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: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.

That's beside the point. The PP thought that the selection process being race blind is somehow vindication of the process. It isn't.

[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....

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.

That's beside the point. The PP thought that the selection process being race blind is somehow vindication of the process. It isn't.

It sounds like you're saying f the outcome isn't 100% Asians it's racist?

[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.

Not sure what facisally neutral means but race blind selection means race isn't a factor.

[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.

If that's true the only way to avoid discrimination would be to select strictly by the numbers. If group A is 50% of the applicants, they must be 50% of the selectees. Any other method, nomatter how facially neutral, will disparately impact somebody. Luckily we're not there yet, legal-wise.

[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....

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

If that's true the only way to avoid discrimination would be to select strictly by the numbers. If group A is 50% of the applicants, they must be 50% of the selectees. Any other method, nomatter how facially neutral, will disparately impact somebody. Luckily we're not there yet, legal-wise.

LOL The TJ families opposing the new policy would lose their $!#@ if that happened. The number of slots for Asians would plummet.

[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....

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.

That's beside the point. The PP thought that the selection process being race blind is somehow vindication of the process. It isn't.

Well it means race blind which means they can't discriminate based on race but I guess you can imagine conspiriacies.

[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....

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

If that's true the only way to avoid discrimination would be to select strictly by the numbers. If group A is 50% of the applicants, they must be 50% of the selectees. Any other method, nomatter how facially neutral, will disparately impact somebody. Luckily we're not there yet, legal-wise.

LOL The TJ families opposing the new policy would lose their $!#@ if that happened. The number of slots for Asians would plummet.

I'm pretty sure that's illegal.

[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: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.

If that's true the only way to avoid discrimination would be to select strictly by the numbers. If group A is 50% of the applicants, they must be 50% of the selectees. Any other method, nomatter how facially neutral, will disparately impact somebody. Luckily we're not there yet, legal-wise.

LOL The TJ families opposing the new policy would lose their $!#@ if that happened. The number of slots for Asians would plummet.

I'm pretty sure that's illegal.

Of course it is. Don't feed the ignorant troll.

[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: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.

That's beside the point. The PP thought that the selection process being race blind is somehow vindication of the process. It isn't.

Well it means race blind which means they can't discriminate based on race but I guess you can imagine conspiriacies.

Not sure where you are headed with this. The prior process (at least to get to the semi-finals) was race blind and race neutral because it was an objective test that everyone took. Same test taken at the same time. That's as race blind and race neutral as you can get. The whole point of admissions changes is the conspiracy theory that someone Asians are gaming the system as opposed to working really hard to do their best. I'm not necessarily opposed to reforms if they are determined to be legal, but let's be honest about it. The success of Asians in the prior process has led to more and more reforms (subjective essays) until the FCPS decided they needed to scrap the process entirely and do something different if they wanted the demographics of the school to reflect more of that of the county. Not saying its right, wrong, legal, or illegal - but I am not denying why it was done and I am willing to live with the outcome of the court case. Why is that so hard for people to accept?

[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: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.

If that's true the only way to avoid discrimination would be to select strictly by the numbers. If group A is 50% of the applicants, they must be 50% of the selectees. Any other method, nomatter how facially neutral, will disparately impact somebody. Luckily we're not there yet, legal-wise.

LOL The TJ families opposing the new policy would lose their $!#@ if that happened. The number of slots for Asians would plummet.

I'm pretty sure that's illegal.

Actually it's the only way to avoid discrimination, other than selecting randomly such as a lottery.

[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: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.

That's beside the point. The PP thought that the selection process being race blind is somehow vindication of the process. It isn't.

Well it means race blind which means they can't discriminate based on race but I guess you can imagine conspiriacies.

Not sure where you are headed with this. The prior process (at least to get to the semi-finals) was race blind and race neutral because it was an objective test that everyone took. Same test taken at the same time. That's as race blind and race neutral as you can get. The whole point of admissions changes is the conspiracy theory that someone Asians are gaming the system as opposed to working really hard to do their best. I'm not necessarily opposed to reforms if they are determined to be legal, but let's be honest about it. The success of Asians in the prior process has led to more and more reforms (subjective essays) until the FCPS decided they needed to scrap the process entirely and do something different if they wanted the demographics of the school to reflect more of that of the county. Not saying its right, wrong, legal, or illegal - but I am not denying why it was done and I am willing to live with the outcome of the court case. Why is that so hard for people to accept?

You gotta be kidding. Those tests had tremendous disparate impact on black and Hispanic test takers.

[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: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.

That's beside the point. The PP thought that the selection process being race blind is somehow vindication of the process. It isn't.

Well it means race blind which means they can't discriminate based on race but I guess you can imagine conspiriacies.

Not sure where you are headed with this. The prior process (at least to get to the semi-finals) was race blind and race neutral because it was an objective test that everyone took. Same test taken at the same time. That's as race blind and race neutral as you can get. The whole point of admissions changes is the conspiracy theory that someone Asians are gaming the system as opposed to working really hard to do their best. I'm not necessarily opposed to reforms if they are determined to be legal, but let's be honest about it. The success of Asians in the prior process has led to more and more reforms (subjective essays) until the FCPS decided they needed to scrap the process entirely and do something different if they wanted the demographics of the school to reflect more of that of the county. Not saying its right, wrong, legal, or illegal - but I am not denying why it was done and I am willing to live with the outcome of the court case. Why is that so hard for people to accept?

You want to continue to ignore the fact that there is a great deal of evidence and a large number of studies that demonstrate that those "objective tests" are anything but objective. There is nothing objective about a test that people spend thousands of dollars prepping for in order to score well on. This is why tests like the quant test at TJ and now tests like the ACT and SAT are diminishing in importance for entrance at high schools and colleges across the country.

TJ's admissions policies compares kids with similar profiles for acceptance at the school. It uses the classes they took and grades into consideration. Algebra 1 is the same class across the county, or at least it is supposed to be. And the reality is the part that pisses people off has nothing to do with dropping the test but that kids from every MS are guaranteed admission. That is what cut into the number of Asians at TJ. Kids from schools that teach more Black and Hispanic students are guaranteed 7-9 spots. You could care less about the test, you just don't want Asian kids to drop from 75% of the class to 50% of the class or lower.

[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: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.

That's beside the point. The PP thought that the selection process being race blind is somehow vindication of the process. It isn't.

Well it means race blind which means they can't discriminate based on race but I guess you can imagine conspiriacies.

Not sure where you are headed with this. The prior process (at least to get to the semi-finals) was race blind and race neutral because it was an objective test that everyone took. Same test taken at the same time. That's as race blind and race neutral as you can get. The whole point of admissions changes is the conspiracy theory that someone Asians are gaming the system as opposed to working really hard to do their best. I'm not necessarily opposed to reforms if they are determined to be legal, but let's be honest about it. The success of Asians in the prior process has led to more and more reforms (subjective essays) until the FCPS decided they needed to scrap the process entirely and do something different if they wanted the demographics of the school to reflect more of that of the county. Not saying its right, wrong, legal, or illegal - but I am not denying why it was done and I am willing to live with the outcome of the court case. Why is that so hard for people to accept?

You want to continue to ignore the fact that there is a great deal of evidence and a large number of studies that demonstrate that those "objective tests" are anything but objective. There is nothing objective about a test that people spend thousands of dollars prepping for in order to score well on. This is why tests like the quant test at TJ and now tests like the ACT and SAT are diminishing in importance for entrance at high schools and colleges across the country.

TJ's admissions policies compares kids with similar profiles for acceptance at the school. It uses the classes they took and grades into consideration. Algebra 1 is the same class across the county, or at least it is supposed to be. And the reality is the part that pisses people off has nothing to do with dropping the test but that kids from every MS are guaranteed admission. That is what cut into the number of Asians at TJ. Kids from schools that teach more Black and Hispanic students are guaranteed 7-9 spots. You could care less about the test, you just don't want Asian kids to drop from 75% of the class to 50% of the class or lower.

I think that's part of it but also the test itself is being gamed by those who take outside classes to artificially boost their scores. This gives them a big advantage over those who don't. This unfairly favors the wealthy and reduces diversity in a program that should benefit all students.

[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: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.

If that's true the only way to avoid discrimination would be to select strictly by the numbers. If group A is 50% of the applicants, they must be 50% of the selectees. Any other method, nomatter how facially neutral, will disparately impact somebody. Luckily we're not there yet, legal-wise.

LOL The TJ families opposing the new policy would lose their $!#@ if that happened. The number of slots for Asians would plummet.

I'm pretty sure that's illegal.

Actually it's the only way to avoid discrimination, other than selecting randomly such as a lottery.

Then since the former is llegal then lottery it is!

[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: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.

If that's true the only way to avoid discrimination would be to select strictly by the numbers. If group A is 50% of the applicants, they must be 50% of the selectees. Any other method, nomatter how facially neutral, will disparately impact somebody. Luckily we're not there yet, legal-wise.

LOL The TJ families opposing the new policy would lose their $!#@ if that happened. The number of slots for Asians would plummet.

I'm pretty sure that's illegal.

Actually it's the only way to avoid discrimination, other than selecting randomly such as a lottery.

Then since the former is llegal then lottery it is!

Fine. Each school draws it's 1.5% representation for the lottery and then they can have a general lottery for everyone not drawn out of their school pool.