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:

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.

NP. The easy references to "wealthy feeder schools" tells me you're comfortable with casually misrepresenting reality. Rocky Run isn't wealthy, but it was getting more kids admitted than Thoreau. Only Cooper is a really "wealthy" middle school and its numbers were a good bit lower than Carson and Longfellow, which have lots of kids who aren't wealthy.

But I guess it's easier to get comfortable with efforts to reduce the percentage of Asian kids by substituting "wealthy" for "Asian" any time you really mean Asian.

[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?

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.

What a silly statement.
Academic ability is not distributed evenly by geography.

[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: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.

That's pretty much all we need to know about you.

You are admitting to want to manipulate results to achieve particular racial results.
You would howl if actual RWNJ tried to manipulate racial results a different way.
But you are actually no different.
You just think your version of racism is admirable and their version is deplorable.

Asians are not asking for any racial favors, they are asking you to disregard their race.

I get it, you feel threatened by the rapidly increasing share of seats that asians seem to be occupying every year so you point to the low number of black kids being admitted and upend the admissions process to halt the increase in asian admissions while increasing black admissions by 9 students a year... out of 550. Meanwhile the white admissions increase by 54 out of that 550. That is a more comfortable ratio for some people.

[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: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.

NP. The easy references to "wealthy feeder schools" tells me you're comfortable with casually misrepresenting reality. Rocky Run isn't wealthy, but it was getting more kids admitted than Thoreau. Only Cooper is a really "wealthy" middle school and its numbers were a good bit lower than Carson and Longfellow, which have lots of kids who aren't wealthy.

But I guess it's easier to get comfortable with efforts to reduce the percentage of Asian kids by substituting "wealthy" for "Asian" any time you really mean Asian.

In a county with a 40% FARMS rate, a school with a 19% rate is wealthy

[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: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.

NP. The easy references to "wealthy feeder schools" tells me you're comfortable with casually misrepresenting reality. Rocky Run isn't wealthy, but it was getting more kids admitted than Thoreau. Only Cooper is a really "wealthy" middle school and its numbers were a good bit lower than Carson and Longfellow, which have lots of kids who aren't wealthy.

But I guess it's easier to get comfortable with efforts to reduce the percentage of Asian kids by substituting "wealthy" for "Asian" any time you really mean Asian.

Not surprising that Thoreau had fewer kids accepted given that Rocky Run had more than 3x the number of applicants for the class of 2024. They also have similar FRE rate (19% vs. 18%), per Niche.

Cooper's acceptance rate is higher than Carson and Rocky Run (37% vs. 29%/21%). Out of the feeders, Rocky Run had the lowest acceptance rate.

ALL of the feeders are below the county's average % of FRE. They are certainly all wealthier than Glasgow, which is 80% FRE and had at most a 14% acceptance rate (with 72 applicants).

Generally, the kids who attended the wealthier middle schools, including the feeders, had a higher chance of admission than kids from poorer middle schools. It's intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise.

[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: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.

That's pretty much all we need to know about you.

You are admitting to want to manipulate results to achieve particular racial results.
You would howl if actual RWNJ tried to manipulate racial results a different way.
But you are actually no different.
You just think your version of racism is admirable and their version is deplorable.

Asians are not asking for any racial favors, they are asking you to disregard their race.

I get it, you feel threatened by the rapidly increasing share of seats that asians seem to be occupying every year so you point to the low number of black kids being admitted and upend the admissions process to halt the increase in asian admissions while increasing black admissions by 9 students a year... out of 550. Meanwhile the white admissions increase by 54 out of that 550. That is a more comfortable ratio for some people.

Yes, I think affirmative action has a place in our society. Just like many, many other people. And I guess since you want to change the racial outcome, you are racist too.

TJ admissions is race blind so race is already disregarded. In fact, the students who saw the biggest benefit from the change were kids from low-income Asian families.

White families don't care about TJ as much as Asian families. A much, much higher % of Asian students apply and a higher % accept admissions.

TJ is a public high school serving a diverse community. It should serve the whole community, not just kids from a handful of wealthy feeder schools.

[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: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.

NP. The easy references to "wealthy feeder schools" tells me you're comfortable with casually misrepresenting reality. Rocky Run isn't wealthy, but it was getting more kids admitted than Thoreau. Only Cooper is a really "wealthy" middle school and its numbers were a good bit lower than Carson and Longfellow, which have lots of kids who aren't wealthy.

But I guess it's easier to get comfortable with efforts to reduce the percentage of Asian kids by substituting "wealthy" for "Asian" any time you really mean Asian.

In a county with a 40% FARMS rate, a school with a 19% rate is wealthy

Schools aren't wealthy. Individual families in those schools are. Why do you feel that wealthy kids in lower SES schools need a leg up, while the FARMS kids attending Longfellow need to be punished? This is another way to discriminate against Asian students. I'd be willing to be you that the FARMS kids zoned to Rocky Run, Longfellow, etc. are Asian. I'd also be willing to bet that the wealthy or UMC kids zoned to the high FARMS schools are white.

[Anonymous]

IDK we were at a wealthy middle school and no one applies from our school.

[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: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.

NP. The easy references to "wealthy feeder schools" tells me you're comfortable with casually misrepresenting reality. Rocky Run isn't wealthy, but it was getting more kids admitted than Thoreau. Only Cooper is a really "wealthy" middle school and its numbers were a good bit lower than Carson and Longfellow, which have lots of kids who aren't wealthy.

But I guess it's easier to get comfortable with efforts to reduce the percentage of Asian kids by substituting "wealthy" for "Asian" any time you really mean Asian.

In a county with a 40% FARMS rate, a school with a 19% rate is wealthy

FCPS is 36% FARMs 19% FARMs does not make Rocky run wealthy. Certainly not compared to all the other schools with lower FARM rates that send fewer kids to TJ.

[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: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.

NP. The easy references to "wealthy feeder schools" tells me you're comfortable with casually misrepresenting reality. Rocky Run isn't wealthy, but it was getting more kids admitted than Thoreau. Only Cooper is a really "wealthy" middle school and its numbers were a good bit lower than Carson and Longfellow, which have lots of kids who aren't wealthy.

But I guess it's easier to get comfortable with efforts to reduce the percentage of Asian kids by substituting "wealthy" for "Asian" any time you really mean Asian.

Not surprising that Thoreau had fewer kids accepted given that Rocky Run had more than 3x the number of applicants for the class of 2024. They also have similar FRE rate (19% vs. 18%), per Niche.

Cooper's acceptance rate is higher than Carson and Rocky Run (37% vs. 29%/21%). Out of the feeders, Rocky Run had the lowest acceptance rate.

ALL of the feeders are below the county's average % of FRE. They are certainly all wealthier than Glasgow, which is 80% FRE and had at most a 14% acceptance rate (with 72 applicants).

Generally, the kids who attended the wealthier middle schools, including the feeders, had a higher chance of admission than kids from poorer middle schools. It's intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise.

DP

I think that's his point. Thoreau has similar FARM rate and sends fewer kids than rocky run because rocky run is more asian. Cooper is the wealthiest school but it is sending very few kids. The rate is not what matters when addressing the statement that there are "wealthy feeder schools" that are unfairly sucking up all the spots. If cooper had only had 1 applicant and 100% acceptance rate, it would not be a feeder school. Wealthy kids are not the ones applying and getting in. It's asian kids. But you knew that already. Because you were using wealthy as a euphemism for asian to make it seem OK to discriminate against them. Discriminating against wealthy kids seems more fair than discriminating against asians kids so you use the term wealthy instead of asian.

[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: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.

That's pretty much all we need to know about you.

You are admitting to want to manipulate results to achieve particular racial results.
You would howl if actual RWNJ tried to manipulate racial results a different way.
But you are actually no different.
You just think your version of racism is admirable and their version is deplorable.

Asians are not asking for any racial favors, they are asking you to disregard their race.

I get it, you feel threatened by the rapidly increasing share of seats that asians seem to be occupying every year so you point to the low number of black kids being admitted and upend the admissions process to halt the increase in asian admissions while increasing black admissions by 9 students a year... out of 550. Meanwhile the white admissions increase by 54 out of that 550. That is a more comfortable ratio for some people.

Yes, I think affirmative action has a place in our society. Just like many, many other people. And I guess since you want to change the racial outcome, you are racist too.

Affirmative action is racial discrimination. I am sure there are many people that still support it just like there were many people that supported segregation when it was outlawed.

Trying to inject more race into the decision making is racist. Trying to eliminate race from the decision making is not. If you can't see that difference, then you are well and truly lost.

TJ admissions is race blind so race is already disregarded. In fact, the students who saw the biggest benefit from the change were kids from low-income Asian families.

Facially neutral rules can still be racist, if this is new to you then what did you think institutional and systemic racism were?
Whites are the largest beneficiaries, their admissions went from 86 the year prior to the change to 140 now. White admissions increased more than any other group
When you have to cherrypick data like that to make yourself right, you are convincing nobody except those that are ready to believe whatever rationalization necessary to continue racially discriminating.

White families don't care about TJ as much as Asian families. A much, much higher % of Asian students apply and a higher % accept admissions.

Stop lying to yourself. TJ used to be overwhelmingly white. They were crowded out by kids (mostly asian kids) that were willing to work harder than them.

TJ is a public high school serving a diverse community. It should serve the whole community, not just kids from a handful of wealthy feeder schools.

Nobody really felt this way when it was majority white. Certainly not enough to throw merit out the window to achieve the diversity. It wasn't until white students were no longer at the top in terms of merit that merit stopped becoming important. This is how white supremacy works. Society rewrites rules to move the goal posts to wherever the white kids happen to be.

[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: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.

NP. The easy references to "wealthy feeder schools" tells me you're comfortable with casually misrepresenting reality. Rocky Run isn't wealthy, but it was getting more kids admitted than Thoreau. Only Cooper is a really "wealthy" middle school and its numbers were a good bit lower than Carson and Longfellow, which have lots of kids who aren't wealthy.

But I guess it's easier to get comfortable with efforts to reduce the percentage of Asian kids by substituting "wealthy" for "Asian" any time you really mean Asian.

Not surprising that Thoreau had fewer kids accepted given that Rocky Run had more than 3x the number of applicants for the class of 2024. They also have similar FRE rate (19% vs. 18%), per Niche.

Cooper's acceptance rate is higher than Carson and Rocky Run (37% vs. 29%/21%). Out of the feeders, Rocky Run had the lowest acceptance rate.

ALL of the feeders are below the county's average % of FRE. They are certainly all wealthier than Glasgow, which is 80% FRE and had at most a 14% acceptance rate (with 72 applicants).

Generally, the kids who attended the wealthier middle schools, including the feeders, had a higher chance of admission than kids from poorer middle schools. It's intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise.

DP

I think that's his point. Thoreau has similar FARM rate and sends fewer kids than rocky run because rocky run is more asian. Cooper is the wealthiest school but it is sending very few kids. The rate is not what matters when addressing the statement that there are "wealthy feeder schools" that are unfairly sucking up all the spots. If cooper had only had 1 applicant and 100% acceptance rate, it would not be a feeder school. Wealthy kids are not the ones applying and getting in. It's asian kids. But you knew that already. Because you were using wealthy as a euphemism for asian to make it seem OK to discriminate against them. Discriminating against wealthy kids seems more fair than discriminating against asians kids so you use the term wealthy instead of asian.

The acceptance rate shows just how much of an advantage that wealthy kids had for TJ admissions.

For the class of 2024, Cooper had ~40% of the number of applicants as Rocky Run and yet ended up with around the same number of acceptances.

Cooper is a feeder school because of the high number of kids who were accepted, even though just a fraction of the number of kids apply.

The kids from Cooper and Longfellow - predominantly-white and wealthy - had the highest acceptance rates for FCPS MSs.

Longfellow and Rocky Run had about the same number of applicants but Longfellow had almost twice as many kids admitted.

It was pay to play. Wealthy kids (of all races) had a huge advantage.

[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: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.

That's pretty much all we need to know about you.

You are admitting to want to manipulate results to achieve particular racial results.
You would howl if actual RWNJ tried to manipulate racial results a different way.
But you are actually no different.
You just think your version of racism is admirable and their version is deplorable.

Asians are not asking for any racial favors, they are asking you to disregard their race.

I get it, you feel threatened by the rapidly increasing share of seats that asians seem to be occupying every year so you point to the low number of black kids being admitted and upend the admissions process to halt the increase in asian admissions while increasing black admissions by 9 students a year... out of 550. Meanwhile the white admissions increase by 54 out of that 550. That is a more comfortable ratio for some people.

You also seem to want to manipulate the criteria so that it favors your desired outcome and return to a system where only students from wealthy feeders had a real shot at admission. The data from the current process shows that selection mirrors applications. That roughly 18% give take a few points of those who apply regardless of race get in which seems like it is actually fair unlike the old process which was increasingly gamed by those with means.

[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: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.

NP. The easy references to "wealthy feeder schools" tells me you're comfortable with casually misrepresenting reality. Rocky Run isn't wealthy, but it was getting more kids admitted than Thoreau. Only Cooper is a really "wealthy" middle school and its numbers were a good bit lower than Carson and Longfellow, which have lots of kids who aren't wealthy.

But I guess it's easier to get comfortable with efforts to reduce the percentage of Asian kids by substituting "wealthy" for "Asian" any time you really mean Asian.

Not surprising that Thoreau had fewer kids accepted given that Rocky Run had more than 3x the number of applicants for the class of 2024. They also have similar FRE rate (19% vs. 18%), per Niche.

Cooper's acceptance rate is higher than Carson and Rocky Run (37% vs. 29%/21%). Out of the feeders, Rocky Run had the lowest acceptance rate.

ALL of the feeders are below the county's average % of FRE. They are certainly all wealthier than Glasgow, which is 80% FRE and had at most a 14% acceptance rate (with 72 applicants).

Generally, the kids who attended the wealthier middle schools, including the feeders, had a higher chance of admission than kids from poorer middle schools. It's intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise.

DP

I think that's his point. Thoreau has similar FARM rate and sends fewer kids than rocky run because rocky run is more asian. Cooper is the wealthiest school but it is sending very few kids. The rate is not what matters when addressing the statement that there are "wealthy feeder schools" that are unfairly sucking up all the spots. If cooper had only had 1 applicant and 100% acceptance rate, it would not be a feeder school. Wealthy kids are not the ones applying and getting in. It's asian kids. But you knew that already. Because you were using wealthy as a euphemism for asian to make it seem OK to discriminate against them. Discriminating against wealthy kids seems more fair than discriminating against asians kids so you use the term wealthy instead of asian.

The acceptance rate shows just how much of an advantage that wealthy kids had for TJ admissions.

For the class of 2024, Cooper had ~40% of the number of applicants as Rocky Run and yet ended up with around the same number of acceptances.

OK I see what you are saying, but you are only looking at the two data points. If you look at all the data points it becomes pretty clear that there is much more to it.

What the PPP is saying is that if it was really wealth that makes the difference then why do we see higher admit rates from Rocky Run than Thoreau? After all Thoreau is marginally wealthier than Rocky Run

Cooper is a feeder school because of the high number of kids who were accepted, even though just a fraction of the number of kids apply.

The kids from Cooper and Longfellow - predominantly-white and wealthy - had the highest acceptance rates for FCPS MSs.

Longfellow and Rocky Run had about the same number of applicants but Longfellow had almost twice as many kids admitted.

I think the old system's holistic elements had an effect.

If you look at the percentage of in pool candidates that made it past the holistic review, you also see wealth effect.

Rocky Run is 3rd in terms of getting into pool while they are 8th in terms of getting out of pool.

The rate of pool qualified applicants making it out of pool, the rate for Rocky Run is was 42% for the class of 2024.
For Longfellow, it was 59%
For Cooper, it was 57%
For Nysmith (a private school), it was 90%

Kilmer had a significantly higher applicant to admit rate than Rocky Run with an admit rate of 29.6%
Rocky Run's applicant to admit rate was 21.4%

Yet Rocky Run had a higher rate of getting into the pool at 51% than Kilmer at 42.3%
The difference was the holistic review which saw Kilmer's 67.8% from the holistic portion of the admissions process overshadow Rocky Run's 42.1%

I would suggest that the holistic part of the admissions process is probably where a lot of the wealth preference comes from.

It was pay to play. Wealthy kids (of all races) had a huge advantage.

If it played such a huge advantage, why didn't wealth play a similarly large factor for Thoreau as it did for Rocky Run?

Why are we seeing economically similar schools with vastly different results?

[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: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.

That's pretty much all we need to know about you.

You are admitting to want to manipulate results to achieve particular racial results.
You would howl if actual RWNJ tried to manipulate racial results a different way.
But you are actually no different.
You just think your version of racism is admirable and their version is deplorable.

Asians are not asking for any racial favors, they are asking you to disregard their race.

I get it, you feel threatened by the rapidly increasing share of seats that asians seem to be occupying every year so you point to the low number of black kids being admitted and upend the admissions process to halt the increase in asian admissions while increasing black admissions by 9 students a year... out of 550. Meanwhile the white admissions increase by 54 out of that 550. That is a more comfortable ratio for some people.

You also seem to want to manipulate the criteria so that it favors your desired outcome and return to a system where only students from wealthy feeders had a real shot at admission. The data from the current process shows that selection mirrors applications. That roughly 18% give take a few points of those who apply regardless of race get in which seems like it is actually fair unlike the old process which was increasingly gamed by those with means.

Trying to remove racism into a selection process is different than trying to inject racism into a selection process.
The fact that you see them as moral equivalents is wild.