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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:#1 ranked high school in Washington DC,
Benjamin Banneker Academy High School has 72% black and 2% Asian.

Are a certain group overrepresented there?

Washington DC is nearly 50% Black so it's not outlandish that the school is 72% Black. DC is about 5% Asian.

On the other hand, Fairfax County is about 20% Asian and 10% Black. TJ currently is 65% Asian, which is over triple the average Asian demographics of Fairfax County.

Only one of these cases could be considered as having an overrepresented group, and it's not Black kids in DC for goodness' sake.

72% Blacks at one school is not considered over-represented but a 65% Asian at another school is?

Of the 54,066 schools in the US, over 3,158 schools have more than 75 percent black students and less than 1 percent Asian American students. When this over-representation of Black students at these numerous schools is not seen as a problem, why is an Asian American majority at ONE school, TJ, (not two, not three, just one school) a hard visual to accept? How are the current efforts by school board, politicians, interest groups, etc to reduce the Asian American students "over-representation" deliberately not flat out racist? Of course supreme court has banned race manipulation of student admissions, but what started the consolidated attack on Asian American minority at one school when every other minority race students are over-represented at thousands of US schools?

Interesting statistic! On the other hand, why are racial balancing efforts in play only when Asian American students enrollment turns into the majority?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:#1 ranked high school in Washington DC,
Benjamin Banneker Academy High School has 72% black and 2% Asian.

Are a certain group overrepresented there?

Washington DC is nearly 50% Black so it's not outlandish that the school is 72% Black. DC is about 5% Asian.

On the other hand, Fairfax County is about 20% Asian and 10% Black. TJ currently is 65% Asian, which is over triple the average Asian demographics of Fairfax County.

Only one of these cases could be considered as having an overrepresented group, and it's not Black kids in DC for goodness' sake.

72% Blacks at one school is not considered over-represented but a 65% Asian at another school is?

Of the 54,066 schools in the US, over 3,158 schools have more than 75 percent black students and less than 1 percent Asian American students. When this over-representation of Black students at these numerous schools is not seen as a problem, why is an Asian American majority at ONE school, TJ, (not two, not three, just one school) a hard visual to accept? How are the current efforts by school board, politicians, interest groups, etc to reduce the Asian American students "over-representation" deliberately not flat out racist? Of course supreme court has banned race manipulation of student admissions, but what started the consolidated attack on Asian American minority at one school when every other minority race students are over-represented at thousands of US schools?

Interesting statistic! On the other hand, why are racial balancing efforts in play only when Asian American students enrollment turns into the majority?

Because there are only relatively few places where Asians are a real majority. I suspect some jurisdictions in LA, SF, or Seattle may actually have majority Chinese populations. Of course, that's where we should expect enrollment to be majority Asian. Obviously majority Black towns are expected to have majority Black schools. That should not be a surprise to anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:#1 ranked high school in Washington DC,
Benjamin Banneker Academy High School has 72% black and 2% Asian.

Are a certain group overrepresented there?

Washington DC is nearly 50% Black so it's not outlandish that the school is 72% Black. DC is about 5% Asian.

On the other hand, Fairfax County is about 20% Asian and 10% Black. TJ currently is 65% Asian, which is over triple the average Asian demographics of Fairfax County.

Only one of these cases could be considered as having an overrepresented group, and it's not Black kids in DC for goodness' sake.

72% Blacks at one school is not considered over-represented but a 65% Asian at another school is?

Of the 54,066 schools in the US, over 3,158 schools have more than 75 percent black students and less than 1 percent Asian American students. When this over-representation of Black students at these numerous schools is not seen as a problem, why is an Asian American majority at ONE school, TJ, (not two, not three, just one school) a hard visual to accept? How are the current efforts by school board, politicians, interest groups, etc to reduce the Asian American students "over-representation" deliberately not flat out racist? Of course supreme court has banned race manipulation of student admissions, but what started the consolidated attack on Asian American minority at one school when every other minority race students are over-represented at thousands of US schools?

Interesting statistic! On the other hand, why are racial balancing efforts in play only when Asian American students enrollment turns into the majority?

Because there are only relatively few places where Asians are a real majority. I suspect some jurisdictions in LA, SF, or Seattle may actually have majority Chinese populations. Of course, that's where we should expect enrollment to be majority Asian. Obviously majority Black towns are expected to have majority Black schools. That should not be a surprise to anyone.

That's discrimination against Asians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.' "

Hearsay refers to the Iwo Jima quote. The quote you reference is what I've been talking about and is Omeish telling her colleague that Brabrand's Merit Lottery proposal - which was not adopted and which the School Board voted down - was discriminatory against Asians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.' "

Hearsay refers to the Iwo Jima quote. The quote you reference is what I've been talking about and is Omeish telling her colleague that Brabrand's Merit Lottery proposal - which was not adopted and which the School Board voted down - was discriminatory against Asians.

Intent to lower Asian numbers did not change and that is problematic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:#1 ranked high school in Washington DC,
Benjamin Banneker Academy High School has 72% black and 2% Asian.

Are a certain group overrepresented there?

Washington DC is nearly 50% Black so it's not outlandish that the school is 72% Black. DC is about 5% Asian.

On the other hand, Fairfax County is about 20% Asian and 10% Black. TJ currently is 65% Asian, which is over triple the average Asian demographics of Fairfax County.

Only one of these cases could be considered as having an overrepresented group, and it's not Black kids in DC for goodness' sake.

72% Blacks at one school is not considered over-represented but a 65% Asian at another school is?

Of the 54,066 schools in the US, over 3,158 schools have more than 75 percent black students and less than 1 percent Asian American students. When this over-representation of Black students at these numerous schools is not seen as a problem, why is an Asian American majority at ONE school, TJ, (not two, not three, just one school) a hard visual to accept? How are the current efforts by school board, politicians, interest groups, etc to reduce the Asian American students "over-representation" deliberately not flat out racist? Of course supreme court has banned race manipulation of student admissions, but what started the consolidated attack on Asian American minority at one school when every other minority race students are over-represented at thousands of US schools?

Interesting statistic! On the other hand, why are racial balancing efforts in play only when Asian American students enrollment turns into the majority?

This line of logic is so moronic as to barely warrant a response, but just in case some folks are buying into it, here:

1) 3,158 schools have more than 75% Black students, according to the above post. I'll take that as an article of faith, while making sure to highlight that it is never appropriate to refer to Black people without capitalizing the B. We can be quite sure that in essentially every single one of those instances, the school is populated by its surrounding area, and that the surrounding area is majority-Black to the same extent. This is NOT the case with respect to TJ. TJ's catchment area is approximately 22-24% Asian.

But because it's an application-based school, we can use interest in the school to provide an appropriate guide to how it should fall out from a racial demographic perspective. As it turns out, in recent years about 50-55% of applicants have been of Asian descent, which mirrors their eventual percentage of offers pretty nicely. Indeed, they are the only group whose offer rate is significantly higher than their applicant rate. As I've said many times before, if the goal of the new admissions process is to discriminate against Asian students, it's doing a very poor job.

2) You shouldn't have to be told the obvious fact that TJ is a more desirable destination for academics than its surrounding schools. I highly doubt that's the case for the 3,158 schools that you're referring to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:#1 ranked high school in Washington DC,
Benjamin Banneker Academy High School has 72% black and 2% Asian.

Are a certain group overrepresented there?

Washington DC is nearly 50% Black so it's not outlandish that the school is 72% Black. DC is about 5% Asian.

On the other hand, Fairfax County is about 20% Asian and 10% Black. TJ currently is 65% Asian, which is over triple the average Asian demographics of Fairfax County.

Only one of these cases could be considered as having an overrepresented group, and it's not Black kids in DC for goodness' sake.

72% Blacks at one school is not considered over-represented but a 65% Asian at another school is?

Of the 54,066 schools in the US, over 3,158 schools have more than 75 percent black students and less than 1 percent Asian American students. When this over-representation of Black students at these numerous schools is not seen as a problem, why is an Asian American majority at ONE school, TJ, (not two, not three, just one school) a hard visual to accept? How are the current efforts by school board, politicians, interest groups, etc to reduce the Asian American students "over-representation" deliberately not flat out racist? Of course supreme court has banned race manipulation of student admissions, but what started the consolidated attack on Asian American minority at one school when every other minority race students are over-represented at thousands of US schools?

One- TJ is a magnet school, you have to apply.
Two- blacks are put together on purpose
Local school districts and city councils (by way of allowing developers to not follow federal rules about low income housing per project or building all low income housing in one area) will jerry rig every single line they can to make all the black kids go into 1 or 2 schools.

There are also entire cities that don't have a substantial population of non-black citizens who attend public schools. The white kids mostly go to private. And the fact that you don't know that or understand that means you need to read up on some US History.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.' "

Hearsay refers to the Iwo Jima quote. The quote you reference is what I've been talking about and is Omeish telling her colleague that Brabrand's Merit Lottery proposal - which was not adopted and which the School Board voted down - was discriminatory against Asians.

Intent to lower Asian numbers did not change and that is problematic.

You're largely correct on that point. The School Board did not have an intent to, as you so inelegantly state, "lower Asian numbers". Their intent from the jump was to increase access for students of economic disadvantage and students from underrepresented schools. Some had been vocal about their desire to see a significant increase in the representation of Black and Hispanic students - this is not the same as a desire to see a lower percentage of Asian students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:#1 ranked high school in Washington DC,
Benjamin Banneker Academy High School has 72% black and 2% Asian.

Are a certain group overrepresented there?

Washington DC is nearly 50% Black so it's not outlandish that the school is 72% Black. DC is about 5% Asian.

On the other hand, Fairfax County is about 20% Asian and 10% Black. TJ currently is 65% Asian, which is over triple the average Asian demographics of Fairfax County.

Only one of these cases could be considered as having an overrepresented group, and it's not Black kids in DC for goodness' sake.

72% Blacks at one school is not considered over-represented but a 65% Asian at another school is?

Of the 54,066 schools in the US, over 3,158 schools have more than 75 percent black students and less than 1 percent Asian American students. When this over-representation of Black students at these numerous schools is not seen as a problem, why is an Asian American majority at ONE school, TJ, (not two, not three, just one school) a hard visual to accept? How are the current efforts by school board, politicians, interest groups, etc to reduce the Asian American students "over-representation" deliberately not flat out racist? Of course supreme court has banned race manipulation of student admissions, but what started the consolidated attack on Asian American minority at one school when every other minority race students are over-represented at thousands of US schools?

One- TJ is a magnet school, you have to apply.
Two- blacks are put together on purpose
Local school districts and city councils (by way of allowing developers to not follow federal rules about low income housing per project or building all low income housing in one area) will jerry rig every single line they can to make all the black kids go into 1 or 2 schools.

There are also entire cities that don't have a substantial population of non-black citizens who attend public schools. The white kids mostly go to private. And the fact that you don't know that or understand that means you need to read up on some US History.

Spot-on. And this will become even more the case if the Harry Jacksons of the world get their way and taxpayer dollars are siphoned away from public schools and towards a voucher program that allows citizens to use taxpayer dollars to send their kids to religious schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.' "

Hearsay refers to the Iwo Jima quote. The quote you reference is what I've been talking about and is Omeish telling her colleague that Brabrand's Merit Lottery proposal - which was not adopted and which the School Board voted down - was discriminatory against Asians.

Intent to lower Asian numbers did not change and that is problematic.

You're largely correct on that point. The School Board did not have an intent to, as you so inelegantly state, "lower Asian numbers". Their intent from the jump was to increase access for students of economic disadvantage and students from underrepresented schools. Some had been vocal about their desire to see a significant increase in the representation of Black and Hispanic students - this is not the same as a desire to see a lower percentage of Asian students.

Admission to elite school is a zero sum game as noted by the SCOTUS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.' "

Hearsay refers to the Iwo Jima quote. The quote you reference is what I've been talking about and is Omeish telling her colleague that Brabrand's Merit Lottery proposal - which was not adopted and which the School Board voted down - was discriminatory against Asians.

Intent to lower Asian numbers did not change and that is problematic.

You're largely correct on that point. The School Board did not have an intent to, as you so inelegantly state, "lower Asian numbers". Their intent from the jump was to increase access for students of economic disadvantage and students from underrepresented schools. Some had been vocal about their desire to see a significant increase in the representation of Black and Hispanic students - this is not the same as a desire to see a lower percentage of Asian students.

Admission to elite school is a zero sum game as noted by the SCOTUS.

1) That doesn't matter.

2) In the case of TJ, it actually wasn't a zero-sum game because when FCPS changed the admissions process they actually increased the number of students in each class, which dramatically lowered the actual impact on the raw number of Asian students admitted in each class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.' "

Hearsay refers to the Iwo Jima quote. The quote you reference is what I've been talking about and is Omeish telling her colleague that Brabrand's Merit Lottery proposal - which was not adopted and which the School Board voted down - was discriminatory against Asians.

Intent to lower Asian numbers did not change and that is problematic.

You're largely correct on that point. The School Board did not have an intent to, as you so inelegantly state, "lower Asian numbers". Their intent from the jump was to increase access for students of economic disadvantage and students from underrepresented schools. Some had been vocal about their desire to see a significant increase in the representation of Black and Hispanic students - this is not the same as a desire to see a lower percentage of Asian students.

Admission to elite school is a zero sum game as noted by the SCOTUS.

1) That doesn't matter.

2) In the case of TJ, it actually wasn't a zero-sum game because when FCPS changed the admissions process they actually increased the number of students in each class, which dramatically lowered the actual impact on the raw number of Asian students admitted in each class.

And the School Board then achieved their goal of reducing Asian student number at TJ by having about 24-27% fewer Asian students admitted in the following respective years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.' "

Hearsay refers to the Iwo Jima quote. The quote you reference is what I've been talking about and is Omeish telling her colleague that Brabrand's Merit Lottery proposal - which was not adopted and which the School Board voted down - was discriminatory against Asians.

Intent to lower Asian numbers did not change and that is problematic.

You're largely correct on that point. The School Board did not have an intent to, as you so inelegantly state, "lower Asian numbers". Their intent from the jump was to increase access for students of economic disadvantage and students from underrepresented schools. Some had been vocal about their desire to see a significant increase in the representation of Black and Hispanic students - this is not the same as a desire to see a lower percentage of Asian students.

Admission to elite school is a zero sum game as noted by the SCOTUS.

1) That doesn't matter.

2) In the case of TJ, it actually wasn't a zero-sum game because when FCPS changed the admissions process they actually increased the number of students in each class, which dramatically lowered the actual impact on the raw number of Asian students admitted in each class.

And the School Board then achieved their goal of reducing Asian student number at TJ by having about 24-27% fewer Asian students admitted in the following respective years.

Still false, no matter how many times you repeat it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.' "

Hearsay refers to the Iwo Jima quote. The quote you reference is what I've been talking about and is Omeish telling her colleague that Brabrand's Merit Lottery proposal - which was not adopted and which the School Board voted down - was discriminatory against Asians.

Intent to lower Asian numbers did not change and that is problematic.

You're largely correct on that point. The School Board did not have an intent to, as you so inelegantly state, "lower Asian numbers". Their intent from the jump was to increase access for students of economic disadvantage and students from underrepresented schools. Some had been vocal about their desire to see a significant increase in the representation of Black and Hispanic students - this is not the same as a desire to see a lower percentage of Asian students.

Admission to elite school is a zero sum game as noted by the SCOTUS.

1) That doesn't matter.

2) In the case of TJ, it actually wasn't a zero-sum game because when FCPS changed the admissions process they actually increased the number of students in each class, which dramatically lowered the actual impact on the raw number of Asian students admitted in each class.

And the School Board then achieved their goal of reducing Asian student number at TJ by having about 24-27% fewer Asian students admitted in the following respective years.

Still false, no matter how many times you repeat it.

Asian students were reduced for the past 2 years compared to before the racist admission changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.' "

Hearsay refers to the Iwo Jima quote. The quote you reference is what I've been talking about and is Omeish telling her colleague that Brabrand's Merit Lottery proposal - which was not adopted and which the School Board voted down - was discriminatory against Asians.

Intent to lower Asian numbers did not change and that is problematic.

You're largely correct on that point. The School Board did not have an intent to, as you so inelegantly state, "lower Asian numbers". Their intent from the jump was to increase access for students of economic disadvantage and students from underrepresented schools. Some had been vocal about their desire to see a significant increase in the representation of Black and Hispanic students - this is not the same as a desire to see a lower percentage of Asian students.

Admission to elite school is a zero sum game as noted by the SCOTUS.

1) That doesn't matter.

2) In the case of TJ, it actually wasn't a zero-sum game because when FCPS changed the admissions process they actually increased the number of students in each class, which dramatically lowered the actual impact on the raw number of Asian students admitted in each class.

And the School Board then achieved their goal of reducing Asian student number at TJ by having about 24-27% fewer Asian students admitted in the following respective years.

Still false, no matter how many times you repeat it.

Asian students were reduced for the past 2 years compared to before the racist admission changes.

That doesn't mean that it was the School Board's goal to reduce the proportion of Asian students.

There is a difference between wanting to increase the proportion of students from underrepresented groups as a primary motivating factor for a decision and wanting to decrease the proportion of an overrepresented group. I am still waiting for anyone to put forth real evidence that the motivation for these changes was specifically to reduce the proportion of Asian American students at TJ.