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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

I went to an admissions information session at DS's middle school - Kilmer - back in 2017. The father of one of my son's friends stood up during the Q&A and said - in no uncertain terms - that the existence of any black kids at TJ is evidence of affirmative action.

sounds like fake news

It's not. My son still talks about it today. It was horrifying, and what was equally horrifying was the number of parents who nodded along as if to say "well, I'm glad SOMEONE finally said it".

What exactly is your point? It seems that in this forum that when white people are losing an argument, they get into a look how noble we are and how nasty those Asians imagined indignation story. Please..such fake hypocrites you are. I know your sorts.

DP: What??? The example didn't say anything about the race of the father who said the awful thing, nor the race of the people who nodded along (except we can guess they aren't Black). They didn't say their race either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

I went to an admissions information session at DS's middle school - Kilmer - back in 2017. The father of one of my son's friends stood up during the Q&A and said - in no uncertain terms - that the existence of any black kids at TJ is evidence of affirmative action.

sounds like fake news

It's not. My son still talks about it today. It was horrifying, and what was equally horrifying was the number of parents who nodded along as if to say "well, I'm glad SOMEONE finally said it".

What exactly is your point? It seems that in this forum that when white people are losing an argument, they get into a look how noble we are and how nasty those Asians imagined indignation story. Please..such fake hypocrites you are. I know your sorts.

DP: What??? The example didn't say anything about the race of the father who said the awful thing, nor the race of the people who nodded along (except we can guess they aren't Black). They didn't say their race either.

They tell on themselves, don’t they? Every. Single. Time.

It’s because they know that it’s a thing that they talk about in private and they’re upset about the secret getting out about their true feelings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

Standardized exams are race-blind but are NOT race-neutral. Believing that they are betrays a lack of understanding of the definition of "race-neutral".

Agree and the evidence suggests the test they were using for admissions greatly favors some groups over others and was part of the problem. I'd like greater diversity and inclusion. I think all kids should have an equal shot at these opportunities.

Bull. And what evidence are you alleging suggests the test greatly favored some groups over others? The NAACP sued FCPS and lost. The FCSB did not allege that the test "favored" certain groups. Unless what you mean by favored some groups you mean kids that are extremely bright and good at math versus kids that are not as bright and not as good as math, you are full of crap and creating your own strawman argument to attack for your self-righteous virtue signaling. #wokie

This is evident simply by looking at the outcomes. I would argue it relates directly to those who rely heavily on outside cram schools but that's just a guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

Standardized exams are race-blind but are NOT race-neutral. Believing that they are betrays a lack of understanding of the definition of "race-neutral".

Agree and the evidence suggests the test they were using for admissions greatly favors some groups over others and was part of the problem. I'd like greater diversity and inclusion. I think all kids should have an equal shot at these opportunities.

Bull. And what evidence are you alleging suggests the test greatly favored some groups over others? The NAACP sued FCPS and lost. The FCSB did not allege that the test "favored" certain groups. Unless what you mean by favored some groups you mean kids that are extremely bright and good at math versus kids that are not as bright and not as good as math, you are full of crap and creating your own strawman argument to attack for your self-righteous virtue signaling. #wokie

This is evident simply by looking at the outcomes. I would argue it relates directly to those who rely heavily on outside cram schools but that's just a guess.

What group was favored? And how so?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

I went to an admissions information session at DS's middle school - Kilmer - back in 2017. The father of one of my son's friends stood up during the Q&A and said - in no uncertain terms - that the existence of any black kids at TJ is evidence of affirmative action.

sounds like fake news

It's not. My son still talks about it today. It was horrifying, and what was equally horrifying was the number of parents who nodded along as if to say "well, I'm glad SOMEONE finally said it".

What exactly is your point? It seems that in this forum that when white people are losing an argument, they get into a look how noble we are and how nasty those Asians imagined indignation story. Please..such fake hypocrites you are. I know your sorts.

DP: What??? The example didn't say anything about the race of the father who said the awful thing, nor the race of the people who nodded along (except we can guess they aren't Black). They didn't say their race either.

They tell on themselves, don’t they? Every. Single. Time.

It’s because they know that it’s a thing that they talk about in private and they’re upset about the secret getting out about their true feelings.

Absolutely true. Miss holier than thou.

[Anonymous]

Can we either fix the title or retire this thread please? Grates every time I check the forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can we either fix the title or retire this thread please? Grates every time I check the forum.

Facts don't care about your feelings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

Standardized exams are race-blind but are NOT race-neutral. Believing that they are betrays a lack of understanding of the definition of "race-neutral".

Agree and the evidence suggests the test they were using for admissions greatly favors some groups over others and was part of the problem. I'd like greater diversity and inclusion. I think all kids should have an equal shot at these opportunities.

Bull. And what evidence are you alleging suggests the test greatly favored some groups over others? The NAACP sued FCPS and lost. The FCSB did not allege that the test "favored" certain groups. Unless what you mean by favored some groups you mean kids that are extremely bright and good at math versus kids that are not as bright and not as good as math, you are full of crap and creating your own strawman argument to attack for your self-righteous virtue signaling. #wokie

This is evident simply by looking at the outcomes. I would argue it relates directly to those who rely heavily on outside cram schools but that's just a guess.

What group was favored? And how so?

The same group that is suing because they other minority students may take a few spots they normally would have gotten with their manipulated test scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can we either fix the title or retire this thread please? Grates every time I check the forum.

It does grate for the Asians who were discriminated against.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we either fix the title or retire this thread please? Grates every time I check the forum.

It does grate for the Asians who were discriminated against.

How is iit the group with the most spots in these programs by a wide margin is being discriminated against exactly?

[Anonymous]

This outlook that any education policy change that results in a higher proportion of low income Black and Hispanic in elite programs is racist simply because there is less high income Asians is terrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we either fix the title or retire this thread please? Grates every time I check the forum.

It does grate for the Asians who were discriminated against.

How is iit the group with the most spots in these programs by a wide margin is being discriminated against exactly?

There are so many of them. Just purge a few. Doesn't matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
This outlook that any education policy change that results in a higher proportion of low income Black and Hispanic in elite programs is racist simply because there is less high income Asians is terrible.

Outcomes can't justify a crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we either fix the title or retire this thread please? Grates every time I check the forum.

It does grate for the Asians who were discriminated against.

You mean the poor ones who NEVER got into TJ under the old admissions process because they couldn't afford boutique test prep? I can understand that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This outlook that any education policy change that results in a higher proportion of low income Black and Hispanic in elite programs is racist simply because there is less high income Asians is terrible.

Outcomes can't justify a crime.

It isn’t a crime to use GPA to determine access to a program instead of an outside test that the privilege can prep for.

Claiming anything that the rich can’t pay for pay for is a crime is ridiculous and likely a crime in it self since you are blocking the poor from opportunities.