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:

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.

But are they qualified or did they take spots from more qualified applicants?

[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 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.

But are they qualified or did they take spots from more qualified applicants?

Both can be true. They are qualified and there are likely more qualified applicants who didn't get a spot. That's how every selective school at every level works.

[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:

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.

But are they qualified or did they take spots from more qualified applicants?

Both can be true. They are qualified and there are likely more qualified applicants who didn't get a spot. That's how every selective school at every level works.

Most qualified should be admitted - didn't you hear about the new Supreme Court ruling reinforcing merit and ruling use of race to be unconstitutional?

[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:

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.

But are they qualified or did they take spots from more qualified applicants?

Both can be true. They are qualified and there are likely more qualified applicants who didn't get a spot. That's how every selective school at every level works.

Most qualified should be admitted - didn't you hear about the new Supreme Court ruling reinforcing merit and ruling use of race to be unconstitutional?

Can you point to the line in the supreme court decision saying that the most qualified applicants have to be admitted?

[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:

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.

But are they qualified or did they take spots from more qualified applicants?

Both can be true. They are qualified and there are likely more qualified applicants who didn't get a spot. That's how every selective school at every level works.

Most qualified should be admitted - didn't you hear about the new Supreme Court ruling reinforcing merit and ruling use of race to be unconstitutional?

Can you point to the line in the supreme court decision saying that the most qualified applicants have to be admitted?

Can you point to the part where I said "the supreme court decision says that the most qualified applicants have to be admitted"?

[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:

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.

But are they qualified or did they take spots from more qualified applicants?

Both can be true. They are qualified and there are likely more qualified applicants who didn't get a spot. That's how every selective school at every level works.

Most qualified should be admitted - didn't you hear about the new Supreme Court ruling reinforcing merit and ruling use of race to be unconstitutional?

Of course, and that is why the new admissions procedure specifically does not include race as a factor and ensures that all kids regardless of ethnicity have a fair chance. The new process results in no race having preference.

[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:

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.

But are they qualified or did they take spots from more qualified applicants?

Both can be true. They are qualified and there are likely more qualified applicants who didn't get a spot. That's how every selective school at every level works.

Most qualified should be admitted - didn't you hear about the new Supreme Court ruling reinforcing merit and ruling use of race to be unconstitutional?

Can you point to the line in the supreme court decision saying that the most qualified applicants have to be admitted?

Can you point to the part where I said "the supreme court decision says that the most qualified applicants have to be admitted"?

You said most qualified students should be admitted and then referenced the supreme court which said nothing about requiring the most qualified applicants to be admitted. Like it or not, geographic diversity is here to stay and if that means that some of the most qualified applicants don't get in, oh well

[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:

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.

But are they qualified or did they take spots from more qualified applicants?

Both can be true. They are qualified and there are likely more qualified applicants who didn't get a spot. That's how every selective school at every level works.

Most qualified should be admitted - didn't you hear about the new Supreme Court ruling reinforcing merit and ruling use of race to be unconstitutional?

Can you point to the line in the supreme court decision saying that the most qualified applicants have to be admitted?

Can you point to the part where I said "the supreme court decision says that the most qualified applicants have to be admitted"?

You said most qualified students should be admitted and then referenced the supreme court which said nothing about requiring the most qualified applicants to be admitted. Like it or not, geographic diversity is here to stay and if that means that some of the most qualified applicants don't get in, oh well

The geographic diversity does take away spots from more qualified candidates who are borderline, though the increase in class size reduces this a bit.
However, the most qualified students not getting in is caused more by other changes and not the geographic diversity. Top students are not being selected in favor of less qualified students at the same school.

[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:

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.

But are they qualified or did they take spots from more qualified applicants?

Both can be true. They are qualified and there are likely more qualified applicants who didn't get a spot. That's how every selective school at every level works.

Most qualified should be admitted - didn't you hear about the new Supreme Court ruling reinforcing merit and ruling use of race to be unconstitutional?

Can you point to the line in the supreme court decision saying that the most qualified applicants have to be admitted?

Can you point to the part where I said "the supreme court decision says that the most qualified applicants have to be admitted"?

You said most qualified students should be admitted and then referenced the supreme court which said nothing about requiring the most qualified applicants to be admitted. Like it or not, geographic diversity is here to stay and if that means that some of the most qualified applicants don't get in, oh well

The geographic diversity does take away spots from more qualified candidates who are borderline, though the increase in class size reduces this a bit.
However, the most qualified students not getting in is caused more by other changes and not the geographic diversity. Top students are not being selected in favor of less qualified students at the same school.

It should give them practice for when they don't get into their dream college even though they are 'most qualified'

[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 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.

But are they qualified or did they take spots from more qualified applicants?

They are well qualified.

[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:

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.

But are they qualified or did they take spots from more qualified applicants?

Both can be true. They are qualified and there are likely more qualified applicants who didn't get a spot. That's how every selective school at every level works.

Most qualified should be admitted - didn't you hear about the new Supreme Court ruling reinforcing merit and ruling use of race to be unconstitutional?

Can you point to the line in the supreme court decision saying that the most qualified applicants have to be admitted?

Can you point to the part where I said "the supreme court decision says that the most qualified applicants have to be admitted"?

You said most qualified students should be admitted and then referenced the supreme court which said nothing about requiring the most qualified applicants to be admitted. Like it or not, geographic diversity is here to stay and if that means that some of the most qualified applicants don't get in, oh well

The geographic diversity does take away spots from more qualified candidates who are borderline, though the increase in class size reduces this a bit.
However, the most qualified students not getting in is caused more by other changes and not the geographic diversity. Top students are not being selected in favor of less qualified students at the same school.

It should give them practice for when they don't get into their dream college even though they are 'most qualified'

+1

A good lesson in how feeling entitled to something doesn't mean you will get it.

[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:

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.

But are they qualified or did they take spots from more qualified applicants?

Both can be true. They are qualified and there are likely more qualified applicants who didn't get a spot. That's how every selective school at every level works.

Most qualified should be admitted - didn't you hear about the new Supreme Court ruling reinforcing merit and ruling use of race to be unconstitutional?

Can you point to the line in the supreme court decision saying that the most qualified applicants have to be admitted?

Can you point to the part where I said "the supreme court decision says that the most qualified applicants have to be admitted"?

You said most qualified students should be admitted and then referenced the supreme court which said nothing about requiring the most qualified applicants to be admitted. Like it or not, geographic diversity is here to stay and if that means that some of the most qualified applicants don't get in, oh well

The geographic diversity does take away spots from more qualified candidates who are borderline, though the increase in class size reduces this a bit.
However, the most qualified students not getting in is caused more by other changes and not the geographic diversity. Top students are not being selected in favor of less qualified students at the same school.

if this artificially made-up hokum of manipulating every school composition to reflect the geographic diversity stands, which the supreme court has yet to decide on if it is legitimate and constitutional, then wont the black students at 3000+ schools where they are over-represented get displaced? for instance, one of the post here pointed out that Benjamin Banneker high school in DC has 72% black students, yet DC population has only 45% blacks. If this made-up rule of applying geographic racial quota is enforced there as well, what would happen to the lives of 72% - 45% = 27% of the black students who now attend that school? Also how is it not racist if political forces accuse the black families and their students of engaging in some type of cheating that caused their over-representation?

[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:

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.

But are they qualified or did they take spots from more qualified applicants?

Both can be true. They are qualified and there are likely more qualified applicants who didn't get a spot. That's how every selective school at every level works.

Most qualified should be admitted - didn't you hear about the new Supreme Court ruling reinforcing merit and ruling use of race to be unconstitutional?

Can you point to the line in the supreme court decision saying that the most qualified applicants have to be admitted?

Can you point to the part where I said "the supreme court decision says that the most qualified applicants have to be admitted"?

You said most qualified students should be admitted and then referenced the supreme court which said nothing about requiring the most qualified applicants to be admitted. Like it or not, geographic diversity is here to stay and if that means that some of the most qualified applicants don't get in, oh well

The geographic diversity does take away spots from more qualified candidates who are borderline, though the increase in class size reduces this a bit.
However, the most qualified students not getting in is caused more by other changes and not the geographic diversity. Top students are not being selected in favor of less qualified students at the same school.

It should give them practice for when they don't get into their dream college even though they are 'most qualified'

They will at least have the possibility of other good schools for college. The base school does not offer the classes that TJ does, and these kids are the ones most able to take advantage of what TJ has. Maybe at base school they will do dual enrollment at a community college, while TJ has advanced classes in school with other high schoolers.

[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:

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.

But are they qualified or did they take spots from more qualified applicants?

Both can be true. They are qualified and there are likely more qualified applicants who didn't get a spot. That's how every selective school at every level works.

Most qualified should be admitted - didn't you hear about the new Supreme Court ruling reinforcing merit and ruling use of race to be unconstitutional?

Can you point to the line in the supreme court decision saying that the most qualified applicants have to be admitted?

Can you point to the part where I said "the supreme court decision says that the most qualified applicants have to be admitted"?

You said most qualified students should be admitted and then referenced the supreme court which said nothing about requiring the most qualified applicants to be admitted. Like it or not, geographic diversity is here to stay and if that means that some of the most qualified applicants don't get in, oh well

The geographic diversity does take away spots from more qualified candidates who are borderline, though the increase in class size reduces this a bit.
However, the most qualified students not getting in is caused more by other changes and not the geographic diversity. Top students are not being selected in favor of less qualified students at the same school.

It should give them practice for when they don't get into their dream college even though they are 'most qualified'

They will at least have the possibility of other good schools for college. The base school does not offer the classes that TJ does, and these kids are the ones most able to take advantage of what TJ has. Maybe at base school they will do dual enrollment at a community college, while TJ has advanced classes in school with other high schoolers.

That will happen every year under every conceivable policy. There are more kids qualified to attend TJ than there are seats at TJ

[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:

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.

But are they qualified or did they take spots from more qualified applicants?

Both can be true. They are qualified and there are likely more qualified applicants who didn't get a spot. That's how every selective school at every level works.

Most qualified should be admitted - didn't you hear about the new Supreme Court ruling reinforcing merit and ruling use of race to be unconstitutional?

Can you point to the line in the supreme court decision saying that the most qualified applicants have to be admitted?

Can you point to the part where I said "the supreme court decision says that the most qualified applicants have to be admitted"?

You said most qualified students should be admitted and then referenced the supreme court which said nothing about requiring the most qualified applicants to be admitted. Like it or not, geographic diversity is here to stay and if that means that some of the most qualified applicants don't get in, oh well

The geographic diversity does take away spots from more qualified candidates who are borderline, though the increase in class size reduces this a bit.
However, the most qualified students not getting in is caused more by other changes and not the geographic diversity. Top students are not being selected in favor of less qualified students at the same school.

It should give them practice for when they don't get into their dream college even though they are 'most qualified'

They will at least have the possibility of other good schools for college. The base school does not offer the classes that TJ does, and these kids are the ones most able to take advantage of what TJ has. Maybe at base school they will do dual enrollment at a community college, while TJ has advanced classes in school with other high schoolers.

That will happen every year under every conceivable policy. There are more kids qualified to attend TJ than there are seats at TJ

Exactly.