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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is the Asian that was discriminated against?

The only named plaintiff parent in the Coalition for TJ who was actually Asian was the mother of two TJ students at the time that the case was taken up. One of those two students had been admitted by the old process, and the other had been admitted by the new process. She was nominally listed in the case on behalf of her third child, who has since ALSO been admitted by the new process.

The other named plaintiff is very publicly a current candidate for the School Board. Go figure.

Makes you think.

That’s pathetic. Those parents and the Pacific Legal Foundation ought to be ashamed of themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is the Asian that was discriminated against?

The only named plaintiff parent in the Coalition for TJ who was actually Asian was the mother of two TJ students at the time that the case was taken up. One of those two students had been admitted by the old process, and the other had been admitted by the new process. She was nominally listed in the case on behalf of her third child, who has since ALSO been admitted by the new process.

The other named plaintiff is very publicly a current candidate for the School Board. Go figure.

Makes you think.

That’s pathetic. Those parents and the Pacific Legal Foundation ought to be ashamed of themselves.

You should be ashamed of yourself for endorsing entitlement and against meritocracy.
Those parents and the Pacific Legal Foundation are heroes who fight for justice and fairness for the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is the Asian that was discriminated against?

The only named plaintiff parent in the Coalition for TJ who was actually Asian was the mother of two TJ students at the time that the case was taken up. One of those two students had been admitted by the old process, and the other had been admitted by the new process. She was nominally listed in the case on behalf of her third child, who has since ALSO been admitted by the new process.

The other named plaintiff is very publicly a current candidate for the School Board. Go figure.

Makes you think.

That’s pathetic. Those parents and the Pacific Legal Foundation ought to be ashamed of themselves.

You should be ashamed of yourself for endorsing entitlement and against meritocracy.
Those parents and the Pacific Legal Foundation are heroes who fight for justice and fairness for the country.

The Pacific Legal Foundation represents the interests of one class of people - rich people.

Full stop.

The people who will benefit the most if the TJ admissions process is overturned are rich people. The people who will benefit from the Harvard/UNC decisions are rich people.

Conservatives are MASTERS at getting you to believe that they care about you so that they can advance the interests of the wealthy.

And that is what is happening here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is the Asian that was discriminated against?

The only named plaintiff parent in the Coalition for TJ who was actually Asian was the mother of two TJ students at the time that the case was taken up. One of those two students had been admitted by the old process, and the other had been admitted by the new process. She was nominally listed in the case on behalf of her third child, who has since ALSO been admitted by the new process.

The other named plaintiff is very publicly a current candidate for the School Board. Go figure.

Makes you think.

That’s pathetic. Those parents and the Pacific Legal Foundation ought to be ashamed of themselves.

You should be ashamed of yourself for endorsing entitlement and against meritocracy.
Those parents and the Pacific Legal Foundation are heroes who fight for justice and fairness for the country.

The Pacific Legal Foundation represents the interests of one class of people - rich people.

Full stop.

The people who will benefit the most if the TJ admissions process is overturned are rich people. The people who will benefit from the Harvard/UNC decisions are rich people.

Conservatives are MASTERS at getting you to believe that they care about you so that they can advance the interests of the wealthy.

And that is what is happening here.

Sounds like you are brain washed by the left too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who is the Asian that was discriminated against?

All thousand of them that are denied admission this year. Disproportionately denied compare to students of other races.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is the Asian that was discriminated against?

All thousand of them that are denied admission this year. Disproportionately denied compare to students of other races.

Cite your statistics in detail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is the Asian that was discriminated against?

All thousand of them that are denied admission this year. Disproportionately denied compare to students of other races.

Other statistics that have been posted and linked here disagree sharply with you.

Asian students were still admitted at a higher rate than students from any other demographic in the new admissions process per the Class of 2025 numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is the Asian that was discriminated against?

The only named plaintiff parent in the Coalition for TJ who was actually Asian was the mother of two TJ students at the time that the case was taken up. One of those two students had been admitted by the old process, and the other had been admitted by the new process. She was nominally listed in the case on behalf of her third child, who has since ALSO been admitted by the new process.

The other named plaintiff is very publicly a current candidate for the School Board. Go figure.

Makes you think.

That’s pathetic. Those parents and the Pacific Legal Foundation ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Explain exactly why they should be ashamed. Without using liberal talking points. This us how most scotus cases are brought. No one cares who the named plaintiff is. No one. Go to law school before commenting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is the Asian that was discriminated against?

The only named plaintiff parent in the Coalition for TJ who was actually Asian was the mother of two TJ students at the time that the case was taken up. One of those two students had been admitted by the old process, and the other had been admitted by the new process. She was nominally listed in the case on behalf of her third child, who has since ALSO been admitted by the new process.

The other named plaintiff is very publicly a current candidate for the School Board. Go figure.

Makes you think.

That’s pathetic. Those parents and the Pacific Legal Foundation ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Explain exactly why they should be ashamed. Without using liberal talking points. This us how most scotus cases are brought. No one cares who the named plaintiff is. No one. Go to law school before commenting

Ignoring for the moment the fact that there is very little daylight between "reality" and "liberal talking points" in today's environment...

The reason that it matters that the named plaintiffs are no longer relevant is because no one is harmed by the current admissions process. No one is entitled to a space at a selective educational institution and if you eliminate the specter of the previous admissions process, which was very clearly and demonstrably discriminatory against students from disadvantaged economic backgrounds, there wouldn't even be a case to be argued here.

You can't make a case that Asians are discriminated against when they are STILL admitted at a higher rate per applicant than any other demographic. If the School Board was trying to discriminate against Asian students, the numbers show that they did an awful job of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is the Asian that was discriminated against?

The only named plaintiff parent in the Coalition for TJ who was actually Asian was the mother of two TJ students at the time that the case was taken up. One of those two students had been admitted by the old process, and the other had been admitted by the new process. She was nominally listed in the case on behalf of her third child, who has since ALSO been admitted by the new process.

The other named plaintiff is very publicly a current candidate for the School Board. Go figure.

Makes you think.

That’s pathetic. Those parents and the Pacific Legal Foundation ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Explain exactly why they should be ashamed. Without using liberal talking points. This us how most scotus cases are brought. No one cares who the named plaintiff is. No one. Go to law school before commenting

Ignoring for the moment the fact that there is very little daylight between "reality" and "liberal talking points" in today's environment...

The reason that it matters that the named plaintiffs are no longer relevant is because no one is harmed by the current admissions process. No one is entitled to a space at a selective educational institution and if you eliminate the specter of the previous admissions process, which was very clearly and demonstrably discriminatory against students from disadvantaged economic backgrounds, there wouldn't even be a case to be argued here.

You can't make a case that Asians are discriminated against when they are STILL admitted at a higher rate per applicant than any other demographic. If the School Board was trying to discriminate against Asian students, the numbers show that they did an awful job of it.

The UMRs are entitled. The sudden decrease in number of Asian students shows the true objective of changing the admission rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is the Asian that was discriminated against?

The only named plaintiff parent in the Coalition for TJ who was actually Asian was the mother of two TJ students at the time that the case was taken up. One of those two students had been admitted by the old process, and the other had been admitted by the new process. She was nominally listed in the case on behalf of her third child, who has since ALSO been admitted by the new process.

The other named plaintiff is very publicly a current candidate for the School Board. Go figure.

Makes you think.

That’s pathetic. Those parents and the Pacific Legal Foundation ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Explain exactly why they should be ashamed. Without using liberal talking points. This us how most scotus cases are brought. No one cares who the named plaintiff is. No one. Go to law school before commenting

Ignoring for the moment the fact that there is very little daylight between "reality" and "liberal talking points" in today's environment...

The reason that it matters that the named plaintiffs are no longer relevant is because no one is harmed by the current admissions process. No one is entitled to a space at a selective educational institution and if you eliminate the specter of the previous admissions process, which was very clearly and demonstrably discriminatory against students from disadvantaged economic backgrounds, there wouldn't even be a case to be argued here.

You can't make a case that Asians are discriminated against when they are STILL admitted at a higher rate per applicant than any other demographic. If the School Board was trying to discriminate against Asian students, the numbers show that they did an awful job of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is the Asian that was discriminated against?

The only named plaintiff parent in the Coalition for TJ who was actually Asian was the mother of two TJ students at the time that the case was taken up. One of those two students had been admitted by the old process, and the other had been admitted by the new process. She was nominally listed in the case on behalf of her third child, who has since ALSO been admitted by the new process.

The other named plaintiff is very publicly a current candidate for the School Board. Go figure.

Makes you think.

That’s pathetic. Those parents and the Pacific Legal Foundation ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Explain exactly why they should be ashamed. Without using liberal talking points. This us how most scotus cases are brought. No one cares who the named plaintiff is. No one. Go to law school before commenting

Ignoring for the moment the fact that there is very little daylight between "reality" and "liberal talking points" in today's environment...

The reason that it matters that the named plaintiffs are no longer relevant is because no one is harmed by the current admissions process. No one is entitled to a space at a selective educational institution and if you eliminate the specter of the previous admissions process, which was very clearly and demonstrably discriminatory against students from disadvantaged economic backgrounds, there wouldn't even be a case to be argued here.

You can't make a case that Asians are discriminated against when they are STILL admitted at a higher rate per applicant than any other demographic. If the School Board was trying to discriminate against Asian students, the numbers show that they did an awful job of it.

The UMRs are entitled. The sudden decrease in number of Asian students shows the true objective of changing the admission rules.

No, they're not. You are insisting on treating Asian students as individuals but refusing to do the same for people whom you don't believe belong at TJ.

While I'm on the subject, can we note the persistent use of acronyms whenever conservatives don't want to acknowledge the situation that they're dealing with?

Instead of deigning to use the phrase "underrepresented groups", it's URMs.

Instead of talking about "critical race theory", it's CRT.

Instead of talking about "social-emotional learning, it's SEL.

Instead of "diversity, equity, and inclusion", it's DEI.

Almost as if they feel like saying the words acknowledges the existence and dignity of the people and concepts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is the Asian that was discriminated against?

The only named plaintiff parent in the Coalition for TJ who was actually Asian was the mother of two TJ students at the time that the case was taken up. One of those two students had been admitted by the old process, and the other had been admitted by the new process. She was nominally listed in the case on behalf of her third child, who has since ALSO been admitted by the new process.

The other named plaintiff is very publicly a current candidate for the School Board. Go figure.

Makes you think.

That’s pathetic. Those parents and the Pacific Legal Foundation ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Explain exactly why they should be ashamed. Without using liberal talking points. This us how most scotus cases are brought. No one cares who the named plaintiff is. No one. Go to law school before commenting

Ignoring for the moment the fact that there is very little daylight between "reality" and "liberal talking points" in today's environment...

The reason that it matters that the named plaintiffs are no longer relevant is because no one is harmed by the current admissions process. No one is entitled to a space at a selective educational institution and if you eliminate the specter of the previous admissions process, which was very clearly and demonstrably discriminatory against students from disadvantaged economic backgrounds, there wouldn't even be a case to be argued here.

You can't make a case that Asians are discriminated against when they are STILL admitted at a higher rate per applicant than any other demographic. If the School Board was trying to discriminate against Asian students, the numbers show that they did an awful job of it.

The UMRs are entitled. The sudden decrease in number of Asian students shows the true objective of changing the admission rules.

No, they're not. You are insisting on treating Asian students as individuals but refusing to do the same for people whom you don't believe belong at TJ.

While I'm on the subject, can we note the persistent use of acronyms whenever conservatives don't want to acknowledge the situation that they're dealing with?

Instead of deigning to use the phrase "underrepresented groups", it's URMs.

Instead of talking about "critical race theory", it's CRT.

Instead of talking about "social-emotional learning, it's SEL.

Instead of "diversity, equity, and inclusion", it's DEI.

Almost as if they feel like saying the words acknowledges the existence and dignity of the people and concepts.

Typical ignorant liberal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is the Asian that was discriminated against?

The only named plaintiff parent in the Coalition for TJ who was actually Asian was the mother of two TJ students at the time that the case was taken up. One of those two students had been admitted by the old process, and the other had been admitted by the new process. She was nominally listed in the case on behalf of her third child, who has since ALSO been admitted by the new process.

The other named plaintiff is very publicly a current candidate for the School Board. Go figure.

Makes you think.

That’s pathetic. Those parents and the Pacific Legal Foundation ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Explain exactly why they should be ashamed. Without using liberal talking points. This us how most scotus cases are brought. No one cares who the named plaintiff is. No one. Go to law school before commenting

Ignoring for the moment the fact that there is very little daylight between "reality" and "liberal talking points" in today's environment...

The reason that it matters that the named plaintiffs are no longer relevant is because no one is harmed by the current admissions process. No one is entitled to a space at a selective educational institution and if you eliminate the specter of the previous admissions process, which was very clearly and demonstrably discriminatory against students from disadvantaged economic backgrounds, there wouldn't even be a case to be argued here.

You can't make a case that Asians are discriminated against when they are STILL admitted at a higher rate per applicant than any other demographic. If the School Board was trying to discriminate against Asian students, the numbers show that they did an awful job of it.

The UMRs are entitled. The sudden decrease in number of Asian students shows the true objective of changing the admission rules.

No, they're not. You are insisting on treating Asian students as individuals but refusing to do the same for people whom you don't believe belong at TJ.

While I'm on the subject, can we note the persistent use of acronyms whenever conservatives don't want to acknowledge the situation that they're dealing with?

Instead of deigning to use the phrase "underrepresented groups", it's URMs.

Instead of talking about "critical race theory", it's CRT.

Instead of talking about "social-emotional learning, it's SEL.

Instead of "diversity, equity, and inclusion", it's DEI.

Almost as if they feel like saying the words acknowledges the existence and dignity of the people and concepts.

Typical ignorant liberal

By all means, explain your assertion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is the Asian that was discriminated against?

The only named plaintiff parent in the Coalition for TJ who was actually Asian was the mother of two TJ students at the time that the case was taken up. One of those two students had been admitted by the old process, and the other had been admitted by the new process. She was nominally listed in the case on behalf of her third child, who has since ALSO been admitted by the new process.

The other named plaintiff is very publicly a current candidate for the School Board. Go figure.

Makes you think.

That’s pathetic. Those parents and the Pacific Legal Foundation ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Explain exactly why they should be ashamed. Without using liberal talking points. This us how most scotus cases are brought. No one cares who the named plaintiff is. No one. Go to law school before commenting

Ignoring for the moment the fact that there is very little daylight between "reality" and "liberal talking points" in today's environment...

The reason that it matters that the named plaintiffs are no longer relevant is because no one is harmed by the current admissions process. No one is entitled to a space at a selective educational institution and if you eliminate the specter of the previous admissions process, which was very clearly and demonstrably discriminatory against students from disadvantaged economic backgrounds, there wouldn't even be a case to be argued here.

You can't make a case that Asians are discriminated against when they are STILL admitted at a higher rate per applicant than any other demographic. If the School Board was trying to discriminate against Asian students, the numbers show that they did an awful job of it.

The UMRs are entitled. The sudden decrease in number of Asian students shows the true objective of changing the admission rules.

No, they're not. You are insisting on treating Asian students as individuals but refusing to do the same for people whom you don't believe belong at TJ.

While I'm on the subject, can we note the persistent use of acronyms whenever conservatives don't want to acknowledge the situation that they're dealing with?

Instead of deigning to use the phrase "underrepresented groups", it's URMs.

Instead of talking about "critical race theory", it's CRT.

Instead of talking about "social-emotional learning, it's SEL.

Instead of "diversity, equity, and inclusion", it's DEI.

Almost as if they feel like saying the words acknowledges the existence and dignity of the people and concepts.

Said a poster who no doubt calls everyone who doesn’t agree with them a “RWNJ” rather than engage on the merits.