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

[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.

Comparing the class of 2024 and class of 2025 admits, the # of Asian students went down 15.8%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: This is NOT the case with respect to TJ. TJ's catchment area is approximately 22-24% Asian.

What is the source for this? It matches what I see, but all the stats I read say around 10%.

[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.

Comparing the class of 2024 and class of 2025 admits, the # of Asian students went down 15.8%.

Have you accounted for the increase in class size from 480 to 550

[Anonymous]

Good good, Judge Hilton is still hearing cases? He’s ancient. And a huge Republican. And not that bright, even when he was younger.

[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.

Comparing the class of 2024 and class of 2025 admits, the # of Asian students went down 15.8%.

Have you accounted for the increase in class size from 480 to 550

The PP said reducing the student number, not the student percentage.

From 355 to 299 = 15.8% reduction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: This is NOT the case with respect to TJ. TJ's catchment area is approximately 22-24% Asian.

What is the source for this? It matches what I see, but all the stats I read say around 10%.

It was 20% when we ran the #s last year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Comparing the class of 2024 and class of 2025 admits, the # of Asian students went down 15.8%.

Have you accounted for the increase in class size from 480 to 550

The PP said reducing the student number, not the student percentage.

From 355 to 299 = 15.8% reduction.

So from 355/480 to 299/550, or from 74% to 54%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Comparing the class of 2024 and class of 2025 admits, the # of Asian students went down 15.8%.

Have you accounted for the increase in class size from 480 to 550

The PP said reducing the student number, not the student percentage.

From 355 to 299 = 15.8% reduction.

So from 355/480 to 299/550, or from 74% to 54%.

Right. So PP was incorrect. The number of Asian students decreased by 15.8% and the percentage dropped from 74% to 54%. I'm guessing they added the seats to absorb some of the impacts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Comparing the class of 2024 and class of 2025 admits, the # of Asian students went down 15.8%.

Have you accounted for the increase in class size from 480 to 550

The PP said reducing the student number, not the student percentage.

From 355 to 299 = 15.8% reduction.

So from 355/480 to 299/550, or from 74% to 54%.

Right. So PP was incorrect. The number of Asian students decreased by 15.8% and the percentage dropped from 74% to 54%. I'm guessing they added the seats to absorb some of the impacts.

Since racial quotas and racial manipulations at schools were abolished in 70s, is this the first instance where certain segment of student body has been suppressed by 20 percentage points (from 74% to 54%) just because of their Asian American race?

[Anonymous]

Re: the drop in Asian numbers by a sizable chunk yet to a still quite high %…

I wonder what the “not reporting” percentage looks like for race there now. I stopped filling that question out on school forms a few years ago when it became apparent it is only used to discount against DCs / my replies. (We’re white not Asian)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Comparing the class of 2024 and class of 2025 admits, the # of Asian students went down 15.8%.

Have you accounted for the increase in class size from 480 to 550

The PP said reducing the student number, not the student percentage.

From 355 to 299 = 15.8% reduction.

So from 355/480 to 299/550, or from 74% to 54%.

Right. So PP was incorrect. The number of Asian students decreased by 15.8% and the percentage dropped from 74% to 54%. I'm guessing they added the seats to absorb some of the impacts.

Since racial quotas and racial manipulations at schools were abolished in 70s, is this the first instance where certain segment of student body has been suppressed by 20 percentage points (from 74% to 54%) just because of their Asian American race?

The removal of an advantage does not constitute "suppression".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Comparing the class of 2024 and class of 2025 admits, the # of Asian students went down 15.8%.

Have you accounted for the increase in class size from 480 to 550

The PP said reducing the student number, not the student percentage.

From 355 to 299 = 15.8% reduction.

So from 355/480 to 299/550, or from 74% to 54%.

Right. So PP was incorrect. The number of Asian students decreased by 15.8% and the percentage dropped from 74% to 54%. I'm guessing they added the seats to absorb some of the impacts.

Since racial quotas and racial manipulations at schools were abolished in 70s, is this the first instance where certain segment of student body has been suppressed by 20 percentage points (from 74% to 54%) just because of their Asian American race?

The removal of an advantage does not constitute "suppression".

Maybe it should be called 'oppression' then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Comparing the class of 2024 and class of 2025 admits, the # of Asian students went down 15.8%.

Have you accounted for the increase in class size from 480 to 550

The PP said reducing the student number, not the student percentage.

From 355 to 299 = 15.8% reduction.

So from 355/480 to 299/550, or from 74% to 54%.

Right. So PP was incorrect. The number of Asian students decreased by 15.8% and the percentage dropped from 74% to 54%. I'm guessing they added the seats to absorb some of the impacts.

Since racial quotas and racial manipulations at schools were abolished in 70s, is this the first instance where certain segment of student body has been suppressed by 20 percentage points (from 74% to 54%) just because of their Asian American race?

The removal of an advantage does not constitute "suppression".

Maybe it should be called 'oppression' then.

Yes, letting in black kids oppressed asians who still make up a majority of the student body despite constituting 20% of FCPS. Clearly the black and hispanic kids need to go so that the asian kids will no longer be oppressed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Re: the drop in Asian numbers by a sizable chunk yet to a still quite high %…

I wonder what the “not reporting” percentage looks like for race there now. I stopped filling that question out on school forms a few years ago when it became apparent it is only used to discount against DCs / my replies. (We’re white not Asian)

No, you were likely "observer identified." If you leave the race box open, school personnel will identify you based on your skin color. (At least in public schools.) This DoE policy was repeatedly discussed here. Are you saying that your child attended a public school where you can refuse to self-identify and where observer identification was not applied?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Comparing the class of 2024 and class of 2025 admits, the # of Asian students went down 15.8%.

Have you accounted for the increase in class size from 480 to 550

The PP said reducing the student number, not the student percentage.

From 355 to 299 = 15.8% reduction.

So from 355/480 to 299/550, or from 74% to 54%.

Right. So PP was incorrect. The number of Asian students decreased by 15.8% and the percentage dropped from 74% to 54%. I'm guessing they added the seats to absorb some of the impacts.

Since racial quotas and racial manipulations at schools were abolished in 70s, is this the first instance where certain segment of student body has been suppressed by 20 percentage points (from 74% to 54%) just because of their Asian American race?

The admissions changes weren’t race-based, but they did alter the racial mix-up.

The changes primarily:
> increased the % of students from all over the county; every single MS is now represented

> increased the % of students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds

> increased % of female students

> decreased the % private school students

I believe it also increased the % of kids with SNs but I don’t have the #s on that.