Court: TJ's New Admission Policy Does Not Discriminate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A main argument in the finding is that not only are Asian students still disproportionate to their share of the population, but the admittance rate for Asian students is higher than for other groups. Therefore, it is not discriminatory against Asians. The counterargument is that relative to the old policy, there are fewer Asian students.

I think the Fourth Circuit makes a fairly compelling argument against that reasoning. It doesn't make sense to make the past year's enrollment numbers a quota for how many students of each race are enrolled and have any policy change that changes that number be an equal protection violation. That would effectively make changing government policy illegal, because any change is probably going to change the numbers in one direction or another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who would possibly think the new policy discriminates? Families are free to choose where to live knowing the policy exists. If they want to continue to cram into the same three middle schools, that’s on them.

+1 harsh but true. Sometimes it’s better to be the big fish in the smaller pond. Give some of the middle class schools a try like Twain or South County and see where you land.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who would possibly think the new policy discriminates? Families are free to choose where to live knowing the policy exists. If they want to continue to cram into the same three middle schools, that’s on them.

Well they changed the policy without any advance notice- they really did a number on the kids who were in 8th grade at the time and also didn’t make any plans to address the additional kids who would now be in base schools, including the already overcrowded McLean which is ended getting a lot more students from Longfellow than they used to.

All that’s to say is the changed may not be unconstitutional but boy were they sloppily conceived and executed (just watch the video of the board meeting where they voted on the change- what a sh!$show) and done in the fall of 2020 when the board should’ve been focused on other things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh boy, this is really going to piss off all the Annandale Asians.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/05/23/thomas-jefferson-admissions-policy-upheld/

That post that tells me you don't know much about the current demographics in Fairfax.

The "Annandale Asians" were a beneficiary of the TJ admissions changes. They attend middle schools - Frost, Glasgow, Holmes, and Poe - that were either AAP centers that didn't send many kids to TJ compared to the top three (Frost and Glasgow) or sent next to no students to TJ (Holmes and Poe). They are beneficiaries of the change.

The Asian families whose kids saw reduced access to TJ were primarily at Carson, Cooper, Longfellow, and Rocky Run, as well as at a few middle schools in Ashburn. Most of the plaintiffs in the TJ lawsuit were kids or parents of kids at these schools, none of which are in Annandale.

The number of Asian parents still highly agitated about the TJ admissions changes - those behind the "Coalition for TJ" - are relatively small in number. Many still hope their kids will attend TJ, but some are losing interest in TJ (including Loudoun parents now more interested in the Loudoun magnet); others also hedge their bets by moving into HS pyramids like Chantilly, Langley, McLean, and Oakton. While these schools can't offer everything that TJ can, they are very strong.

Also, insofar as the court case goes, the Coalition for TJ always expected Hilton's ruling to get reversed by the 4th Circuit. Their hope has always been that the Supreme Court, which is more conservative than the 4th Circuit, would agree to hear the case, but that's a crap shoot (the chances of getting the Supreme Court to grant certiorari and hear the case are a crap shoot, just like getting into TJ is).

[Anonymous]

It was a 2-1 appellate decision. So the question is whether the Supreme Court would take up the case, and then agree more with the 1 dissenting judge than the 2 judges in the majority. I don't think there's much doubt that they would if they took on the case, but they may be tired of education cases after the two (Harvard and UNC) about to be announced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh boy, this is really going to piss off all the Annandale Asians.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/05/23/thomas-jefferson-admissions-policy-upheld/

It actually shouldn’t. It WILL piss off the Ashburn, Herndon, and Chantilly Asians.

The Annandale Asians are disproportionately more low-income, and they were by FAR the greatest beneficiaries of the new policy. One low income Asian admit for 2024, and 51 for 2025.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Firewall. Please summarize

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A main argument in the finding is that not only are Asian students still disproportionate to their share of the population, but the admittance rate for Asian students is higher than for other groups. Therefore, it is not discriminatory against Asians. The counterargument is that relative to the old policy, there are fewer Asian students.

I think the Fourth Circuit makes a fairly compelling argument against that reasoning. It doesn't make sense to make the past year's enrollment numbers a quota for how many students of each race are enrolled and have any policy change that changes that number be an equal protection violation. That would effectively make changing government policy illegal, because any change is probably going to change the numbers in one direction or another.

Precisely. Thank you for being one of the few people who will actually read the opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:from WAPO:

“The challenged admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students and that the Coalition cannot establish that the Board adopted its race-neutral policy with any discriminatory intent,” the 4th Circuit opinion, written by Judge Robert B. King, reads."

Dropping 20% seems to prove otherwise.

[Anonymous]

I’m so glad that the Court dug into Asra’s lame attempt to turn the text messages and emails into “the TJ papers”.

The depths of her bad faith know no bounds. An embarrassment to her family - including, quite publicly, her son - her race, her community, her profession, and the institutions that have employed and continue to employ her.

Sadly, her attempts to burn everything to the ground will have her laughing all the way to the bank, but at what cost?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:from WAPO:

“The challenged admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students and that the Coalition cannot establish that the Board adopted its race-neutral policy with any discriminatory intent,” the 4th Circuit opinion, written by Judge Robert B. King, reads."

Dropping 20% seems to prove otherwise.

It doesn’t, especially when, as is fairly obvious using comparative statistics, the prior admissions policy discriminated against poor kids and in favor of families with the means and motivation to send their kids to boutique prep academies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh boy, this is really going to piss off all the Annandale Asians.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/05/23/thomas-jefferson-admissions-policy-upheld/

That post that tells me you don't know much about the current demographics in Fairfax.

The "Annandale Asians" were a beneficiary of the TJ admissions changes. They attend middle schools - Frost, Glasgow, Holmes, and Poe - that were either AAP centers that didn't send many kids to TJ compared to the top three (Frost and Glasgow) or sent next to no students to TJ (Holmes and Poe). They are beneficiaries of the change.

The Asian families whose kids saw reduced access to TJ were primarily at Carson, Cooper, Longfellow, and Rocky Run, as well as at a few middle schools in Ashburn. Most of the plaintiffs in the TJ lawsuit were kids or parents of kids at these schools, none of which are in Annandale.

The number of Asian parents still highly agitated about the TJ admissions changes - those behind the "Coalition for TJ" - are relatively small in number. Many still hope their kids will attend TJ, but some are losing interest in TJ (including Loudoun parents now more interested in the Loudoun magnet); others also hedge their bets by moving into HS pyramids like Chantilly, Langley, McLean, and Oakton. While these schools can't offer everything that TJ can, they are very strong.

Also, insofar as the court case goes, the Coalition for TJ always expected Hilton's ruling to get reversed by the 4th Circuit. Their hope has always been that the Supreme Court, which is more conservative than the 4th Circuit, would agree to hear the case, but that's a crap shoot (the chances of getting the Supreme Court to grant certiorari and hear the case are a crap shoot, just like getting into TJ is).

This. It is by no means a slam dunk that SCOTUS grants cert in this case. The facts of it are far weaker for creating conservative precedent than Harvard or UNC.

The weakness of Hilton’s original opinion and the ease with which Heytens and King have drilled it into oblivion would have to give them pause.

Even Rushing’s dissent was halfhearted at best and not at the usual level of her reasoning.

[Anonymous]

Just.wait.for.the.Supreme.Court.

The appeals court decided 2-1 as per party lines. 2 Obama appointees - 1 Trump appointee.

The Supreme Court is differently constituted.

So hold your horses and your anti- Asian diatribes.

It ain’t over till it’s over.

[Anonymous]

why can't any of you read? This was a procedural decision - it means nothing - the case continues on. That is all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:why can't any of you read? This was a procedural decision - it means nothing - the case continues on. That is all.

The case will continue if the Supreme Court takes it up, but remanding for an entry of summary judgement in favor of the Board isn't a procedural decision and in the Supreme Court doesn't grant cert, the case is over.