TJ lawsuit incoming?

[Anonymous]

So, now that the law of the land has changed and SCOTUS clearly said that ANY system that results in a negative admissions impact to a racial group (even if not explicitly) is unconstitutional, and directly stated admissions is a zero sum game and that by definition increasing URM hurt asian applicants, does this open the door for a new TJ lawsuit? I think probably yes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, now that the law of the land has changed and SCOTUS clearly said that ANY system that results in a negative admissions impact to a racial group (even if not explicitly) is unconstitutional, and directly stated admissions is a zero sum game and that by definition increasing URM hurt asian applicants, does this open the door for a new TJ lawsuit? I think probably yes

How so? The experience factors are Economically Disadvantaged, English Language Learners, and Special Education. None of those are race based. The geographic distribution is based on the MS a child attends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, now that the law of the land has changed and SCOTUS clearly said that ANY system that results in a negative admissions impact to a racial group (even if not explicitly) is unconstitutional, and directly stated admissions is a zero sum game and that by definition increasing URM hurt asian applicants, does this open the door for a new TJ lawsuit? I think probably yes

How so? The experience factors are Economically Disadvantaged, English Language Learners, and Special Education. None of those are race based. The geographic distribution is based on the MS a child attends.

Young scholars is partially race based.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, now that the law of the land has changed and SCOTUS clearly said that ANY system that results in a negative admissions impact to a racial group (even if not explicitly) is unconstitutional, and directly stated admissions is a zero sum game and that by definition increasing URM hurt asian applicants, does this open the door for a new TJ lawsuit? I think probably yes

How so? The experience factors are Economically Disadvantaged, English Language Learners, and Special Education. None of those are race based. The geographic distribution is based on the MS a child attends.

Young scholars is partially race based.

NP. I understood that Younger Scholars is explicitly race based although after the complaint about it earlier this year or last year, they've been pretending otherwise.

But TJ isn't Young Scholars. OP may be right about a lawsuit being filed but it would be baseless.

[Anonymous]

I don't think you read the decision properly. The way you've characterized it here goes beyond what it actually says.

[Anonymous]

So any student program that results in the majority of one race participating in and benefiting from the program is unconstitutional? Are all the Asian Hispanic & Black student groups in FCPS unconstitutional?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, now that the law of the land has changed and SCOTUS clearly said that ANY system that results in a negative admissions impact to a racial group (even if not explicitly) is unconstitutional, and directly stated admissions is a zero sum game and that by definition increasing URM hurt asian applicants, does this open the door for a new TJ lawsuit? I think probably yes

How so? The experience factors are Economically Disadvantaged, English Language Learners, and Special Education. None of those are race based. The geographic distribution is based on the MS a child attends.

Young scholars is partially race based.

NP. I understood that Younger Scholars is explicitly race based although after the complaint about it earlier this year or last year, they've been pretending otherwise.

But TJ isn't Young Scholars. OP may be right about a lawsuit being filed but it would be baseless.

Young Scholars was open to anyone to join but schools were targeting URM. That doesn't mean it was just Black and Hispanic kids, there were parents on this site who talked about their White and Asian kids participating in Young Scholars. Those kids had parents who pursued joining the program. They recently changed the language for Young Scholars to remove the mention of race.

[Anonymous]

All races must be targeted else the Young Scholars program is unconstitutional.

[Anonymous]

I thought TJ admissions are now race blind. There’s a cap on the number of students from each feeder school though. That’s why the Asians were up in arms, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, now that the law of the land has changed and SCOTUS clearly said that ANY system that results in a negative admissions impact to a racial group (even if not explicitly) is unconstitutional, and directly stated admissions is a zero sum game and that by definition increasing URM hurt asian applicants, does this open the door for a new TJ lawsuit? I think probably yes

Lol.

No.

[Anonymous]

Let me paste the part of the decision that you nincompoops did not read:

"But, despite the dissent’s assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today. (A dissent-
ing opinion is generally not the best source of legal advice on how to comply with the majority opinion.) “[W]hat cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. The Constitution deals with substance, not shadows,” and the prohibition against racial discrimination is “levelled at the thing, not the name""

[Anonymous]

It's headed to the Supreme Court, most likely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, now that the law of the land has changed and SCOTUS clearly said that ANY system that results in a negative admissions impact to a racial group (even if not explicitly) is unconstitutional, and directly stated admissions is a zero sum game and that by definition increasing URM hurt asian applicants, does this open the door for a new TJ lawsuit? I think probably yes

How so? The experience factors are Economically Disadvantaged, English Language Learners, and Special Education. None of those are race based. The geographic distribution is based on the MS a child attends.

Young scholars is partially race based.

NP. I understood that Younger Scholars is explicitly race based although after the complaint about it earlier this year or last year, they've been pretending otherwise.

But TJ isn't Young Scholars. OP may be right about a lawsuit being filed but it would be baseless.

Membership in Young Scholars is an experience factor that they consider. It's a backdoor to race based admissions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let me paste the part of the decision that you nincompoops did not read:

"But, despite the dissent’s assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today. (A dissent-
ing opinion is generally not the best source of legal advice on how to comply with the majority opinion.) “[W]hat cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. The Constitution deals with substance, not shadows,” and the prohibition against racial discrimination is “levelled at the thing, not the name""

It would be nice if they struck down geography as a factor, but there is no indication that they will

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me paste the part of the decision that you nincompoops did not read:

"But, despite the dissent’s assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today. (A dissent-
ing opinion is generally not the best source of legal advice on how to comply with the majority opinion.) “[W]hat cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. The Constitution deals with substance, not shadows,” and the prohibition against racial discrimination is “levelled at the thing, not the name""

It would be nice if they struck down geography as a factor, but there is no indication that they will

If giving preference to inner cities or poor areas created a racial correlation, that would ge unconstitutional under this ruling