suggests it never happened.

it would be 80% without any illegal discrimination against Asians.

It would be a lot less than 80% if FCPS had long ago abandoned the outdated practice of standardized testing as a mechanism for evaluating applicants.

And it would certainly be less if FCPS actually engaged in a process that sought to admit students of varying interests and backgrounds, thus creating the sort of strengthened academic community that is backed by decades of peer-reviewed research.

Varying interests and backgrounds, thus creating the sort of strengthened academic community, in fact the opposite is true in general in this specialized and becoming an expert in a single area era we are living in. We can have varying interests in social settings.

Nope. Having a single skill set that you specialize in is great if you want to spend your entire life executing someone else's vision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That really depends on how the holding is phrased. Are you counting on this Court to rule narrowly? I'd think think it's more likely we get a language barring the use of race in admissions that we get language restricting the holding to the university level.

FCPS is claiming they are not using race in admissions to TJ. If a county opened a brand new school with the current admissions policy, there would be no case.
The racial discrimination is a finding by the judge that FCPS made these changes with intent to discriminate against Asians.
LCPS was more blatant in putting in a maximum quota per school, and claiming they weren't using geography as a proxy for race.

This. The supporters of the admissions change want to pretend the factual record of the motivations behind the change doesn't exist and that the new policy can only be judged in the abstract. It is by no means clear, and in fact seems rather unlikely, that this will fly. There will be some language in at least one of the pending Supreme Court cases that those challenging the TJ changes will latch onto.

Didn't the later judge state they couldn't show any harm done since the selection was still roughly 70% Asian even after the changes?

Yes, the group in question is doing better than any other so hard to show harm from these changes.

Unless unintelligent and unwise fcps board members put it in wring they want to see fewer Asian students at TJ.

No, 1 board member sharing her view that the new policy was anti Asian does not mean that the goal of ANY of the BOD members was to result in fewer Asian kids at TJ.

https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/fairfax_county/school-board-members-called-process-for-tj-admissions-changes-anti-asian-racist-embarrassing/article_7ba0320e-74a0-11ec-bf93-4bf5ff6732bd.html

"...school board member Abrar Omeish wrote a text to fellow board member Stella Pekarsky about the admissions changes: “I mean there has been an anti asian feel underlying some of this, hate to say it lol.” And she pressed send.
Pekarsky, now the board chair, responded: “…I always told people that talking about TJ is a stupid waste of tome [sic]. It’s about making a political point.” Speaking about Asians, Omeish answered: “Of course it is…They’re discriminated against in this process too.”"

True, and the fact that TJ remains overwhelming Asian suggests it never happened.

it would be 80% without any illegal discrimination against Asians.

Exactly, NBA is about 80% blacks and when diversity plan is implemented in favor of Asians, whites and Hispanics and NBA becomes 60% blacks, are you still going to argue there is no discrimination against black players because blacks are overwhelmingly over-represented at 60%? GTFOH.

The NBA is irrelevant. It has no obligation to provide fair and equal access unlike public schools.

As an employer, it certainly does. They are probably required to place a 'we are an equal opportunity employer' poster too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The LCPS Academies model with kids going to their base school for History, English, PE, foreign Language/music, and then going to the Academy (or TJ in this case) for the other day to do Science, Math, Tech types of classes makes SO MUCH SENSE!

It allows kids to keep their base school connections, reduced commuting burdens, gives TWICE as many kids access to very top-level STEM classes/peers, and allows the specialty school to actually focus on the SPECIALTY (STEM) without being bogged down with kids who can't pass English or Spanish or whatever.

Let TJ focus on STEM and let twice as many kids have access.

TJ is designed to be a full-service high school. The only reason it has such a strong national reputation when compared with AOS/AET is BECAUSE it's a full-service high school.

You are chasing prestige and that prestige will go away immediately if TJ transitions to an academy model, and besides, it's not built with that in mind. You have tons of rooms in that building that are built for humanities classes. You have two gyms, an auditorium, and a black box theatre. And that building cost $100 million and was completed five years ago.

You're out of your mind if you think the academy model is either possible or a good idea.

Lots of high schools have two gyms and an auditorium, not sure what a black box theatre is. TJ doesn't have its high reputation because of its humanities classes or its black box theatre, though those are probably very good too. It has its reputation because of its math and science classes. A club that can put a satellite in space.
Physics classes that other university professors come to see how they are teaching.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That really depends on how the holding is phrased. Are you counting on this Court to rule narrowly? I'd think think it's more likely we get a language barring the use of race in admissions that we get language restricting the holding to the university level.

FCPS is claiming they are not using race in admissions to TJ. If a county opened a brand new school with the current admissions policy, there would be no case.
The racial discrimination is a finding by the judge that FCPS made these changes with intent to discriminate against Asians.
LCPS was more blatant in putting in a maximum quota per school, and claiming they weren't using geography as a proxy for race.

Except that's illegal in the United States. Admission is race blind. They do not know an applicant's race just their student ID and the information they provided in their essay.

They know what school the student attends. The policy of taking a minimum number per school, based on the racial distribution at different schools in FCPS, serves to discriminate by race.
It is a great way to reduce the number of Asians while claiming to be race blind.

The allocation of seats to different middle schools depends entirely on the number of students in their 8th grade class, not on the race of the students at those schools. Carson has one of the largest allocations because it's one of the largest schools.

You're factually incorrect.

I wasn't suggesting the allocation was done based on race. I am saying the policy of allocating by middle school, can be racial discrimination with certain demographics.
If every school had the same distribution by race, then this policy of doing seats by middle school would not be racial discrimination.
Say of the 480 seats at TJ, Asians took 350, and all 350 every year came from a single high school where Asians were 50% of the school, and in other schools Asians were just a handful of students. Adopting a per school quota would be an excellent way to reduce Asian numbers while pretending to be race blind.

Indeed if every high school had the same racial distribution, I think FCPS would have skipped the step of distributing seats by middle school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That really depends on how the holding is phrased. Are you counting on this Court to rule narrowly? I'd think think it's more likely we get a language barring the use of race in admissions that we get language restricting the holding to the university level.

FCPS is claiming they are not using race in admissions to TJ. If a county opened a brand new school with the current admissions policy, there would be no case.
The racial discrimination is a finding by the judge that FCPS made these changes with intent to discriminate against Asians.
LCPS was more blatant in putting in a maximum quota per school, and claiming they weren't using geography as a proxy for race.

Except that's illegal in the United States. Admission is race blind. They do not know an applicant's race just their student ID and the information they provided in their essay.

They know what school the student attends. The policy of taking a minimum number per school, based on the racial distribution at different schools in FCPS, serves to discriminate by race.
It is a great way to reduce the number of Asians while claiming to be race blind.

The allocation of seats to different middle schools depends entirely on the number of students in their 8th grade class, not on the race of the students at those schools. Carson has one of the largest allocations because it's one of the largest schools.

You're factually incorrect.

I wasn't suggesting the allocation was done based on race. I am saying the policy of allocating by middle school, can be racial discrimination with certain demographics.
If every school had the same distribution by race, then this policy of doing seats by middle school would not be racial discrimination.
Say of the 480 seats at TJ, Asians took 350, and all 350 every year came from a single high school where Asians were 50% of the school, and in other schools Asians were just a handful of students. Adopting a per school quota would be an excellent way to reduce Asian numbers while pretending to be race blind.

Indeed if every high school had the same racial distribution, I think FCPS would have skipped the step of distributing seats by middle school.

Actually that's untrue. Allocation by school is even considered a best practice in gifted education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That really depends on how the holding is phrased. Are you counting on this Court to rule narrowly? I'd think think it's more likely we get a language barring the use of race in admissions that we get language restricting the holding to the university level.

FCPS is claiming they are not using race in admissions to TJ. If a county opened a brand new school with the current admissions policy, there would be no case.
The racial discrimination is a finding by the judge that FCPS made these changes with intent to discriminate against Asians.
LCPS was more blatant in putting in a maximum quota per school, and claiming they weren't using geography as a proxy for race.

This. The supporters of the admissions change want to pretend the factual record of the motivations behind the change doesn't exist and that the new policy can only be judged in the abstract. It is by no means clear, and in fact seems rather unlikely, that this will fly. There will be some language in at least one of the pending Supreme Court cases that those challenging the TJ changes will latch onto.

Didn't the later judge state they couldn't show any harm done since the selection was still roughly 70% Asian even after the changes?

Yes, the group in question is doing better than any other so hard to show harm from these changes.

Unless unintelligent and unwise fcps board members put it in wring they want to see fewer Asian students at TJ.

No, 1 board member sharing her view that the new policy was anti Asian does not mean that the goal of ANY of the BOD members was to result in fewer Asian kids at TJ.

https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/fairfax_county/school-board-members-called-process-for-tj-admissions-changes-anti-asian-racist-embarrassing/article_7ba0320e-74a0-11ec-bf93-4bf5ff6732bd.html

"...school board member Abrar Omeish wrote a text to fellow board member Stella Pekarsky about the admissions changes: “I mean there has been an anti asian feel underlying some of this, hate to say it lol.” And she pressed send.
Pekarsky, now the board chair, responded: “…I always told people that talking about TJ is a stupid waste of tome [sic]. It’s about making a political point.” Speaking about Asians, Omeish answered: “Of course it is…They’re discriminated against in this process too.”"

True, and the fact that TJ remains overwhelming Asian suggests it never happened.

it would be 80% without any illegal discrimination against Asians.

It would be a lot less than 80% if FCPS had long ago abandoned the outdated practice of standardized testing as a mechanism for evaluating applicants.

And it would certainly be less if FCPS actually engaged in a process that sought to admit students of varying interests and backgrounds, thus creating the sort of strengthened academic community that is backed by decades of peer-reviewed research.

Yes, the old process outlived it's time and was easily manipulated by a few $$$ in outside enrichment. The net effect was subpar students were often selected and made the place toxic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That really depends on how the holding is phrased. Are you counting on this Court to rule narrowly? I'd think think it's more likely we get a language barring the use of race in admissions that we get language restricting the holding to the university level.

FCPS is claiming they are not using race in admissions to TJ. If a county opened a brand new school with the current admissions policy, there would be no case.
The racial discrimination is a finding by the judge that FCPS made these changes with intent to discriminate against Asians.
LCPS was more blatant in putting in a maximum quota per school, and claiming they weren't using geography as a proxy for race.

This. The supporters of the admissions change want to pretend the factual record of the motivations behind the change doesn't exist and that the new policy can only be judged in the abstract. It is by no means clear, and in fact seems rather unlikely, that this will fly. There will be some language in at least one of the pending Supreme Court cases that those challenging the TJ changes will latch onto.

Didn't the later judge state they couldn't show any harm done since the selection was still roughly 70% Asian even after the changes?

Yes, the group in question is doing better than any other so hard to show harm from these changes.

Unless unintelligent and unwise fcps board members put it in wring they want to see fewer Asian students at TJ.

No, 1 board member sharing her view that the new policy was anti Asian does not mean that the goal of ANY of the BOD members was to result in fewer Asian kids at TJ.

https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/fairfax_county/school-board-members-called-process-for-tj-admissions-changes-anti-asian-racist-embarrassing/article_7ba0320e-74a0-11ec-bf93-4bf5ff6732bd.html

"...school board member Abrar Omeish wrote a text to fellow board member Stella Pekarsky about the admissions changes: “I mean there has been an anti asian feel underlying some of this, hate to say it lol.” And she pressed send.
Pekarsky, now the board chair, responded: “…I always told people that talking about TJ is a stupid waste of tome [sic]. It’s about making a political point.” Speaking about Asians, Omeish answered: “Of course it is…They’re discriminated against in this process too.”"

True, and the fact that TJ remains overwhelming Asian suggests it never happened.

it would be 80% without any illegal discrimination against Asians.

It would be a lot less than 80% if FCPS had long ago abandoned the outdated practice of standardized testing as a mechanism for evaluating applicants.

And it would certainly be less if FCPS actually engaged in a process that sought to admit students of varying interests and backgrounds, thus creating the sort of strengthened academic community that is backed by decades of peer-reviewed research.

Yes, the old process outlived it's time and was easily manipulated by a few $$$ in outside enrichment. The net effect was subpar students were often selected and made the place toxic.

More sub-par students are admitted after the discriminatory admissions changes were implemented 2 years ago.