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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Nope.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s called reality.

[Anonymous]

As a taxpayer this sh*t makes me so angry. The entitled people who were gaming the system think the game should continue forever and we should foot the bill. Shut it down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a taxpayer this sh*t makes me so angry. The entitled people who were gaming the system think the game should continue forever and we should foot the bill. Shut it down.

We are all players on this stage called life…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Nope.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's sad is that this is true. I practiced in the federal court system for years. The main thing I needed to know was not the facts, not the law, but which president nominated the judge. This is often determinative, especially in a case with hot-button issues like affirmative action.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Nope.

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

My tax dollars are not for you to discriminate Asian Americans either.

Exactly. The judge's decision showed the school board made a racially discriminatory admissions policy based on emotions after George Floyd and attempted to shield the policy from public view. Not only was the board racist but grossly incompetent, neither of which should be tolerated in this rich, educated, and diverse county.

The admissions policy is race blind. It increases geographic & SES diversity.

Asian students are still accepted at a higher-than-average rate. And still are over-represented by a large amount. How is that “racially discriminatory”?

The comments were disgusting but the policy is a step in the right direction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Nope.

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

My tax dollars are not for you to discriminate Asian Americans either.

Exactly. The judge's decision showed the school board made a racially discriminatory admissions policy based on emotions after George Floyd and attempted to shield the policy from public view. Not only was the board racist but grossly incompetent, neither of which should be tolerated in this rich, educated, and diverse county.

The admissions policy is race blind. It increases geographic & SES diversity.

Asian students are still accepted at a higher-than-average rate. And still are over-represented by a large amount. How is that “racially discriminatory”?

The comments were disgusting but the policy is a step in the right direction.

Read the opinion, or news reports on the issue, to answer your facetious question. As to your characterizing Asians as "over-represented," I will call that what it is: racism. Shame on you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Nope.

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

My tax dollars are not for you to discriminate Asian Americans either.

Exactly. The judge's decision showed the school board made a racially discriminatory admissions policy based on emotions after George Floyd and attempted to shield the policy from public view. Not only was the board racist but grossly incompetent, neither of which should be tolerated in this rich, educated, and diverse county.

The admissions policy is race blind. It increases geographic & SES diversity.

Asian students are still accepted at a higher-than-average rate. And still are over-represented by a large amount. How is that “racially discriminatory”?

The comments were disgusting but the policy is a step in the right direction.

Maybe you should read the Judge's decision. He explains why it is racially discriminatory in explicit detail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Nope.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's sad is that this is true. I practiced in the federal court system for years. The main thing I needed to know was not the facts, not the law, but which president nominated the judge. This is often determinative, especially in a case with hot-button issues like affirmative action.

I was a clerk to a U.S. District Judge too. We actually applied the law to the facts when preparing bench memoranda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Read pages 22-23 of Judge Hilton's opinion. He discusses the two exceptions that survive strict scrutiny and why FCPS does not meet either one of them. Why is it so hard for people to admit this process was purposeful to reduce the admissions prospects for Asian Americans?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a taxpayer this sh*t makes me so angry. The entitled people who were gaming the system think the game should continue forever and we should foot the bill. Shut it down.

The new system that was invalidated is just as if not more susceptible to “gaming” as the old one, with its bogus “experience factors,” so if you’re suddenly so offended then, yes, turn TJ back into a neighborhood school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Read pages 22-23 of Judge Hilton's opinion. He discusses the two exceptions that survive strict scrutiny and why FCPS does not meet either one of them. Why is it so hard for people to admit this process was purposeful to reduce the admissions prospects for Asian Americans?

Because they are racist against Asians and think some how they have monopoly on virtue because they get to pander to a group they deemed to be deserving. No, Asians can go fck themselves as far as they are concerned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a FCPS parent and an individual that is at a high level in STEM in the federal government, I think that TJ is an abomination and should be closed immediately.

Only if you were the dictator..
BTW wtf is high level in STEM in federal government? Are you high?

LOL!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Read pages 22-23 of Judge Hilton's opinion. He discusses the two exceptions that survive strict scrutiny and why FCPS does not meet either one of them. Why is it so hard for people to admit this process was purposeful to reduce the admissions prospects for Asian Americans?

The progressives believe in identity politics and think it’s entirely appropriate for an all-knowing government to allocate opportunities based on race, class, and gender. The very notion of individual merit offends them to their core as they believe everyone is just a product of a system where some groups are privileged and others oppressed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Nope.

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

My tax dollars are not for you to discriminate Asian Americans either.

Exactly. The judge's decision showed the school board made a racially discriminatory admissions policy based on emotions after George Floyd and attempted to shield the policy from public view. Not only was the board racist but grossly incompetent, neither of which should be tolerated in this rich, educated, and diverse county.

The admissions policy is race blind. It increases geographic & SES diversity.

Asian students are still accepted at a higher-than-average rate. And still are over-represented by a large amount. How is that “racially discriminatory”?

The comments were disgusting but the policy is a step in the right direction.

The word over represented is racist and offensive. It is very similar in thought to Jews will not replace us. Please stop it. Asians are a very diverse group - not a monolith.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Nope.

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

My tax dollars are not for you to discriminate Asian Americans either.

Exactly. The judge's decision showed the school board made a racially discriminatory admissions policy based on emotions after George Floyd and attempted to shield the policy from public view. Not only was the board racist but grossly incompetent, neither of which should be tolerated in this rich, educated, and diverse county.

The admissions policy is race blind. It increases geographic & SES diversity.

Asian students are still accepted at a higher-than-average rate. And still are over-represented by a large amount. How is that “racially discriminatory”?

The comments were disgusting but the policy is a step in the right direction.

Read the opinion, or news reports on the issue, to answer your facetious question. As to your characterizing Asians as "over-represented," I will call that what it is: racism. Shame on you.

Asians ARE overrepresented at TJ, to a very significant extent.

That's not a matter of judgment or opinion - it is a numerical fact. East and Southeast Asians account for about 17-18% of the population of the TJ catchment area, and about 25-30% of the TJ population. South Asians account for about 5-8% of the population of the catchment area and about 40-45% of the TJ population pre-admissions changes.

We can have an argument here about whether or not Asians SHOULD be overrepresented at TJ (most arguments in favor generally come from a premise that Asians work harder than everyone else in STEM disciplines), but for someone to state that they ARE is not evidence of racism. It is evidence of the ability to read data.