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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:disparate impact against underachievers who need to take TJ Math 1? TJ is not for remedial education.

Anonymous wrote:Disparate impact.

The argument by C4TJ is that the new admissions process, which is race-neutral, nevertheless discriminates against Asians because it has a disparate impact on Asian enrollment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:disparate impact against underachievers who need to take TJ Math 1? TJ is not for remedial education.

Anonymous wrote:Disparate impact.

The argument by C4TJ is that the new admissions process, which is race-neutral, nevertheless discriminates against Asians because it has a disparate impact on Asian enrollment.

If that stands though then nothing can ever change because you’d always have a disparate impact on someone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:disparate impact against underachievers who need to take TJ Math 1? TJ is not for remedial education.

Anonymous wrote:Disparate impact.

The argument by C4TJ is that the new admissions process, which is race-neutral, nevertheless discriminates against Asians because it has a disparate impact on Asian enrollment.

If that stands though then nothing can ever change because you’d always have a disparate impact on someone.

I assume their argument is also that the new process was adopted with discriminatory intent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:disparate impact against underachievers who need to take TJ Math 1? TJ is not for remedial education.

Anonymous wrote:Disparate impact.

The argument by C4TJ is that the new admissions process, which is race-neutral, nevertheless discriminates against Asians because it has a disparate impact on Asian enrollment.

If that stands though then nothing can ever change because you’d always have a disparate impact on someone.

I assume their argument is also that the new process was adopted with discriminatory intent.

Yes, that is the key element.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:disparate impact against underachievers who need to take TJ Math 1? TJ is not for remedial education.

Anonymous wrote:Disparate impact.

The argument by C4TJ is that the new admissions process, which is race-neutral, nevertheless discriminates against Asians because it has a disparate impact on Asian enrollment.

If that stands though then nothing can ever change because you’d always have a disparate impact on someone.

I assume their argument is also that the new process was adopted with discriminatory intent.

The problem with this analysis, and where it fell apart at the Fourth Circuit, is that all of the evidence that the Coalition has gathered regarding invidious intent:

a) Were not about the proposal that was eventually adopted and used to select the Classes of 2025, 2026, and 2027 - but were about the Merit Lottery proposal which the School Board voted down;

b) Came from the Superintendent at the time, Scott Brabrand, who is no longer employed by FCPS and is not a named defendant in the suit - indeed, much of the so-called "TJ Papers" involves the actual defendant (the School Board) talking about how the Merit Lottery proposal was a terrible idea and how Brabrand's communications were tone-deaf surrounding it.

...Literally all of it. 100%. So if we were sitting here today, and the case were against the Merit Lottery, you might have a case. It would be even better if Brabrand were a named defendant, since he's the guy who did and said all of the dumb stuff regarding racial balancing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:disparate impact against underachievers who need to take TJ Math 1? TJ is not for remedial education.

Anonymous wrote:Disparate impact.

The argument by C4TJ is that the new admissions process, which is race-neutral, nevertheless discriminates against Asians because it has a disparate impact on Asian enrollment.

If that stands though then nothing can ever change because you’d always have a disparate impact on someone.

I assume their argument is also that the new process was adopted with discriminatory intent.

The problem with this analysis, and where it fell apart at the Fourth Circuit, is that all of the evidence that the Coalition has gathered regarding invidious intent:

a) Were not about the proposal that was eventually adopted and used to select the Classes of 2025, 2026, and 2027 - but were about the Merit Lottery proposal which the School Board voted down;

b) Came from the Superintendent at the time, Scott Brabrand, who is no longer employed by FCPS and is not a named defendant in the suit - indeed, much of the so-called "TJ Papers" involves the actual defendant (the School Board) talking about how the Merit Lottery proposal was a terrible idea and how Brabrand's communications were tone-deaf surrounding it.

...Literally all of it. 100%. So if we were sitting here today, and the case were against the Merit Lottery, you might have a case. It would be even better if Brabrand were a named defendant, since he's the guy who did and said all of the dumb stuff regarding racial balancing.

Brabrand was the CEO (agent) of the FCPS when he said those things which binds FCPS as to what Brabrand said.

[Anonymous]

Correct. FCPS is still liable regardless of its current CEO, just like any other organization or corporation.

Brabrand was the CEO (agent) of the FCPS when he said those things which binds FCPS as to what Brabrand said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Correct. FCPS is still liable regardless of its current CEO, just like any other organization or corporation.

Brabrand was the CEO (agent) of the FCPS when he said those things which binds FCPS as to what Brabrand said.

Brabrand caused much damage while he was the CEO.

[Anonymous]

It’s funny to see people try and make Brabrand the fall guy to get the SB off the hook when everyone knows Brabrand was motivated primarily by a desire to please SB members like Anderson, Corbett Sanders, Meren, and Keys Gamarra, who clearly wanted to alter the racial composition at TJ.

When he arrived in 2017, his focus was on academics. He only turned into an equity warrior later, when it became clear to him that was all the SB cared about. Of course they then second-guessed him and discarded him when he was no longer a useful stooge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:disparate impact against underachievers who need to take TJ Math 1? TJ is not for remedial education.

Anonymous wrote:Disparate impact.

The argument by C4TJ is that the new admissions process, which is race-neutral, nevertheless discriminates against Asians because it has a disparate impact on Asian enrollment.

If that stands though then nothing can ever change because you’d always have a disparate impact on someone.

I assume their argument is also that the new process was adopted with discriminatory intent.

The problem with this analysis, and where it fell apart at the Fourth Circuit, is that all of the evidence that the Coalition has gathered regarding invidious intent:

a) Were not about the proposal that was eventually adopted and used to select the Classes of 2025, 2026, and 2027 - but were about the Merit Lottery proposal which the School Board voted down;

b) Came from the Superintendent at the time, Scott Brabrand, who is no longer employed by FCPS and is not a named defendant in the suit - indeed, much of the so-called "TJ Papers" involves the actual defendant (the School Board) talking about how the Merit Lottery proposal was a terrible idea and how Brabrand's communications were tone-deaf surrounding it.

...Literally all of it. 100%. So if we were sitting here today, and the case were against the Merit Lottery, you might have a case. It would be even better if Brabrand were a named defendant, since he's the guy who did and said all of the dumb stuff regarding racial balancing.

Brabrand was the CEO (agent) of the FCPS when he said those things which binds FCPS as to what Brabrand said.

He still said those things about an admissions process that was rejected by the actual named defendant (the School Board). Nice try.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:disparate impact against underachievers who need to take TJ Math 1? TJ is not for remedial education.

Anonymous wrote:Disparate impact.

The argument by C4TJ is that the new admissions process, which is race-neutral, nevertheless discriminates against Asians because it has a disparate impact on Asian enrollment.

If that stands though then nothing can ever change because you’d always have a disparate impact on someone.

I assume their argument is also that the new process was adopted with discriminatory intent.

The problem with this analysis, and where it fell apart at the Fourth Circuit, is that all of the evidence that the Coalition has gathered regarding invidious intent:

a) Were not about the proposal that was eventually adopted and used to select the Classes of 2025, 2026, and 2027 - but were about the Merit Lottery proposal which the School Board voted down;

b) Came from the Superintendent at the time, Scott Brabrand, who is no longer employed by FCPS and is not a named defendant in the suit - indeed, much of the so-called "TJ Papers" involves the actual defendant (the School Board) talking about how the Merit Lottery proposal was a terrible idea and how Brabrand's communications were tone-deaf surrounding it.

...Literally all of it. 100%. So if we were sitting here today, and the case were against the Merit Lottery, you might have a case. It would be even better if Brabrand were a named defendant, since he's the guy who did and said all of the dumb stuff regarding racial balancing.

Brabrand was the CEO (agent) of the FCPS when he said those things which binds FCPS as to what Brabrand said.

He still said those things about an admissions process that was rejected by the actual named defendant (the School Board). Nice try.

This is important. The Coalition loves to prop up that "anti-Asian lol" quote from Omeish as a smoking gun... but with respect to this case it's actually the complete opposite. What she said was that Brabrand's Merit Lottery proposal and his rhetoric justifying it had an anti-Asian feel to it. Cannot imagine a more clear indicator that the School Board was sensitive to concerns about how the process would play out with Asian families as they worked to create greater accessibility for low-income families.

[Anonymous]

Hi, Omeish, are you running for re-election this year? You also said the battle of Iwo Jima was evil. So, I bet you are not anti-Asian.

This is important. The Coalition loves to prop up that "anti-Asian lol" quote from Omeish as a smoking gun... but with respect to this case it's actually the complete opposite. What she said was that Brabrand's Merit Lottery proposal and his rhetoric justifying it had an anti-Asian feel to it. Cannot imagine a more clear indicator that the School Board was sensitive to concerns about how the process would play out with Asian families as they worked to create greater accessibility for low-income families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hi, Omeish, are you running for re-election this year? You also said the battle of Iwo Jima was evil. So, I bet you are not anti-Asian.

This is important. The Coalition loves to prop up that "anti-Asian lol" quote from Omeish as a smoking gun... but with respect to this case it's actually the complete opposite. What she said was that Brabrand's Merit Lottery proposal and his rhetoric justifying it had an anti-Asian feel to it. Cannot imagine a more clear indicator that the School Board was sensitive to concerns about how the process would play out with Asian families as they worked to create greater accessibility for low-income families.

...nice try. But rather than addressing the actual question, you decided to bring up something out of context that she may or may not have said in another forum. Stricken for irrelevance and hearsay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi, Omeish, are you running for re-election this year? You also said the battle of Iwo Jima was evil. So, I bet you are not anti-Asian.

This is important. The Coalition loves to prop up that "anti-Asian lol" quote from Omeish as a smoking gun... but with respect to this case it's actually the complete opposite. What she said was that Brabrand's Merit Lottery proposal and his rhetoric justifying it had an anti-Asian feel to it. Cannot imagine a more clear indicator that the School Board was sensitive to concerns about how the process would play out with Asian families as they worked to create greater accessibility for low-income families.

...nice try. But rather than addressing the actual question, you decided to bring up something out of context that she may or may not have said in another forum. Stricken for irrelevance and hearsay.

hearsay?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11795133/Controversial-member-woke-Virginia-school-board-slams-Battle-Iwo-Jima-evil.html

" Then, late last year, as the school district faced a federal class action suit For violating disabled students' rights, private text messages revealed Omeish also acknowledged anti-Asian bias in the admissions process for

'I mean there has been an anti asian feel underlying some of this, hate to say it lol,' Omeish texted a fellow board member in fall of 2020. 'They're discriminated against in this process too.' "

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:disparate impact against underachievers who need to take TJ Math 1? TJ is not for remedial education.

Anonymous wrote:Disparate impact.

The argument by C4TJ is that the new admissions process, which is race-neutral, nevertheless discriminates against Asians because it has a disparate impact on Asian enrollment.

If that stands though then nothing can ever change because you’d always have a disparate impact on someone.

I assume their argument is also that the new process was adopted with discriminatory intent.

The problem with this analysis, and where it fell apart at the Fourth Circuit, is that all of the evidence that the Coalition has gathered regarding invidious intent:

a) Were not about the proposal that was eventually adopted and used to select the Classes of 2025, 2026, and 2027 - but were about the Merit Lottery proposal which the School Board voted down;

b) Came from the Superintendent at the time, Scott Brabrand, who is no longer employed by FCPS and is not a named defendant in the suit - indeed, much of the so-called "TJ Papers" involves the actual defendant (the School Board) talking about how the Merit Lottery proposal was a terrible idea and how Brabrand's communications were tone-deaf surrounding it.

...Literally all of it. 100%. So if we were sitting here today, and the case were against the Merit Lottery, you might have a case. It would be even better if Brabrand were a named defendant, since he's the guy who did and said all of the dumb stuff regarding racial balancing.

You made this up. Go back and read the dissent.