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

[Anonymous]

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

My property taxes cross- subsidize so much of the county. By your logic, I should be super pi$$ed. I am not because that is how democracy works. For all you know, i might be footing your bill and not the other way around.

[Anonymous]

Do you think a class action lawsuit by those applicants rejected last year against Brabrand and board members would be possible and likely to succeed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Nope.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He actually doesn't. When you read the opinion, you begin to understand why Hilton is stuck where he is in him career despite his advanced age and level of experience.

What he does do is explain where FCPS officials made it blindingly obvious that their intent was to create a racial demographic that looked more like the catchment area that it serves than the previous admissions process. What he also does is assert that the results of the new admissions process in comparison with the previous one had the impact that was intended by a simple statistical comparison.

What he does not discuss on any level is the extent to which the previous admissions process was racially discriminatory. If one seeks to use data comparison as a basis for disparate impact of policy, they need only look at the difference between the demographics of the catchment areas and the eventual results of the old admissions process. Those deltas are MUCH more significant than the deltas between the old admissions process and the new one. Neither is adequate to use as evidence, but if we're talking about disparate impact, you're a moron if you can't see that the old process was racially discriminatory.

Additionally, Hilton made absolutely no reference in any of his 31 pages to any arguments made by FCPS during the initial hearing - which means one of two things: either a) Hilton did not do his job in issuing a summary judgment of addressing why FCPS' defense was invalid, or b) FCPS made no legitimate effort to defend their process. I actually believe b) to be more likely in this case. Based on the behavior and processes of the Board members, it appears that you have the wrong people doing the right thing for the wrong reasons - and that's a damn shame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Nope.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can't believe that you don't see how racist it is for you to say a group is over-represented. You pronounce it as if you are god. Echoes of a country on Europe where a certain dude who thought like you pronounced a certain group as being over-represented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you think a class action lawsuit by those applicants rejected last year against Brabrand and board members would be possible and likely to succeed?

There's no way. Granting a settlement in a class action lawsuit to applicants who were rejected in a holistic selective admissions process would open up an enormous can of worms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Nope.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He actually doesn't. When you read the opinion, you begin to understand why Hilton is stuck where he is in him career despite his advanced age and level of experience.

What he does do is explain where FCPS officials made it blindingly obvious that their intent was to create a racial demographic that looked more like the catchment area that it serves than the previous admissions process. What he also does is assert that the results of the new admissions process in comparison with the previous one had the impact that was intended by a simple statistical comparison.

What he does not discuss on any level is the extent to which the previous admissions process was racially discriminatory. If one seeks to use data comparison as a basis for disparate impact of policy, they need only look at the difference between the demographics of the catchment areas and the eventual results of the old admissions process. Those deltas are MUCH more significant than the deltas between the old admissions process and the new one. Neither is adequate to use as evidence, but if we're talking about disparate impact, you're a moron if you can't see that the old process was racially discriminatory.

Additionally, Hilton made absolutely no reference in any of his 31 pages to any arguments made by FCPS during the initial hearing - which means one of two things: either a) Hilton did not do his job in issuing a summary judgment of addressing why FCPS' defense was invalid, or b) FCPS made no legitimate effort to defend their process. I actually believe b) to be more likely in this case. Based on the behavior and processes of the Board members, it appears that you have the wrong people doing the right thing for the wrong reasons - and that's a damn shame.

The entire foundation of your argument of targeting a certain group is discriminatory. Case closed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Which is the more fair system (a simplification):

System A: Students take a test to get into a school. The top 550 students get in. There is no consideration for geographic diversity. There is no consideration for SES diversity. Test prepping is rampant, and reserved for those that can afford it.

System B: Students take a test. Prior to the test, the school makes a decision on what scores are likely to result in "successful" students. Everyone who scores in that range is put into a pool. 750 students make the cut. The student population is then selected with various factors in mind, including geographic and SES diversity. Students that are ranked from 450-550 are left out.

The word simplification is carrying a heavy load here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think a class action lawsuit by those applicants rejected last year against Brabrand and board members would be possible and likely to succeed?

There's no way. Granting a settlement in a class action lawsuit to applicants who were rejected in a holistic selective admissions process would open up an enormous can of worms.

Federal judge has determined that those applicants’ constitutional rights were violated and they were discriminated against by fcps so class action is a distinct possibility. You know how these lawyers are - they will file if they smell money or fame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Nope.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can't believe that you don't see how racist it is for you to say a group is over-represented. You pronounce it as if you are god. Echoes of a country on Europe where a certain dude who thought like you pronounced a certain group as being over-represented.

It's literally a math problem. Black people are overrepresented in the NBA, white males are overrepresented in Congress.... the word "over-represented" does not inherently connote any sort of judgment whatsoever.

There are literally zero opinions in the post you quoted that one could use to divine my thought processes or motives. I'm simply correcting a misinterpretation of a word.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry typo on my phone.

Here are the demographic changes from class or 2024 to 2025.
> more students from all over the county; every single MS is now represented
> more students from ED backgrounds, going from <1% to 25% of the freshman class
(27% of FCPS students are ED)
> more Hispanic students, 3% to 11% (27% of FCPS)
> more black/mixed students, 6% to 13% (16%)
> more white students, 18% to 22% (38%)
> more female students, 42% to 46% (48%)
> fewer Asian students, 73% to 54% (20%)
> fewer private school students, 10% to 3%

Socially engineered, Constitutionally invalid, and less qualified. Hats off to the liars and crooked politicians who played identity politics and lost.

If you understood this area of the law, you would understand the difference between the underlying disparate impact and the remedy. This will never satisfy people like you who disagree that a public program that has a disparate impact on one segment of society is a problem. You think it is fine (if it benefits you); the law says otherwise.

Also, "qualified to attend a public school" is going to be a hurdle to get over too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think a class action lawsuit by those applicants rejected last year against Brabrand and board members would be possible and likely to succeed?

There's no way. Granting a settlement in a class action lawsuit to applicants who were rejected in a holistic selective admissions process would open up an enormous can of worms.

Federal judge has determined that those applicants’ constitutional rights were violated and they were discriminated against by fcps so class action is a distinct possibility. You know how these lawyers are - they will file if they smell money or fame.

Those morons should be left homeless for what they did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think a class action lawsuit by those applicants rejected last year against Brabrand and board members would be possible and likely to succeed?

There's no way. Granting a settlement in a class action lawsuit to applicants who were rejected in a holistic selective admissions process would open up an enormous can of worms.

Federal judge has determined that those applicants’ constitutional rights were violated and they were discriminated against by fcps so class action is a distinct possibility. You know how these lawyers are - they will file if they smell money or fame.

Oh, I believe 100% that they might file. But someone asked if they'd be likely to succeed, and the answer is no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Nope.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He actually doesn't. When you read the opinion, you begin to understand why Hilton is stuck where he is in him career despite his advanced age and level of experience.

What he does do is explain where FCPS officials made it blindingly obvious that their intent was to create a racial demographic that looked more like the catchment area that it serves than the previous admissions process. What he also does is assert that the results of the new admissions process in comparison with the previous one had the impact that was intended by a simple statistical comparison.

What he does not discuss on any level is the extent to which the previous admissions process was racially discriminatory. If one seeks to use data comparison as a basis for disparate impact of policy, they need only look at the difference between the demographics of the catchment areas and the eventual results of the old admissions process. Those deltas are MUCH more significant than the deltas between the old admissions process and the new one. Neither is adequate to use as evidence, but if we're talking about disparate impact, you're a moron if you can't see that the old process was racially discriminatory.

Additionally, Hilton made absolutely no reference in any of his 31 pages to any arguments made by FCPS during the initial hearing - which means one of two things: either a) Hilton did not do his job in issuing a summary judgment of addressing why FCPS' defense was invalid, or b) FCPS made no legitimate effort to defend their process. I actually believe b) to be more likely in this case. Based on the behavior and processes of the Board members, it appears that you have the wrong people doing the right thing for the wrong reasons - and that's a damn shame.

The entire foundation of your argument of targeting a certain group is discriminatory. Case closed.

I suspect that you meant something different than what you said here. Care to clarify?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry typo on my phone.

Here are the demographic changes from class or 2024 to 2025.
> more students from all over the county; every single MS is now represented
> more students from ED backgrounds, going from <1% to 25% of the freshman class
(27% of FCPS students are ED)
> more Hispanic students, 3% to 11% (27% of FCPS)
> more black/mixed students, 6% to 13% (16%)
> more white students, 18% to 22% (38%)
> more female students, 42% to 46% (48%)
> fewer Asian students, 73% to 54% (20%)
> fewer private school students, 10% to 3%

Socially engineered, Constitutionally invalid, and less qualified. Hats off to the liars and crooked politicians who played identity politics and lost.

If you understood this area of the law, you would understand the difference between the underlying disparate impact and the remedy. This will never satisfy people like you who disagree that a public program that has a disparate impact on one segment of society is a problem. You think it is fine (if it benefits you); the law says otherwise.

Also, "qualified to attend a public school" is going to be a hurdle to get over too.

Not sure which side you're on here, but there is no way the admissions practices at TJ have a disparate impact on Asians under any definition of that term. Before they were were very grossly overrepresented, and not they are merely grossly overrepresented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry typo on my phone.

Here are the demographic changes from class or 2024 to 2025.
> more students from all over the county; every single MS is now represented
> more students from ED backgrounds, going from <1% to 25% of the freshman class
(27% of FCPS students are ED)
> more Hispanic students, 3% to 11% (27% of FCPS)
> more black/mixed students, 6% to 13% (16%)
> more white students, 18% to 22% (38%)
> more female students, 42% to 46% (48%)
> fewer Asian students, 73% to 54% (20%)
> fewer private school students, 10% to 3%

Socially engineered, Constitutionally invalid, and less qualified. Hats off to the liars and crooked politicians who played identity politics and lost.

If you understood this area of the law, you would understand the difference between the underlying disparate impact and the remedy. This will never satisfy people like you who disagree that a public program that has a disparate impact on one segment of society is a problem. You think it is fine (if it benefits you); the law says otherwise.

Also, "qualified to attend a public school" is going to be a hurdle to get over too.

Not sure which side you're on here, but there is no way the admissions practices at TJ have a disparate impact on Asians under any definition of that term. Before they were were very grossly overrepresented, and not they are merely grossly overrepresented.

* now