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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Could you cite the case? And only if it dealt with selective magnet-type public schools like TJ. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Uhhhh, that’s not how this works. What we’re talking about here is the judges who were appointed by a particular president. Advantage Dems. Now, of course, a three member panel could have a Republican majority. But that decision would just be revered by the court sitting en banc.

[Anonymous]

When I read the headline and saw the case was heard in E.D.V.A. Alexandria, I knew it was Judge Claude Hilton. He's an 80 year old Reagan appointee (how many of those are left?) who has always been hostile to affirmative action. Almost any other judge, that case goes the other way. Just luck of the draw I guess for the plaintiffs in this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I read the headline and saw the case was heard in E.D.V.A. Alexandria, I knew it was Judge Claude Hilton. He's an 80 year old Reagan appointee (how many of those are left?) who has always been hostile to affirmative action. Almost any other judge, that case goes the other way. Just luck of the draw I guess for the plaintiffs in this case.

Get rid of those bumbling fools at fcps rather than wishing for a pie in the sky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I read the headline and saw the case was heard in E.D.V.A. Alexandria, I knew it was Judge Claude Hilton. He's an 80 year old Reagan appointee (how many of those are left?) who has always been hostile to affirmative action. Almost any other judge, that case goes the other way. Just luck of the draw I guess for the plaintiffs in this case.

I highly doubt that almost any other judge would have ruled the other way. The facts here are very bad.

[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.

I am from Maryland and have no dog in this fight. However, it is sad to see discrimination against Asians be pushed by a political party as some kind of reparation/counter for systemic discrimination against minorities esp blacks in the US. It is just a wrong approach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Time for the NCAAP to sue under the same facts. The school needs to close

How is the school discriminating against anyone under the old system? Please explain. Isn't it based on merit? How is merit discriminatory? If you want to get into the school, you need to do the work and study your butt off. How is that racist?

It is not racist.

The racism here was: the radical FFX school board and Dr. Brabrand implementing a racist revision to the admissions process.

For the court, this was a “no brainer.” Board member Omeish was caught in an email confessing

“This all feels like anti-Asian racism. lol:”

Laughing about being racist against Asians - while at the same time being racist against Asians??!

Why does this person still have a seat on the school board? Are we all OK with an elected bigot??

Few people listened when it was pointed out prior to her election so….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Deep breaths, folks. I read the decision, and I have to say that I found the evidence of discriminatory intent to be unconvincing. What I perceive is FCPS acting in good faith. The Fourth Circuit is a solidly liberal court.

So liberals are solidly against Asians now?

Of course not.

Yes they are. Actions speak louder than words.

Yes, they are. That’s clear from the start. With the all D school board, Brabrand, and the numerous posts in DCUM land that effectively show the pulse of the liberal agenda. And look at what happened in San Francisco.

Stating that the judge is a right winger ( as a previous post did) and adding that the 4th circuit is “solidly liberal” is loud and clear. Along with the multitude digs about ‘tiger moms’ and ‘robots’ and ‘cheaters’. Add to that the complete apathy about how it’s totally okay to create systemic discrimination or ethnic cleansing of Asians- (as another poster said the previous admissions was ethnic cleansing blacks).

If you haven’t figured out liberals hate Asians, you’re still drinking the Kool-Aid. My vote is independent now. This goes beyond TJ.

Your vote is “independent now”?

Have you seen the casual racism and stereotyping by liberals on this board? I will no longer give Democrats the benefit of the doubt when voting between Republicans and Democrats. As far as I’m concerned both parties harbor racists towards Asians.

I learnt this a while back. Some Democrats are all nice as long as you are below them and they can condescend to/control you. As soon as you start becoming equal or do better, the racism comes out. It is just more subtle than with the Republicans but possibly more hurtful.

They want someone to pity, not an equal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I read the headline and saw the case was heard in E.D.V.A. Alexandria, I knew it was Judge Claude Hilton. He's an 80 year old Reagan appointee (how many of those are left?) who has always been hostile to affirmative action. Almost any other judge, that case goes the other way. Just luck of the draw I guess for the plaintiffs in this case.

I highly doubt that almost any other judge would have ruled the other way. The facts here are very bad.

Not on the Rocket Docket! All the judges over there are f’d up. You have go to Richmond and appeal to the 4th Circuit to get law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I read the headline and saw the case was heard in E.D.V.A. Alexandria, I knew it was Judge Claude Hilton. He's an 80 year old Reagan appointee (how many of those are left?) who has always been hostile to affirmative action. Almost any other judge, that case goes the other way. Just luck of the draw I guess for the plaintiffs in this case.

I highly doubt that almost any other judge would have ruled the other way. The facts here are very bad.

Not on the Rocket Docket! All the judges over there are f’d up. You have go to Richmond and appeal to the 4th Circuit to get law.

The 4th circuit appeal isnt going to get them anywhere. Only two cases have survived strict scruitiny. This is a slam dunk. FCPS is a public school, not a college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She’s also stressed out by rich white people, so much do that she chooses to live in Great Falls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I read the headline and saw the case was heard in E.D.V.A. Alexandria, I knew it was Judge Claude Hilton. He's an 80 year old Reagan appointee (how many of those are left?) who has always been hostile to affirmative action. Almost any other judge, that case goes the other way. Just luck of the draw I guess for the plaintiffs in this case.

I highly doubt that almost any other judge would have ruled the other way. The facts here are very bad.

Not on the Rocket Docket! All the judges over there are f’d up. You have go to Richmond and appeal to the 4th Circuit to get law.

The 4th circuit appeal isnt going to get them anywhere. Only two cases have survived strict scruitiny. This is a slam dunk. FCPS is a public school, not a college.

The key was that the complaint survived a motion to dismiss and all the sordid facts came out during discovery. FCPS is stuck with them now. For all they know, an appellate court might call even more attention to the anti-Asian statements made by Brabrand and School Bosrd members on appeal than the district court judge did.

They might want to cut their losses rather than continue to litigate over just what bumbling hateful idiots they are, especially as they get closer to additional elections. The Democrats on the FCPS School Board are already the best gift the local Republicans could have asked for. Hypocrites and poseurs like Omeish, Frisch, Cohen, and Tholen already dragged down the Democratic ticket in the last election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I read the headline and saw the case was heard in E.D.V.A. Alexandria, I knew it was Judge Claude Hilton. He's an 80 year old Reagan appointee (how many of those are left?) who has always been hostile to affirmative action. Almost any other judge, that case goes the other way. Just luck of the draw I guess for the plaintiffs in this case.

Give one example of what you are basing you "has always been hostile to affirmative action" on or you just made it all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Uhhhh, that’s not how this works. What we’re talking about here is the judges who were appointed by a particular president. Advantage Dems. Now, of course, a three member panel could have a Republican majority. But that decision would just be revered by the court sitting en banc.

Sad that no one thinks judge can be impartial but rather that they make law based on the policy positions of the political party that appointed them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Could you cite the case? And only if it dealt with selective magnet-type public schools like TJ. Thank you.

I suspect PP is confused with racial quotas. I believe the argument was that under Arlington Heights diversity can be a goal, but you cannot disadvantage another similarly situated person based on race.