TJ CASE UPDATE: Cert Petition Distributed for Conference

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not up to speed on this case, but wow, Fairfax County hired Don Verrilli. And on a 2 minute glance through the cert opp and reply, it’s seems that the Fairfax County brief is a strong one. (I haven’t spent enough time to have an opinion as to whether the Court will grant cert… I happen to be Asian American and deeply skeptical of Fairfax County shenanigans re TJ, so would love to see cert granted, but I have no knowledge of whether this case is truly a good vehicle of S. Ct. Review or not). I guess we’ll find out very soon.

OP. You sound reasonable, intelligent, and well-informed. Reading the competing briefs for detail when you have a free hour would be of value. I agree with your assessment that the Verrilli brief is very strong and my strong opinion is that this case is too narrow and the appellant’s argument is too dependent on specific communications to have broad-reaching implications for admissions policy.

Would love to hear more thoughts if/when you dive deeper.

Thanks, it really is an interesting - and significant - case. I’m skeptical of FCPS’s intentions and read some of the news articles a while back. It certainly sounds like they knew that they were altering their policies in a manner that would have specific impacts relating to race. (As an aside, it does sound like the new policy is possibly beneficial for purposes of socioeconomic diversity…)

But what I read a while back in the news doesn’t seem to match what I’m reading in the briefs... as you pointed out, the factual record re discriminatory intent seems pretty thin. In particular, it doesn’t look like the Coalition made the kind of showing that the Students for Fair Admissions group made in the Harvard/UNC case that the S. Ct. took up.

On top of that, the Coalition’s briefs seem to rest on assumptions and loose assertions — the Verrilli brief (rightly) calls them out on that. All this supports the Board’s position that the case doesn’t present a good vehicle for Supreme Court review. If I had to place bets, despite the political composition of this Court, I would put my money on a cert denial.

PP. We agree on basically everything here. It is an unfortunate reality that in Northern Virginia (and in many other parts of America) race and socioeconomic status track together more neatly than is desirable, enough so that impacting one pretty necessarily will impact the other.

I just don't see where this particular case is going to break significant new ground in the relevant area of the law. And it's much easier to show that the prior admissions process had a statistically significant disparate racial impact than it is that the new one does.

On some level, if you want to make policy through a ruling in a case like this, you have to evaluate the new admissions process in a vacuum. And when you transition from evaluating the two processes against one another to looking at just the new one, I think the case for review gets even thinner.

Would love to hear more from you.

If you want to get rid of desegregation efforts in one fell swoop, this case is the perfect vehicle. If you strike down the current process, you hold that a race blind process put in place to address massive under representation of African American students (remember the years when the numbers were so low they couldn't be reported) that resulted in lower, but still over representation, numbers of another race is unconstitutional. It seems like it would create a nightmare for lower courts to sort out, especially in conjunction with the changes required by the Harvard/UNC decision. If UNC's new race blind admissions process (mandated by the Court) disproportionately effects black applicants, do they now have a cause of action under the precedent?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So this case hinges on perceived discrimination against Asians from a race-blind process that mostly admits Asians? I don't think even this wacky court would touch this nonsense

Nonsense. This is a really dumb argument. You're saying the NBA because the draft mostly has Black athletes cannot discriminate against Black athletes because of that?

How can you discriminate against a group without knowing their race? Also if you're mostly selecting that group it seems more like favoring.

A hypothetical and facetious example that addresses your question would be a qualifying question on the NBA draft questionnaire: "What is the definition of regatta?" Those who answer it correctly would be given preferential draft status. If the NBA adopts this qualifying question, then the percent of black athletes would decline a bit. The question is facially race-blind, but studies have shown that "what is a regatta" is a race-biased question.

Irrelevance of your argument aside, I would invite you to please submit the piece of this admissions process that discriminates against Asian students in the same way that a question like that would discriminate against Black athletes.

And please be reminded, before you answer, that the greatest beneficiaries of the new admissions process were low-income Asian students, who were admitted in greater numbers than Black students of all socioeconomic backgrounds combined.

Pp here. My response was to refute the claim that

"How can you discriminate against a group without knowing their race? Also if you're mostly selecting that group it seems more like favoring."

Which was in response to a DP's NBA draft example. So I think it was very relevant to the discussion. If we can agree that (1) it's fairly easy set up a selection system to discriminate against an applicant without knowing their race, and (2), just because a majority of selectees are of one group doesn't mean that the selection process is biased against that group, then we can discuss the potential for bias in the TJ selection system. But this thead is full of side arguments that are illogical that also need to be refuted with simple analogies such as mine.

If you can't agree with the two points above, then we're each just talking to brick walls here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So this case hinges on perceived discrimination against Asians from a race-blind process that mostly admits Asians? I don't think even this wacky court would touch this nonsense

Nonsense. This is a really dumb argument. You're saying the NBA because the draft mostly has Black athletes cannot discriminate against Black athletes because of that?

How can you discriminate against a group without knowing their race? Also if you're mostly selecting that group it seems more like favoring.

A hypothetical and facetious example that addresses your question would be a qualifying question on the NBA draft questionnaire: "What is the definition of regatta?" Those who answer it correctly would be given preferential draft status. If the NBA adopts this qualifying question, then the percent of black athletes would decline a bit. The question is facially race-blind, but studies have shown that "what is a regatta" is a race-biased question.

Irrelevance of your argument aside, I would invite you to please submit the piece of this admissions process that discriminates against Asian students in the same way that a question like that would discriminate against Black athletes.

And please be reminded, before you answer, that the greatest beneficiaries of the new admissions process were low-income Asian students, who were admitted in greater numbers than Black students of all socioeconomic backgrounds combined.

+1. This is the winning argument. At the end of the day, Coalition for TJ does not care about all Asians, specifically not the poorer Southeast Asians that are found in greater numbers at non-feeder middle schools.

I genuinely believe they are using Asian discrimination as the face of their argument, but behind the facade is their goal to maintain their geographic zip codes (i.e., feeder middle schools) as the top pathways to TJHSST. These just so happen to have a lot of wealthy South Asians and Eastern Asians, explicitly unique from poor Southeast Asians, which they can draw on to play victim. Claiming an entire pyramid is being discriminated against doesn't hold up, obviously, when still the proportion of acceptances is an order of magnitude above most other pyramids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So this case hinges on perceived discrimination against Asians from a race-blind process that mostly admits Asians? I don't think even this wacky court would touch this nonsense

Nonsense. This is a really dumb argument. You're saying the NBA because the draft mostly has Black athletes cannot discriminate against Black athletes because of that?

How can you discriminate against a group without knowing their race? Also if you're mostly selecting that group it seems more like favoring.

A hypothetical and facetious example that addresses your question would be a qualifying question on the NBA draft questionnaire: "What is the definition of regatta?" Those who answer it correctly would be given preferential draft status. If the NBA adopts this qualifying question, then the percent of black athletes would decline a bit. The question is facially race-blind, but studies have shown that "what is a regatta" is a race-biased question.

Irrelevance of your argument aside, I would invite you to please submit the piece of this admissions process that discriminates against Asian students in the same way that a question like that would discriminate against Black athletes.

And please be reminded, before you answer, that the greatest beneficiaries of the new admissions process were low-income Asian students, who were admitted in greater numbers than Black students of all socioeconomic backgrounds combined.

+1. This is the winning argument. At the end of the day, Coalition for TJ does not care about all Asians, specifically not the poorer Southeast Asians that are found in greater numbers at non-feeder middle schools.

I genuinely believe they are using Asian discrimination as the face of their argument, but behind the facade is their goal to maintain their geographic zip codes (i.e., feeder middle schools) as the top pathways to TJHSST. These just so happen to have a lot of wealthy South Asians and Eastern Asians, explicitly unique from poor Southeast Asians, which they can draw on to play victim. Claiming an entire pyramid is being discriminated against doesn't hold up, obviously, when still the proportion of acceptances is an order of magnitude above most other pyramids.

Which pyramid is being discriminated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So this case hinges on perceived discrimination against Asians from a race-blind process that mostly admits Asians? I don't think even this wacky court would touch this nonsense

Nonsense. This is a really dumb argument. You're saying the NBA because the draft mostly has Black athletes cannot discriminate against Black athletes because of that?

How can you discriminate against a group without knowing their race? Also if you're mostly selecting that group it seems more like favoring.

A hypothetical and facetious example that addresses your question would be a qualifying question on the NBA draft questionnaire: "What is the definition of regatta?" Those who answer it correctly would be given preferential draft status. If the NBA adopts this qualifying question, then the percent of black athletes would decline a bit. The question is facially race-blind, but studies have shown that "what is a regatta" is a race-biased question.

Irrelevance of your argument aside, I would invite you to please submit the piece of this admissions process that discriminates against Asian students in the same way that a question like that would discriminate against Black athletes.

And please be reminded, before you answer, that the greatest beneficiaries of the new admissions process were low-income Asian students, who were admitted in greater numbers than Black students of all socioeconomic backgrounds combined.

Pp here. My response was to refute the claim that

"How can you discriminate against a group without knowing their race? Also if you're mostly selecting that group it seems more like favoring."

Which was in response to a DP's NBA draft example. So I think it was very relevant to the discussion. If we can agree that (1) it's fairly easy set up a selection system to discriminate against an applicant without knowing their race, and (2), just because a majority of selectees are of one group doesn't mean that the selection process is biased against that group, then we can discuss the potential for bias in the TJ selection system. But this thead is full of side arguments that are illogical that also need to be refuted with simple analogies such as mine.

If you can't agree with the two points above, then we're each just talking to brick walls here.

I mean, fine, I agree with you on 1. Plenty of systems have been set up to disenfranchise Black voters over the years and it's not up for debate that systems can be set up that have disparate impacts. Indeed, the previous admissions process pretty demonstrably had a disparate impact on low-income students even though the evaluators had no idea of the socioeconomic status of the applicants - an impact that was eliminated by revamping the admissions process and is far more statistically significant than anything that you can show with the new process. And because socioeconomic status and race still track pretty neatly together in Northern Virginia, anything that has a socioeconomic impact is fairly likely to have a racial impact as well, whether intentionally or otherwise.

I can't agree with you on 2 because your sentence contains syntactic issues that I can't suss out.

Your point is irrelevant because no part of the current admissions process, when evaluated on its own, has any sort of disparate impact on any racial group. That's about all there is to it. What it does have a disparate impact on is a relatively small group of families that includes individuals from all racial groups - and the through line between all of them is not race, but rather geography and disposable income/time with which to invest in targeted enrichment opportunities for their kids to get a leg up that isn't available to others. Because there are individuals from all races that have access to that group, it is not racial discrimination to remove an advantage that only they enjoy. You can call it wealth-based discrimination if you want, but the existence of things like food stamps is going to end your argument in its tracks.

Correcting for the previous process's bias in favor of that small group is a thing that should be celebrated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So this case hinges on perceived discrimination against Asians from a race-blind process that mostly admits Asians? I don't think even this wacky court would touch this nonsense

Nonsense. This is a really dumb argument. You're saying the NBA because the draft mostly has Black athletes cannot discriminate against Black athletes because of that?

How can you discriminate against a group without knowing their race? Also if you're mostly selecting that group it seems more like favoring.

A hypothetical and facetious example that addresses your question would be a qualifying question on the NBA draft questionnaire: "What is the definition of regatta?" Those who answer it correctly would be given preferential draft status. If the NBA adopts this qualifying question, then the percent of black athletes would decline a bit. The question is facially race-blind, but studies have shown that "what is a regatta" is a race-biased question.

Irrelevance of your argument aside, I would invite you to please submit the piece of this admissions process that discriminates against Asian students in the same way that a question like that would discriminate against Black athletes.

And please be reminded, before you answer, that the greatest beneficiaries of the new admissions process were low-income Asian students, who were admitted in greater numbers than Black students of all socioeconomic backgrounds combined.

+1. This is the winning argument. At the end of the day, Coalition for TJ does not care about all Asians, specifically not the poorer Southeast Asians that are found in greater numbers at non-feeder middle schools.

I genuinely believe they are using Asian discrimination as the face of their argument, but behind the facade is their goal to maintain their geographic zip codes (i.e., feeder middle schools) as the top pathways to TJHSST. These just so happen to have a lot of wealthy South Asians and Eastern Asians, explicitly unique from poor Southeast Asians, which they can draw on to play victim. Claiming an entire pyramid is being discriminated against doesn't hold up, obviously, when still the proportion of acceptances is an order of magnitude above most other pyramids.

Which pyramid is being discriminated?

DP. I think their argument would be that it's Chantilly's, Westfield's, and McLean's pyramids, along with perhaps whatever high school Stone Hill sends its kids to, because that's where the Big 3 in TJ Admissions (Carson, Longfellow, and Rocky Run) have historically sent their kids to. But other middle schools in those pyramids, like Franklin, have actually benefited significantly from the new process. So the pyramid-based argument falls flat on its face again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So this case hinges on perceived discrimination against Asians from a race-blind process that mostly admits Asians? I don't think even this wacky court would touch this nonsense

Nonsense. This is a really dumb argument. You're saying the NBA because the draft mostly has Black athletes cannot discriminate against Black athletes because of that?

How can you discriminate against a group without knowing their race? Also if you're mostly selecting that group it seems more like favoring.

A hypothetical and facetious example that addresses your question would be a qualifying question on the NBA draft questionnaire: "What is the definition of regatta?" Those who answer it correctly would be given preferential draft status. If the NBA adopts this qualifying question, then the percent of black athletes would decline a bit. The question is facially race-blind, but studies have shown that "what is a regatta" is a race-biased question.

Irrelevance of your argument aside, I would invite you to please submit the piece of this admissions process that discriminates against Asian students in the same way that a question like that would discriminate against Black athletes.

And please be reminded, before you answer, that the greatest beneficiaries of the new admissions process were low-income Asian students, who were admitted in greater numbers than Black students of all socioeconomic backgrounds combined.

+1. This is the winning argument. At the end of the day, Coalition for TJ does not care about all Asians, specifically not the poorer Southeast Asians that are found in greater numbers at non-feeder middle schools.

I genuinely believe they are using Asian discrimination as the face of their argument, but behind the facade is their goal to maintain their geographic zip codes (i.e., feeder middle schools) as the top pathways to TJHSST. These just so happen to have a lot of wealthy South Asians and Eastern Asians, explicitly unique from poor Southeast Asians, which they can draw on to play victim. Claiming an entire pyramid is being discriminated against doesn't hold up, obviously, when still the proportion of acceptances is an order of magnitude above most other pyramids.

Nailed it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So this case hinges on perceived discrimination against Asians from a race-blind process that mostly admits Asians? I don't think even this wacky court would touch this nonsense

Nonsense. This is a really dumb argument. You're saying the NBA because the draft mostly has Black athletes cannot discriminate against Black athletes because of that?

How can you discriminate against a group without knowing their race? Also if you're mostly selecting that group it seems more like favoring.

A hypothetical and facetious example that addresses your question would be a qualifying question on the NBA draft questionnaire: "What is the definition of regatta?" Those who answer it correctly would be given preferential draft status. If the NBA adopts this qualifying question, then the percent of black athletes would decline a bit. The question is facially race-blind, but studies have shown that "what is a regatta" is a race-biased question.

Irrelevance of your argument aside, I would invite you to please submit the piece of this admissions process that discriminates against Asian students in the same way that a question like that would discriminate against Black athletes.

And please be reminded, before you answer, that the greatest beneficiaries of the new admissions process were low-income Asian students, who were admitted in greater numbers than Black students of all socioeconomic backgrounds combined.

+1. This is the winning argument. At the end of the day, Coalition for TJ does not care about all Asians, specifically not the poorer Southeast Asians that are found in greater numbers at non-feeder middle schools.

I genuinely believe they are using Asian discrimination as the face of their argument, but behind the facade is their goal to maintain their geographic zip codes (i.e., feeder middle schools) as the top pathways to TJHSST. These just so happen to have a lot of wealthy South Asians and Eastern Asians, explicitly unique from poor Southeast Asians, which they can draw on to play victim. Claiming an entire pyramid is being discriminated against doesn't hold up, obviously, when still the proportion of acceptances is an order of magnitude above most other pyramids.

Which pyramid is being discriminated?

DP. I think their argument would be that it's Chantilly's, Westfield's, and McLean's pyramids, along with perhaps whatever high school Stone Hill sends its kids to, because that's where the Big 3 in TJ Admissions (Carson, Longfellow, and Rocky Run) have historically sent their kids to. But other middle schools in those pyramids, like Franklin, have actually benefited significantly from the new process. So the pyramid-based argument falls flat on its face again.

The HS pyramids that historically sent (and for now continue to send) the most kids to TJ are Oakton, McLean, Chantilly, and Langley.

Most of the Oakton pyramid kids are coming from Carson (some from Jackson) and most of the Chantilly kids are coming from Rocky Run (some from Carson). The McLean kids come from Longfellow and the Langley kids come from Cooper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So this case hinges on perceived discrimination against Asians from a race-blind process that mostly admits Asians? I don't think even this wacky court would touch this nonsense

Nonsense. This is a really dumb argument. You're saying the NBA because the draft mostly has Black athletes cannot discriminate against Black athletes because of that?

How can you discriminate against a group without knowing their race? Also if you're mostly selecting that group it seems more like favoring.

A hypothetical and facetious example that addresses your question would be a qualifying question on the NBA draft questionnaire: "What is the definition of regatta?" Those who answer it correctly would be given preferential draft status. If the NBA adopts this qualifying question, then the percent of black athletes would decline a bit. The question is facially race-blind, but studies have shown that "what is a regatta" is a race-biased question.

Irrelevance of your argument aside, I would invite you to please submit the piece of this admissions process that discriminates against Asian students in the same way that a question like that would discriminate against Black athletes.

And please be reminded, before you answer, that the greatest beneficiaries of the new admissions process were low-income Asian students, who were admitted in greater numbers than Black students of all socioeconomic backgrounds combined.

+1. This is the winning argument. At the end of the day, Coalition for TJ does not care about all Asians, specifically not the poorer Southeast Asians that are found in greater numbers at non-feeder middle schools.

I genuinely believe they are using Asian discrimination as the face of their argument, but behind the facade is their goal to maintain their geographic zip codes (i.e., feeder middle schools) as the top pathways to TJHSST. These just so happen to have a lot of wealthy South Asians and Eastern Asians, explicitly unique from poor Southeast Asians, which they can draw on to play victim. Claiming an entire pyramid is being discriminated against doesn't hold up, obviously, when still the proportion of acceptances is an order of magnitude above most other pyramids.

Which pyramid is being discriminated?

DP. I think their argument would be that it's Chantilly's, Westfield's, and McLean's pyramids, along with perhaps whatever high school Stone Hill sends its kids to, because that's where the Big 3 in TJ Admissions (Carson, Longfellow, and Rocky Run) have historically sent their kids to. But other middle schools in those pyramids, like Franklin, have actually benefited significantly from the new process. So the pyramid-based argument falls flat on its face again.

The HS pyramids that historically sent (and for now continue to send) the most kids to TJ are Oakton, McLean, Chantilly, and Langley.

Most of the Oakton pyramid kids are coming from Carson (some from Jackson) and most of the Chantilly kids are coming from Rocky Run (some from Carson). The McLean kids come from Longfellow and the Langley kids come from Cooper.

So wealthier schools where the parents invest heavily in prep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So this case hinges on perceived discrimination against Asians from a race-blind process that mostly admits Asians? I don't think even this wacky court would touch this nonsense

Nonsense. This is a really dumb argument. You're saying the NBA because the draft mostly has Black athletes cannot discriminate against Black athletes because of that?

How can you discriminate against a group without knowing their race? Also if you're mostly selecting that group it seems more like favoring.

A hypothetical and facetious example that addresses your question would be a qualifying question on the NBA draft questionnaire: "What is the definition of regatta?" Those who answer it correctly would be given preferential draft status. If the NBA adopts this qualifying question, then the percent of black athletes would decline a bit. The question is facially race-blind, but studies have shown that "what is a regatta" is a race-biased question.

Irrelevance of your argument aside, I would invite you to please submit the piece of this admissions process that discriminates against Asian students in the same way that a question like that would discriminate against Black athletes.

And please be reminded, before you answer, that the greatest beneficiaries of the new admissions process were low-income Asian students, who were admitted in greater numbers than Black students of all socioeconomic backgrounds combined.

+1. This is the winning argument. At the end of the day, Coalition for TJ does not care about all Asians, specifically not the poorer Southeast Asians that are found in greater numbers at non-feeder middle schools.

I genuinely believe they are using Asian discrimination as the face of their argument, but behind the facade is their goal to maintain their geographic zip codes (i.e., feeder middle schools) as the top pathways to TJHSST. These just so happen to have a lot of wealthy South Asians and Eastern Asians, explicitly unique from poor Southeast Asians, which they can draw on to play victim. Claiming an entire pyramid is being discriminated against doesn't hold up, obviously, when still the proportion of acceptances is an order of magnitude above most other pyramids.

Exactly!

[Anonymous]

Did anyone actually make arguments — at the district court or court of appeals level — that the new process was designed to shift admissions away from specific school pyramids? Because that may be what’s actually happening, but I’m not aware of any discrimination/Equal Protection claim that could be made there (a school pyramid is not a protected class).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone actually make arguments — at the district court or court of appeals level — that the new process was designed to shift admissions away from specific school pyramids? Because that may be what’s actually happening, but I’m not aware of any discrimination/Equal Protection claim that could be made there (a school pyramid is not a protected class).

Specific schools, yes, but specific pyramids, I don’t think that argument has been made.

The through line appears to be “the School Board knew that the individuals at those schools most likely to be impacted would be Asian”, which is a staggeringly weak argument and has been all along.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So this case hinges on perceived discrimination against Asians from a race-blind process that mostly admits Asians? I don't think even this wacky court would touch this nonsense.

Nonsense. This is a really dumb argument. You're saying the NBA because the draft mostly has Black athletes cannot discriminate against Black athletes because of that?

Please, stop trotting out this NBA analogy. It is not at all on point and it simply makes the person using it appear to have a racist view of the world. It does not at all illustrate what those using it seem to think it does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone actually make arguments — at the district court or court of appeals level — that the new process was designed to shift admissions away from specific school pyramids? Because that may be what’s actually happening, but I’m not aware of any discrimination/Equal Protection claim that could be made there (a school pyramid is not a protected class).

The irony is that by making TJ admissions more random and less predictable FCPS ends up making the top non-TJ pyramids (Langley, McLean, Oakton, Chantilly) more desirable insofar as their quality is a known thing. Law of unintended consequences.

[Anonymous]

lol. Asians in the community feel that’s it is and there is data that proves it. But who cares about them. Let’s be inclusive except if it impacts th

Anonymous wrote:So this case hinges on perceived discrimination against Asians from a race-blind process that mostly admits Asians? I don't think even this wacky court would touch this nonsense.