Has the Coalition for TJ (or any other groups) considered another lawsuit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect that if the C4TJ types keep screaming about “discrimination” even though Asian kids are still admitted at a higher rate than average and have just as many students as ever before that FCPS will eventually just scrap TJ.

Or they will stop discriminating.

I guess they can stop screaming about it right now since there is no discrimination.

It's like you don't understand what structural racism is.

It’s like you are ignoring the acceptance rates and enrollment numbers.

No discrimination.

You can be over-represented and discriminated against. In this case the discrimination is BECAUSE of the over-representation.
Get a clue

The admissions process is race-blind.
The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

The "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

There are real, serious issues with race and discrimination in the world. This is not one of them.

Grandfather clauses were race blind. Facially neutral criteria can be racist.
Over-representation is the reason for the discrimination. If asians weren't over-represented, nobody would have wanted to change the admissions criteria.

The group that saw the largest gain were white kids, the wealthiest group in fairfax.

The change in admission policy absolutely has a disparate impact on asians.

This is definitely one of the serious issues with racism in this world. The fact that it doesn't bother people like you is even more evidence that this is a serious issue.

No reasonable person would call it discrimination. There are groups who actually could legitimately claim discrimination and disparate impact by admissions - and they aren't Asian students.

And yet all the evidence from the Harvard SFFA case says otherwise.
If you don't think asians were discriminated against then you are lying to yourself.

The issue wasn't Asian overrepresentation; it was the underrepresentation of other groups. They wanted to expand access to more kids, not exclude anyone. That's why they added seats. If they simply wanted to get rid of Asian students then they wouldn't have changed the number of seats. There are just as many Asian students enrolled as ever before.

There are fewer asians and the percentage of asians (AND ONLY ASIANS) in the entering class plummeted. Black enrollment went up, hispanic enrollment went up, white enrollment went up. This was by design.

Again:
- The admissions process is race-blind.
- The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
- Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
- The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
- The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

Judge: "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

Arlington Heights analysis is pretty clear on how this case should have been decided.

That judge doesn't understand disparate impact. By their reckoning disparate impact cannot apply to any group that is over-represented.
Supreme Court Justice: "The Fourth Circuit’s decision is based on a theory that is flagrantly wrong and should not be allowed to stand."
"What the Fourth Circuit majority held, in essence, is that intentional racial discrimination is constitutional so long as it is not too severe. This reasoning is indefensible, and it cries out for correction."

Harvard admissions is a different beast and not comparable. TJ admissions is race blind.

The number of Asian students enrolled in TJ has not significantly changed. No reasonable person, or non-corrupt justice, would believe this is "harm":

And yet before the change in admissions the number of asian students enrolled was steadily increasing every year.
After the change it dropped while all other races rose.
This was the intended consequence of the change.
That is discrimination.

The argument seems to be that asians are over-represented so it's OK to discriminate against them a little bit (and you get to decide how much is a little bit).

Once again, there was a finding of intentional discrimination at trial.
The appellate court said that there was no harm because asians were still over-represented.
That is a pretty clear error of law.

[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:I suspect that if the C4TJ types keep screaming about “discrimination” even though Asian kids are still admitted at a higher rate than average and have just as many students as ever before that FCPS will eventually just scrap TJ.

Or they will stop discriminating.

I guess they can stop screaming about it right now since there is no discrimination.

It's like you don't understand what structural racism is.

It’s like you are ignoring the acceptance rates and enrollment numbers.

No discrimination.

You can be over-represented and discriminated against. In this case the discrimination is BECAUSE of the over-representation.
Get a clue

The admissions process is race-blind.
The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

The "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

There are real, serious issues with race and discrimination in the world. This is not one of them.

Grandfather clauses were race blind. Facially neutral criteria can be racist.
Over-representation is the reason for the discrimination. If asians weren't over-represented, nobody would have wanted to change the admissions criteria.

The group that saw the largest gain were white kids, the wealthiest group in fairfax.

The change in admission policy absolutely has a disparate impact on asians.

This is definitely one of the serious issues with racism in this world. The fact that it doesn't bother people like you is even more evidence that this is a serious issue.

No reasonable person would call it discrimination. There are groups who actually could legitimately claim discrimination and disparate impact by admissions - and they aren't Asian students.

And yet all the evidence from the Harvard SFFA case says otherwise.
If you don't think asians were discriminated against then you are lying to yourself.

The issue wasn't Asian overrepresentation; it was the underrepresentation of other groups. They wanted to expand access to more kids, not exclude anyone. That's why they added seats. If they simply wanted to get rid of Asian students then they wouldn't have changed the number of seats. There are just as many Asian students enrolled as ever before.

There are fewer asians and the percentage of asians (AND ONLY ASIANS) in the entering class plummeted. Black enrollment went up, hispanic enrollment went up, white enrollment went up. This was by design.

Again:
- The admissions process is race-blind.
- The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
- Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
- The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
- The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

Judge: "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

Arlington Heights analysis is pretty clear on how this case should have been decided.

That judge doesn't understand disparate impact. By their reckoning disparate impact cannot apply to any group that is over-represented.
Supreme Court Justice: "The Fourth Circuit’s decision is based on a theory that is flagrantly wrong and should not be allowed to stand."
"What the Fourth Circuit majority held, in essence, is that intentional racial discrimination is constitutional so long as it is not too severe. This reasoning is indefensible, and it cries out for correction."

Harvard admissions is a different beast and not comparable. TJ admissions is race blind.

The number of Asian students enrolled in TJ has not significantly changed. No reasonable person, or non-corrupt justice, would believe this is "harm":

And yet before the change in admissions the number of asian students enrolled was steadily increasing every year.
After the change it dropped while all other races rose.
This was the intended consequence of the change.
That is discrimination.

The argument seems to be that asians are over-represented so it's OK to discriminate against them a little bit (and you get to decide how much is a little bit).

Once again, there was a finding of intentional discrimination at trial.
The appellate court said that there was no harm because asians were still over-represented.
That is a pretty clear error of law.

That's completely wrong. Asians make up the majority of the school. The selection process is race blind. Acceptances mirror applications by demographic cohort within a few percent meaning that their process treats everyone about the same. Asian environment before and after the change is about the same and the largest beneficiary of the change were low income agents. The court was correct when they asserted there was no arm done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect that if the C4TJ types keep screaming about “discrimination” even though Asian kids are still admitted at a higher rate than average and have just as many students as ever before that FCPS will eventually just scrap TJ.

Or they will stop discriminating.

I guess they can stop screaming about it right now since there is no discrimination.

It's like you don't understand what structural racism is.

It’s like you are ignoring the acceptance rates and enrollment numbers.

No discrimination.

You can be over-represented and discriminated against. In this case the discrimination is BECAUSE of the over-representation.
Get a clue

The admissions process is race-blind.
The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

The "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

There are real, serious issues with race and discrimination in the world. This is not one of them.

Grandfather clauses were race blind. Facially neutral criteria can be racist.
Over-representation is the reason for the discrimination. If asians weren't over-represented, nobody would have wanted to change the admissions criteria.

The group that saw the largest gain were white kids, the wealthiest group in fairfax.

The change in admission policy absolutely has a disparate impact on asians.

This is definitely one of the serious issues with racism in this world. The fact that it doesn't bother people like you is even more evidence that this is a serious issue.

No reasonable person would call it discrimination. There are groups who actually could legitimately claim discrimination and disparate impact by admissions - and they aren't Asian students.

And yet all the evidence from the Harvard SFFA case says otherwise.
If you don't think asians were discriminated against then you are lying to yourself.

The issue wasn't Asian overrepresentation; it was the underrepresentation of other groups. They wanted to expand access to more kids, not exclude anyone. That's why they added seats. If they simply wanted to get rid of Asian students then they wouldn't have changed the number of seats. There are just as many Asian students enrolled as ever before.

There are fewer asians and the percentage of asians (AND ONLY ASIANS) in the entering class plummeted. Black enrollment went up, hispanic enrollment went up, white enrollment went up. This was by design.

Again:
- The admissions process is race-blind.
- The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
- Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
- The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
- The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

Judge: "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

Arlington Heights analysis is pretty clear on how this case should have been decided.

That judge doesn't understand disparate impact. By their reckoning disparate impact cannot apply to any group that is over-represented.
Supreme Court Justice: "The Fourth Circuit’s decision is based on a theory that is flagrantly wrong and should not be allowed to stand."
"What the Fourth Circuit majority held, in essence, is that intentional racial discrimination is constitutional so long as it is not too severe. This reasoning is indefensible, and it cries out for correction."

Harvard admissions is a different beast and not comparable. TJ admissions is race blind.

The number of Asian students enrolled in TJ has not significantly changed. No reasonable person, or non-corrupt justice, would believe this is "harm":

Thanks again for clearing this matter up with hard facts.

[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:I suspect that if the C4TJ types keep screaming about “discrimination” even though Asian kids are still admitted at a higher rate than average and have just as many students as ever before that FCPS will eventually just scrap TJ.

Or they will stop discriminating.

I guess they can stop screaming about it right now since there is no discrimination.

It's like you don't understand what structural racism is.

It’s like you are ignoring the acceptance rates and enrollment numbers.

No discrimination.

You can be over-represented and discriminated against. In this case the discrimination is BECAUSE of the over-representation.
Get a clue

The admissions process is race-blind.
The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

The "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

There are real, serious issues with race and discrimination in the world. This is not one of them.

Grandfather clauses were race blind. Facially neutral criteria can be racist.
Over-representation is the reason for the discrimination. If asians weren't over-represented, nobody would have wanted to change the admissions criteria.

The group that saw the largest gain were white kids, the wealthiest group in fairfax.

The change in admission policy absolutely has a disparate impact on asians.

This is definitely one of the serious issues with racism in this world. The fact that it doesn't bother people like you is even more evidence that this is a serious issue.

No reasonable person would call it discrimination. There are groups who actually could legitimately claim discrimination and disparate impact by admissions - and they aren't Asian students.

And yet all the evidence from the Harvard SFFA case says otherwise.
If you don't think asians were discriminated against then you are lying to yourself.

The issue wasn't Asian overrepresentation; it was the underrepresentation of other groups. They wanted to expand access to more kids, not exclude anyone. That's why they added seats. If they simply wanted to get rid of Asian students then they wouldn't have changed the number of seats. There are just as many Asian students enrolled as ever before.

There are fewer asians and the percentage of asians (AND ONLY ASIANS) in the entering class plummeted. Black enrollment went up, hispanic enrollment went up, white enrollment went up. This was by design.

Again:
- The admissions process is race-blind.
- The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
- Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
- The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
- The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

Judge: "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

Arlington Heights analysis is pretty clear on how this case should have been decided.

That judge doesn't understand disparate impact. By their reckoning disparate impact cannot apply to any group that is over-represented.
Supreme Court Justice: "The Fourth Circuit’s decision is based on a theory that is flagrantly wrong and should not be allowed to stand."
"What the Fourth Circuit majority held, in essence, is that intentional racial discrimination is constitutional so long as it is not too severe. This reasoning is indefensible, and it cries out for correction."

Harvard admissions is a different beast and not comparable. TJ admissions is race blind.

The number of Asian students enrolled in TJ has not significantly changed. No reasonable person, or non-corrupt justice, would believe this is "harm":

And yet before the change in admissions the number of asian students enrolled was steadily increasing every year.
After the change it dropped while all other races rose.
This was the intended consequence of the change.
That is discrimination.

The argument seems to be that asians are over-represented so it's OK to discriminate against them a little bit (and you get to decide how much is a little bit).

Once again, there was a finding of intentional discrimination at trial.
The appellate court said that there was no harm because asians were still over-represented.
That is a pretty clear error of law.

That's completely wrong. Asians make up the majority of the school. The selection process is race blind. Acceptances mirror applications by demographic cohort within a few percent meaning that their process treats everyone about the same. Asian environment before and after the change is about the same and the largest beneficiary of the change were low income agents. The court was correct when they asserted there was no arm done.

Asians went from 70%+ to 50%+ of the admitted students.
This was the intended result of the change in admissions process.
This is why you are not disputing the fact that there was intentional racial discrimination in developing the new admissions process.

You can be race blind and still be discriminatory. See literacy tests and grandfather clauses
You can be over-represented and still be discriminated against. See discrimination against blacks in baseball AFTER Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier.

You are no different than any of the racists from generations past. Most racists thinks their particular brand of racism is virtuous.

[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:I suspect that if the C4TJ types keep screaming about “discrimination” even though Asian kids are still admitted at a higher rate than average and have just as many students as ever before that FCPS will eventually just scrap TJ.

Or they will stop discriminating.

I guess they can stop screaming about it right now since there is no discrimination.

It's like you don't understand what structural racism is.

It’s like you are ignoring the acceptance rates and enrollment numbers.

No discrimination.

You can be over-represented and discriminated against. In this case the discrimination is BECAUSE of the over-representation.
Get a clue

The admissions process is race-blind.
The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

The "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

There are real, serious issues with race and discrimination in the world. This is not one of them.

Grandfather clauses were race blind. Facially neutral criteria can be racist.
Over-representation is the reason for the discrimination. If asians weren't over-represented, nobody would have wanted to change the admissions criteria.

The group that saw the largest gain were white kids, the wealthiest group in fairfax.

The change in admission policy absolutely has a disparate impact on asians.

This is definitely one of the serious issues with racism in this world. The fact that it doesn't bother people like you is even more evidence that this is a serious issue.

No reasonable person would call it discrimination. There are groups who actually could legitimately claim discrimination and disparate impact by admissions - and they aren't Asian students.

And yet all the evidence from the Harvard SFFA case says otherwise.
If you don't think asians were discriminated against then you are lying to yourself.

The issue wasn't Asian overrepresentation; it was the underrepresentation of other groups. They wanted to expand access to more kids, not exclude anyone. That's why they added seats. If they simply wanted to get rid of Asian students then they wouldn't have changed the number of seats. There are just as many Asian students enrolled as ever before.

There are fewer asians and the percentage of asians (AND ONLY ASIANS) in the entering class plummeted. Black enrollment went up, hispanic enrollment went up, white enrollment went up. This was by design.

Again:
- The admissions process is race-blind.
- The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
- Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
- The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
- The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

Judge: "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

Arlington Heights analysis is pretty clear on how this case should have been decided.

That judge doesn't understand disparate impact. By their reckoning disparate impact cannot apply to any group that is over-represented.
Supreme Court Justice: "The Fourth Circuit’s decision is based on a theory that is flagrantly wrong and should not be allowed to stand."
"What the Fourth Circuit majority held, in essence, is that intentional racial discrimination is constitutional so long as it is not too severe. This reasoning is indefensible, and it cries out for correction."

Harvard admissions is a different beast and not comparable. TJ admissions is race blind.

The number of Asian students enrolled in TJ has not significantly changed. No reasonable person, or non-corrupt justice, would believe this is "harm":

Thanks again for clearing this matter up with hard facts.

If you take that chart back a few more years you will see that asians have been increasing every year until they changed the admissions process.
In fact if you go back 10 more years TJ is majority white.

[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:I suspect that if the C4TJ types keep screaming about “discrimination” even though Asian kids are still admitted at a higher rate than average and have just as many students as ever before that FCPS will eventually just scrap TJ.

Or they will stop discriminating.

I guess they can stop screaming about it right now since there is no discrimination.

It's like you don't understand what structural racism is.

It’s like you are ignoring the acceptance rates and enrollment numbers.

No discrimination.

You can be over-represented and discriminated against. In this case the discrimination is BECAUSE of the over-representation.
Get a clue

The admissions process is race-blind.
The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

The "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

There are real, serious issues with race and discrimination in the world. This is not one of them.

Grandfather clauses were race blind. Facially neutral criteria can be racist.
Over-representation is the reason for the discrimination. If asians weren't over-represented, nobody would have wanted to change the admissions criteria.

The group that saw the largest gain were white kids, the wealthiest group in fairfax.

The change in admission policy absolutely has a disparate impact on asians.

This is definitely one of the serious issues with racism in this world. The fact that it doesn't bother people like you is even more evidence that this is a serious issue.

No reasonable person would call it discrimination. There are groups who actually could legitimately claim discrimination and disparate impact by admissions - and they aren't Asian students.

And yet all the evidence from the Harvard SFFA case says otherwise.
If you don't think asians were discriminated against then you are lying to yourself.

The issue wasn't Asian overrepresentation; it was the underrepresentation of other groups. They wanted to expand access to more kids, not exclude anyone. That's why they added seats. If they simply wanted to get rid of Asian students then they wouldn't have changed the number of seats. There are just as many Asian students enrolled as ever before.

There are fewer asians and the percentage of asians (AND ONLY ASIANS) in the entering class plummeted. Black enrollment went up, hispanic enrollment went up, white enrollment went up. This was by design.

Again:
- The admissions process is race-blind.
- The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
- Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
- The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
- The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

Judge: "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

Arlington Heights analysis is pretty clear on how this case should have been decided.

That judge doesn't understand disparate impact. By their reckoning disparate impact cannot apply to any group that is over-represented.
Supreme Court Justice: "The Fourth Circuit’s decision is based on a theory that is flagrantly wrong and should not be allowed to stand."
"What the Fourth Circuit majority held, in essence, is that intentional racial discrimination is constitutional so long as it is not too severe. This reasoning is indefensible, and it cries out for correction."

Harvard admissions is a different beast and not comparable. TJ admissions is race blind.

The number of Asian students enrolled in TJ has not significantly changed. No reasonable person, or non-corrupt justice, would believe this is "harm":

Thanks again for clearing this matter up with hard facts.

If you take that chart back a few more years you will see that asians have been increasing every year until they changed the admissions process.
In fact if you go back 10 more years TJ is majority white.

Are you suggesting that one group was able to capture a larger share because of the corrupt process?

[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:I suspect that if the C4TJ types keep screaming about “discrimination” even though Asian kids are still admitted at a higher rate than average and have just as many students as ever before that FCPS will eventually just scrap TJ.

Or they will stop discriminating.

I guess they can stop screaming about it right now since there is no discrimination.

It's like you don't understand what structural racism is.

It’s like you are ignoring the acceptance rates and enrollment numbers.

No discrimination.

You can be over-represented and discriminated against. In this case the discrimination is BECAUSE of the over-representation.
Get a clue

The admissions process is race-blind.
The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

The "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

There are real, serious issues with race and discrimination in the world. This is not one of them.

Grandfather clauses were race blind. Facially neutral criteria can be racist.
Over-representation is the reason for the discrimination. If asians weren't over-represented, nobody would have wanted to change the admissions criteria.

The group that saw the largest gain were white kids, the wealthiest group in fairfax.

The change in admission policy absolutely has a disparate impact on asians.

This is definitely one of the serious issues with racism in this world. The fact that it doesn't bother people like you is even more evidence that this is a serious issue.

No reasonable person would call it discrimination. There are groups who actually could legitimately claim discrimination and disparate impact by admissions - and they aren't Asian students.

And yet all the evidence from the Harvard SFFA case says otherwise.
If you don't think asians were discriminated against then you are lying to yourself.

The issue wasn't Asian overrepresentation; it was the underrepresentation of other groups. They wanted to expand access to more kids, not exclude anyone. That's why they added seats. If they simply wanted to get rid of Asian students then they wouldn't have changed the number of seats. There are just as many Asian students enrolled as ever before.

There are fewer asians and the percentage of asians (AND ONLY ASIANS) in the entering class plummeted. Black enrollment went up, hispanic enrollment went up, white enrollment went up. This was by design.

Again:
- The admissions process is race-blind.
- The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
- Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
- The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
- The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

Judge: "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

Arlington Heights analysis is pretty clear on how this case should have been decided.

That judge doesn't understand disparate impact. By their reckoning disparate impact cannot apply to any group that is over-represented.
Supreme Court Justice: "The Fourth Circuit’s decision is based on a theory that is flagrantly wrong and should not be allowed to stand."
"What the Fourth Circuit majority held, in essence, is that intentional racial discrimination is constitutional so long as it is not too severe. This reasoning is indefensible, and it cries out for correction."

Harvard admissions is a different beast and not comparable. TJ admissions is race blind.

The number of Asian students enrolled in TJ has not significantly changed. No reasonable person, or non-corrupt justice, would believe this is "harm":

And yet before the change in admissions the number of asian students enrolled was steadily increasing every year.
After the change it dropped while all other races rose.
This was the intended consequence of the change.
That is discrimination.

The argument seems to be that asians are over-represented so it's OK to discriminate against them a little bit (and you get to decide how much is a little bit).

Once again, there was a finding of intentional discrimination at trial.
The appellate court said that there was no harm because asians were still over-represented.
That is a pretty clear error of law.

That's completely wrong. Asians make up the majority of the school. The selection process is race blind. Acceptances mirror applications by demographic cohort within a few percent meaning that their process treats everyone about the same. Asian environment before and after the change is about the same and the largest beneficiary of the change were low income agents. The court was correct when they asserted there was no arm done.

Asians went from 70%+ to 50%+ of the admitted students.
This was the intended result of the change in admissions process.
This is why you are not disputing the fact that there was intentional racial discrimination in developing the new admissions process.

You can be race blind and still be discriminatory. See literacy tests and grandfather clauses
You can be over-represented and still be discriminated against. See discrimination against blacks in baseball AFTER Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier.

You are no different than any of the racists from generations past. Most racists thinks their particular brand of racism is virtuous.

I know Asian enrollment is down from 1300 to 1275 now! Discrimination!!! LOL

[Anonymous]

One thing people haven't considered is this: How many kids are being admitted in 10th or 11th grade, and what are the demographics of those kids?

If Asian enrollment is flat because they're admitting fewer of them in 9th, and then admitting 50-ish highly qualified, almost entirely Asian kids in 10th, one could argue that the process is discriminating against the Asian kids who should have been admitted in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One thing people haven't considered is this: How many kids are being admitted in 10th or 11th grade, and what are the demographics of those kids?

If Asian enrollment is flat because they're admitting fewer of them in 9th, and then admitting 50-ish highly qualified, almost entirely Asian kids in 10th, one could argue that the process is discriminating against the Asian kids who should have been admitted in the first place.

Or does the admissions to 10th discriminate against non-Asian students if they are being admitted at a much higher than average rate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing people haven't considered is this: How many kids are being admitted in 10th or 11th grade, and what are the demographics of those kids?

If Asian enrollment is flat because they're admitting fewer of them in 9th, and then admitting 50-ish highly qualified, almost entirely Asian kids in 10th, one could argue that the process is discriminating against the Asian kids who should have been admitted in the first place.

Or does the admissions to 10th discriminate against non-Asian students if they are being admitted at a much higher than average rate?

That depends on the applicant pool for froshmore admissions. FCPS obviously doesn't publish anything about the demographics of froshmore applicants and their stats, but I wouldn't be surprised if the applicant pool is almost entirely Asian kids from high SES schools who really ought to have been picked in the regular round.

Froshmore admissions also depend on the math level, 9th grade courses taken and GPA, teacher recommendations, and PSAT scores. The froshmore admissions process is much more comprehensive. If non-Asians feel that they're being discriminated against, surely they could FOIA the test scores and stats of the admitted kids to see how their non-admitted kid compares to the ones who were selected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing people haven't considered is this: How many kids are being admitted in 10th or 11th grade, and what are the demographics of those kids?

If Asian enrollment is flat because they're admitting fewer of them in 9th, and then admitting 50-ish highly qualified, almost entirely Asian kids in 10th, one could argue that the process is discriminating against the Asian kids who should have been admitted in the first place.

Or does the admissions to 10th discriminate against non-Asian students if they are being admitted at a much higher than average rate?

This is the part of the whole TJ is racist argument that gets me.

When did asians grab hold of so much political power that they are able to exclude whites?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing people haven't considered is this: How many kids are being admitted in 10th or 11th grade, and what are the demographics of those kids?

If Asian enrollment is flat because they're admitting fewer of them in 9th, and then admitting 50-ish highly qualified, almost entirely Asian kids in 10th, one could argue that the process is discriminating against the Asian kids who should have been admitted in the first place.

Or does the admissions to 10th discriminate against non-Asian students if they are being admitted at a much higher than average rate?

This is the part of the whole TJ is racist argument that gets me.

When did asians grab hold of so much political power that they are able to exclude whites?

I don't know anything about that, but the process is race-blind, and the acceptance-to-application ratio is within a few percent for all racial cohorts, so I don't see anything here that would suggest the process is biased.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing people haven't considered is this: How many kids are being admitted in 10th or 11th grade, and what are the demographics of those kids?

If Asian enrollment is flat because they're admitting fewer of them in 9th, and then admitting 50-ish highly qualified, almost entirely Asian kids in 10th, one could argue that the process is discriminating against the Asian kids who should have been admitted in the first place.

Or does the admissions to 10th discriminate against non-Asian students if they are being admitted at a much higher than average rate?

That depends on the applicant pool for froshmore admissions. FCPS obviously doesn't publish anything about the demographics of froshmore applicants and their stats, but I wouldn't be surprised if the applicant pool is almost entirely Asian kids from high SES schools who really ought to have been picked in the regular round.

Froshmore admissions also depend on the math level, 9th grade courses taken and GPA, teacher recommendations, and PSAT scores. The froshmore admissions process is much more comprehensive. If non-Asians feel that they're being discriminated against, surely they could FOIA the test scores and stats of the admitted kids to see how their non-admitted kid compares to the ones who were selected.

No kid is entitled to a seat. There are talented kids from all over the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing people haven't considered is this: How many kids are being admitted in 10th or 11th grade, and what are the demographics of those kids?

If Asian enrollment is flat because they're admitting fewer of them in 9th, and then admitting 50-ish highly qualified, almost entirely Asian kids in 10th, one could argue that the process is discriminating against the Asian kids who should have been admitted in the first place.

Or does the admissions to 10th discriminate against non-Asian students if they are being admitted at a much higher than average rate?

This is the part of the whole TJ is racist argument that gets me.

When did asians grab hold of so much political power that they are able to exclude whites?

I don't know anything about that, but the process is race-blind, and the acceptance-to-application ratio is within a few percent for all racial cohorts, so I don't see anything here that would suggest the process is biased.

We don't know the acceptance rates froshmore admissions.

Is the froshmore admissions process race blind?

[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:I suspect that if the C4TJ types keep screaming about “discrimination” even though Asian kids are still admitted at a higher rate than average and have just as many students as ever before that FCPS will eventually just scrap TJ.

Or they will stop discriminating.

I guess they can stop screaming about it right now since there is no discrimination.

It's like you don't understand what structural racism is.

It’s like you are ignoring the acceptance rates and enrollment numbers.

No discrimination.

You can be over-represented and discriminated against. In this case the discrimination is BECAUSE of the over-representation.
Get a clue

The admissions process is race-blind.
The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

The "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

There are real, serious issues with race and discrimination in the world. This is not one of them.

Grandfather clauses were race blind. Facially neutral criteria can be racist.
Over-representation is the reason for the discrimination. If asians weren't over-represented, nobody would have wanted to change the admissions criteria.

The group that saw the largest gain were white kids, the wealthiest group in fairfax.

The change in admission policy absolutely has a disparate impact on asians.

This is definitely one of the serious issues with racism in this world. The fact that it doesn't bother people like you is even more evidence that this is a serious issue.

No reasonable person would call it discrimination. There are groups who actually could legitimately claim discrimination and disparate impact by admissions - and they aren't Asian students.

And yet all the evidence from the Harvard SFFA case says otherwise.
If you don't think asians were discriminated against then you are lying to yourself.

The issue wasn't Asian overrepresentation; it was the underrepresentation of other groups. They wanted to expand access to more kids, not exclude anyone. That's why they added seats. If they simply wanted to get rid of Asian students then they wouldn't have changed the number of seats. There are just as many Asian students enrolled as ever before.

There are fewer asians and the percentage of asians (AND ONLY ASIANS) in the entering class plummeted. Black enrollment went up, hispanic enrollment went up, white enrollment went up. This was by design.

Again:
- The admissions process is race-blind.
- The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
- Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
- The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
- The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

Judge: "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

Arlington Heights analysis is pretty clear on how this case should have been decided.

That judge doesn't understand disparate impact. By their reckoning disparate impact cannot apply to any group that is over-represented.
Supreme Court Justice: "The Fourth Circuit’s decision is based on a theory that is flagrantly wrong and should not be allowed to stand."
"What the Fourth Circuit majority held, in essence, is that intentional racial discrimination is constitutional so long as it is not too severe. This reasoning is indefensible, and it cries out for correction."

Harvard admissions is a different beast and not comparable. TJ admissions is race blind.

The number of Asian students enrolled in TJ has not significantly changed. No reasonable person, or non-corrupt justice, would believe this is "harm":

And yet before the change in admissions the number of asian students enrolled was steadily increasing every year.
After the change it dropped while all other races rose.
This was the intended consequence of the change.
That is discrimination.

The argument seems to be that asians are over-represented so it's OK to discriminate against them a little bit (and you get to decide how much is a little bit).

Once again, there was a finding of intentional discrimination at trial.
The appellate court said that there was no harm because asians were still over-represented.
That is a pretty clear error of law.

That's completely wrong. Asians make up the majority of the school. The selection process is race blind. Acceptances mirror applications by demographic cohort within a few percent meaning that their process treats everyone about the same. Asian environment before and after the change is about the same and the largest beneficiary of the change were low income agents. The court was correct when they asserted there was no arm done.

Asians went from 70%+ to 50%+ of the admitted students.
This was the intended result of the change in admissions process.
This is why you are not disputing the fact that there was intentional racial discrimination in developing the new admissions process.

You can be race blind and still be discriminatory. See literacy tests and grandfather clauses
You can be over-represented and still be discriminated against. See discrimination against blacks in baseball AFTER Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier.

You are no different than any of the racists from generations past. Most racists thinks their particular brand of racism is virtuous.

I am racist and classist. I don't think TJ, a public high school program serving an extremely diverse area, should be 100% of any one particular race or filled almost entirely by kids from wealthy feeder schools. Sue me.

Given that there are just as many Asian students at TJ as ever before demonstrates that there was no harm by adding additional seats for kids who didn't attend wealthy feeder schools.

All of this "outrage" reminds me of men's ridiculous calls of "discrimination" when women were first admitted to college. Probably pushed by a bunch of RWNJs back then too.