Federal judge rules that admissions changes at nation’s top public school discriminate against Asian

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with TJ admissions is that the school board was hoping for a catch-all solution to a diverse set of problems. In the end, their motive turned into a desperate, flailing "Smart kids are the problem. Why can't everyone be the same?" The end result was that the primary metric for a "successful" strategy was good conformance to population distribution.

In reality, there are a number of different issues which have been raised, each of which varies in solution space and degree of seriousness:

Academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors. However, the idea that there's a fundamental difference in peak academic capability due to race should be rejected on principle. If merit-based measures are showing high sensitivity to race, then that suggests that either (a) the merit-based metrics we're using aren't as good as we'd hope at measuring merit, or (b) if the merit-based measures are good, then some kids are somehow falling off the radar for non-merit based reasons. Either is unjust.

There should be a greater commitment to ensuring income-neutral resources for kids that want to be challenged or who want to "get ahead."

We're concerned that there are some easy but very superficial steps that students can take which can significantly impact their appearance of merit, without being particularly reflective of actual merit. This is especially true if those steps are accessible to some students but not to others. (the "prep" argument)

The academic status quo is too rigid, and it's too easy for students to get locked into "elite" or "dumb" tracks. Once they're stuck in the wrong track, they lose access to opportunities, and also lose access to the financial and societal means to pursue those opportunities. The system should be a lot more flexible and forgiving.

Smart people are too intimidating to the majority of the population which is not especially smart. We should really take elite schools like TJ down a notch. At the very least, take away the mystique that being "elite" means anything more that having a high GPA and/or skills that can be bought.

We finally admit that we're racist, but there are so many Asians, and honestly it makes us uncomfortable.

If admissions to elite education is entirely merit-based, what's to stop the Russians from infiltrating our elite institutions?

If we do not give the school board the utmost control and flexibility in deciding educational outcomes, how will our great and glorious leaders be able to ensure that they have relatively the best possible education for their children?

If you allow that academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors, then it's irrational to claim that it is unjust for merit-based metrics to identify candidates that reflect this variance.

The idea that academic aptitude (natural ability) varies by race is *drumroll* racist. Societal and cultural factors might impact academic *performance*, though even there it’s BOTH race and class/income (and other factors) that affect a child’s ability to perform up to potential in their schooling. I’d rather we focus more on identifying and cultivating academic potential, and focus less on “absolute performance to date” and preppable test taking skills as those conveniently paper over and perpetuate the systemic issues that give certain groups significant disadvantages in those supposedly objective measures of “merit” (yuck).

No one is arguing for the bolded part. Per your recommendation that we focus on identifying and cultivating academic potential, how do you go about doing that if measuring academic performance through tests is off the table? In other words, show me a test that you can't prepare for in advance.

Actually the PP said exactly the bolded part in their argument, so yes, someone is.

As to your question, I'm not arguing tests should be wholesale off the table, but likewise they shouldn't be elevated as some sort of objective county-wide gold standard. They should be used appropriately, and a singular test for all students regardless of background and circumstances is simply incorporating those disparities into the outcomes. If we compare a students academic performance against other students who have experienced generally similar circumstances (rather than "everyone in the entire county"), we might at least take one step towards identifying the highest potential students within each cohort. Given the economic/racial housing segregation we have, taking top x% per ES is a reasonable (albeit imperfect) better-than-nothing proxy for that. You could also do at least some small degree of age-norming (like CogAT and other standardized tests do) since there can be over a year's delta amongst students within a given grade, so that the oldest students in the grade don't inherit an artificial advantage.

The optimal way to build a rocket doesn't depend on the whether the engineer was a poor black kid from the inner city. The optimal way to write a software program doesn't depend on whether the programmer is a first generation hispanic DACA recipient. The optimal way to perform neural surgery doesn't depend on whether the doctor is the first BIPOC woman from her family to go to college. And the best way to test for academic potential doesn't depend on childrens' backgrounds

I grew up in India, and started college at a time and a place where college started in 11th grade. The day we went for enrollment (in person), they had us ordered by grades. The girl in front of me had scored fewer points on the test than me, but was ahead, because of other factors, in her case, caste. We got to talking, and it turned out that she was an orphan, raised by her older brother, who was a subsistence farmer. She had no electricity in her home, and studied under street lights. I would say that someone like her, who grew up in serious poverty, with so much motivation and the brains, is MUCH more likely to have what it takes to be successful as a rocket scientist or brain surgeon, than most of the rest of us there that day, that had every advantage.

Cool story bro.

Happens to be true. She struggled in college initially because of language issues; she learned in the local language, and had to translate everything to it from the texts written in English. I helped translate, although not successfully all the time, because I didn’t know names of even some of the simple scientific terms (we were in the science track) in local language. I left for the US before I finished out the year. We corresponded by mail for a few years before I lost touch. She was going into a nursing program with the intent to move abroad once finished, and that would’ve been a huge accomplishment for her. If she had better supports, she could’ve gone even further. She was a lovely person, dignified in the face of a lot of adversity.

And her kids would be openly discriminated against if her kids applied to TJ.

Her kids didn’t overcome the adversity. She did.

Parents have got to stop with this tired narrative that their children should get credit for their struggles, or that they should get credit for their children’s achievements.

You didn't think through your comment, did you?

Oh, I did. I fully understand the point you are trying to make, but it comes from a place of not understanding the difference in the way that Black and Asian CHILDREN are perceived in the educational environment and the opportunities that THEY have.

Black children from educated families have plenty of educational opportunities.

Can even lead to a seat on the Supreme Court.

By a lottery?

At this point, maybe they should. That might be the only way an asian judge can get a seat since nominating an asian does not fit our administration's narrative. Blacks are already represented, maybe it's time to nominate an asian (female if gender is important)

Whom do you suggest?

Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He has been in the running for a while. One of the reasons he didn't make it this time is because the admin specifically wanted a black woman.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/02/04/judge-srinivasan-would-be-great-pick-supreme-court-hes-not-only-great-pick/

PP. Looks eminently qualified. Would not be surprised if he were the next nominee for a Democrat president. Let's hope that Clarence Thomas's corruption finds its way off the court soon.

Don’t think so, he rules to well against the interests of Black people. He’s the Sam Bo who says and does things white supremacist won’t out of fear they will be calling racist

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:According to the Virginia School Board Association, a school board member can be held liable in a court of law for actions he/she took while under authority of his/her school board. According to a VSBA official, school board members can be the object of a lawsuit and can be made to pay penalties and awards set in civil actions.

"They used to be immune, now they can be sued, corporately or individually," said Frank Barnham of the VSBA. "So, it depends on the suit and the judge's ruling. The way the law was changed, they can be held personally and corporately liable."

Sue all of them.

[Anonymous]

Sad that FCPS is being allowed to continue using their racist policy at least for class of 2026

[Anonymous]

FCPS will ultimately lose. It is unfortunate though that it may take awhile for the legal process to play out

[Anonymous]

At least some people can see the obvious: the school board and Brabrand deliberately discriminated against Asian people in the county.

This isn’t over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At least some people can see the obvious: the school board and Brabrand deliberately discriminated against Asian people in the county.

This isn’t over.

Yeah.... No they didn't.

Of the six schools that were most impacted by the admissions changes, they total about 32% Asian, far from a majority and indeed, not even a plurality as there are more white students at those six schools.

Of the remainder of the schools that theoretically benefited from the changes, those schools represent about 70% of the Asian population in FCPS. So far more Asian students actually benefited from the changes than were impacted negatively.

What's true is that a very small sub-segment of students were impacted, but the qualities that they share have very little to do with their race and therefore, the changes were NOT racially motivated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
At this point, maybe they should. That might be the only way an asian judge can get a seat since nominating an asian does not fit our administration's narrative. Blacks are already represented, maybe it's time to nominate an asian (female if gender is important)

Biden had promised a black woman to be the nominee. Otherwise, Sri Srinivasan is considered a likely pick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Yeah.... No they didn't.

Of the six schools that were most impacted by the admissions changes, they total about 32% Asian, far from a majority and indeed, not even a plurality as there are more white students at those six schools.

Of the remainder of the schools that theoretically benefited from the changes, those schools represent about 70% of the Asian population in FCPS. So far more Asian students actually benefited from the changes than were impacted negatively.

What's true is that a very small sub-segment of students were impacted, but the qualities that they share have very little to do with their race and therefore, the changes were NOT racially motivated.

Whether it is a constitutional violation or not, the judge ruled the change of admissions was motivated with intent to discriminate against Asians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least some people can see the obvious: the school board and Brabrand deliberately discriminated against Asian people in the county.

This isn’t over.

Yeah.... No they didn't.

Of the six schools that were most impacted by the admissions changes, they total about 32% Asian, far from a majority and indeed, not even a plurality as there are more white students at those six schools.

Of the remainder of the schools that theoretically benefited from the changes, those schools represent about 70% of the Asian population in FCPS. So far more Asian students actually benefited from the changes than were impacted negatively.

What's true is that a very small sub-segment of students were impacted, but the qualities that they share have very little to do with their race and therefore, the changes were NOT racially motivated.

Higher proportion of Asians in AAP than elsewhere.

Higher proportion of Asians in more difficult classes so getting higher grades is more difficult.

Essays are more difficult for Asians.

Every aspect of the new process is racially motivated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least some people can see the obvious: the school board and Brabrand deliberately discriminated against Asian people in the county.

This isn’t over.

Yeah.... No they didn't.

Of the six schools that were most impacted by the admissions changes, they total about 32% Asian, far from a majority and indeed, not even a plurality as there are more white students at those six schools.

Of the remainder of the schools that theoretically benefited from the changes, those schools represent about 70% of the Asian population in FCPS. So far more Asian students actually benefited from the changes than were impacted negatively.

What's true is that a very small sub-segment of students were impacted, but the qualities that they share have very little to do with their race and therefore, the changes were NOT racially motivated.

Higher proportion of Asians in AAP than elsewhere.

Higher proportion of Asians in more difficult classes so getting higher grades is more difficult.

Essays are more difficult for Asians.

Every aspect of the new process is racially motivated.

Plus experience factors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least some people can see the obvious: the school board and Brabrand deliberately discriminated against Asian people in the county.

This isn’t over.

Yeah.... No they didn't.

Of the six schools that were most impacted by the admissions changes, they total about 32% Asian, far from a majority and indeed, not even a plurality as there are more white students at those six schools.

Of the remainder of the schools that theoretically benefited from the changes, those schools represent about 70% of the Asian population in FCPS. So far more Asian students actually benefited from the changes than were impacted negatively.

What's true is that a very small sub-segment of students were impacted, but the qualities that they share have very little to do with their race and therefore, the changes were NOT racially motivated.

The "very small sub-segment of students" that were impacted amounts to roughly 1/5 of a population of interest: the student who have been admitted to TJ.

The "qualities that they share have very little to do with their race," requires stronger justification when they do all happen to coincidentally share the same race.

Granting either of these points as valid, which they're not, it's still not clear how that would imply that "the changes were NOT racially motivated," especially when there's documented evidence that it was explicitly racially motivated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least some people can see the obvious: the school board and Brabrand deliberately discriminated against Asian people in the county.

This isn’t over.

Yeah.... No they didn't.

Of the six schools that were most impacted by the admissions changes, they total about 32% Asian, far from a majority and indeed, not even a plurality as there are more white students at those six schools.

Of the remainder of the schools that theoretically benefited from the changes, those schools represent about 70% of the Asian population in FCPS. So far more Asian students actually benefited from the changes than were impacted negatively.

What's true is that a very small sub-segment of students were impacted, but the qualities that they share have very little to do with their race and therefore, the changes were NOT racially motivated.

The "very small sub-segment of students" that were impacted amounts to roughly 1/5 of a population of interest: the student who have been admitted to TJ.

The "qualities that they share have very little to do with their race," requires stronger justification when they do all happen to coincidentally share the same race.

Granting either of these points as valid, which they're not, it's still not clear how that would imply that "the changes were NOT racially motivated," especially when there's documented evidence that it was explicitly racially motivated.

Let's see....

1) It's still a very small sub-segment.

2) They certainly do NOT all happen to share the same race. There are PLENTY of AAP students in the six most impacted schools who are not Asian. Indeed, it might even be a majority of those students - those breakdowns are not as easily accessible as the total school breakdowns for obvious reasons.

3) There is NOT documented evidence that the changes were explicitly racially motivated - at least in the sense that the point was to reduce the proportion of Asian students. Wanting to increase the numbers of underrepresented groups and schools is NOT the same as wanting to decrease the numbers of Asians. The much-maligned "TJ Papers" don't achieve that goal - they only show that there was concern within the School Board's membership that the actions taken and the statements by Brabrand could be PERCEIVED as "anti-Asian".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yeah.... No they didn't.

Of the six schools that were most impacted by the admissions changes, they total about 32% Asian, far from a majority and indeed, not even a plurality as there are more white students at those six schools.

Of the remainder of the schools that theoretically benefited from the changes, those schools represent about 70% of the Asian population in FCPS. So far more Asian students actually benefited from the changes than were impacted negatively.

What's true is that a very small sub-segment of students were impacted, but the qualities that they share have very little to do with their race and therefore, the changes were NOT racially motivated.

Whether it is a constitutional violation or not, the judge ruled the change of admissions was motivated with intent to discriminate against Asians.

And a higher-ranking judge ruled that it was not, and used actual reasoning for his decision instead of essentially copying-and-pasting the talking points within the PLF brief.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least some people can see the obvious: the school board and Brabrand deliberately discriminated against Asian people in the county.

This isn’t over.

Yeah.... No they didn't.

Of the six schools that were most impacted by the admissions changes, they total about 32% Asian, far from a majority and indeed, not even a plurality as there are more white students at those six schools.

Of the remainder of the schools that theoretically benefited from the changes, those schools represent about 70% of the Asian population in FCPS. So far more Asian students actually benefited from the changes than were impacted negatively.

What's true is that a very small sub-segment of students were impacted, but the qualities that they share have very little to do with their race and therefore, the changes were NOT racially motivated.

The "very small sub-segment of students" that were impacted amounts to roughly 1/5 of a population of interest: the student who have been admitted to TJ.

The "qualities that they share have very little to do with their race," requires stronger justification when they do all happen to coincidentally share the same race.

Granting either of these points as valid, which they're not, it's still not clear how that would imply that "the changes were NOT racially motivated," especially when there's documented evidence that it was explicitly racially motivated.

Let's see....

1) It's still a very small sub-segment.

2) They certainly do NOT all happen to share the same race. There are PLENTY of AAP students in the six most impacted schools who are not Asian. Indeed, it might even be a majority of those students - those breakdowns are not as easily accessible as the total school breakdowns for obvious reasons.

3) There is NOT documented evidence that the changes were explicitly racially motivated - at least in the sense that the point was to reduce the proportion of Asian students. Wanting to increase the numbers of underrepresented groups and schools is NOT the same as wanting to decrease the numbers of Asians. The much-maligned "TJ Papers" don't achieve that goal - they only show that there was concern within the School Board's membership that the actions taken and the statements by Brabrand could be PERCEIVED as "anti-Asian".

1) Are you claiming that 1/5 is very small, or are you claiming that the percentage of students admitted to TJ is very small in the grand scheme of things? If it's the former, I'd accuse you of reductivism: 20% of a significant population is very sizeable. If it's the latter, I'd point out that if the population that gets into TJ was so negligible, there wouldn't be so much furor over the issue from all sides.

2) I'll grant that I worded it a bit unfairly, but another poster above me did a better job than me of pointing out why it would have hit Asians more squarely than other races.

3) I do realize that for every racist that makes ugly comments, there will always be others with similar interests who will easily shrug off their comments like it's no big deal. That's human nature, and I don't blame you for that, but let's not deceive ourselves into thinking that it wasn't a flat-out racist motive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least some people can see the obvious: the school board and Brabrand deliberately discriminated against Asian people in the county.

This isn’t over.

Yeah.... No they didn't.

Of the six schools that were most impacted by the admissions changes, they total about 32% Asian, far from a majority and indeed, not even a plurality as there are more white students at those six schools.

Of the remainder of the schools that theoretically benefited from the changes, those schools represent about 70% of the Asian population in FCPS. So far more Asian students actually benefited from the changes than were impacted negatively.

What's true is that a very small sub-segment of students were impacted, but the qualities that they share have very little to do with their race and therefore, the changes were NOT racially motivated.

The "very small sub-segment of students" that were impacted amounts to roughly 1/5 of a population of interest: the student who have been admitted to TJ.

The "qualities that they share have very little to do with their race," requires stronger justification when they do all happen to coincidentally share the same race.

Granting either of these points as valid, which they're not, it's still not clear how that would imply that "the changes were NOT racially motivated," especially when there's documented evidence that it was explicitly racially motivated.

Let's see....

1) It's still a very small sub-segment.

2) They certainly do NOT all happen to share the same race. There are PLENTY of AAP students in the six most impacted schools who are not Asian. Indeed, it might even be a majority of those students - those breakdowns are not as easily accessible as the total school breakdowns for obvious reasons.

3) There is NOT documented evidence that the changes were explicitly racially motivated - at least in the sense that the point was to reduce the proportion of Asian students. Wanting to increase the numbers of underrepresented groups and schools is NOT the same as wanting to decrease the numbers of Asians. The much-maligned "TJ Papers" don't achieve that goal - they only show that there was concern within the School Board's membership that the actions taken and the statements by Brabrand could be PERCEIVED as "anti-Asian".

1) Are you claiming that 1/5 is very small, or are you claiming that the percentage of students admitted to TJ is very small in the grand scheme of things? If it's the former, I'd accuse you of reductivism: 20% of a significant population is very sizeable. If it's the latter, I'd point out that if the population that gets into TJ was so negligible, there wouldn't be so much furor over the issue from all sides.

2) I'll grant that I worded it a bit unfairly, but another poster above me did a better job than me of pointing out why it would have hit Asians more squarely than other races.

3) I do realize that for every racist that makes ugly comments, there will always be others with similar interests who will easily shrug off their comments like it's no big deal. That's human nature, and I don't blame you for that, but let's not deceive ourselves into thinking that it wasn't a flat-out racist motive.

1) The number of students who were actually impacted by these changes represents a very small percentage of the total number of students who apply to the school in each year.

2) I appreciate your recognizance, but the reasons why it would hit Asians more squarely have much more to do with the ubiquity of expensive exam prep within those communities. And the fact that Asian families choose to do expend their resources in that manner can't be held against a school system trying to reduce or remove the impact of one high-stakes exam.

3) I'm not sure what point you're making here. I will allow that a large portion of the motive was to increase access and opportunities for Black and Hispanic students, but as I've repeatedly said, had this school board accomplished that goal by reducing the white population, they'd have considered it just as large a victory - and therefore the motivation cannot have been derived from animus against Asians.