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:Their problem is they were too transparent. They need to be like the colleges. "Holistic" admissions means we admit whomever we want for whatever reason we want, and go ahead and try to prove we did this because of racial considerations. (Which every college in the country does).

The holistic BS does not work for public education. I need full transparency on how my tax $$ are being spent. If not, be prepared for school vouchers. Won't be pretty.

Colleges got away with that sh*t because people were honestly sleeping through that change. Do you realize how much we subsidize those colleges - Public and Private? What right do they have to use MY money and deny me fair process. They are more than welcome to pay full taxes as I do and do what they want. I won't complain. Holistic away on your own dime!

Nope.

My tax money goes to support our community. Not just the entitled few.

Diversity in law schools and even colleges has already been recognized by the courts as important. And now the question will be if this extends to selective high schools like TJ. I suspect that ultimately the answer will be yes. Even in the Supreme Ct. But for now the Reagan appointee Claude Hilton can have his say.

The judge didn't rule on that basis, though, Rather, he found discriminatory intent. Strict scrutiny standard, but a different type of analysis. Diversity in those contexts for admissions has been recognized, and is the law of the land. But note that that could change with the Harvard case.

But I'm saying it's not at all clear anymore that "racial balancing" is illegal. That's certainly a loaded term he used, but it's not at all clear that trying to get more black kids into these selective schools is going to be deemed illegal discrimination. That was their intent for sure. MNt sure courts are going to agree that's illegal. We'll see. We're not going to be able to litigate it here.

Their intent as admitted in school board emails was to increasing the # of Black kids by reducing the Asian population at TJ.

I know you'd like to rehabilitate the corrupt, discredited School Board by saying their motives were pure, but their motives weren't even good.

I'm sorry your friends on the School Board turned out to be so incompetent and hypocritical, but they did.

[Anonymous]

I'm just telling y'all that Judge Claude Hilton is an 80 year old Reagan appointee who has always been hostile to affirmative action. I just don't get the sense he represents the current state of the law in this area anymore, and I wouldn't be surprised if he is overruled on this. And I say that as someone who agrees completely with his finding that race was a determinative factor in the creation of these new admission policies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm just telling y'all that Judge Claude Hilton is an 80 year old Reagan appointee who has always been hostile to affirmative action. I just don't get the sense he represents the current state of the law in this area anymore, and I wouldn't be surprised if he is overruled on this. And I say that as someone who agrees completely with his finding that race was a determinative factor in the creation of these new admission policies.

And "y'all" is just telling you that the jurisprudence in this area is going to be shaped by the current Supreme Court which, even if it never has occasion to grant cert in this case, is going to be issuing other decisions likely more in line with the thinking of Judge Hilton than with that of John Foster, Scott Brabrand, and Sujatha Hampton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm just telling y'all that Judge Claude Hilton is an 80 year old Reagan appointee who has always been hostile to affirmative action. I just don't get the sense he represents the current state of the law in this area anymore, and I wouldn't be surprised if he is overruled on this. And I say that as someone who agrees completely with his finding that race was a determinative factor in the creation of these new admission policies.

And "y'all" is just telling you that the jurisprudence in this area is going to be shaped by the current Supreme Court which, even if it never has occasion to grant cert in this case, is going to be issuing other decisions likely more in line with the thinking of Judge Hilton than with that of John Foster, Scott Brabrand, and Sujatha Hampton.

^ It's possible. But we'll have to see. And I'm not sure the Harvard (a private college) case will necessarily be precedent for this matter, which deals with a selective high school within a public school system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm just telling y'all that Judge Claude Hilton is an 80 year old Reagan appointee who has always been hostile to affirmative action. I just don't get the sense he represents the current state of the law in this area anymore, and I wouldn't be surprised if he is overruled on this. And I say that as someone who agrees completely with his finding that race was a determinative factor in the creation of these new admission policies.

And "y'all" is just telling you that the jurisprudence in this area is going to be shaped by the current Supreme Court which, even if it never has occasion to grant cert in this case, is going to be issuing other decisions likely more in line with the thinking of Judge Hilton than with that of John Foster, Scott Brabrand, and Sujatha Hampton.

What does Sujatha, who is Asian herself have to do with this?

After this case is overturned or remanded by the 4th Circuit, the US Supreme Court will never grant cert.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm just telling y'all that Judge Claude Hilton is an 80 year old Reagan appointee who has always been hostile to affirmative action. I just don't get the sense he represents the current state of the law in this area anymore, and I wouldn't be surprised if he is overruled on this. And I say that as someone who agrees completely with his finding that race was a determinative factor in the creation of these new admission policies.

And "y'all" is just telling you that the jurisprudence in this area is going to be shaped by the current Supreme Court which, even if it never has occasion to grant cert in this case, is going to be issuing other decisions likely more in line with the thinking of Judge Hilton than with that of John Foster, Scott Brabrand, and Sujatha Hampton.

What does Sujatha, who is Asian herself have to do with this?

After this case is overturned or remanded by the 4th Circuit, the US Supreme Court will never grant cert.

I see no basis for it being overturned. It’s legally on terra firma.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm just telling y'all that Judge Claude Hilton is an 80 year old Reagan appointee who has always been hostile to affirmative action. I just don't get the sense he represents the current state of the law in this area anymore, and I wouldn't be surprised if he is overruled on this. And I say that as someone who agrees completely with his finding that race was a determinative factor in the creation of these new admission policies.

Yeah, long time white supremacist with a long history of sentencing Blacks more harsh than any other group. Not as racist as Ellis, but almost as bad. The Eastern District of Alexandria has the most racist federal judges in the country. The only place coming close is the federal courthouse in Mobile, Alabama.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm just telling y'all that Judge Claude Hilton is an 80 year old Reagan appointee who has always been hostile to affirmative action. I just don't get the sense he represents the current state of the law in this area anymore, and I wouldn't be surprised if he is overruled on this. And I say that as someone who agrees completely with his finding that race was a determinative factor in the creation of these new admission policies.

Yeah, long time white supremacist with a long history of sentencing Blacks more harsh than any other group. Not as racist as Ellis, but almost as bad. The Eastern District of Alexandria has the most racist federal judges in the country. The only place coming close is the federal courthouse in Mobile, Alabama.

Indeed. Today's white supremacists have switched target to Asians as their victims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm just telling y'all that Judge Claude Hilton is an 80 year old Reagan appointee who has always been hostile to affirmative action. I just don't get the sense he represents the current state of the law in this area anymore, and I wouldn't be surprised if he is overruled on this. And I say that as someone who agrees completely with his finding that race was a determinative factor in the creation of these new admission policies.

Yeah, long time white supremacist with a long history of sentencing Blacks more harsh than any other group. Not as racist as Ellis, but almost as bad. The Eastern District of Alexandria has the most racist federal judges in the country. The only place coming close is the federal courthouse in Mobile, Alabama.

Do the crime pay the time.

It does align with the idea that actions have consequences, and that kids who've worked harder to get into TJ deserve to be there, doesn't it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm just telling y'all that Judge Claude Hilton is an 80 year old Reagan appointee who has always been hostile to affirmative action. I just don't get the sense he represents the current state of the law in this area anymore, and I wouldn't be surprised if he is overruled on this. And I say that as someone who agrees completely with his finding that race was a determinative factor in the creation of these new admission policies.

Yeah, long time white supremacist with a long history of sentencing Blacks more harsh than any other group. Not as racist as Ellis, but almost as bad. The Eastern District of Alexandria has the most racist federal judges in the country. The only place coming close is the federal courthouse in Mobile, Alabama.

Indeed. Today's white supremacists have switched target to Asians as their victims.

Nope. But they are happy to mislead them.

[Anonymous]

The Supreme Court has already ruled that racial balancing/racial diversity is an unconstitutional objective for K-12 schools. It is still ok for higher education (colleges and universities), under current case law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm just telling y'all that Judge Claude Hilton is an 80 year old Reagan appointee who has always been hostile to affirmative action. I just don't get the sense he represents the current state of the law in this area anymore, and I wouldn't be surprised if he is overruled on this. And I say that as someone who agrees completely with his finding that race was a determinative factor in the creation of these new admission policies.

And "y'all" is just telling you that the jurisprudence in this area is going to be shaped by the current Supreme Court which, even if it never has occasion to grant cert in this case, is going to be issuing other decisions likely more in line with the thinking of Judge Hilton than with that of John Foster, Scott Brabrand, and Sujatha Hampton.

What does Sujatha, who is Asian herself have to do with this?

After this case is overturned or remanded by the 4th Circuit, the US Supreme Court will never grant cert.

Sujatha likes to dress up as black and is on the Fairfax NAACP board and serves as the education committee chair. She has been vilifying the Asian community for a few years and is against advanced academics for children.

[Anonymous]

What a bunch of losers on the school board. Preaching equity and diversity and they’re the ones found guilty of discrimination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Their problem is they were too transparent. They need to be like the colleges. "Holistic" admissions means we admit whomever we want for whatever reason we want, and go ahead and try to prove we did this because of racial considerations. (Which every college in the country does).

The holistic BS does not work for public education. I need full transparency on how my tax $$ are being spent. If not, be prepared for school vouchers. Won't be pretty.

Colleges got away with that sh*t because people were honestly sleeping through that change. Do you realize how much we subsidize those colleges - Public and Private? What right do they have to use MY money and deny me fair process. They are more than welcome to pay full taxes as I do and do what they want. I won't complain. Holistic away on your own dime!

Nope.

My tax money goes to support our community. Not just the entitled few.

Diversity in law schools and even colleges has already been recognized by the courts as important. And now the question will be if this extends to selective high schools like TJ. I suspect that ultimately the answer will be yes. Even in the Supreme Ct. But for now the Reagan appointee Claude Hilton can have his say.

The judge didn't rule on that basis, though, Rather, he found discriminatory intent. Strict scrutiny standard, but a different type of analysis. Diversity in those contexts for admissions has been recognized, and is the law of the land. But note that that could change with the Harvard case.

But I'm saying it's not at all clear anymore that "racial balancing" is illegal. That's certainly a loaded term he used, but it's not at all clear that trying to get more black kids into these selective schools is going to be deemed illegal discrimination. That was their intent for sure. MNt sure courts are going to agree that's illegal. We'll see. We're not going to be able to litigate it here.

I think he’s saying that the discriminatory intent applied to discrimination re Asians. The bottom line os that the Fourth Circuit is a Democratic-dominated court. So it’ll be what it’ll be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Their problem is they were too transparent. They need to be like the colleges. "Holistic" admissions means we admit whomever we want for whatever reason we want, and go ahead and try to prove we did this because of racial considerations. (Which every college in the country does).

The holistic BS does not work for public education. I need full transparency on how my tax $$ are being spent. If not, be prepared for school vouchers. Won't be pretty.

Colleges got away with that sh*t because people were honestly sleeping through that change. Do you realize how much we subsidize those colleges - Public and Private? What right do they have to use MY money and deny me fair process. They are more than welcome to pay full taxes as I do and do what they want. I won't complain. Holistic away on your own dime!

Nope.

My tax money goes to support our community. Not just the entitled few.

Diversity in law schools and even colleges has already been recognized by the courts as important. And now the question will be if this extends to selective high schools like TJ. I suspect that ultimately the answer will be yes. Even in the Supreme Ct. But for now the Reagan appointee Claude Hilton can have his say.

The judge didn't rule on that basis, though, Rather, he found discriminatory intent. Strict scrutiny standard, but a different type of analysis. Diversity in those contexts for admissions has been recognized, and is the law of the land. But note that that could change with the Harvard case.

But I'm saying it's not at all clear anymore that "racial balancing" is illegal. That's certainly a loaded term he used, but it's not at all clear that trying to get more black kids into these selective schools is going to be deemed illegal discrimination. That was their intent for sure. MNt sure courts are going to agree that's illegal. We'll see. We're not going to be able to litigate it here.

I think he’s saying that the discriminatory intent applied to discrimination re Asians. The bottom line os that the Fourth Circuit is a Democratic-dominated court. So it’ll be what it’ll be.

4th Circuit democratic run? F no! Not sure about the court of appeals panel of judges, but the the 4th circuit is comprised of West Virginia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland. 4 of 5 of those states are as conservative as it gets.