Va. committee passes bill banning admissions discrimination

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Your definition of merit includes “ my parents could afford housing in good school districts and tutoring to supplement said schooling” that’s not true merit.

That is indeed merit. Ask yourself what merit means to you - what practical purpose it serves either you or society at large. People who are recognized for their merit don't just print their merit on a piece of paper and hang it on a wall for visitors to admire. The merit people achieve is *always* measured in the way it improves the lives of people, including themselves. If someone worked hard to afford housing in a good school district, that's an achievement, a merit, and it's perfectly within their right to pass on the benefits of that merit to their children, who then take advantage of that privilege in order to achieve good academic performance - another merit. In this way, merit of one generation builds on top of the merit of the previous generation, and society as a whole advances rather than stagnates.

[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:…to ensure that each public middle school that is eligible to send students to attend such Governor's school offers coursework, curriculum, and instruction that is comparable in content and in rigor in order to provide each student in each such middle school with the opportunity to gain admission to and excel academically at such Governor's school. [

Does this mean that all MSs have to offer the exact same course offerings?

Read one way, this clause could represent a big win for progressives.

No, it certainly isn't. Progressives want equitable outcomes regardless of individual choices. Offering these classes only avail the students to the classes. It would still be up to the students to meet the prerequisites and take the actual classes.

False. Progressives want equitable opportunities. Which is precisely what this is.

But misrepresenting the goals of progressives is probably a good strategy for winning points from the folks here who think that only Asians care about education.

That's not what equity means in progressive parlance. Equity is *what you have*, meaning privileges. They are not just after equal opportunity. Here it is straight for the horse's mouth:

http://www.theinclusionsolution.me/equity-vs-equality-eliminating-opportunity-gaps-education/

As shown in the illustrative cartoon at the top, it's not that they want to give every child the opportunity to build their own box if they need it. No. It's that they want two boxes to be provided to that one child, at the expense of the other child.

If you can look at that picture and not conclude that the best thing to do is give two boxes to the short kid so everyone can see, no one should ever let you anywhere near children. That’s Child Protective Services level of psychopathy.

The problem is - what do you do if there are only two boxes? In your world, you give it to the short kid and the expense of the taller kid because he has "height privilege" and so did his ancestors so tough luck for him even though now he can't see because we are taking his box away.

If there are two boxes, you do what you can to make sure that at least one additional kid can see. In this example, there's no inherently greater value to helping either of the two other kids, so you pick one and try to find another box.

Advocates for the previous status quo would give the tallest kid a box and save the other two in case more tall kids showed up.

If they own the box, they should keep it and not have it taken away because some SJWs decide otherwise.

Ah... but they do not own the box. They just historically have received the vast majority of the boxes. And they've recognized that the boxes are probably more useful to the short kids than the tall kids, whose outcomes won't be impacted nearly as much.

Hey, Asians are the shortest on average and whites/blacks are the tallest on average.

Under PP's logic, Asians should get automatic 10 inches added to their height for selecting of basketball teams. They need it the most and would have the greatest impact.

The goal of the boxes is to help kids see the baseball game.

The goal of basketball teams is to win games. How would that help?

You are an idiot - goal of the boxes is to give a "boost" to the kids so the kids can fully engage and take advantage of the boosted situation, not just to enable them to see a game.

Goal of the governor's school in STEM is to select the best STEM students and give them the best elite education in STEM so that the entire State/country will benefit. What good is it to allow above average students into such a school if they cannot "win" as in take advantage of the advanced courses, take advantage of the advanced equipment, take advantage of elite academic teams, take advantage of advanced research etc.?

Let’s see…

Basically every major company in the DC area has a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiative - irrespective of industry. Recognizing the value of not only hiring workers from diverse backgrounds, but in promoting LEADERS from those backgrounds as well.

They’re doing just fine.

Why? Because there are far more individuals who are highly qualified to do those jobs than there are people to fill them - and because companies gain inherent value both in the public and in their decision rooms from having diverse perspectives to hear from.

The same is the case for applicants to TJ. As much as regressives want to pretend that the kids who get selected to go to TJ every year are a cut above the rest, the reality is that there are a few who are - but that there are far more who are basically in the same realm as a thousand who don’t get selected.

So what has FCPS decided? They’ve decided that a slightly different balance of voices in the classroom - yes from a racial perspective but more importantly from a socioeconomic and experiential perspective - than a few extra points on a problem-solving creativity exam that someone told the kids how to solve.

Agree completely.

And when you look at total #s, the number of Asians at TJ today is actually higher than it was just a few years ago.

And we have:
142 more kids from underrepresented MSs
36 fewer kids from private schools
42 fewer kids from feeder MSs

Wrong. Asians were reduced in percentage by deliberate discriminatory action. That's what the discussion, lawsuit and judgment has been about.

The % decreased because they added more seats.

Go visit TJ tomorrow. There are more Asian students on campus than there were a few years ago.

Wrong. Asians were reduced in percentage by deliberate discriminatory action. From previous incoming class vs current incoming class - percentage down, number also down. That's what the discussion, lawsuit and judgment has been about.

Right, but we need to put it in perspective. There are a high # of Asian students at TJ today. Even higher than a few years ago. And we’ve added seats to allow more paths to TJ.

I see that as a win.

Yet again, you seem to be under the impression that an wrongful action is a "win" just because it has some of the outcomes you seem to like, as if the racist part of the equation is just some unintended collateral damage in our pursuit for a greater good. If you are willing to justify racist discrimination in order to achieve a result, then you are no where near that greater good.

I have an issue with the language of the school board members but the admission process itself is a step in the right direction to open up TJ to untapped STEM talent.

That's like saying while you have an issue with slavery, you nonetheless feel that the resulting economic benefits to the US was a step in the right direction.

[Anonymous]

Many low wage workers like cleaners , nurses, garbage disposal workers and factory workers work extremely hard and are vital to the running of our society.

Salary and societal worth isn’t related to ones ability to afforded a home in good school districts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many low wage workers like cleaners , nurses, garbage disposal workers and factory workers work extremely hard and are vital to the running of our society.

Salary and societal worth isn’t related to ones ability to afforded a home in good school districts.

Um.... salary is directly related to the ability to afford a home in good school districts, but I get what you are trying to say.

Working and earning income by improving other people's lives is just one way a person lives a life of merit, but it is merit nonetheless.

[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:…to ensure that each public middle school that is eligible to send students to attend such Governor's school offers coursework, curriculum, and instruction that is comparable in content and in rigor in order to provide each student in each such middle school with the opportunity to gain admission to and excel academically at such Governor's school. [

Does this mean that all MSs have to offer the exact same course offerings?

Read one way, this clause could represent a big win for progressives.

No, it certainly isn't. Progressives want equitable outcomes regardless of individual choices. Offering these classes only avail the students to the classes. It would still be up to the students to meet the prerequisites and take the actual classes.

False. Progressives want equitable opportunities. Which is precisely what this is.

But misrepresenting the goals of progressives is probably a good strategy for winning points from the folks here who think that only Asians care about education.

That's not what equity means in progressive parlance. Equity is *what you have*, meaning privileges. They are not just after equal opportunity. Here it is straight for the horse's mouth:

http://www.theinclusionsolution.me/equity-vs-equality-eliminating-opportunity-gaps-education/

As shown in the illustrative cartoon at the top, it's not that they want to give every child the opportunity to build their own box if they need it. No. It's that they want two boxes to be provided to that one child, at the expense of the other child.

If you can look at that picture and not conclude that the best thing to do is give two boxes to the short kid so everyone can see, no one should ever let you anywhere near children. That’s Child Protective Services level of psychopathy.

The problem is - what do you do if there are only two boxes? In your world, you give it to the short kid and the expense of the taller kid because he has "height privilege" and so did his ancestors so tough luck for him even though now he can't see because we are taking his box away.

If there are two boxes, you do what you can to make sure that at least one additional kid can see. In this example, there's no inherently greater value to helping either of the two other kids, so you pick one and try to find another box.

Advocates for the previous status quo would give the tallest kid a box and save the other two in case more tall kids showed up.

If they own the box, they should keep it and not have it taken away because some SJWs decide otherwise.

Ah... but they do not own the box. They just historically have received the vast majority of the boxes. And they've recognized that the boxes are probably more useful to the short kids than the tall kids, whose outcomes won't be impacted nearly as much.

Hey, Asians are the shortest on average and whites/blacks are the tallest on average.

Under PP's logic, Asians should get automatic 10 inches added to their height for selecting of basketball teams. They need it the most and would have the greatest impact.

The goal of the boxes is to help kids see the baseball game.

The goal of basketball teams is to win games. How would that help?

Clearly, the answer is that every goal made by an Asian player should earn 1 additional point.

And every Asian politician should have 10% of the vote added to them automatically since they would benefit the most and this would have the most impact. The underrepresentation of Asians on the fcps school board is unbelievably low as in "0" and I believe the county's Asian student population is 20%. So, under the SJW's equity arguments, Asians should make up 20% of the school board members.

And Asians must make up 20% of the county judges. That works out to about 6 judges. Are there 6 Asian judges in the Fairfax county? No. I don't think there are any. What a shame. All the liberals and progressives should get on this injustice and extreme under-representation immediately. We demand proportional representation. We demand 20%!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Your definition of merit includes “ my parents could afford housing in good school districts and tutoring to supplement said schooling” that’s not true merit.

Except even poor Asian kids get good test scores, including impoverished towns in China. Hmmm... head scratcher

But they don't get into TJ. They get into Stuyvesant because of the nature of the multi-school elite selection process in NYC and the fact that they list it as their preference, but they do NOT get into TJ. Until 2025.

[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:…to ensure that each public middle school that is eligible to send students to attend such Governor's school offers coursework, curriculum, and instruction that is comparable in content and in rigor in order to provide each student in each such middle school with the opportunity to gain admission to and excel academically at such Governor's school. [

Does this mean that all MSs have to offer the exact same course offerings?

Read one way, this clause could represent a big win for progressives.

No, it certainly isn't. Progressives want equitable outcomes regardless of individual choices. Offering these classes only avail the students to the classes. It would still be up to the students to meet the prerequisites and take the actual classes.

False. Progressives want equitable opportunities. Which is precisely what this is.

But misrepresenting the goals of progressives is probably a good strategy for winning points from the folks here who think that only Asians care about education.

That's not what equity means in progressive parlance. Equity is *what you have*, meaning privileges. They are not just after equal opportunity. Here it is straight for the horse's mouth:

http://www.theinclusionsolution.me/equity-vs-equality-eliminating-opportunity-gaps-education/

As shown in the illustrative cartoon at the top, it's not that they want to give every child the opportunity to build their own box if they need it. No. It's that they want two boxes to be provided to that one child, at the expense of the other child.

If you can look at that picture and not conclude that the best thing to do is give two boxes to the short kid so everyone can see, no one should ever let you anywhere near children. That’s Child Protective Services level of psychopathy.

The problem is - what do you do if there are only two boxes? In your world, you give it to the short kid and the expense of the taller kid because he has "height privilege" and so did his ancestors so tough luck for him even though now he can't see because we are taking his box away.

If there are two boxes, you do what you can to make sure that at least one additional kid can see. In this example, there's no inherently greater value to helping either of the two other kids, so you pick one and try to find another box.

Advocates for the previous status quo would give the tallest kid a box and save the other two in case more tall kids showed up.

If they own the box, they should keep it and not have it taken away because some SJWs decide otherwise.

Ah... but they do not own the box. They just historically have received the vast majority of the boxes. And they've recognized that the boxes are probably more useful to the short kids than the tall kids, whose outcomes won't be impacted nearly as much.

Hey, Asians are the shortest on average and whites/blacks are the tallest on average.

Under PP's logic, Asians should get automatic 10 inches added to their height for selecting of basketball teams. They need it the most and would have the greatest impact.

The goal of the boxes is to help kids see the baseball game.

The goal of basketball teams is to win games. How would that help?

You are an idiot - goal of the boxes is to give a "boost" to the kids so the kids can fully engage and take advantage of the boosted situation, not just to enable them to see a game.

Goal of the governor's school in STEM is to select the best STEM students and give them the best elite education in STEM so that the entire State/country will benefit. What good is it to allow above average students into such a school if they cannot "win" as in take advantage of the advanced courses, take advantage of the advanced equipment, take advantage of elite academic teams, take advantage of advanced research etc.?

Let’s see…

Basically every major company in the DC area has a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiative - irrespective of industry. Recognizing the value of not only hiring workers from diverse backgrounds, but in promoting LEADERS from those backgrounds as well.

They’re doing just fine.

Why? Because there are far more individuals who are highly qualified to do those jobs than there are people to fill them - and because companies gain inherent value both in the public and in their decision rooms from having diverse perspectives to hear from.

The same is the case for applicants to TJ. As much as regressives want to pretend that the kids who get selected to go to TJ every year are a cut above the rest, the reality is that there are a few who are - but that there are far more who are basically in the same realm as a thousand who don’t get selected.

So what has FCPS decided? They’ve decided that a slightly different balance of voices in the classroom - yes from a racial perspective but more importantly from a socioeconomic and experiential perspective - than a few extra points on a problem-solving creativity exam that someone told the kids how to solve.

Agree completely.

And when you look at total #s, the number of Asians at TJ today is actually higher than it was just a few years ago.

And we have:
142 more kids from underrepresented MSs
36 fewer kids from private schools
42 fewer kids from feeder MSs

Wrong. Asians were reduced in percentage by deliberate discriminatory action. That's what the discussion, lawsuit and judgment has been about.

The % decreased because they added more seats.

Go visit TJ tomorrow. There are more Asian students on campus than there were a few years ago.

Wrong. Asians were reduced in percentage by deliberate discriminatory action. From previous incoming class vs current incoming class - percentage down, number also down. That's what the discussion, lawsuit and judgment has been about.

Right, but we need to put it in perspective. There are a high # of Asian students at TJ today. Even higher than a few years ago. And we’ve added seats to allow more paths to TJ.

I see that as a win.

Yet again, you seem to be under the impression that an wrongful action is a "win" just because it has some of the outcomes you seem to like, as if the racist part of the equation is just some unintended collateral damage in our pursuit for a greater good. If you are willing to justify racist discrimination in order to achieve a result, then you are no where near that greater good.

I have an issue with the language of the school board members but the admission process itself is a step in the right direction to open up TJ to untapped STEM talent.

This is absolutely the correct call. I am the most vocal pro-reform person on this board and this is 100% spot on.

[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:…to ensure that each public middle school that is eligible to send students to attend such Governor's school offers coursework, curriculum, and instruction that is comparable in content and in rigor in order to provide each student in each such middle school with the opportunity to gain admission to and excel academically at such Governor's school. [

Does this mean that all MSs have to offer the exact same course offerings?

Read one way, this clause could represent a big win for progressives.

No, it certainly isn't. Progressives want equitable outcomes regardless of individual choices. Offering these classes only avail the students to the classes. It would still be up to the students to meet the prerequisites and take the actual classes.

False. Progressives want equitable opportunities. Which is precisely what this is.

But misrepresenting the goals of progressives is probably a good strategy for winning points from the folks here who think that only Asians care about education.

That's not what equity means in progressive parlance. Equity is *what you have*, meaning privileges. They are not just after equal opportunity. Here it is straight for the horse's mouth:

http://www.theinclusionsolution.me/equity-vs-equality-eliminating-opportunity-gaps-education/

As shown in the illustrative cartoon at the top, it's not that they want to give every child the opportunity to build their own box if they need it. No. It's that they want two boxes to be provided to that one child, at the expense of the other child.

If you can look at that picture and not conclude that the best thing to do is give two boxes to the short kid so everyone can see, no one should ever let you anywhere near children. That’s Child Protective Services level of psychopathy.

The problem is - what do you do if there are only two boxes? In your world, you give it to the short kid and the expense of the taller kid because he has "height privilege" and so did his ancestors so tough luck for him even though now he can't see because we are taking his box away.

If there are two boxes, you do what you can to make sure that at least one additional kid can see. In this example, there's no inherently greater value to helping either of the two other kids, so you pick one and try to find another box.

Advocates for the previous status quo would give the tallest kid a box and save the other two in case more tall kids showed up.

If they own the box, they should keep it and not have it taken away because some SJWs decide otherwise.

Ah... but they do not own the box. They just historically have received the vast majority of the boxes. And they've recognized that the boxes are probably more useful to the short kids than the tall kids, whose outcomes won't be impacted nearly as much.

Hey, Asians are the shortest on average and whites/blacks are the tallest on average.

Under PP's logic, Asians should get automatic 10 inches added to their height for selecting of basketball teams. They need it the most and would have the greatest impact.

The goal of the boxes is to help kids see the baseball game.

The goal of basketball teams is to win games. How would that help?

You are an idiot - goal of the boxes is to give a "boost" to the kids so the kids can fully engage and take advantage of the boosted situation, not just to enable them to see a game.

Goal of the governor's school in STEM is to select the best STEM students and give them the best elite education in STEM so that the entire State/country will benefit. What good is it to allow above average students into such a school if they cannot "win" as in take advantage of the advanced courses, take advantage of the advanced equipment, take advantage of elite academic teams, take advantage of advanced research etc.?

Let’s see…

Basically every major company in the DC area has a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiative - irrespective of industry. Recognizing the value of not only hiring workers from diverse backgrounds, but in promoting LEADERS from those backgrounds as well.

They’re doing just fine.

Why? Because there are far more individuals who are highly qualified to do those jobs than there are people to fill them - and because companies gain inherent value both in the public and in their decision rooms from having diverse perspectives to hear from.

The same is the case for applicants to TJ. As much as regressives want to pretend that the kids who get selected to go to TJ every year are a cut above the rest, the reality is that there are a few who are - but that there are far more who are basically in the same realm as a thousand who don’t get selected.

So what has FCPS decided? They’ve decided that a slightly different balance of voices in the classroom - yes from a racial perspective but more importantly from a socioeconomic and experiential perspective - than a few extra points on a problem-solving creativity exam that someone told the kids how to solve.

Agree completely.

And when you look at total #s, the number of Asians at TJ today is actually higher than it was just a few years ago.

And we have:
142 more kids from underrepresented MSs
36 fewer kids from private schools
42 fewer kids from feeder MSs

Wrong. Asians were reduced in percentage by deliberate discriminatory action. That's what the discussion, lawsuit and judgment has been about.

The % decreased because they added more seats.

Go visit TJ tomorrow. There are more Asian students on campus than there were a few years ago.

Wrong. Asians were reduced in percentage by deliberate discriminatory action. From previous incoming class vs current incoming class - percentage down, number also down. That's what the discussion, lawsuit and judgment has been about.

Right, but we need to put it in perspective. There are a high # of Asian students at TJ today. Even higher than a few years ago. And we’ve added seats to allow more paths to TJ.

I see that as a win.

Yet again, you seem to be under the impression that an wrongful action is a "win" just because it has some of the outcomes you seem to like, as if the racist part of the equation is just some unintended collateral damage in our pursuit for a greater good. If you are willing to justify racist discrimination in order to achieve a result, then you are no where near that greater good.

I have an issue with the language of the school board members but the admission process itself is a step in the right direction to open up TJ to untapped STEM talent.

That's like saying while you have an issue with slavery, you nonetheless feel that the resulting economic benefits to the US was a step in the right direction.

Again, a misappropriation of the analogy.

The correct analogy to use here would be to say that while you have a problem with Jefferson Davis' rhetoric, you believe the South's cause to be just and that slavery is necessary.

If you're going to be dope and use a stupid analogy, at least get the analogy right. I swear, sometimes I think people are just thrilled to have an excuse for why their kids didn't get in to TJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many low wage workers like cleaners , nurses, garbage disposal workers and factory workers work extremely hard and are vital to the running of our society.

Salary and societal worth isn’t related to ones ability to afforded a home in good school districts.

Um.... salary is directly related to the ability to afford a home in good school districts, but I get what you are trying to say.

Working and earning income by improving other people's lives is just one way a person lives a life of merit, but it is merit nonetheless.

Nurses improve a lot more lives than do hedge fund managers.

[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:…to ensure that each public middle school that is eligible to send students to attend such Governor's school offers coursework, curriculum, and instruction that is comparable in content and in rigor in order to provide each student in each such middle school with the opportunity to gain admission to and excel academically at such Governor's school. [

Does this mean that all MSs have to offer the exact same course offerings?

Read one way, this clause could represent a big win for progressives.

No, it certainly isn't. Progressives want equitable outcomes regardless of individual choices. Offering these classes only avail the students to the classes. It would still be up to the students to meet the prerequisites and take the actual classes.

False. Progressives want equitable opportunities. Which is precisely what this is.

But misrepresenting the goals of progressives is probably a good strategy for winning points from the folks here who think that only Asians care about education.

That's not what equity means in progressive parlance. Equity is *what you have*, meaning privileges. They are not just after equal opportunity. Here it is straight for the horse's mouth:

http://www.theinclusionsolution.me/equity-vs-equality-eliminating-opportunity-gaps-education/

As shown in the illustrative cartoon at the top, it's not that they want to give every child the opportunity to build their own box if they need it. No. It's that they want two boxes to be provided to that one child, at the expense of the other child.

If you can look at that picture and not conclude that the best thing to do is give two boxes to the short kid so everyone can see, no one should ever let you anywhere near children. That’s Child Protective Services level of psychopathy.

The problem is - what do you do if there are only two boxes? In your world, you give it to the short kid and the expense of the taller kid because he has "height privilege" and so did his ancestors so tough luck for him even though now he can't see because we are taking his box away.

If there are two boxes, you do what you can to make sure that at least one additional kid can see. In this example, there's no inherently greater value to helping either of the two other kids, so you pick one and try to find another box.

Advocates for the previous status quo would give the tallest kid a box and save the other two in case more tall kids showed up.

If they own the box, they should keep it and not have it taken away because some SJWs decide otherwise.

Ah... but they do not own the box. They just historically have received the vast majority of the boxes. And they've recognized that the boxes are probably more useful to the short kids than the tall kids, whose outcomes won't be impacted nearly as much.

Hey, Asians are the shortest on average and whites/blacks are the tallest on average.

Under PP's logic, Asians should get automatic 10 inches added to their height for selecting of basketball teams. They need it the most and would have the greatest impact.

The goal of the boxes is to help kids see the baseball game.

The goal of basketball teams is to win games. How would that help?

You are an idiot - goal of the boxes is to give a "boost" to the kids so the kids can fully engage and take advantage of the boosted situation, not just to enable them to see a game.

Goal of the governor's school in STEM is to select the best STEM students and give them the best elite education in STEM so that the entire State/country will benefit. What good is it to allow above average students into such a school if they cannot "win" as in take advantage of the advanced courses, take advantage of the advanced equipment, take advantage of elite academic teams, take advantage of advanced research etc.?

Let’s see…

Basically every major company in the DC area has a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiative - irrespective of industry. Recognizing the value of not only hiring workers from diverse backgrounds, but in promoting LEADERS from those backgrounds as well.

They’re doing just fine.

Why? Because there are far more individuals who are highly qualified to do those jobs than there are people to fill them - and because companies gain inherent value both in the public and in their decision rooms from having diverse perspectives to hear from.

The same is the case for applicants to TJ. As much as regressives want to pretend that the kids who get selected to go to TJ every year are a cut above the rest, the reality is that there are a few who are - but that there are far more who are basically in the same realm as a thousand who don’t get selected.

So what has FCPS decided? They’ve decided that a slightly different balance of voices in the classroom - yes from a racial perspective but more importantly from a socioeconomic and experiential perspective - than a few extra points on a problem-solving creativity exam that someone told the kids how to solve.

Agree completely.

And when you look at total #s, the number of Asians at TJ today is actually higher than it was just a few years ago.

And we have:
142 more kids from underrepresented MSs
36 fewer kids from private schools
42 fewer kids from feeder MSs

Wrong. Asians were reduced in percentage by deliberate discriminatory action. That's what the discussion, lawsuit and judgment has been about.

The % decreased because they added more seats.

Go visit TJ tomorrow. There are more Asian students on campus than there were a few years ago.

Wrong. Asians were reduced in percentage by deliberate discriminatory action. From previous incoming class vs current incoming class - percentage down, number also down. That's what the discussion, lawsuit and judgment has been about.

Right, but we need to put it in perspective. There are a high # of Asian students at TJ today. Even higher than a few years ago. And we’ve added seats to allow more paths to TJ.

I see that as a win.

Yet again, you seem to be under the impression that an wrongful action is a "win" just because it has some of the outcomes you seem to like, as if the racist part of the equation is just some unintended collateral damage in our pursuit for a greater good. If you are willing to justify racist discrimination in order to achieve a result, then you are no where near that greater good.

I have an issue with the language of the school board members but the admission process itself is a step in the right direction to open up TJ to untapped STEM talent.

That's like saying while you have an issue with slavery, you nonetheless feel that the resulting economic benefits to the US was a step in the right direction.

NP.

That is an absolutely correct analogy.

Moreover, your analogy, and your prior responses, lead to a factual conclusion about the person you have been arguing with over the past few pages:

- that person is a racist bigot.

Were this not an anonymous board, the racist bigot I have identified might be so offended as to file a lawsuit against me under various legal theories such as defamation, libel, slander (the definitions vary state by state/federal).

However, truth is an absolute defense. And a prior court of law - a federal court, examining the revised TJ admission criteria - has found the facts here. Those facts cannot be disputed at present (file an appeal if you feel otherwise).

The facts and holding remains good law: the TJ admissions process was revised in a racially discriminatory way. Ergo, the person supporting it on this Board is a racist.

Now please go away, you bigoted, racist, anti-Asian jerk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Your definition of merit includes “ my parents could afford housing in good school districts and tutoring to supplement said schooling” that’s not true merit.

Except even poor Asian kids get good test scores, including impoverished towns in China. Hmmm... head scratcher

But they don't get into TJ. They get into Stuyvesant because of the nature of the multi-school elite selection process in NYC and the fact that they list it as their preference, but they do NOT get into TJ. Until 2025.

It is actually WORSE in case of Stuyvesant since they ONLY USE THE TEST SCORE and nothing else for admissions whereas TJ (before the racist admission system came in) used , GPA, Test score, 2 teacher recommendations, 3 essays, Student information sheet etc.

[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:…to ensure that each public middle school that is eligible to send students to attend such Governor's school offers coursework, curriculum, and instruction that is comparable in content and in rigor in order to provide each student in each such middle school with the opportunity to gain admission to and excel academically at such Governor's school. [

Does this mean that all MSs have to offer the exact same course offerings?

Read one way, this clause could represent a big win for progressives.

No, it certainly isn't. Progressives want equitable outcomes regardless of individual choices. Offering these classes only avail the students to the classes. It would still be up to the students to meet the prerequisites and take the actual classes.

False. Progressives want equitable opportunities. Which is precisely what this is.

But misrepresenting the goals of progressives is probably a good strategy for winning points from the folks here who think that only Asians care about education.

That's not what equity means in progressive parlance. Equity is *what you have*, meaning privileges. They are not just after equal opportunity. Here it is straight for the horse's mouth:

http://www.theinclusionsolution.me/equity-vs-equality-eliminating-opportunity-gaps-education/

As shown in the illustrative cartoon at the top, it's not that they want to give every child the opportunity to build their own box if they need it. No. It's that they want two boxes to be provided to that one child, at the expense of the other child.

If you can look at that picture and not conclude that the best thing to do is give two boxes to the short kid so everyone can see, no one should ever let you anywhere near children. That’s Child Protective Services level of psychopathy.

The problem is - what do you do if there are only two boxes? In your world, you give it to the short kid and the expense of the taller kid because he has "height privilege" and so did his ancestors so tough luck for him even though now he can't see because we are taking his box away.

If there are two boxes, you do what you can to make sure that at least one additional kid can see. In this example, there's no inherently greater value to helping either of the two other kids, so you pick one and try to find another box.

Advocates for the previous status quo would give the tallest kid a box and save the other two in case more tall kids showed up.

If they own the box, they should keep it and not have it taken away because some SJWs decide otherwise.

Ah... but they do not own the box. They just historically have received the vast majority of the boxes. And they've recognized that the boxes are probably more useful to the short kids than the tall kids, whose outcomes won't be impacted nearly as much.

Hey, Asians are the shortest on average and whites/blacks are the tallest on average.

Under PP's logic, Asians should get automatic 10 inches added to their height for selecting of basketball teams. They need it the most and would have the greatest impact.

The goal of the boxes is to help kids see the baseball game.

The goal of basketball teams is to win games. How would that help?

You are an idiot - goal of the boxes is to give a "boost" to the kids so the kids can fully engage and take advantage of the boosted situation, not just to enable them to see a game.

Goal of the governor's school in STEM is to select the best STEM students and give them the best elite education in STEM so that the entire State/country will benefit. What good is it to allow above average students into such a school if they cannot "win" as in take advantage of the advanced courses, take advantage of the advanced equipment, take advantage of elite academic teams, take advantage of advanced research etc.?

Let’s see…

Basically every major company in the DC area has a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiative - irrespective of industry. Recognizing the value of not only hiring workers from diverse backgrounds, but in promoting LEADERS from those backgrounds as well.

They’re doing just fine.

Why? Because there are far more individuals who are highly qualified to do those jobs than there are people to fill them - and because companies gain inherent value both in the public and in their decision rooms from having diverse perspectives to hear from.

The same is the case for applicants to TJ. As much as regressives want to pretend that the kids who get selected to go to TJ every year are a cut above the rest, the reality is that there are a few who are - but that there are far more who are basically in the same realm as a thousand who don’t get selected.

So what has FCPS decided? They’ve decided that a slightly different balance of voices in the classroom - yes from a racial perspective but more importantly from a socioeconomic and experiential perspective - than a few extra points on a problem-solving creativity exam that someone told the kids how to solve.

Agree completely.

And when you look at total #s, the number of Asians at TJ today is actually higher than it was just a few years ago.

And we have:
142 more kids from underrepresented MSs
36 fewer kids from private schools
42 fewer kids from feeder MSs

Wrong. Asians were reduced in percentage by deliberate discriminatory action. That's what the discussion, lawsuit and judgment has been about.

The % decreased because they added more seats.

Go visit TJ tomorrow. There are more Asian students on campus than there were a few years ago.

Wrong. Asians were reduced in percentage by deliberate discriminatory action. From previous incoming class vs current incoming class - percentage down, number also down. That's what the discussion, lawsuit and judgment has been about.

Right, but we need to put it in perspective. There are a high # of Asian students at TJ today. Even higher than a few years ago. And we’ve added seats to allow more paths to TJ.

I see that as a win.

Yet again, you seem to be under the impression that an wrongful action is a "win" just because it has some of the outcomes you seem to like, as if the racist part of the equation is just some unintended collateral damage in our pursuit for a greater good. If you are willing to justify racist discrimination in order to achieve a result, then you are no where near that greater good.

I have an issue with the language of the school board members but the admission process itself is a step in the right direction to open up TJ to untapped STEM talent.

That's like saying while you have an issue with slavery, you nonetheless feel that the resulting economic benefits to the US was a step in the right direction.

NP.

That is an absolutely correct analogy.

Moreover, your analogy, and your prior responses, lead to a factual conclusion about the person you have been arguing with over the past few pages:

- that person is a racist bigot.

Were this not an anonymous board, the racist bigot I have identified might be so offended as to file a lawsuit against me under various legal theories such as defamation, libel, slander (the definitions vary state by state/federal).

However, truth is an absolute defense. And a prior court of law - a federal court, examining the revised TJ admission criteria - has found the facts here. Those facts cannot be disputed at present (file an appeal if you feel otherwise).

The facts and holding remains good law: the TJ admissions process was revised in a racially discriminatory way. Ergo, the person supporting it on this Board is a racist.

Now please go away, you bigoted, racist, anti-Asian jerk.

NP... original statement delineated how langauge/intent of leaders/decision-makers is distinct from the merits/fairness of the resultant system/policy. The proposed "analogy" was comparing the merits/fairness of a system/policy with the outcomes of that system/policy.

By saying that is the correct analogy, all you are demonstrating is that you don't understand how analogies work. Or maybe you actually do but refuse to admit it because you think it scores more rhetorical points? I don't know, but the PP even provided an example of how an analogy would work... but really all we can do is explain it for you, we can't understand it for you.

[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:…to ensure that each public middle school that is eligible to send students to attend such Governor's school offers coursework, curriculum, and instruction that is comparable in content and in rigor in order to provide each student in each such middle school with the opportunity to gain admission to and excel academically at such Governor's school. [

Does this mean that all MSs have to offer the exact same course offerings?

Read one way, this clause could represent a big win for progressives.

No, it certainly isn't. Progressives want equitable outcomes regardless of individual choices. Offering these classes only avail the students to the classes. It would still be up to the students to meet the prerequisites and take the actual classes.

False. Progressives want equitable opportunities. Which is precisely what this is.

But misrepresenting the goals of progressives is probably a good strategy for winning points from the folks here who think that only Asians care about education.

That's not what equity means in progressive parlance. Equity is *what you have*, meaning privileges. They are not just after equal opportunity. Here it is straight for the horse's mouth:

http://www.theinclusionsolution.me/equity-vs-equality-eliminating-opportunity-gaps-education/

As shown in the illustrative cartoon at the top, it's not that they want to give every child the opportunity to build their own box if they need it. No. It's that they want two boxes to be provided to that one child, at the expense of the other child.

If you can look at that picture and not conclude that the best thing to do is give two boxes to the short kid so everyone can see, no one should ever let you anywhere near children. That’s Child Protective Services level of psychopathy.

The problem is - what do you do if there are only two boxes? In your world, you give it to the short kid and the expense of the taller kid because he has "height privilege" and so did his ancestors so tough luck for him even though now he can't see because we are taking his box away.

If there are two boxes, you do what you can to make sure that at least one additional kid can see. In this example, there's no inherently greater value to helping either of the two other kids, so you pick one and try to find another box.

Advocates for the previous status quo would give the tallest kid a box and save the other two in case more tall kids showed up.

If they own the box, they should keep it and not have it taken away because some SJWs decide otherwise.

Ah... but they do not own the box. They just historically have received the vast majority of the boxes. And they've recognized that the boxes are probably more useful to the short kids than the tall kids, whose outcomes won't be impacted nearly as much.

Hey, Asians are the shortest on average and whites/blacks are the tallest on average.

Under PP's logic, Asians should get automatic 10 inches added to their height for selecting of basketball teams. They need it the most and would have the greatest impact.

The goal of the boxes is to help kids see the baseball game.

The goal of basketball teams is to win games. How would that help?

You are an idiot - goal of the boxes is to give a "boost" to the kids so the kids can fully engage and take advantage of the boosted situation, not just to enable them to see a game.

Goal of the governor's school in STEM is to select the best STEM students and give them the best elite education in STEM so that the entire State/country will benefit. What good is it to allow above average students into such a school if they cannot "win" as in take advantage of the advanced courses, take advantage of the advanced equipment, take advantage of elite academic teams, take advantage of advanced research etc.?

Let’s see…

Basically every major company in the DC area has a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiative - irrespective of industry. Recognizing the value of not only hiring workers from diverse backgrounds, but in promoting LEADERS from those backgrounds as well.

They’re doing just fine.

Why? Because there are far more individuals who are highly qualified to do those jobs than there are people to fill them - and because companies gain inherent value both in the public and in their decision rooms from having diverse perspectives to hear from.

The same is the case for applicants to TJ. As much as regressives want to pretend that the kids who get selected to go to TJ every year are a cut above the rest, the reality is that there are a few who are - but that there are far more who are basically in the same realm as a thousand who don’t get selected.

So what has FCPS decided? They’ve decided that a slightly different balance of voices in the classroom - yes from a racial perspective but more importantly from a socioeconomic and experiential perspective - than a few extra points on a problem-solving creativity exam that someone told the kids how to solve.

Agree completely.

And when you look at total #s, the number of Asians at TJ today is actually higher than it was just a few years ago.

And we have:
142 more kids from underrepresented MSs
36 fewer kids from private schools
42 fewer kids from feeder MSs

Wrong. Asians were reduced in percentage by deliberate discriminatory action. That's what the discussion, lawsuit and judgment has been about.

The % decreased because they added more seats.

Go visit TJ tomorrow. There are more Asian students on campus than there were a few years ago.

Wrong. Asians were reduced in percentage by deliberate discriminatory action. From previous incoming class vs current incoming class - percentage down, number also down. That's what the discussion, lawsuit and judgment has been about.

Right, but we need to put it in perspective. There are a high # of Asian students at TJ today. Even higher than a few years ago. And we’ve added seats to allow more paths to TJ.

I see that as a win.

Yet again, you seem to be under the impression that an wrongful action is a "win" just because it has some of the outcomes you seem to like, as if the racist part of the equation is just some unintended collateral damage in our pursuit for a greater good. If you are willing to justify racist discrimination in order to achieve a result, then you are no where near that greater good.

I have an issue with the language of the school board members but the admission process itself is a step in the right direction to open up TJ to untapped STEM talent.

That's like saying while you have an issue with slavery, you nonetheless feel that the resulting economic benefits to the US was a step in the right direction.

NP.

That is an absolutely correct analogy.

Moreover, your analogy, and your prior responses, lead to a factual conclusion about the person you have been arguing with over the past few pages:

- that person is a racist bigot.

Were this not an anonymous board, the racist bigot I have identified might be so offended as to file a lawsuit against me under various legal theories such as defamation, libel, slander (the definitions vary state by state/federal).

However, truth is an absolute defense. And a prior court of law - a federal court, examining the revised TJ admission criteria - has found the facts here. Those facts cannot be disputed at present (file an appeal if you feel otherwise).

The facts and holding remains good law: the TJ admissions process was revised in a racially discriminatory way. Ergo, the person supporting it on this Board is a racist.

Now please go away, you bigoted, racist, anti-Asian jerk.

NP... original statement delineated how langauge/intent of leaders/decision-makers is distinct from the merits/fairness of the resultant system/policy. The proposed "analogy" was comparing the merits/fairness of a system/policy with the outcomes of that system/policy.

By saying that is the correct analogy, all you are demonstrating is that you don't understand how analogies work. Or maybe you actually do but refuse to admit it because you think it scores more rhetorical points? I don't know, but the PP even provided an example of how an analogy would work... but really all we can do is explain it for you, we can't understand it for you.

THANK YOU

[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:…to ensure that each public middle school that is eligible to send students to attend such Governor's school offers coursework, curriculum, and instruction that is comparable in content and in rigor in order to provide each student in each such middle school with the opportunity to gain admission to and excel academically at such Governor's school. [

Does this mean that all MSs have to offer the exact same course offerings?

Read one way, this clause could represent a big win for progressives.

No, it certainly isn't. Progressives want equitable outcomes regardless of individual choices. Offering these classes only avail the students to the classes. It would still be up to the students to meet the prerequisites and take the actual classes.

False. Progressives want equitable opportunities. Which is precisely what this is.

But misrepresenting the goals of progressives is probably a good strategy for winning points from the folks here who think that only Asians care about education.

That's not what equity means in progressive parlance. Equity is *what you have*, meaning privileges. They are not just after equal opportunity. Here it is straight for the horse's mouth:

http://www.theinclusionsolution.me/equity-vs-equality-eliminating-opportunity-gaps-education/

As shown in the illustrative cartoon at the top, it's not that they want to give every child the opportunity to build their own box if they need it. No. It's that they want two boxes to be provided to that one child, at the expense of the other child.

If you can look at that picture and not conclude that the best thing to do is give two boxes to the short kid so everyone can see, no one should ever let you anywhere near children. That’s Child Protective Services level of psychopathy.

The problem is - what do you do if there are only two boxes? In your world, you give it to the short kid and the expense of the taller kid because he has "height privilege" and so did his ancestors so tough luck for him even though now he can't see because we are taking his box away.

If there are two boxes, you do what you can to make sure that at least one additional kid can see. In this example, there's no inherently greater value to helping either of the two other kids, so you pick one and try to find another box.

Advocates for the previous status quo would give the tallest kid a box and save the other two in case more tall kids showed up.

If they own the box, they should keep it and not have it taken away because some SJWs decide otherwise.

Ah... but they do not own the box. They just historically have received the vast majority of the boxes. And they've recognized that the boxes are probably more useful to the short kids than the tall kids, whose outcomes won't be impacted nearly as much.

Hey, Asians are the shortest on average and whites/blacks are the tallest on average.

Under PP's logic, Asians should get automatic 10 inches added to their height for selecting of basketball teams. They need it the most and would have the greatest impact.

The goal of the boxes is to help kids see the baseball game.

The goal of basketball teams is to win games. How would that help?

You are an idiot - goal of the boxes is to give a "boost" to the kids so the kids can fully engage and take advantage of the boosted situation, not just to enable them to see a game.

Goal of the governor's school in STEM is to select the best STEM students and give them the best elite education in STEM so that the entire State/country will benefit. What good is it to allow above average students into such a school if they cannot "win" as in take advantage of the advanced courses, take advantage of the advanced equipment, take advantage of elite academic teams, take advantage of advanced research etc.?

Let’s see…

Basically every major company in the DC area has a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiative - irrespective of industry. Recognizing the value of not only hiring workers from diverse backgrounds, but in promoting LEADERS from those backgrounds as well.

They’re doing just fine.

Why? Because there are far more individuals who are highly qualified to do those jobs than there are people to fill them - and because companies gain inherent value both in the public and in their decision rooms from having diverse perspectives to hear from.

The same is the case for applicants to TJ. As much as regressives want to pretend that the kids who get selected to go to TJ every year are a cut above the rest, the reality is that there are a few who are - but that there are far more who are basically in the same realm as a thousand who don’t get selected.

So what has FCPS decided? They’ve decided that a slightly different balance of voices in the classroom - yes from a racial perspective but more importantly from a socioeconomic and experiential perspective - than a few extra points on a problem-solving creativity exam that someone told the kids how to solve.

Agree completely.

And when you look at total #s, the number of Asians at TJ today is actually higher than it was just a few years ago.

And we have:
142 more kids from underrepresented MSs
36 fewer kids from private schools
42 fewer kids from feeder MSs

Wrong. Asians were reduced in percentage by deliberate discriminatory action. That's what the discussion, lawsuit and judgment has been about.

The % decreased because they added more seats.

Go visit TJ tomorrow. There are more Asian students on campus than there were a few years ago.

Wrong. Asians were reduced in percentage by deliberate discriminatory action. From previous incoming class vs current incoming class - percentage down, number also down. That's what the discussion, lawsuit and judgment has been about.

Right, but we need to put it in perspective. There are a high # of Asian students at TJ today. Even higher than a few years ago. And we’ve added seats to allow more paths to TJ.

I see that as a win.

Yet again, you seem to be under the impression that an wrongful action is a "win" just because it has some of the outcomes you seem to like, as if the racist part of the equation is just some unintended collateral damage in our pursuit for a greater good. If you are willing to justify racist discrimination in order to achieve a result, then you are no where near that greater good.

I have an issue with the language of the school board members but the admission process itself is a step in the right direction to open up TJ to untapped STEM talent.

That's like saying while you have an issue with slavery, you nonetheless feel that the resulting economic benefits to the US was a step in the right direction.

Again, a misappropriation of the analogy.

The correct analogy to use here would be to say that while you have a problem with Jefferson Davis' rhetoric, you believe the South's cause to be just and that slavery is necessary.

If you're going to be dope and use a stupid analogy, at least get the analogy right. I swear, sometimes I think people are just thrilled to have an excuse for why their kids didn't get in to TJ.

Lol, I am not going to take advice on analogies from someone who thinks this is a proper use of the word "misappropriation".

[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:…to ensure that each public middle school that is eligible to send students to attend such Governor's school offers coursework, curriculum, and instruction that is comparable in content and in rigor in order to provide each student in each such middle school with the opportunity to gain admission to and excel academically at such Governor's school. [

Does this mean that all MSs have to offer the exact same course offerings?

Read one way, this clause could represent a big win for progressives.

No, it certainly isn't. Progressives want equitable outcomes regardless of individual choices. Offering these classes only avail the students to the classes. It would still be up to the students to meet the prerequisites and take the actual classes.

False. Progressives want equitable opportunities. Which is precisely what this is.

But misrepresenting the goals of progressives is probably a good strategy for winning points from the folks here who think that only Asians care about education.

That's not what equity means in progressive parlance. Equity is *what you have*, meaning privileges. They are not just after equal opportunity. Here it is straight for the horse's mouth:

http://www.theinclusionsolution.me/equity-vs-equality-eliminating-opportunity-gaps-education/

As shown in the illustrative cartoon at the top, it's not that they want to give every child the opportunity to build their own box if they need it. No. It's that they want two boxes to be provided to that one child, at the expense of the other child.

If you can look at that picture and not conclude that the best thing to do is give two boxes to the short kid so everyone can see, no one should ever let you anywhere near children. That’s Child Protective Services level of psychopathy.

The problem is - what do you do if there are only two boxes? In your world, you give it to the short kid and the expense of the taller kid because he has "height privilege" and so did his ancestors so tough luck for him even though now he can't see because we are taking his box away.

If there are two boxes, you do what you can to make sure that at least one additional kid can see. In this example, there's no inherently greater value to helping either of the two other kids, so you pick one and try to find another box.

Advocates for the previous status quo would give the tallest kid a box and save the other two in case more tall kids showed up.

If they own the box, they should keep it and not have it taken away because some SJWs decide otherwise.

Ah... but they do not own the box. They just historically have received the vast majority of the boxes. And they've recognized that the boxes are probably more useful to the short kids than the tall kids, whose outcomes won't be impacted nearly as much.

Hey, Asians are the shortest on average and whites/blacks are the tallest on average.

Under PP's logic, Asians should get automatic 10 inches added to their height for selecting of basketball teams. They need it the most and would have the greatest impact.

The goal of the boxes is to help kids see the baseball game.

The goal of basketball teams is to win games. How would that help?

You are an idiot - goal of the boxes is to give a "boost" to the kids so the kids can fully engage and take advantage of the boosted situation, not just to enable them to see a game.

Goal of the governor's school in STEM is to select the best STEM students and give them the best elite education in STEM so that the entire State/country will benefit. What good is it to allow above average students into such a school if they cannot "win" as in take advantage of the advanced courses, take advantage of the advanced equipment, take advantage of elite academic teams, take advantage of advanced research etc.?

Let’s see…

Basically every major company in the DC area has a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiative - irrespective of industry. Recognizing the value of not only hiring workers from diverse backgrounds, but in promoting LEADERS from those backgrounds as well.

They’re doing just fine.

Why? Because there are far more individuals who are highly qualified to do those jobs than there are people to fill them - and because companies gain inherent value both in the public and in their decision rooms from having diverse perspectives to hear from.

The same is the case for applicants to TJ. As much as regressives want to pretend that the kids who get selected to go to TJ every year are a cut above the rest, the reality is that there are a few who are - but that there are far more who are basically in the same realm as a thousand who don’t get selected.

So what has FCPS decided? They’ve decided that a slightly different balance of voices in the classroom - yes from a racial perspective but more importantly from a socioeconomic and experiential perspective - than a few extra points on a problem-solving creativity exam that someone told the kids how to solve.

Agree completely.

And when you look at total #s, the number of Asians at TJ today is actually higher than it was just a few years ago.

And we have:
142 more kids from underrepresented MSs
36 fewer kids from private schools
42 fewer kids from feeder MSs

Wrong. Asians were reduced in percentage by deliberate discriminatory action. That's what the discussion, lawsuit and judgment has been about.

The % decreased because they added more seats.

Go visit TJ tomorrow. There are more Asian students on campus than there were a few years ago.

Wrong. Asians were reduced in percentage by deliberate discriminatory action. From previous incoming class vs current incoming class - percentage down, number also down. That's what the discussion, lawsuit and judgment has been about.

Right, but we need to put it in perspective. There are a high # of Asian students at TJ today. Even higher than a few years ago. And we’ve added seats to allow more paths to TJ.

I see that as a win.

Yet again, you seem to be under the impression that an wrongful action is a "win" just because it has some of the outcomes you seem to like, as if the racist part of the equation is just some unintended collateral damage in our pursuit for a greater good. If you are willing to justify racist discrimination in order to achieve a result, then you are no where near that greater good.

I have an issue with the language of the school board members but the admission process itself is a step in the right direction to open up TJ to untapped STEM talent.

That's like saying while you have an issue with slavery, you nonetheless feel that the resulting economic benefits to the US was a step in the right direction.

Again, a misappropriation of the analogy.

The correct analogy to use here would be to say that while you have a problem with Jefferson Davis' rhetoric, you believe the South's cause to be just and that slavery is necessary.

If you're going to be dope and use a stupid analogy, at least get the analogy right. I swear, sometimes I think people are just thrilled to have an excuse for why their kids didn't get in to TJ.

Lol, I am not going to take advice on analogies from someone who thinks this is a proper use of the word "misappropriation".

Why, does the sand keep your head warm?