Supreme Court Is Asked to Hear a New Admissions Case on Race

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Playing arm-chair lawyer here:

To prove a policy has disparate impact, plaintiff has to prove:
...

You’re missing the point. The plaintiffs want to expand the prohibition on race-based diversity to include race-blind or race-neutral policies designed for racial diversity goals. And, as we know, the current Supreme Court is comfortable overturning precedent to meet its own end goals.

Disparate impact in the law of the United States refers to practices in employment, housing, and other areas that adversely affect one group of people of a protected characteristic more than another, even though rules applied by employers or landlords are formally neutral. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact

Bruh...

This is important.

What the PLF lawyers have completely failed to establish is whether or not the new process discriminates against Asian students on its own.

Nearly every argument that they make relies completely on a comparison with the old process, which - by any reasonable analysis - absolutely discriminated against Black, Hispanic, and low-income applicants.

A new School Board will be in place in January of 2024, and there's no reason to believe that its composition - and certainly its political tilt - will be any different from what it is. If they make substantial tweaks to the admissions process that have little impact on the end result, what is the Supreme Court even arguing about? A process that is no longer in force? The case will be rendered moot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Playing arm-chair lawyer here:

To prove a policy has disparate impact, plaintiff has to prove:
...

You’re missing the point. The plaintiffs want to expand the prohibition on race-based diversity to include race-blind or race-neutral policies designed for racial diversity goals. And, as we know, the current Supreme Court is comfortable overturning precedent to meet its own end goals.

Disparate impact in the law of the United States refers to practices in employment, housing, and other areas that adversely affect one group of people of a protected characteristic more than another, even though rules applied by employers or landlords are formally neutral. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact

Bruh...

This is important.

What the PLF lawyers have completely failed to establish is whether or not the new process discriminates against Asian students on its own.

Nearly every argument that they make relies completely on a comparison with the old process, which - by any reasonable analysis - absolutely discriminated against Black, Hispanic, and low-income applicants.

A new School Board will be in place in January of 2024, and there's no reason to believe that its composition - and certainly its political tilt - will be any different from what it is. If they make substantial tweaks to the admissions process that have little impact on the end result, what is the Supreme Court even arguing about? A process that is no longer in force? The case will be rendered moot.

The PLF lawyers care about the disparate impact of the new system, not the disparate impact of the old system. Clearly one is unconstitutional and the other is fine for reasons, good reasons, reasons that probably even exist. Just reasons that no one has enunciated

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS needs to just follow Arlington's lead and withdraw from the magnet. Let Loudon deal with it

Lol

No.

Do you think the new board members representing districts who go from having constituents at TJ back to having almost none are going to be inclined to support or fund it? When a magnet school only serves students coming from a few pyramids, what incentive is there for the rest of the county to support it?

TJ is supported by several counties and city not just FCPS. It is a Governor's School not fcps school. FCPS merely operates it on behalf of the Virginia.

Decline to operate it. Problem solved.

Yeah, you're going to create a whole new slew of problems if you do that. You will have solved the problem that a few people are currently whining about... "tHe sChOoL bOaRd sPeNdS tOo mUcH tImE oN tJ" and created a whole host of other ones that the School Board has no desire to deal with:

- How much money are you going to have to spend to re-renovate TJ so that it can handle a base school?
- How much time and effort is going into reorganizing all of the pyramids and boundaries?
- How are you going to hire enough teachers to teach TJ's advanced concepts across the county?
- What are you going to do with the millions of dollars of research equipment in the building that can't reasonably be used by base school students?
- What about the corporate disinvestment in Northern Virginia that will come with no longer having access to TJ as an aspiration?

And this is just a starting point.

Closing TJ or reimagining it as a base school or academy are not realistic solutions and debating them here is an enormous waste of time. It's not going to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Playing arm-chair lawyer here:

To prove a policy has disparate impact, plaintiff has to prove:
...

You’re missing the point. The plaintiffs want to expand the prohibition on race-based diversity to include race-blind or race-neutral policies designed for racial diversity goals. And, as we know, the current Supreme Court is comfortable overturning precedent to meet its own end goals.

Disparate impact in the law of the United States refers to practices in employment, housing, and other areas that adversely affect one group of people of a protected characteristic more than another, even though rules applied by employers or landlords are formally neutral. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact

Bruh...

This is important.

What the PLF lawyers have completely failed to establish is whether or not the new process discriminates against Asian students on its own.

Nearly every argument that they make relies completely on a comparison with the old process, which - by any reasonable analysis - absolutely discriminated against Black, Hispanic, and low-income applicants.

A new School Board will be in place in January of 2024, and there's no reason to believe that its composition - and certainly its political tilt - will be any different from what it is. If they make substantial tweaks to the admissions process that have little impact on the end result, what is the Supreme Court even arguing about? A process that is no longer in force? The case will be rendered moot.

The PLF lawyers care about the disparate impact of the new system, not the disparate impact of the old system. Clearly one is unconstitutional and the other is fine for reasons, good reasons, reasons that probably even exist. Just reasons that no one has enunciated

I appreciate your sense of humor, friend

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Playing arm-chair lawyer here:

To prove a policy has disparate impact, plaintiff has to prove:
(1) establish an adverse impact caused by the practice
(2) does the practice have legitimate justification
(3) Is there any less discriminatory alternative.

I'd think allocated seats for top students in every FCPS school would be a solid practice.

You’re missing the point. The plaintiffs want to expand the prohibition on race-based diversity to include race-blind or race-neutral policies designed for racial diversity goals. And, as we know, the current Supreme Court is comfortable overturning precedent to meet its own end goals.

It is inarguable that the admissions process used prior to the changes for the Class of 2025 had disparate impacts both along racial and socioeconomic axes.

The logic of Judge Hilton's reasoning in the original District Court opinion would suggest that it's unlawful to seek to rectify any existing discriminatory policy because moving from, say, segregation to integration would have a disparate impact.

That logic is clearly garbage and that's why it was thoroughly raked over the coals by judges who warranted promotions that Hilton has never received.

You also need 'Discriminatory Intent' which the trial court found as a matter of factual finding not reviewable on appeals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, functionally here, the Coalition is going to have to get one more justice interested in hearing the case, and then another one interested in voting along with their interests.

It would have required no effort at all for any two of Kavanaugh, Barrett, and/or Roberts to vote to grant the stay of the 4th Circuit decision and disallow the admissions process from continuing if it were indeed that great of a human rights violation. In all likelihood, at least two classes and 1100 seats will be granted between when they made that decision and when this case is actually up for certiorari/review.

Indeed, none of the named plaintiffs in the case even have a vested interest in it anymore. Their children are no longer eligible to apply to TJ and one of them even was recently admitted under the new process. That's not super critical to the case itself, but it does put a significant dent in the argument regarding discrimination.

Harvard case took about 8 years to reach the Supreme Court so 3-4 years is not a long time for a case to reach SCOTUS.

[Anonymous]

Won’t they just demand to 4th circuit with instructions to reconsider in light of Harvard case? Didn’t the 4th cir case predate the Harvard decision? They don’t usually grant cert in such circumstances.

[Anonymous]

I don’t understand what the new rule is going to be. At TJ or anywhere else.

[Anonymous]

Incredible that some of you are still fighting to remove Black kids from TJ. It's 2023 not 1960.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Incredible that some of you are still fighting to remove Black kids from TJ. It's 2023 not 1960.

Nobody wants to remove black kids. We don't want any discrimination against any racial or ethnic group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Playing arm-chair lawyer here:

To prove a policy has disparate impact, plaintiff has to prove:
(1) establish an adverse impact caused by the practice
(2) does the practice have legitimate justification
(3) Is there any less discriminatory alternative.

I'd think allocated seats for top students in every FCPS school would be a solid practice.

You’re missing the point. The plaintiffs want to expand the prohibition on race-based diversity to include race-blind or race-neutral policies designed for racial diversity goals. And, as we know, the current Supreme Court is comfortable overturning precedent to meet its own end goals.

It is inarguable that the admissions process used prior to the changes for the Class of 2025 had disparate impacts both along racial and socioeconomic axes.

The logic of Judge Hilton's reasoning in the original District Court opinion would suggest that it's unlawful to seek to rectify any existing discriminatory policy because moving from, say, segregation to integration would have a disparate impact.

That logic is clearly garbage and that's why it was thoroughly raked over the coals by judges who warranted promotions that Hilton has never received.

You also need 'Discriminatory Intent' which the trial court found as a matter of factual finding not reviewable on appeals.

Amen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Incredible that some of you are still fighting to remove Black kids from TJ. It's 2023 not 1960.

Nobody wants to remove black kids. We don't want any discrimination against any racial or ethnic group.

Then the current way is good. Glad we settled that.

[Anonymous]

So...how does this affect my Johnny's application to pre-school ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Incredible that some of you are still fighting to remove Black kids from TJ. It's 2023 not 1960.

Nobody wants to remove black kids. We don't want any discrimination against any racial or ethnic group.

Then the current way is good. Glad we settled that.

The Fairfax County School Board members exchanged messages saying that Asian numbers should go down... The US District Court found as a matter of factual finding that the school system had racially discriminatory intent (messages) and that 'disparate impact' (Asian students going from about 74% to 54%) was established and ruled the new admission system unconstitutional as being discriminatory against Asians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Incredible that some of you are still fighting to remove Black kids from TJ. It's 2023 not 1960.

Nobody wants to remove black kids. We don't want any discrimination against any racial or ethnic group.

Then the current way is good. Glad we settled that.

The Fairfax County School Board members exchanged messages saying that Asian numbers should go down... The US District Court found as a matter of factual finding that the school system had racially discriminatory intent (messages) and that 'disparate impact' (Asian students going from about 74% to 54%) was established and ruled the new admission system unconstitutional as being discriminatory against Asians.

The US District Court was overturned, buddy.