Va. committee passes bill banning admissions discrimination

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://wtop.com/virginia/2022/03/va-senate-passes-bill-banning-admissions-discrimination/amp/
“The bottom line is the (TJ) policy was adopted in order to, frankly, reduce the number of Asian Americans that were attending Thomas Jefferson,” Sen. Chap Petersen said. “And all you have to do is look at all the public comments that were being made at the time.”

Where does this bill stand presently ? 5/6/22.

It passed but with absolutely no teeth to it whatsoever. It's not relevant to TJ. It got gutted when it went through the Senate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What a stupid bill. Discrimination is already banned by federal law. This bill does literally nothing except try to score political points.

+1

[Anonymous]

I love all the sports analogies. Dumb asses jabbering on in a totally useless way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://wtop.com/virginia/2022/03/va-senate-passes-bill-banning-admissions-discrimination/amp/
“The bottom line is the (TJ) policy was adopted in order to, frankly, reduce the number of Asian Americans that were attending Thomas Jefferson,” Sen. Chap Petersen said. “And all you have to do is look at all the public comments that were being made at the time.”

Weird I thought it was adopted to foster inclusion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting to see that majority DCUM posters are liberals (BTW, it's not surprising). Since this thread, the AAP forum has been extremely quiet.

I'm honestly not sure that's true. THere an awful lot of posts here that espouse views advocated by the likes of Tucker Carlson and other Fox News personalities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+100

Some of the greatest point guards are relatively short.

Even in basketball there are different skill sets and different positions that come together to make a better team. They aren’t all super tall defenders.

Not to mention there are characteristics beyond just height and even skill set that contribute to a good team. Very few high school team sports coaches simply select the best players.

How do you define best? Is this those with the most natural skill that have the best potential or those that have had the most exposure and outside coaching but are at the limit of their ability?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+100

Some of the greatest point guards are relatively short.

Even in basketball there are different skill sets and different positions that come together to make a better team. They aren’t all super tall defenders.

Not to mention there are characteristics beyond just height and even skill set that contribute to a good team. Very few high school team sports coaches simply select the best players.

How do you define best? Is this those with the most natural skill that have the best potential or those that have had the most exposure and outside coaching but are at the limit of their ability?

You don’t. You put together the group of individuals who you think will make the best team - the group whose skill sets complement each other.

You don’t want to hear this, but it’s an art, not a science.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+100

Some of the greatest point guards are relatively short.

Even in basketball there are different skill sets and different positions that come together to make a better team. They aren’t all super tall defenders.

Not to mention there are characteristics beyond just height and even skill set that contribute to a good team. Very few high school team sports coaches simply select the best players.

How do you define best? Is this those with the most natural skill that have the best potential or those that have had the most exposure and outside coaching but are at the limit of their ability?

You don’t. You put together the group of individuals who you think will make the best team - the group whose skill sets complement each other.

You don’t want to hear this, but it’s an art, not a science.

Same thing for the most successful college admissions processes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting to see that majority DCUM posters are liberals (BTW, it's not surprising). Since this thread, the AAP forum has been extremely quiet.

I'm honestly not sure that's true. THere an awful lot of posts here that espouse views advocated by the likes of Tucker Carlson and other Fox News personalities.

Yup. They parrot the hacks trying to get a spot on Tucker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting to see that majority DCUM posters are liberals (BTW, it's not surprising). Since this thread, the AAP forum has been extremely quiet.

I'm honestly not sure that's true. THere an awful lot of posts here that espouse views advocated by the likes of Tucker Carlson and other Fox News personalities.

Yup. They parrot the hacks trying to get a spot on Tucker.

Precisely. It's important to remember that the folks on the highest levels of the Coalition's front lines have one primary motivation - to leverage the TJ situation into personal brand advancement. Asra Nomani had about 50K Twitter followers when this saga began. Now she has over 80K followers and brand new positions at the IWF and PDE, and is a regular Fox News contributor. These people pretend to be about YOU but they are really about THEMSELVES.

You don't see folks on the local pro-reform side angling for TV spots on MSNBC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://wtop.com/virginia/2022/03/va-senate-passes-bill-banning-admissions-discrimination/amp/
“The bottom line is the (TJ) policy was adopted in order to, frankly, reduce the number of Asian Americans that were attending Thomas Jefferson,” Sen. Chap Petersen said. “And all you have to do is look at all the public comments that were being made at the time.”

Where does this bill stand presently ? 5/6/22.

It passed but with absolutely no teeth to it whatsoever. It's not relevant to TJ. It got gutted when it went through the Senate.

This was already illegal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting to see that majority DCUM posters are liberals (BTW, it's not surprising). Since this thread, the AAP forum has been extremely quiet.

I'm honestly not sure that's true. THere an awful lot of posts here that espouse views advocated by the likes of Tucker Carlson and other Fox News personalities.

Yup. They parrot the hacks trying to get a spot on Tucker.

Precisely. It's important to remember that the folks on the highest levels of the Coalition's front lines have one primary motivation - to leverage the TJ situation into personal brand advancement. Asra Nomani had about 50K Twitter followers when this saga began. Now she has over 80K followers and brand new positions at the IWF and PDE, and is a regular Fox News contributor. These people pretend to be about YOU but they are really about THEMSELVES.

You don't see folks on the local pro-reform side angling for TV spots on MSNBC.

She probably got the 50k when she wrote her Trumphumper op-ed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting to see that majority DCUM posters are liberals (BTW, it's not surprising). Since this thread, the AAP forum has been extremely quiet.

I'm honestly not sure that's true. THere an awful lot of posts here that espouse views advocated by the likes of Tucker Carlson and other Fox News personalities.

Yup. They parrot the hacks trying to get a spot on Tucker.

Precisely. It's important to remember that the folks on the highest levels of the Coalition's front lines have one primary motivation - to leverage the TJ situation into personal brand advancement. Asra Nomani had about 50K Twitter followers when this saga began. Now she has over 80K followers and brand new positions at the IWF and PDE, and is a regular Fox News contributor. These people pretend to be about YOU but they are really about THEMSELVES.

You don't see folks on the local pro-reform side angling for TV spots on MSNBC.

She probably got the 50k when she wrote her Trumphumper op-ed.

Her son - currently in college - is quite open about how embarrassed he is of her on a regular basis.

Remember the tweet where she screeched about how the TJ alums who are in favor of admissions reform must hate their parents? There you go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting to see that majority DCUM posters are liberals (BTW, it's not surprising). Since this thread, the AAP forum has been extremely quiet.

I'm honestly not sure that's true. THere an awful lot of posts here that espouse views advocated by the likes of Tucker Carlson and other Fox News personalities.

Yup. They parrot the hacks trying to get a spot on Tucker.

I've never closely tied myself to any political party. In the past, I've voted for a number of different parties, based on circumstances. I don't make a point of watching Fox News.

That being said, the us-good, them-bad guilt-by-association narratives - which are so commonly pushed by increasingly irrelevant Democratic shills - get very tedious after a while.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+100

Some of the greatest point guards are relatively short.

Even in basketball there are different skill sets and different positions that come together to make a better team. They aren’t all super tall defenders.

Not to mention there are characteristics beyond just height and even skill set that contribute to a good team. Very few high school team sports coaches simply select the best players.

How do you define best? Is this those with the most natural skill that have the best potential or those that have had the most exposure and outside coaching but are at the limit of their ability?

Those that went to Curie.