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: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.

Seems incredibly myopic. The number of people who live in Ukraine is a very small percentage of the world's population, yet there's understandably considerable concern for them. If a team's star player is out with an injury, they represent an exceedingly small percentage of the community's population, yet they're a very significant absence on game day. The number of people who are qualified to give professional medical opinions if you need surgery is a very small amount of the population, but they're the ones who matter when it counts. I could go on, but it's not without reason why it makes sense to focus on the kids getting into TJ when we're talking about numbers.

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.

You're wrongly assuming that the existence of one set of factors precludes other factors, and in particular, of the whole set of factors that apply to the situation, the only ones which are relevant are the ones you can cast in a negative light. It doesn't work like that.

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.

Circular argument - you're using the premise that there was no racial motive to prove that there was no racial motive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The Court of Appeals granted stay of the District Court's Order - merely "holding" the execution of the injunctive order until the appeals case is decided on the merits. We are still waiting for the Court of Appeals to decide on the merits of the case on appeal. The ruling of the District Court still stands until the Court of Appeals issues the decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Seems incredibly myopic. The number of people who live in Ukraine is a very small percentage of the world's population, yet there's understandably considerable concern for them. If a team's star player is out with an injury, they represent an exceedingly small percentage of the community's population, yet they're a very significant absence on game day. The number of people who are qualified to give professional medical opinions if you need surgery is a very small amount of the population, but they're the ones who matter when it counts. I could go on, but it's not without reason why it makes sense to focus on the kids getting into TJ when we're talking about numbers.

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.

You're wrongly assuming that the existence of one set of factors precludes other factors, and in particular, of the whole set of factors that apply to the situation, the only ones which are relevant are the ones you can cast in a negative light. It doesn't work like that.

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.

Circular argument - you're using the premise that there was no racial motive to prove that there was no racial motive.

Pssst - selection is race blind....

[Anonymous]

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

I read the new policy fosters greater inclusion and diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Seems incredibly myopic. The number of people who live in Ukraine is a very small percentage of the world's population, yet there's understandably considerable concern for them. If a team's star player is out with an injury, they represent an exceedingly small percentage of the community's population, yet they're a very significant absence on game day. The number of people who are qualified to give professional medical opinions if you need surgery is a very small amount of the population, but they're the ones who matter when it counts. I could go on, but it's not without reason why it makes sense to focus on the kids getting into TJ when we're talking about numbers.

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.

You're wrongly assuming that the existence of one set of factors precludes other factors, and in particular, of the whole set of factors that apply to the situation, the only ones which are relevant are the ones you can cast in a negative light. It doesn't work like that.

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.

Circular argument - you're using the premise that there was no racial motive to prove that there was no racial motive.

Pssst - selection is race blind....

Pssst - it is NOT race blind in practice. Just ask UC (California) officials. They will tell you that racial preferences in college admissions are banned in the State but honest ones will tell you they still make sure to give preferences to URMs. I was a reader for one of the UCs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Seems incredibly myopic. The number of people who live in Ukraine is a very small percentage of the world's population, yet there's understandably considerable concern for them. If a team's star player is out with an injury, they represent an exceedingly small percentage of the community's population, yet they're a very significant absence on game day. The number of people who are qualified to give professional medical opinions if you need surgery is a very small amount of the population, but they're the ones who matter when it counts. I could go on, but it's not without reason why it makes sense to focus on the kids getting into TJ when we're talking about numbers.

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.

You're wrongly assuming that the existence of one set of factors precludes other factors, and in particular, of the whole set of factors that apply to the situation, the only ones which are relevant are the ones you can cast in a negative light. It doesn't work like that.

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.

Circular argument - you're using the premise that there was no racial motive to prove that there was no racial motive.

Pssst - selection is race blind....

Not as race blind as an admissions test every applicant takes . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Seems incredibly myopic. The number of people who live in Ukraine is a very small percentage of the world's population, yet there's understandably considerable concern for them. If a team's star player is out with an injury, they represent an exceedingly small percentage of the community's population, yet they're a very significant absence on game day. The number of people who are qualified to give professional medical opinions if you need surgery is a very small amount of the population, but they're the ones who matter when it counts. I could go on, but it's not without reason why it makes sense to focus on the kids getting into TJ when we're talking about numbers.

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.

You're wrongly assuming that the existence of one set of factors precludes other factors, and in particular, of the whole set of factors that apply to the situation, the only ones which are relevant are the ones you can cast in a negative light. It doesn't work like that.

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.

Circular argument - you're using the premise that there was no racial motive to prove that there was no racial motive.

Pssst - selection is race blind....

Not as race blind as an admissions test every applicant takes . . .

Just as race blind. Just not as gameable by the test cheaters who pay thousands to game the system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Seems incredibly myopic. The number of people who live in Ukraine is a very small percentage of the world's population, yet there's understandably considerable concern for them. If a team's star player is out with an injury, they represent an exceedingly small percentage of the community's population, yet they're a very significant absence on game day. The number of people who are qualified to give professional medical opinions if you need surgery is a very small amount of the population, but they're the ones who matter when it counts. I could go on, but it's not without reason why it makes sense to focus on the kids getting into TJ when we're talking about numbers.

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.

You're wrongly assuming that the existence of one set of factors precludes other factors, and in particular, of the whole set of factors that apply to the situation, the only ones which are relevant are the ones you can cast in a negative light. It doesn't work like that.

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.

Circular argument - you're using the premise that there was no racial motive to prove that there was no racial motive.

Pssst - selection is race blind....

Not as race blind as an admissions test every applicant takes . . .

Just as race blind. Just not as gameable by the test cheaters who pay thousands to game the system.

Daily reminder that you folks bickering with each other ad nauseum is Exhibit A as to why TJHSST should be dissolved with the building returned to community use.

You’re equally insufferable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Seems incredibly myopic. The number of people who live in Ukraine is a very small percentage of the world's population, yet there's understandably considerable concern for them. If a team's star player is out with an injury, they represent an exceedingly small percentage of the community's population, yet they're a very significant absence on game day. The number of people who are qualified to give professional medical opinions if you need surgery is a very small amount of the population, but they're the ones who matter when it counts. I could go on, but it's not without reason why it makes sense to focus on the kids getting into TJ when we're talking about numbers.

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.

You're wrongly assuming that the existence of one set of factors precludes other factors, and in particular, of the whole set of factors that apply to the situation, the only ones which are relevant are the ones you can cast in a negative light. It doesn't work like that.

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.

Circular argument - you're using the premise that there was no racial motive to prove that there was no racial motive.

Pssst - selection is race blind....

Not as race blind as an admissions test every applicant takes . . .

Just as race blind. Just not as gameable by the test cheaters who pay thousands to game the system.

Daily reminder that you folks bickering with each other ad nauseum is Exhibit A as to why TJHSST should be dissolved with the building returned to community use.

You’re equally insufferable.

And people who repeatedly suggest getting rid of TJ and it’s unique offerings and environment are even worse and ridiculously shortsighted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

I read the new policy fosters greater inclusion and diversity.

When one creates propaganda, then cites their own propaganda to give it an air of independent revelation, expecting that people who are readers of an AAP forum won't be able to catch on.

[Anonymous]

What are "the six most impacted schools"?

Cooper, Carson, Longfellow, Rocky Run and?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Seems incredibly myopic. The number of people who live in Ukraine is a very small percentage of the world's population, yet there's understandably considerable concern for them. If a team's star player is out with an injury, they represent an exceedingly small percentage of the community's population, yet they're a very significant absence on game day. The number of people who are qualified to give professional medical opinions if you need surgery is a very small amount of the population, but they're the ones who matter when it counts. I could go on, but it's not without reason why it makes sense to focus on the kids getting into TJ when we're talking about numbers.

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.

You're wrongly assuming that the existence of one set of factors precludes other factors, and in particular, of the whole set of factors that apply to the situation, the only ones which are relevant are the ones you can cast in a negative light. It doesn't work like that.

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.

Circular argument - you're using the premise that there was no racial motive to prove that there was no racial motive.

Pssst - selection is race blind....

Not as race blind as an admissions test every applicant takes . . .

Just as race blind. Just not as gameable by the test cheaters who pay thousands to game the system.

So you are backing of the race issue and back to the "test cheaters" BS. FWIW - It is much, much easier to tell the race and gender of the author of an essay, especially when they tell you in the essay. They could be lying, but that is far less likely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Seems incredibly myopic. The number of people who live in Ukraine is a very small percentage of the world's population, yet there's understandably considerable concern for them. If a team's star player is out with an injury, they represent an exceedingly small percentage of the community's population, yet they're a very significant absence on game day. The number of people who are qualified to give professional medical opinions if you need surgery is a very small amount of the population, but they're the ones who matter when it counts. I could go on, but it's not without reason why it makes sense to focus on the kids getting into TJ when we're talking about numbers.

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.

You're wrongly assuming that the existence of one set of factors precludes other factors, and in particular, of the whole set of factors that apply to the situation, the only ones which are relevant are the ones you can cast in a negative light. It doesn't work like that.

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.

Circular argument - you're using the premise that there was no racial motive to prove that there was no racial motive.

Pssst - selection is race blind....

Pssst - facially neutral policies can still be racist. Help the world by ridding yourself of ignorance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What are "the six most impacted schools"?

Cooper, Carson, Longfellow, Rocky Run and?

Frost and Luther Jackson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Seems incredibly myopic. The number of people who live in Ukraine is a very small percentage of the world's population, yet there's understandably considerable concern for them. If a team's star player is out with an injury, they represent an exceedingly small percentage of the community's population, yet they're a very significant absence on game day. The number of people who are qualified to give professional medical opinions if you need surgery is a very small amount of the population, but they're the ones who matter when it counts. I could go on, but it's not without reason why it makes sense to focus on the kids getting into TJ when we're talking about numbers.

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.

You're wrongly assuming that the existence of one set of factors precludes other factors, and in particular, of the whole set of factors that apply to the situation, the only ones which are relevant are the ones you can cast in a negative light. It doesn't work like that.

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.

Circular argument - you're using the premise that there was no racial motive to prove that there was no racial motive.

Pssst - selection is race blind....

Pssst - facially neutral policies can still be racist. Help the world by ridding yourself of ignorance.

Facially neutral policies can also not be racist. Indeed many of them are, especially when they are seeking to remove the impacts of a policy that was very racially impactful.