U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Friday called for a response from a Virginia school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SB members better get ready to get spanked publicly once more.

They'd wear a 6-3 rolling from the Court as a badge of pride.

Ironic that in this day and age, some people are proud to be racists.

Ironic that people fighting to keep black kids out of TJ are also the ones screaming racism.

I thought the new process increased white enrollment and decreased Asian enrollment. Among other things.

White enrollment barely moved (and is still far less than the percentage of the FCPS student population), the big increases were black and hispanic students. But it's racist because asians are no longer 3/4ths of the the student body

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SB members better get ready to get spanked publicly once more.

They'd wear a 6-3 rolling from the Court as a badge of pride.

Ironic that in this day and age, some people are proud to be racists.

Ironic that people fighting to keep black kids out of TJ are also the ones screaming racism.

Nobody is keeping blacks out of TJ. Asians are excluded from the policy making (SB) and Asians are excluded from the implementation of the policy (Admissions office/Admissions Panels). They are dominated by whites with some blacks/Hispanics here and there.

Coalition for TJ is suing to return to a system that excluded back kids.

And low income.

C4TJ is only advocating for WEALTHY Asians.

Why don't WEALTHY whites decrease THEIR enrollment? That would be the most equitable. Perhaps the entire TJ school should be for POC to bring equity for POC. White people have had more opportunities for hundreds of years here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SB members better get ready to get spanked publicly once more.

They'd wear a 6-3 rolling from the Court as a badge of pride.

Ironic that in this day and age, some people are proud to be racists.

Ironic that people fighting to keep black kids out of TJ are also the ones screaming racism.

Nobody is keeping blacks out of TJ. Asians are excluded from the policy making (SB) and Asians are excluded from the implementation of the policy (Admissions office/Admissions Panels). They are dominated by whites with some blacks/Hispanics here and there.

Coalition for TJ is suing to return to a system that excluded back kids.

Go ahead and show either that the old policy was explicitly racist, or that it was implemented with racist intent. The person making the claim has the burden of proof.

Well, are we comparing the two policies, or aren't we? Or are we looking at the new policy in a vacuum? In that light, it looks fine. The only reason C4TJ is complaining is because the numbers of students changed from one policy to the next, not because of anything specific about the new policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SB members better get ready to get spanked publicly once more.

They'd wear a 6-3 rolling from the Court as a badge of pride.

Ironic that in this day and age, some people are proud to be racists.

Ironic that people fighting to keep black kids out of TJ are also the ones screaming racism.

I thought the new process increased white enrollment and decreased Asian enrollment. Among other things.

White enrollment barely moved (and is still far less than the percentage of the FCPS student population), the big increases were black and hispanic students. But it's racist because asians are no longer 3/4ths of the the student body

White enrollment increased, no? How is that equity???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SB members better get ready to get spanked publicly once more.

They'd wear a 6-3 rolling from the Court as a badge of pride.

Ironic that in this day and age, some people are proud to be racists.

Ironic that people fighting to keep black kids out of TJ are also the ones screaming racism.

Nobody is keeping blacks out of TJ. Asians are excluded from the policy making (SB) and Asians are excluded from the implementation of the policy (Admissions office/Admissions Panels). They are dominated by whites with some blacks/Hispanics here and there.

Coalition for TJ is suing to return to a system that excluded back kids.

And low income.

C4TJ is only advocating for WEALTHY Asians.

Why don't WEALTHY whites decrease THEIR enrollment? That would be the most equitable. Perhaps the entire TJ school should be for POC to bring equity for POC. White people have had more opportunities for hundreds of years here.

You're not very good at math, are you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SB members better get ready to get spanked publicly once more.

They'd wear a 6-3 rolling from the Court as a badge of pride.

Ironic that in this day and age, some people are proud to be racists.

Ironic that people fighting to keep black kids out of TJ are also the ones screaming racism.

Nobody is keeping blacks out of TJ. Asians are excluded from the policy making (SB) and Asians are excluded from the implementation of the policy (Admissions office/Admissions Panels). They are dominated by whites with some blacks/Hispanics here and there.

The old process was keeping low-income kids out of TJ.

Non-sequitur. Disparate impact does not indicate explicit discrimination or intent. Regardless, income level is not a protected class and there is nothing in the charter of TJ regarding favoring low-income kids in consideration of merit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SB members better get ready to get spanked publicly once more.

They'd wear a 6-3 rolling from the Court as a badge of pride.

Ironic that in this day and age, some people are proud to be racists.

Ironic that people fighting to keep black kids out of TJ are also the ones screaming racism.

Nobody is keeping blacks out of TJ. Asians are excluded from the policy making (SB) and Asians are excluded from the implementation of the policy (Admissions office/Admissions Panels). They are dominated by whites with some blacks/Hispanics here and there.

The old process was keeping low-income kids out of TJ.

Non-sequitur. Disparate impact does not indicate explicit discrimination or intent. Regardless, income level is not a protected class and there is nothing in the charter of TJ regarding favoring low-income kids in consideration of merit.

An in round 2, that's how the board can achieve the diversity that they want. There is nothing illegal about quotas or admissions bumps for farms kids

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SB members better get ready to get spanked publicly once more.

They'd wear a 6-3 rolling from the Court as a badge of pride.

Ironic that in this day and age, some people are proud to be racists.

Ironic that people fighting to keep black kids out of TJ are also the ones screaming racism.

Nobody is keeping blacks out of TJ. Asians are excluded from the policy making (SB) and Asians are excluded from the implementation of the policy (Admissions office/Admissions Panels). They are dominated by whites with some blacks/Hispanics here and there.

The old process was keeping low-income kids out of TJ.

Non-sequitur. Disparate impact does not indicate explicit discrimination or intent. Regardless, income level is not a protected class and there is nothing in the charter of TJ regarding favoring low-income kids in consideration of merit.

lol

Arguing against yourself, there, aren't you? SMH

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SB members better get ready to get spanked publicly once more.

They'd wear a 6-3 rolling from the Court as a badge of pride.

Ironic that in this day and age, some people are proud to be racists.

Ironic that people fighting to keep black kids out of TJ are also the ones screaming racism.

Nobody is keeping blacks out of TJ. Asians are excluded from the policy making (SB) and Asians are excluded from the implementation of the policy (Admissions office/Admissions Panels). They are dominated by whites with some blacks/Hispanics here and there.

Coalition for TJ is suing to return to a system that excluded back kids.

Go ahead and show either that the old policy was explicitly racist, or that it was implemented with racist intent. The person making the claim has the burden of proof.

Well, are we comparing the two policies, or aren't we? Or are we looking at the new policy in a vacuum? In that light, it looks fine. The only reason C4TJ is complaining is because the numbers of students changed from one policy to the next, not because of anything specific about the new policy.

Again, disparate impact is not proof of explicit racist policies or racist intent. You actually have to show the racist policy, or show the racist intent. The reason C4TJ is complaining is because of the racist intent, which lead to the new admission policies. The disparate impact that resulted is merely proof that the new racist policies were effective. If all C4TJ have are disparate impact, there would be no case. The case here rests on racist intent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SB members better get ready to get spanked publicly once more.

They'd wear a 6-3 rolling from the Court as a badge of pride.

Ironic that in this day and age, some people are proud to be racists.

Ironic that people fighting to keep black kids out of TJ are also the ones screaming racism.

Nobody is keeping blacks out of TJ. Asians are excluded from the policy making (SB) and Asians are excluded from the implementation of the policy (Admissions office/Admissions Panels). They are dominated by whites with some blacks/Hispanics here and there.

The old process was keeping low-income kids out of TJ.

Non-sequitur. Disparate impact does not indicate explicit discrimination or intent. Regardless, income level is not a protected class and there is nothing in the charter of TJ regarding favoring low-income kids in consideration of merit.

lol

Arguing against yourself, there, aren't you? SMH

What are you babbling about? The FCPS board made their racist intent well known through their communications and planning documents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SB members better get ready to get spanked publicly once more.

They'd wear a 6-3 rolling from the Court as a badge of pride.

Ironic that in this day and age, some people are proud to be racists.

Ironic that people fighting to keep black kids out of TJ are also the ones screaming racism.

Nobody is keeping blacks out of TJ. Asians are excluded from the policy making (SB) and Asians are excluded from the implementation of the policy (Admissions office/Admissions Panels). They are dominated by whites with some blacks/Hispanics here and there.

The old process was keeping low-income kids out of TJ.

Non-sequitur. Disparate impact does not indicate explicit discrimination or intent. Regardless, income level is not a protected class and there is nothing in the charter of TJ regarding favoring low-income kids in consideration of merit.

An in round 2, that's how the board can achieve the diversity that they want. There is nothing illegal about quotas or admissions bumps for farms kids

I'm not sure how a racist board can ever implement anything without being challenged on the basis of already-established racist intent. Any change they make, other than reverting to the old admissions policies, will be regarded as racist and challenged in court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SB members better get ready to get spanked publicly once more.

They'd wear a 6-3 rolling from the Court as a badge of pride.

Ironic that in this day and age, some people are proud to be racists.

Ironic that people fighting to keep black kids out of TJ are also the ones screaming racism.

I thought the new process increased white enrollment and decreased Asian enrollment. Among other things.

White enrollment barely moved (and is still far less than the percentage of the FCPS student population), the big increases were black and hispanic students. But it's racist because asians are no longer 3/4ths of the the student body

White enrollment increased, no? How is that equity???

What I saw was that white enrollment stayed the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SB members better get ready to get spanked publicly once more.

They'd wear a 6-3 rolling from the Court as a badge of pride.

Ironic that in this day and age, some people are proud to be racists.

Ironic that people fighting to keep black kids out of TJ are also the ones screaming racism.

Nobody is keeping blacks out of TJ. Asians are excluded from the policy making (SB) and Asians are excluded from the implementation of the policy (Admissions office/Admissions Panels). They are dominated by whites with some blacks/Hispanics here and there.

The old process was keeping low-income kids out of TJ.

Non-sequitur. Disparate impact does not indicate explicit discrimination or intent. Regardless, income level is not a protected class and there is nothing in the charter of TJ regarding favoring low-income kids in consideration of merit.

An in round 2, that's how the board can achieve the diversity that they want. There is nothing illegal about quotas or admissions bumps for farms kids

I'm not sure how a racist board can ever implement anything without being challenged on the basis of already-established racist intent. Any change they make, other than reverting to the old admissions policies, will be regarded as racist and challenged in court.

So you didn't like the concurrence. Then let's just pretend it's not there, while we wait for Wednesday. Why not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SB members better get ready to get spanked publicly once more.

They'd wear a 6-3 rolling from the Court as a badge of pride.

Ironic that in this day and age, some people are proud to be racists.

Ironic that people fighting to keep black kids out of TJ are also the ones screaming racism.

Nobody is keeping blacks out of TJ. Asians are excluded from the policy making (SB) and Asians are excluded from the implementation of the policy (Admissions office/Admissions Panels). They are dominated by whites with some blacks/Hispanics here and there.

The old process was keeping low-income kids out of TJ.

Non-sequitur. Disparate impact does not indicate explicit discrimination or intent. Regardless, income level is not a protected class and there is nothing in the charter of TJ regarding favoring low-income kids in consideration of merit.

lol

Arguing against yourself, there, aren't you? SMH

What are you babbling about? The FCPS board made their racist intent well known through their communications and planning documents.

So the new policy is facially neutral? I thought the argument was that it had disparate impact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SB members better get ready to get spanked publicly once more.

They'd wear a 6-3 rolling from the Court as a badge of pride.

Ironic that in this day and age, some people are proud to be racists.

Ironic that people fighting to keep black kids out of TJ are also the ones screaming racism.

Nobody is keeping blacks out of TJ. Asians are excluded from the policy making (SB) and Asians are excluded from the implementation of the policy (Admissions office/Admissions Panels). They are dominated by whites with some blacks/Hispanics here and there.

Coalition for TJ is suing to return to a system that excluded back kids.

And low income.

C4TJ is only advocating for WEALTHY Asians.

Why don't WEALTHY whites decrease THEIR enrollment? That would be the most equitable. Perhaps the entire TJ school should be for POC to bring equity for POC. White people have had more opportunities for hundreds of years here.

You're not very good at math, are you?

Yes.

White = 0% enrollment. To bring equity to POC. That's my calculation.