Coalition4TJ’s request to block TJ admissions process DENIED 6-3 by Supreme Court

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I understand both sides of the argument, and both have good points. But to me, the main problem is that TJ should never have been set up this way in the first place. TJ is publicly funded. It was always very questionable to set up a public school in such a manner that taxpayers have to fund with their property taxes but can't send their children there.

If any of the successful TJ alumni want to set up a private school to carry on the tradition, have at it. But to me, this has always been an inappropriate way to operate a publicly funded high school.

Uhhh, I pay for the school basketball team through my taxes and can't send my kids to play on the team.

+1 - Public schools spend a lot of money and resources on sports that are super competitive. My kid loves swimming and wanted to get into HS swim team, but couldn't qualify. All I thought at the time was my kid wasn't good enough. May be we should have complained that the kids who got selected in trials paid a lot of money for swim schools/coaches, swim team memberships that we couldn't afford i.e., time or money. Obviously we don't have the leg up in the game. Now I think its totally unfair and we should demand a quota for kids who are not 'prepped' for the sports and may be if my kid were given a chance and she would have done quite well - who knows?.

OMG, not this again. When will you grasp that sports are not the same as public education? The analogy is flawed. Please move on.

Right, sport superstars make lot more money than academic superstars . In addition, the main FOCUS/PURPOSE of public schools is to educate not sports.

Not sure I understand - So if something is a "main focus/purpose" then equity applies, but if its not the main focus/purpose we have a competitive merit based process for it? Please explain when merit should apply and when it should not.

No I think you misunderstand. All children deserve equal access to these programs. Not just ones whose parents can afford outside enrichment. Spots on the other hand have noting to do with school. As far as I'm concerned they shouldn't be something the county pays for but if they are yes they should provide equal access to all students. The NBA however can operate however it wants.

Depends on how you define "equal access". If you mean anyone can attend if they chose to, then that's an asinine contention. The reality of the world is that most "access" is the result of some prior choice or effort. A person can't start working at a federal job just by enrolling - they have to apply, they have to satisfy the requirements, and then they have to engage in competition against other candidates. There is a reason why the goals of free men in a liberal democracy were characterized by the Declaration of Independence as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness because no one is guaranteed the results they want just by showing up, but they are free to pursue it.

Why not let them try and if they don't maintain a certain standard, demote them back to their base school? That gives a year for them to try and make the cut vs. some highly manufactured application and test score that they've prepped for?

Normally, I might agree with this sentiment. My issue is that trying TJ for a year and then dropping back to the base school undoubtedly will harm kids significantly. They will feel like failures and have worse grades for college admissions than they would have had if they remained at base school. I think it's great to give kids a chance if you have every expectation that they're likely to succeed. It's morally questionable to push kids into TJ who aren't ready, just to score political points, and then wash your hands of them as soon as they struggle.

Some sort of baseline proficiency test and teacher recommendations would go a long way toward ensuring that kids are not being set up to fail.

[Anonymous]

We should definitely open up high school sports team. Public high school sports have nothing to do with preparing athletes for pro sports. Those have that goal in mind should seek private clubs. They are meant to be an integral part of high school education experience.

We need to allocate more slots for Asians. The existing policy is not equitable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I just want to take a 50,000 ft view of the issues being debated here. The fact that the current Supreme Court, as conservative as they are. still let the new admissions policy stand should be a signal that the war is lost. Even if there will still be changes to the new admissions system, it seems highly unlikely to ever go back to the way it was.

I sympathize with the old admissions system, but I also don't think it was ever appropriate to set up a public school in this way. This is what private schools should be for. A private school can offer financial aid to those who can't afford it.

I also think all TJ parents need to take a step back and consider whether TJ is really the best thing for their kids. Having so many high-achieving kids clumped together in that school actually makes it harder for them to be accepted to a top school. MIT isn't going to admit 50 TJ kids in any given year. It is very much harder to stand out there. I get that iron sharpens iron, but it also comes with a significant risk of having nothing to show for all the effort than if they had just gone to their local high school.

I married into an Asian family, and I know that many times the drive to go TJ is from the parents who demand the kids to go to the "best" school or the "prestigious" school without considering that it is more than likely not going to be the big stepping stone they think it will be. Even the guy who wrote the op-ed in the Washington Post, while I respect his accomplishments, he could gotten into the Naval Academy and had all his success coming from any of the other excellent public schools in the area, because kids do it all the time. It's not like he invented the iPhone or made the next major scientific discovery, which is what the intense nature of TJ would lead one to believe is going to happen.

You must be high. I also don't have a dog in this fight but it's not clear at all that this racist admissions policy will be allowed to stand in the long term. Roberts has been very vocal about his negative view on affirmative action and any other racially motificated government policies that discriminate on the basis of race, even if it is done through proxies of facially neutral measures. Note that the Supreme Court's decision on the application to vacate is not a ruling on the merits of the case, but consideration of procedural/administrative issues. In this case, I suspect that Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh considered the potential impact on the current batch of students if the stay was vacated, because FCPS did not prepare for an alternative admission process. Despite concerns of students having their constitutional rights violated by the new admissions policy, the courts, including SCOTUS, tend to let existing procedures stand unless there was some serious procedural error made in the appeals court.

Now, onto the rest of your points. I don't understand why you find selectivity to be an issue for publicly funded educational institutions. Are you saying there should be no public colleges, and that if we do have public colleges, every single one of them should admit every student that applies? Aside from admissions, there are a lot of achievement-based opportunities and privileges even inside any given public high school. A student doesn't go into the next level of higher math until they've achieved a sufficient grade in a prerequisite class. Just because the bar is often set fairly low doesn't change the fact that there is a bar, and that failing students do not advance. Being able to take the next level class is not automatic, but an earned privilege that is the outcome of some prior achievement. Being able to get into TJ based on demonstrated merit is the same concept in this sense.

The rest of your rationalizing about whether TJ is healthy or unhealthy, and the existence of alternatives is relevant to exactly one person: you. These are subjective opinions and are no more valid than any one else's, including those of parents who find that the rigor of TJ is a great fit for their kids, and that it is the place where their kids can obtain a superior education and be exceptionally well prepared for future studies and professional work in STEM fields.

Lastly, none of what you wrote, regardless of the underlying logic and passion, excuses the fact that the new admissions policy was implemented with racist intent and effect. Shame on you for making excuses for its continued existence.

Well said!

I'm the PP. I respect your viewpoints, though you undermined yourself by starting out with an immature comment about being high. I'm a lawyer, and I understand the procedural issues involved, but the court could have stopped it, and the fact is that they didn't. This is going to go on for years, and in the meantime the new system is going to be entrenched.

As to your question about selective admission of public institutions, I am only speaking of secondary and lower schools. This is much more personal for people than at at the college level. For 100 years, people have been trained to see a direct connection between their local property taxes and their local schools. I think it sticks in the craw of a lot of people who live near TJ that they can't attend their local school by right. And to make matters worse, this school is located in an area with a lot of people who can't afford the extended tutoring sessions and consulting needed to have a good shot at attending the school. The local kids close to TJ are also not in the attendance zones of the top "feeder" schools to TJ. Thus, the perception among many people is that lower income people are subsidizing MC and UMC kids most of whose parents could afford a private school or increased tutoring.

From that perspective, I think TJ has been begging for a challenge to its system for a long time. If the school was nestled safely away in Great Falls or Mclean, the perception of privilege wouldn't be so "in your face". Just looking at if from a 50,000 ft view, as a I said, the old system is not likely to ever come back, and I would say with certainty that whatever new system is eventually put in place, it is going to look a lot more like the current system than the old test system.

So, to sum up, I think the parents in the lawsuit, rather than spending their treasure on lawyers, would be better off endowing a new private school with all of the rigor they want for TJ.

And my final note being again, TJ doesn't really lead to any different outcomes for kids than any other of the great public and open schools around here. While the kids may want that educational experience, considering the above, the TJ parents should be required to send them to a private school to get it.

In the end, that's what we are really debating. The TJ parents want a free ride for this enhanced experience. And the other side is saying, no, either open it up to more people or make a regular high school. I don't see how the TJ parents are going to win this fight in the end.

I'm the PP you intended to reply to. The "high" comment was a sarcastic reference to your "50,000 ft view". I am not a lawyer, but it's clear to me that you do not understand the procedural issues involved because you failed to mention them. Even now you are just making a superficial observation that the court could have vacated the stay but didn't, without giving any nuanced consideration as to why they acted in the way that they did that would support your claim that the "war is lost". Your reference to the new system becoming entrenched ignores the fact that intervening cases such as the one regarding Harvard and UNC will have set the necessary standards for the upcoming review in the appeals court. Of course, no one knows how the Harvard and UNC cases will turn out, but that is precisely the point: it's premature to claim that the "war is lost" for anyone who is informed on the topic at hand, whether it is the underlying facts, merits of the arguments, or the procedures of the courts. You appear to have little to no grasp of any of these concepts.

Your original statement only mentioned "public schools". Your current attempt to draw distinctions among selective admissions of public institutions, limiting your scope to only secondary and lower schools, is completely arbitrary. You've provided no rational basis for making such a distinction based on facts or principles. While a student has a by-right privilege to attend their local high school, that privilege is not absolute - there are grounds for expulsion. In other words, the students have to meet a standard of conduct in order to remain in their local public high school. Again, just because the bar is set very low doesn't change the fact that there is a standard that must be met. Warm feelings based on proximity to an institution are not a recognized justification for admissions. People who are generational residents of Charlottesville VA do not enjoy automatic admissions into UVA. If you want to pursue an argument based on people feeling attachment to the schools they attend, this attachment is much stronger for colleges vs secondary and primary schools. When was the last time a fellow lawyer told you what high school he attended instead of which college or law school they went to?

Once again, whether you think TJ leads to a better outcome, whether it is a good school choice, matters only to you. Other parents can and do feel differently and their subjective preferences are just as valid as yours. Your continued insistence that you know better than other parents about what's good for their kids shows that you need some training in recognizing and controlling hubris.

Per your final note, you seem to be entirely unaware of the fact that TJ is funded by state and local taxes paid for by people who live in nearby counties, including parents of students that attend TJ. Given the often-cited statistics of TJ students coming from mostly affluent families, these same parents are likely the ones who pay the higher tax rates and own more expensive homes, and therefore pay higher property taxes. To the extent that they are among the upper end of the tax payment percentiles, they effectively subsidize the social services enjoyed by those who pay less taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I just want to take a 50,000 ft view of the issues being debated here. The fact that the current Supreme Court, as conservative as they are. still let the new admissions policy stand should be a signal that the war is lost. Even if there will still be changes to the new admissions system, it seems highly unlikely to ever go back to the way it was.

I sympathize with the old admissions system, but I also don't think it was ever appropriate to set up a public school in this way. This is what private schools should be for. A private school can offer financial aid to those who can't afford it.

I also think all TJ parents need to take a step back and consider whether TJ is really the best thing for their kids. Having so many high-achieving kids clumped together in that school actually makes it harder for them to be accepted to a top school. MIT isn't going to admit 50 TJ kids in any given year. It is very much harder to stand out there. I get that iron sharpens iron, but it also comes with a significant risk of having nothing to show for all the effort than if they had just gone to their local high school.

I married into an Asian family, and I know that many times the drive to go TJ is from the parents who demand the kids to go to the "best" school or the "prestigious" school without considering that it is more than likely not going to be the big stepping stone they think it will be. Even the guy who wrote the op-ed in the Washington Post, while I respect his accomplishments, he could gotten into the Naval Academy and had all his success coming from any of the other excellent public schools in the area, because kids do it all the time. It's not like he invented the iPhone or made the next major scientific discovery, which is what the intense nature of TJ would lead one to believe is going to happen.

You must be high. I also don't have a dog in this fight but it's not clear at all that this racist admissions policy will be allowed to stand in the long term. Roberts has been very vocal about his negative view on affirmative action and any other racially motificated government policies that discriminate on the basis of race, even if it is done through proxies of facially neutral measures. Note that the Supreme Court's decision on the application to vacate is not a ruling on the merits of the case, but consideration of procedural/administrative issues. In this case, I suspect that Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh considered the potential impact on the current batch of students if the stay was vacated, because FCPS did not prepare for an alternative admission process. Despite concerns of students having their constitutional rights violated by the new admissions policy, the courts, including SCOTUS, tend to let existing procedures stand unless there was some serious procedural error made in the appeals court.

Now, onto the rest of your points. I don't understand why you find selectivity to be an issue for publicly funded educational institutions. Are you saying there should be no public colleges, and that if we do have public colleges, every single one of them should admit every student that applies? Aside from admissions, there are a lot of achievement-based opportunities and privileges even inside any given public high school. A student doesn't go into the next level of higher math until they've achieved a sufficient grade in a prerequisite class. Just because the bar is often set fairly low doesn't change the fact that there is a bar, and that failing students do not advance. Being able to take the next level class is not automatic, but an earned privilege that is the outcome of some prior achievement. Being able to get into TJ based on demonstrated merit is the same concept in this sense.

The rest of your rationalizing about whether TJ is healthy or unhealthy, and the existence of alternatives is relevant to exactly one person: you. These are subjective opinions and are no more valid than any one else's, including those of parents who find that the rigor of TJ is a great fit for their kids, and that it is the place where their kids can obtain a superior education and be exceptionally well prepared for future studies and professional work in STEM fields.

Lastly, none of what you wrote, regardless of the underlying logic and passion, excuses the fact that the new admissions policy was implemented with racist intent and effect. Shame on you for making excuses for its continued existence.

Well said!

It's not racist to want to include a broader cross section of Fairfax County. Basically anything that reduced Asian representation would be called racist. That people think there can't be a change in policy the might change the racial composition of TJ so Asians aren't 60-70 percent of the school indefinitely seems crazy. It's a public school and its admissions should not be skewed toward people who can afford $4,000 test prep centers. Then those who pay for those prep centers claim their kids are just inherently more intelligent and so more deserving than other kids who don't score as high on the test without equivalent prep. If your kid is so inherently bright, they'll succeed anywhere. Why all the angst?

If that "broader cross section" is done on the basis of race, it is racist and illegal per our laws. Go ask black people "why all the angst" when they were raging against the racist laws during the civil rights movement.

The new policy does not mention race. It's based on allocation slots to various middle schools and a lottery.

For the n-th time for the benefit of the ignorant - facially neutral policies implemented with racist intent are still illegal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I understand both sides of the argument, and both have good points. But to me, the main problem is that TJ should never have been set up this way in the first place. TJ is publicly funded. It was always very questionable to set up a public school in such a manner that taxpayers have to fund with their property taxes but can't send their children there.

If any of the successful TJ alumni want to set up a private school to carry on the tradition, have at it. But to me, this has always been an inappropriate way to operate a publicly funded high school.

Uhhh, I pay for the school basketball team through my taxes and can't send my kids to play on the team.

+1 - Public schools spend a lot of money and resources on sports that are super competitive. My kid loves swimming and wanted to get into HS swim team, but couldn't qualify. All I thought at the time was my kid wasn't good enough. May be we should have complained that the kids who got selected in trials paid a lot of money for swim schools/coaches, swim team memberships that we couldn't afford i.e., time or money. Obviously we don't have the leg up in the game. Now I think its totally unfair and we should demand a quota for kids who are not 'prepped' for the sports and may be if my kid were given a chance and she would have done quite well - who knows?.

OMG, not this again. When will you grasp that sports are not the same as public education? The analogy is flawed. Please move on.

Right, sport superstars make lot more money than academic superstars . In addition, the main FOCUS/PURPOSE of public schools is to educate not sports.

Not sure I understand - So if something is a "main focus/purpose" then equity applies, but if its not the main focus/purpose we have a competitive merit based process for it? Please explain when merit should apply and when it should not.

No I think you misunderstand. All children deserve equal access to these programs. Not just ones whose parents can afford outside enrichment. Spots on the other hand have noting to do with school. As far as I'm concerned they shouldn't be something the county pays for but if they are yes they should provide equal access to all students. The NBA however can operate however it wants.

Depends on how you define "equal access". If you mean anyone can attend if they chose to, then that's an asinine contention. The reality of the world is that most "access" is the result of some prior choice or effort. A person can't start working at a federal job just by enrolling - they have to apply, they have to satisfy the requirements, and then they have to engage in competition against other candidates. There is a reason why the goals of free men in a liberal democracy were characterized by the Declaration of Independence as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness because no one is guaranteed the results they want just by showing up, but they are free to pursue it.

Why not let them try and if they don't maintain a certain standard, demote them back to their base school? That gives a year for them to try and make the cut vs. some highly manufactured application and test score that they've prepped for?

No, "happiness" in this case is admissions into TJ, and the pursuit is competing for admissions into TJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I just want to take a 50,000 ft view of the issues being debated here. The fact that the current Supreme Court, as conservative as they are. still let the new admissions policy stand should be a signal that the war is lost. Even if there will still be changes to the new admissions system, it seems highly unlikely to ever go back to the way it was.

I sympathize with the old admissions system, but I also don't think it was ever appropriate to set up a public school in this way. This is what private schools should be for. A private school can offer financial aid to those who can't afford it.

I also think all TJ parents need to take a step back and consider whether TJ is really the best thing for their kids. Having so many high-achieving kids clumped together in that school actually makes it harder for them to be accepted to a top school. MIT isn't going to admit 50 TJ kids in any given year. It is very much harder to stand out there. I get that iron sharpens iron, but it also comes with a significant risk of having nothing to show for all the effort than if they had just gone to their local high school.

I married into an Asian family, and I know that many times the drive to go TJ is from the parents who demand the kids to go to the "best" school or the "prestigious" school without considering that it is more than likely not going to be the big stepping stone they think it will be. Even the guy who wrote the op-ed in the Washington Post, while I respect his accomplishments, he could gotten into the Naval Academy and had all his success coming from any of the other excellent public schools in the area, because kids do it all the time. It's not like he invented the iPhone or made the next major scientific discovery, which is what the intense nature of TJ would lead one to believe is going to happen.

You must be high. I also don't have a dog in this fight but it's not clear at all that this racist admissions policy will be allowed to stand in the long term. Roberts has been very vocal about his negative view on affirmative action and any other racially motificated government policies that discriminate on the basis of race, even if it is done through proxies of facially neutral measures. Note that the Supreme Court's decision on the application to vacate is not a ruling on the merits of the case, but consideration of procedural/administrative issues. In this case, I suspect that Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh considered the potential impact on the current batch of students if the stay was vacated, because FCPS did not prepare for an alternative admission process. Despite concerns of students having their constitutional rights violated by the new admissions policy, the courts, including SCOTUS, tend to let existing procedures stand unless there was some serious procedural error made in the appeals court.

Now, onto the rest of your points. I don't understand why you find selectivity to be an issue for publicly funded educational institutions. Are you saying there should be no public colleges, and that if we do have public colleges, every single one of them should admit every student that applies? Aside from admissions, there are a lot of achievement-based opportunities and privileges even inside any given public high school. A student doesn't go into the next level of higher math until they've achieved a sufficient grade in a prerequisite class. Just because the bar is often set fairly low doesn't change the fact that there is a bar, and that failing students do not advance. Being able to take the next level class is not automatic, but an earned privilege that is the outcome of some prior achievement. Being able to get into TJ based on demonstrated merit is the same concept in this sense.

The rest of your rationalizing about whether TJ is healthy or unhealthy, and the existence of alternatives is relevant to exactly one person: you. These are subjective opinions and are no more valid than any one else's, including those of parents who find that the rigor of TJ is a great fit for their kids, and that it is the place where their kids can obtain a superior education and be exceptionally well prepared for future studies and professional work in STEM fields.

Lastly, none of what you wrote, regardless of the underlying logic and passion, excuses the fact that the new admissions policy was implemented with racist intent and effect. Shame on you for making excuses for its continued existence.

Well said!

It's not racist to want to include a broader cross section of Fairfax County. Basically anything that reduced Asian representation would be called racist. That people think there can't be a change in policy the might change the racial composition of TJ so Asians aren't 60-70 percent of the school indefinitely seems crazy. It's a public school and its admissions should not be skewed toward people who can afford $4,000 test prep centers. Then those who pay for those prep centers claim their kids are just inherently more intelligent and so more deserving than other kids who don't score as high on the test without equivalent prep. If your kid is so inherently bright, they'll succeed anywhere. Why all the angst?

If that "broader cross section" is done on the basis of race, it is racist and illegal per our laws. Go ask black people "why all the angst" when they were raging against the racist laws during the civil rights movement.

The new policy does not mention race. It's based on allocation slots to various middle schools and a lottery.

For the n-th time for the benefit of the ignorant - facially neutral policies implemented with racist intent are still illegal.

You'll lose on this. The intent was to reduce overrepresentation which is not racist. If whites were overrepresented it wouldn't be "racist" to make more opportunities available to members of other groups. I'm reallyt tired of listening to your allegation of "racism" Again, plaintiffs are going to lose on this one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I just want to take a 50,000 ft view of the issues being debated here. The fact that the current Supreme Court, as conservative as they are. still let the new admissions policy stand should be a signal that the war is lost. Even if there will still be changes to the new admissions system, it seems highly unlikely to ever go back to the way it was.

I sympathize with the old admissions system, but I also don't think it was ever appropriate to set up a public school in this way. This is what private schools should be for. A private school can offer financial aid to those who can't afford it.

I also think all TJ parents need to take a step back and consider whether TJ is really the best thing for their kids. Having so many high-achieving kids clumped together in that school actually makes it harder for them to be accepted to a top school. MIT isn't going to admit 50 TJ kids in any given year. It is very much harder to stand out there. I get that iron sharpens iron, but it also comes with a significant risk of having nothing to show for all the effort than if they had just gone to their local high school.

I married into an Asian family, and I know that many times the drive to go TJ is from the parents who demand the kids to go to the "best" school or the "prestigious" school without considering that it is more than likely not going to be the big stepping stone they think it will be. Even the guy who wrote the op-ed in the Washington Post, while I respect his accomplishments, he could gotten into the Naval Academy and had all his success coming from any of the other excellent public schools in the area, because kids do it all the time. It's not like he invented the iPhone or made the next major scientific discovery, which is what the intense nature of TJ would lead one to believe is going to happen.

You must be high. I also don't have a dog in this fight but it's not clear at all that this racist admissions policy will be allowed to stand in the long term. Roberts has been very vocal about his negative view on affirmative action and any other racially motificated government policies that discriminate on the basis of race, even if it is done through proxies of facially neutral measures. Note that the Supreme Court's decision on the application to vacate is not a ruling on the merits of the case, but consideration of procedural/administrative issues. In this case, I suspect that Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh considered the potential impact on the current batch of students if the stay was vacated, because FCPS did not prepare for an alternative admission process. Despite concerns of students having their constitutional rights violated by the new admissions policy, the courts, including SCOTUS, tend to let existing procedures stand unless there was some serious procedural error made in the appeals court.

Now, onto the rest of your points. I don't understand why you find selectivity to be an issue for publicly funded educational institutions. Are you saying there should be no public colleges, and that if we do have public colleges, every single one of them should admit every student that applies? Aside from admissions, there are a lot of achievement-based opportunities and privileges even inside any given public high school. A student doesn't go into the next level of higher math until they've achieved a sufficient grade in a prerequisite class. Just because the bar is often set fairly low doesn't change the fact that there is a bar, and that failing students do not advance. Being able to take the next level class is not automatic, but an earned privilege that is the outcome of some prior achievement. Being able to get into TJ based on demonstrated merit is the same concept in this sense.

The rest of your rationalizing about whether TJ is healthy or unhealthy, and the existence of alternatives is relevant to exactly one person: you. These are subjective opinions and are no more valid than any one else's, including those of parents who find that the rigor of TJ is a great fit for their kids, and that it is the place where their kids can obtain a superior education and be exceptionally well prepared for future studies and professional work in STEM fields.

Lastly, none of what you wrote, regardless of the underlying logic and passion, excuses the fact that the new admissions policy was implemented with racist intent and effect. Shame on you for making excuses for its continued existence.

Well said!

It's not racist to want to include a broader cross section of Fairfax County. Basically anything that reduced Asian representation would be called racist. That people think there can't be a change in policy the might change the racial composition of TJ so Asians aren't 60-70 percent of the school indefinitely seems crazy. It's a public school and its admissions should not be skewed toward people who can afford $4,000 test prep centers. Then those who pay for those prep centers claim their kids are just inherently more intelligent and so more deserving than other kids who don't score as high on the test without equivalent prep. If your kid is so inherently bright, they'll succeed anywhere. Why all the angst?

If that "broader cross section" is done on the basis of race, it is racist and illegal per our laws. Go ask black people "why all the angst" when they were raging against the racist laws during the civil rights movement.

The new policy does not mention race. It's based on allocation slots to various middle schools and a lottery.

For the n-th time for the benefit of the ignorant - facially neutral policies implemented with racist intent are still illegal.

Wanting to serve a broader cross section of the county isn't racist. It's valid to want more kids from each MS admitted to TJ. Asian kids from all middle schools are given the same opportunity as everyone else under the new system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I just want to take a 50,000 ft view of the issues being debated here. The fact that the current Supreme Court, as conservative as they are. still let the new admissions policy stand should be a signal that the war is lost. Even if there will still be changes to the new admissions system, it seems highly unlikely to ever go back to the way it was.

I sympathize with the old admissions system, but I also don't think it was ever appropriate to set up a public school in this way. This is what private schools should be for. A private school can offer financial aid to those who can't afford it.

I also think all TJ parents need to take a step back and consider whether TJ is really the best thing for their kids. Having so many high-achieving kids clumped together in that school actually makes it harder for them to be accepted to a top school. MIT isn't going to admit 50 TJ kids in any given year. It is very much harder to stand out there. I get that iron sharpens iron, but it also comes with a significant risk of having nothing to show for all the effort than if they had just gone to their local high school.

I married into an Asian family, and I know that many times the drive to go TJ is from the parents who demand the kids to go to the "best" school or the "prestigious" school without considering that it is more than likely not going to be the big stepping stone they think it will be. Even the guy who wrote the op-ed in the Washington Post, while I respect his accomplishments, he could gotten into the Naval Academy and had all his success coming from any of the other excellent public schools in the area, because kids do it all the time. It's not like he invented the iPhone or made the next major scientific discovery, which is what the intense nature of TJ would lead one to believe is going to happen.

You must be high. I also don't have a dog in this fight but it's not clear at all that this racist admissions policy will be allowed to stand in the long term. Roberts has been very vocal about his negative view on affirmative action and any other racially motificated government policies that discriminate on the basis of race, even if it is done through proxies of facially neutral measures. Note that the Supreme Court's decision on the application to vacate is not a ruling on the merits of the case, but consideration of procedural/administrative issues. In this case, I suspect that Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh considered the potential impact on the current batch of students if the stay was vacated, because FCPS did not prepare for an alternative admission process. Despite concerns of students having their constitutional rights violated by the new admissions policy, the courts, including SCOTUS, tend to let existing procedures stand unless there was some serious procedural error made in the appeals court.

Now, onto the rest of your points. I don't understand why you find selectivity to be an issue for publicly funded educational institutions. Are you saying there should be no public colleges, and that if we do have public colleges, every single one of them should admit every student that applies? Aside from admissions, there are a lot of achievement-based opportunities and privileges even inside any given public high school. A student doesn't go into the next level of higher math until they've achieved a sufficient grade in a prerequisite class. Just because the bar is often set fairly low doesn't change the fact that there is a bar, and that failing students do not advance. Being able to take the next level class is not automatic, but an earned privilege that is the outcome of some prior achievement. Being able to get into TJ based on demonstrated merit is the same concept in this sense.

The rest of your rationalizing about whether TJ is healthy or unhealthy, and the existence of alternatives is relevant to exactly one person: you. These are subjective opinions and are no more valid than any one else's, including those of parents who find that the rigor of TJ is a great fit for their kids, and that it is the place where their kids can obtain a superior education and be exceptionally well prepared for future studies and professional work in STEM fields.

Lastly, none of what you wrote, regardless of the underlying logic and passion, excuses the fact that the new admissions policy was implemented with racist intent and effect. Shame on you for making excuses for its continued existence.

Well said!

It's not racist to want to include a broader cross section of Fairfax County. Basically anything that reduced Asian representation would be called racist. That people think there can't be a change in policy the might change the racial composition of TJ so Asians aren't 60-70 percent of the school indefinitely seems crazy. It's a public school and its admissions should not be skewed toward people who can afford $4,000 test prep centers. Then those who pay for those prep centers claim their kids are just inherently more intelligent and so more deserving than other kids who don't score as high on the test without equivalent prep. If your kid is so inherently bright, they'll succeed anywhere. Why all the angst?

If that "broader cross section" is done on the basis of race, it is racist and illegal per our laws. Go ask black people "why all the angst" when they were raging against the racist laws during the civil rights movement.

The new policy does not mention race. It's based on allocation slots to various middle schools and a lottery.

For the n-th time for the benefit of the ignorant - facially neutral policies implemented with racist intent are still illegal.

The 4th circuit seems to disagree with your framing of the issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I just want to take a 50,000 ft view of the issues being debated here. The fact that the current Supreme Court, as conservative as they are. still let the new admissions policy stand should be a signal that the war is lost. Even if there will still be changes to the new admissions system, it seems highly unlikely to ever go back to the way it was.

I sympathize with the old admissions system, but I also don't think it was ever appropriate to set up a public school in this way. This is what private schools should be for. A private school can offer financial aid to those who can't afford it.

I also think all TJ parents need to take a step back and consider whether TJ is really the best thing for their kids. Having so many high-achieving kids clumped together in that school actually makes it harder for them to be accepted to a top school. MIT isn't going to admit 50 TJ kids in any given year. It is very much harder to stand out there. I get that iron sharpens iron, but it also comes with a significant risk of having nothing to show for all the effort than if they had just gone to their local high school.

I married into an Asian family, and I know that many times the drive to go TJ is from the parents who demand the kids to go to the "best" school or the "prestigious" school without considering that it is more than likely not going to be the big stepping stone they think it will be. Even the guy who wrote the op-ed in the Washington Post, while I respect his accomplishments, he could gotten into the Naval Academy and had all his success coming from any of the other excellent public schools in the area, because kids do it all the time. It's not like he invented the iPhone or made the next major scientific discovery, which is what the intense nature of TJ would lead one to believe is going to happen.

You must be high. I also don't have a dog in this fight but it's not clear at all that this racist admissions policy will be allowed to stand in the long term. Roberts has been very vocal about his negative view on affirmative action and any other racially motificated government policies that discriminate on the basis of race, even if it is done through proxies of facially neutral measures. Note that the Supreme Court's decision on the application to vacate is not a ruling on the merits of the case, but consideration of procedural/administrative issues. In this case, I suspect that Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh considered the potential impact on the current batch of students if the stay was vacated, because FCPS did not prepare for an alternative admission process. Despite concerns of students having their constitutional rights violated by the new admissions policy, the courts, including SCOTUS, tend to let existing procedures stand unless there was some serious procedural error made in the appeals court.

Now, onto the rest of your points. I don't understand why you find selectivity to be an issue for publicly funded educational institutions. Are you saying there should be no public colleges, and that if we do have public colleges, every single one of them should admit every student that applies? Aside from admissions, there are a lot of achievement-based opportunities and privileges even inside any given public high school. A student doesn't go into the next level of higher math until they've achieved a sufficient grade in a prerequisite class. Just because the bar is often set fairly low doesn't change the fact that there is a bar, and that failing students do not advance. Being able to take the next level class is not automatic, but an earned privilege that is the outcome of some prior achievement. Being able to get into TJ based on demonstrated merit is the same concept in this sense.

The rest of your rationalizing about whether TJ is healthy or unhealthy, and the existence of alternatives is relevant to exactly one person: you. These are subjective opinions and are no more valid than any one else's, including those of parents who find that the rigor of TJ is a great fit for their kids, and that it is the place where their kids can obtain a superior education and be exceptionally well prepared for future studies and professional work in STEM fields.

Lastly, none of what you wrote, regardless of the underlying logic and passion, excuses the fact that the new admissions policy was implemented with racist intent and effect. Shame on you for making excuses for its continued existence.

Well said!

It's not racist to want to include a broader cross section of Fairfax County. Basically anything that reduced Asian representation would be called racist. That people think there can't be a change in policy the might change the racial composition of TJ so Asians aren't 60-70 percent of the school indefinitely seems crazy. It's a public school and its admissions should not be skewed toward people who can afford $4,000 test prep centers. Then those who pay for those prep centers claim their kids are just inherently more intelligent and so more deserving than other kids who don't score as high on the test without equivalent prep. If your kid is so inherently bright, they'll succeed anywhere. Why all the angst?

If that "broader cross section" is done on the basis of race, it is racist and illegal per our laws. Go ask black people "why all the angst" when they were raging against the racist laws during the civil rights movement.

The new policy does not mention race. It's based on allocation slots to various middle schools and a lottery.

For the n-th time for the benefit of the ignorant - facially neutral policies implemented with racist intent are still illegal.

You'll lose on this. The intent was to reduce overrepresentation which is not racist. If whites were overrepresented it wouldn't be "racist" to make more opportunities available to members of other groups. I'm reallyt tired of listening to your allegation of "racism" Again, plaintiffs are going to lose on this one.

LOL, racial balancing is unconstitutional and illegal. There is no argument here. Do some research before you post again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I just want to take a 50,000 ft view of the issues being debated here. The fact that the current Supreme Court, as conservative as they are. still let the new admissions policy stand should be a signal that the war is lost. Even if there will still be changes to the new admissions system, it seems highly unlikely to ever go back to the way it was.

I sympathize with the old admissions system, but I also don't think it was ever appropriate to set up a public school in this way. This is what private schools should be for. A private school can offer financial aid to those who can't afford it.

I also think all TJ parents need to take a step back and consider whether TJ is really the best thing for their kids. Having so many high-achieving kids clumped together in that school actually makes it harder for them to be accepted to a top school. MIT isn't going to admit 50 TJ kids in any given year. It is very much harder to stand out there. I get that iron sharpens iron, but it also comes with a significant risk of having nothing to show for all the effort than if they had just gone to their local high school.

I married into an Asian family, and I know that many times the drive to go TJ is from the parents who demand the kids to go to the "best" school or the "prestigious" school without considering that it is more than likely not going to be the big stepping stone they think it will be. Even the guy who wrote the op-ed in the Washington Post, while I respect his accomplishments, he could gotten into the Naval Academy and had all his success coming from any of the other excellent public schools in the area, because kids do it all the time. It's not like he invented the iPhone or made the next major scientific discovery, which is what the intense nature of TJ would lead one to believe is going to happen.

You must be high. I also don't have a dog in this fight but it's not clear at all that this racist admissions policy will be allowed to stand in the long term. Roberts has been very vocal about his negative view on affirmative action and any other racially motificated government policies that discriminate on the basis of race, even if it is done through proxies of facially neutral measures. Note that the Supreme Court's decision on the application to vacate is not a ruling on the merits of the case, but consideration of procedural/administrative issues. In this case, I suspect that Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh considered the potential impact on the current batch of students if the stay was vacated, because FCPS did not prepare for an alternative admission process. Despite concerns of students having their constitutional rights violated by the new admissions policy, the courts, including SCOTUS, tend to let existing procedures stand unless there was some serious procedural error made in the appeals court.

Now, onto the rest of your points. I don't understand why you find selectivity to be an issue for publicly funded educational institutions. Are you saying there should be no public colleges, and that if we do have public colleges, every single one of them should admit every student that applies? Aside from admissions, there are a lot of achievement-based opportunities and privileges even inside any given public high school. A student doesn't go into the next level of higher math until they've achieved a sufficient grade in a prerequisite class. Just because the bar is often set fairly low doesn't change the fact that there is a bar, and that failing students do not advance. Being able to take the next level class is not automatic, but an earned privilege that is the outcome of some prior achievement. Being able to get into TJ based on demonstrated merit is the same concept in this sense.

The rest of your rationalizing about whether TJ is healthy or unhealthy, and the existence of alternatives is relevant to exactly one person: you. These are subjective opinions and are no more valid than any one else's, including those of parents who find that the rigor of TJ is a great fit for their kids, and that it is the place where their kids can obtain a superior education and be exceptionally well prepared for future studies and professional work in STEM fields.

Lastly, none of what you wrote, regardless of the underlying logic and passion, excuses the fact that the new admissions policy was implemented with racist intent and effect. Shame on you for making excuses for its continued existence.

Well said!

It's not racist to want to include a broader cross section of Fairfax County. Basically anything that reduced Asian representation would be called racist. That people think there can't be a change in policy the might change the racial composition of TJ so Asians aren't 60-70 percent of the school indefinitely seems crazy. It's a public school and its admissions should not be skewed toward people who can afford $4,000 test prep centers. Then those who pay for those prep centers claim their kids are just inherently more intelligent and so more deserving than other kids who don't score as high on the test without equivalent prep. If your kid is so inherently bright, they'll succeed anywhere. Why all the angst?

If that "broader cross section" is done on the basis of race, it is racist and illegal per our laws. Go ask black people "why all the angst" when they were raging against the racist laws during the civil rights movement.

The new policy does not mention race. It's based on allocation slots to various middle schools and a lottery.

For the n-th time for the benefit of the ignorant - facially neutral policies implemented with racist intent are still illegal.

The 4th circuit seems to disagree with your framing of the issue.

4th circuit did not rule on the merits, only on the procedure. They have not yet reviewed the case on merit. Also, I didn't frame the issue, I was merely responding to a PP who incorrectly believes that a facially neutral policy is safe under strict scrutiny standards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I just want to take a 50,000 ft view of the issues being debated here. The fact that the current Supreme Court, as conservative as they are. still let the new admissions policy stand should be a signal that the war is lost. Even if there will still be changes to the new admissions system, it seems highly unlikely to ever go back to the way it was.

I sympathize with the old admissions system, but I also don't think it was ever appropriate to set up a public school in this way. This is what private schools should be for. A private school can offer financial aid to those who can't afford it.

I also think all TJ parents need to take a step back and consider whether TJ is really the best thing for their kids. Having so many high-achieving kids clumped together in that school actually makes it harder for them to be accepted to a top school. MIT isn't going to admit 50 TJ kids in any given year. It is very much harder to stand out there. I get that iron sharpens iron, but it also comes with a significant risk of having nothing to show for all the effort than if they had just gone to their local high school.

I married into an Asian family, and I know that many times the drive to go TJ is from the parents who demand the kids to go to the "best" school or the "prestigious" school without considering that it is more than likely not going to be the big stepping stone they think it will be. Even the guy who wrote the op-ed in the Washington Post, while I respect his accomplishments, he could gotten into the Naval Academy and had all his success coming from any of the other excellent public schools in the area, because kids do it all the time. It's not like he invented the iPhone or made the next major scientific discovery, which is what the intense nature of TJ would lead one to believe is going to happen.

You must be high. I also don't have a dog in this fight but it's not clear at all that this racist admissions policy will be allowed to stand in the long term. Roberts has been very vocal about his negative view on affirmative action and any other racially motificated government policies that discriminate on the basis of race, even if it is done through proxies of facially neutral measures. Note that the Supreme Court's decision on the application to vacate is not a ruling on the merits of the case, but consideration of procedural/administrative issues. In this case, I suspect that Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh considered the potential impact on the current batch of students if the stay was vacated, because FCPS did not prepare for an alternative admission process. Despite concerns of students having their constitutional rights violated by the new admissions policy, the courts, including SCOTUS, tend to let existing procedures stand unless there was some serious procedural error made in the appeals court.

Now, onto the rest of your points. I don't understand why you find selectivity to be an issue for publicly funded educational institutions. Are you saying there should be no public colleges, and that if we do have public colleges, every single one of them should admit every student that applies? Aside from admissions, there are a lot of achievement-based opportunities and privileges even inside any given public high school. A student doesn't go into the next level of higher math until they've achieved a sufficient grade in a prerequisite class. Just because the bar is often set fairly low doesn't change the fact that there is a bar, and that failing students do not advance. Being able to take the next level class is not automatic, but an earned privilege that is the outcome of some prior achievement. Being able to get into TJ based on demonstrated merit is the same concept in this sense.

The rest of your rationalizing about whether TJ is healthy or unhealthy, and the existence of alternatives is relevant to exactly one person: you. These are subjective opinions and are no more valid than any one else's, including those of parents who find that the rigor of TJ is a great fit for their kids, and that it is the place where their kids can obtain a superior education and be exceptionally well prepared for future studies and professional work in STEM fields.

Lastly, none of what you wrote, regardless of the underlying logic and passion, excuses the fact that the new admissions policy was implemented with racist intent and effect. Shame on you for making excuses for its continued existence.

Well said!

It's not racist to want to include a broader cross section of Fairfax County. Basically anything that reduced Asian representation would be called racist. That people think there can't be a change in policy the might change the racial composition of TJ so Asians aren't 60-70 percent of the school indefinitely seems crazy. It's a public school and its admissions should not be skewed toward people who can afford $4,000 test prep centers. Then those who pay for those prep centers claim their kids are just inherently more intelligent and so more deserving than other kids who don't score as high on the test without equivalent prep. If your kid is so inherently bright, they'll succeed anywhere. Why all the angst?

If that "broader cross section" is done on the basis of race, it is racist and illegal per our laws. Go ask black people "why all the angst" when they were raging against the racist laws during the civil rights movement.

The new policy does not mention race. It's based on allocation slots to various middle schools and a lottery.

For the n-th time for the benefit of the ignorant - facially neutral policies implemented with racist intent are still illegal.

Wanting to serve a broader cross section of the county isn't racist. It's valid to want more kids from each MS admitted to TJ. Asian kids from all middle schools are given the same opportunity as everyone else under the new system.

For the n-th time for the benefit of the ignorant - racial balancing is unconstitutional and illegal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I just want to take a 50,000 ft view of the issues being debated here. The fact that the current Supreme Court, as conservative as they are. still let the new admissions policy stand should be a signal that the war is lost. Even if there will still be changes to the new admissions system, it seems highly unlikely to ever go back to the way it was.

I sympathize with the old admissions system, but I also don't think it was ever appropriate to set up a public school in this way. This is what private schools should be for. A private school can offer financial aid to those who can't afford it.

I also think all TJ parents need to take a step back and consider whether TJ is really the best thing for their kids. Having so many high-achieving kids clumped together in that school actually makes it harder for them to be accepted to a top school. MIT isn't going to admit 50 TJ kids in any given year. It is very much harder to stand out there. I get that iron sharpens iron, but it also comes with a significant risk of having nothing to show for all the effort than if they had just gone to their local high school.

I married into an Asian family, and I know that many times the drive to go TJ is from the parents who demand the kids to go to the "best" school or the "prestigious" school without considering that it is more than likely not going to be the big stepping stone they think it will be. Even the guy who wrote the op-ed in the Washington Post, while I respect his accomplishments, he could gotten into the Naval Academy and had all his success coming from any of the other excellent public schools in the area, because kids do it all the time. It's not like he invented the iPhone or made the next major scientific discovery, which is what the intense nature of TJ would lead one to believe is going to happen.

You must be high. I also don't have a dog in this fight but it's not clear at all that this racist admissions policy will be allowed to stand in the long term. Roberts has been very vocal about his negative view on affirmative action and any other racially motificated government policies that discriminate on the basis of race, even if it is done through proxies of facially neutral measures. Note that the Supreme Court's decision on the application to vacate is not a ruling on the merits of the case, but consideration of procedural/administrative issues. In this case, I suspect that Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh considered the potential impact on the current batch of students if the stay was vacated, because FCPS did not prepare for an alternative admission process. Despite concerns of students having their constitutional rights violated by the new admissions policy, the courts, including SCOTUS, tend to let existing procedures stand unless there was some serious procedural error made in the appeals court.

Now, onto the rest of your points. I don't understand why you find selectivity to be an issue for publicly funded educational institutions. Are you saying there should be no public colleges, and that if we do have public colleges, every single one of them should admit every student that applies? Aside from admissions, there are a lot of achievement-based opportunities and privileges even inside any given public high school. A student doesn't go into the next level of higher math until they've achieved a sufficient grade in a prerequisite class. Just because the bar is often set fairly low doesn't change the fact that there is a bar, and that failing students do not advance. Being able to take the next level class is not automatic, but an earned privilege that is the outcome of some prior achievement. Being able to get into TJ based on demonstrated merit is the same concept in this sense.

The rest of your rationalizing about whether TJ is healthy or unhealthy, and the existence of alternatives is relevant to exactly one person: you. These are subjective opinions and are no more valid than any one else's, including those of parents who find that the rigor of TJ is a great fit for their kids, and that it is the place where their kids can obtain a superior education and be exceptionally well prepared for future studies and professional work in STEM fields.

Lastly, none of what you wrote, regardless of the underlying logic and passion, excuses the fact that the new admissions policy was implemented with racist intent and effect. Shame on you for making excuses for its continued existence.

Well said!

It's not racist to want to include a broader cross section of Fairfax County. Basically anything that reduced Asian representation would be called racist. That people think there can't be a change in policy the might change the racial composition of TJ so Asians aren't 60-70 percent of the school indefinitely seems crazy. It's a public school and its admissions should not be skewed toward people who can afford $4,000 test prep centers. Then those who pay for those prep centers claim their kids are just inherently more intelligent and so more deserving than other kids who don't score as high on the test without equivalent prep. If your kid is so inherently bright, they'll succeed anywhere. Why all the angst?

If that "broader cross section" is done on the basis of race, it is racist and illegal per our laws. Go ask black people "why all the angst" when they were raging against the racist laws during the civil rights movement.

The new policy does not mention race. It's based on allocation slots to various middle schools and a lottery.

For the n-th time for the benefit of the ignorant - facially neutral policies implemented with racist intent are still illegal.

You'll lose on this. The intent was to reduce overrepresentation which is not racist. If whites were overrepresented it wouldn't be "racist" to make more opportunities available to members of other groups. I'm reallyt tired of listening to your allegation of "racism" Again, plaintiffs are going to lose on this one.

LOL, racial balancing is unconstitutional and illegal. There is no argument here. Do some research before you post again.

I practice law in this area. I stand by what I said. And your comment above that "facially neutral policies implemented with racist intent are still illegal" mixes two legal theories, and misstates one of them. Facially neutral policies may discriminate if they have a disparate impact, no 'Intent" is required to find discrimination. And if there is intent, well that's called intentional discrimination - and facially neutral never comes into it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I just want to take a 50,000 ft view of the issues being debated here. The fact that the current Supreme Court, as conservative as they are. still let the new admissions policy stand should be a signal that the war is lost. Even if there will still be changes to the new admissions system, it seems highly unlikely to ever go back to the way it was.

I sympathize with the old admissions system, but I also don't think it was ever appropriate to set up a public school in this way. This is what private schools should be for. A private school can offer financial aid to those who can't afford it.

I also think all TJ parents need to take a step back and consider whether TJ is really the best thing for their kids. Having so many high-achieving kids clumped together in that school actually makes it harder for them to be accepted to a top school. MIT isn't going to admit 50 TJ kids in any given year. It is very much harder to stand out there. I get that iron sharpens iron, but it also comes with a significant risk of having nothing to show for all the effort than if they had just gone to their local high school.

I married into an Asian family, and I know that many times the drive to go TJ is from the parents who demand the kids to go to the "best" school or the "prestigious" school without considering that it is more than likely not going to be the big stepping stone they think it will be. Even the guy who wrote the op-ed in the Washington Post, while I respect his accomplishments, he could gotten into the Naval Academy and had all his success coming from any of the other excellent public schools in the area, because kids do it all the time. It's not like he invented the iPhone or made the next major scientific discovery, which is what the intense nature of TJ would lead one to believe is going to happen.

You must be high. I also don't have a dog in this fight but it's not clear at all that this racist admissions policy will be allowed to stand in the long term. Roberts has been very vocal about his negative view on affirmative action and any other racially motificated government policies that discriminate on the basis of race, even if it is done through proxies of facially neutral measures. Note that the Supreme Court's decision on the application to vacate is not a ruling on the merits of the case, but consideration of procedural/administrative issues. In this case, I suspect that Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh considered the potential impact on the current batch of students if the stay was vacated, because FCPS did not prepare for an alternative admission process. Despite concerns of students having their constitutional rights violated by the new admissions policy, the courts, including SCOTUS, tend to let existing procedures stand unless there was some serious procedural error made in the appeals court.

Now, onto the rest of your points. I don't understand why you find selectivity to be an issue for publicly funded educational institutions. Are you saying there should be no public colleges, and that if we do have public colleges, every single one of them should admit every student that applies? Aside from admissions, there are a lot of achievement-based opportunities and privileges even inside any given public high school. A student doesn't go into the next level of higher math until they've achieved a sufficient grade in a prerequisite class. Just because the bar is often set fairly low doesn't change the fact that there is a bar, and that failing students do not advance. Being able to take the next level class is not automatic, but an earned privilege that is the outcome of some prior achievement. Being able to get into TJ based on demonstrated merit is the same concept in this sense.

The rest of your rationalizing about whether TJ is healthy or unhealthy, and the existence of alternatives is relevant to exactly one person: you. These are subjective opinions and are no more valid than any one else's, including those of parents who find that the rigor of TJ is a great fit for their kids, and that it is the place where their kids can obtain a superior education and be exceptionally well prepared for future studies and professional work in STEM fields.

Lastly, none of what you wrote, regardless of the underlying logic and passion, excuses the fact that the new admissions policy was implemented with racist intent and effect. Shame on you for making excuses for its continued existence.

Well said!

It's not racist to want to include a broader cross section of Fairfax County. Basically anything that reduced Asian representation would be called racist. That people think there can't be a change in policy the might change the racial composition of TJ so Asians aren't 60-70 percent of the school indefinitely seems crazy. It's a public school and its admissions should not be skewed toward people who can afford $4,000 test prep centers. Then those who pay for those prep centers claim their kids are just inherently more intelligent and so more deserving than other kids who don't score as high on the test without equivalent prep. If your kid is so inherently bright, they'll succeed anywhere. Why all the angst?

If that "broader cross section" is done on the basis of race, it is racist and illegal per our laws. Go ask black people "why all the angst" when they were raging against the racist laws during the civil rights movement.

The new policy does not mention race. It's based on allocation slots to various middle schools and a lottery.

For the n-th time for the benefit of the ignorant - facially neutral policies implemented with racist intent are still illegal.

Wanting to serve a broader cross section of the county isn't racist. It's valid to want more kids from each MS admitted to TJ. Asian kids from all middle schools are given the same opportunity as everyone else under the new system.

For the n-th time for the benefit of the ignorant - racial balancing is unconstitutional and illegal.

I'm not so sure about this anymore. Efforts to open opportunities to minorities will necessarily affect other groups. It depends on how it is done. Claude Hilton just got it wrong; and you watch, the 4th Circuit will overrule.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I just want to take a 50,000 ft view of the issues being debated here. The fact that the current Supreme Court, as conservative as they are. still let the new admissions policy stand should be a signal that the war is lost. Even if there will still be changes to the new admissions system, it seems highly unlikely to ever go back to the way it was.

I sympathize with the old admissions system, but I also don't think it was ever appropriate to set up a public school in this way. This is what private schools should be for. A private school can offer financial aid to those who can't afford it.

I also think all TJ parents need to take a step back and consider whether TJ is really the best thing for their kids. Having so many high-achieving kids clumped together in that school actually makes it harder for them to be accepted to a top school. MIT isn't going to admit 50 TJ kids in any given year. It is very much harder to stand out there. I get that iron sharpens iron, but it also comes with a significant risk of having nothing to show for all the effort than if they had just gone to their local high school.

I married into an Asian family, and I know that many times the drive to go TJ is from the parents who demand the kids to go to the "best" school or the "prestigious" school without considering that it is more than likely not going to be the big stepping stone they think it will be. Even the guy who wrote the op-ed in the Washington Post, while I respect his accomplishments, he could gotten into the Naval Academy and had all his success coming from any of the other excellent public schools in the area, because kids do it all the time. It's not like he invented the iPhone or made the next major scientific discovery, which is what the intense nature of TJ would lead one to believe is going to happen.

You must be high. I also don't have a dog in this fight but it's not clear at all that this racist admissions policy will be allowed to stand in the long term. Roberts has been very vocal about his negative view on affirmative action and any other racially motificated government policies that discriminate on the basis of race, even if it is done through proxies of facially neutral measures. Note that the Supreme Court's decision on the application to vacate is not a ruling on the merits of the case, but consideration of procedural/administrative issues. In this case, I suspect that Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh considered the potential impact on the current batch of students if the stay was vacated, because FCPS did not prepare for an alternative admission process. Despite concerns of students having their constitutional rights violated by the new admissions policy, the courts, including SCOTUS, tend to let existing procedures stand unless there was some serious procedural error made in the appeals court.

Now, onto the rest of your points. I don't understand why you find selectivity to be an issue for publicly funded educational institutions. Are you saying there should be no public colleges, and that if we do have public colleges, every single one of them should admit every student that applies? Aside from admissions, there are a lot of achievement-based opportunities and privileges even inside any given public high school. A student doesn't go into the next level of higher math until they've achieved a sufficient grade in a prerequisite class. Just because the bar is often set fairly low doesn't change the fact that there is a bar, and that failing students do not advance. Being able to take the next level class is not automatic, but an earned privilege that is the outcome of some prior achievement. Being able to get into TJ based on demonstrated merit is the same concept in this sense.

The rest of your rationalizing about whether TJ is healthy or unhealthy, and the existence of alternatives is relevant to exactly one person: you. These are subjective opinions and are no more valid than any one else's, including those of parents who find that the rigor of TJ is a great fit for their kids, and that it is the place where their kids can obtain a superior education and be exceptionally well prepared for future studies and professional work in STEM fields.

Lastly, none of what you wrote, regardless of the underlying logic and passion, excuses the fact that the new admissions policy was implemented with racist intent and effect. Shame on you for making excuses for its continued existence.

Well said!

It's not racist to want to include a broader cross section of Fairfax County. Basically anything that reduced Asian representation would be called racist. That people think there can't be a change in policy the might change the racial composition of TJ so Asians aren't 60-70 percent of the school indefinitely seems crazy. It's a public school and its admissions should not be skewed toward people who can afford $4,000 test prep centers. Then those who pay for those prep centers claim their kids are just inherently more intelligent and so more deserving than other kids who don't score as high on the test without equivalent prep. If your kid is so inherently bright, they'll succeed anywhere. Why all the angst?

If that "broader cross section" is done on the basis of race, it is racist and illegal per our laws. Go ask black people "why all the angst" when they were raging against the racist laws during the civil rights movement.

The new policy does not mention race. It's based on allocation slots to various middle schools and a lottery.

For the n-th time for the benefit of the ignorant - facially neutral policies implemented with racist intent are still illegal.

The 4th circuit seems to disagree with your framing of the issue.

4th circuit did not rule on the merits, only on the procedure. They have not yet reviewed the case on merit. Also, I didn't frame the issue, I was merely responding to a PP who incorrectly believes that a facially neutral policy is safe under strict scrutiny standards.

They would not have issued a stay if there was such an obvious constitutional violation as you seem to think. This decision, while not on the merits, does give a good indication how they will rule on the merits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I just want to take a 50,000 ft view of the issues being debated here. The fact that the current Supreme Court, as conservative as they are. still let the new admissions policy stand should be a signal that the war is lost. Even if there will still be changes to the new admissions system, it seems highly unlikely to ever go back to the way it was.

I sympathize with the old admissions system, but I also don't think it was ever appropriate to set up a public school in this way. This is what private schools should be for. A private school can offer financial aid to those who can't afford it.

I also think all TJ parents need to take a step back and consider whether TJ is really the best thing for their kids. Having so many high-achieving kids clumped together in that school actually makes it harder for them to be accepted to a top school. MIT isn't going to admit 50 TJ kids in any given year. It is very much harder to stand out there. I get that iron sharpens iron, but it also comes with a significant risk of having nothing to show for all the effort than if they had just gone to their local high school.

I married into an Asian family, and I know that many times the drive to go TJ is from the parents who demand the kids to go to the "best" school or the "prestigious" school without considering that it is more than likely not going to be the big stepping stone they think it will be. Even the guy who wrote the op-ed in the Washington Post, while I respect his accomplishments, he could gotten into the Naval Academy and had all his success coming from any of the other excellent public schools in the area, because kids do it all the time. It's not like he invented the iPhone or made the next major scientific discovery, which is what the intense nature of TJ would lead one to believe is going to happen.

You must be high. I also don't have a dog in this fight but it's not clear at all that this racist admissions policy will be allowed to stand in the long term. Roberts has been very vocal about his negative view on affirmative action and any other racially motificated government policies that discriminate on the basis of race, even if it is done through proxies of facially neutral measures. Note that the Supreme Court's decision on the application to vacate is not a ruling on the merits of the case, but consideration of procedural/administrative issues. In this case, I suspect that Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh considered the potential impact on the current batch of students if the stay was vacated, because FCPS did not prepare for an alternative admission process. Despite concerns of students having their constitutional rights violated by the new admissions policy, the courts, including SCOTUS, tend to let existing procedures stand unless there was some serious procedural error made in the appeals court.

Now, onto the rest of your points. I don't understand why you find selectivity to be an issue for publicly funded educational institutions. Are you saying there should be no public colleges, and that if we do have public colleges, every single one of them should admit every student that applies? Aside from admissions, there are a lot of achievement-based opportunities and privileges even inside any given public high school. A student doesn't go into the next level of higher math until they've achieved a sufficient grade in a prerequisite class. Just because the bar is often set fairly low doesn't change the fact that there is a bar, and that failing students do not advance. Being able to take the next level class is not automatic, but an earned privilege that is the outcome of some prior achievement. Being able to get into TJ based on demonstrated merit is the same concept in this sense.

The rest of your rationalizing about whether TJ is healthy or unhealthy, and the existence of alternatives is relevant to exactly one person: you. These are subjective opinions and are no more valid than any one else's, including those of parents who find that the rigor of TJ is a great fit for their kids, and that it is the place where their kids can obtain a superior education and be exceptionally well prepared for future studies and professional work in STEM fields.

Lastly, none of what you wrote, regardless of the underlying logic and passion, excuses the fact that the new admissions policy was implemented with racist intent and effect. Shame on you for making excuses for its continued existence.

Well said!

It's not racist to want to include a broader cross section of Fairfax County. Basically anything that reduced Asian representation would be called racist. That people think there can't be a change in policy the might change the racial composition of TJ so Asians aren't 60-70 percent of the school indefinitely seems crazy. It's a public school and its admissions should not be skewed toward people who can afford $4,000 test prep centers. Then those who pay for those prep centers claim their kids are just inherently more intelligent and so more deserving than other kids who don't score as high on the test without equivalent prep. If your kid is so inherently bright, they'll succeed anywhere. Why all the angst?

If that "broader cross section" is done on the basis of race, it is racist and illegal per our laws. Go ask black people "why all the angst" when they were raging against the racist laws during the civil rights movement.

The new policy does not mention race. It's based on allocation slots to various middle schools and a lottery.

For the n-th time for the benefit of the ignorant - facially neutral policies implemented with racist intent are still illegal.

You'll lose on this. The intent was to reduce overrepresentation which is not racist. If whites were overrepresented it wouldn't be "racist" to make more opportunities available to members of other groups. I'm reallyt tired of listening to your allegation of "racism" Again, plaintiffs are going to lose on this one.

LOL, racial balancing is unconstitutional and illegal. There is no argument here. Do some research before you post again.

I practice law in this area. I stand by what I said. And your comment above that "facially neutral policies implemented with racist intent are still illegal" mixes two legal theories, and misstates one of them. Facially neutral policies may discriminate if they have a disparate impact, no 'Intent" is required to find discrimination. And if there is intent, well that's called intentional discrimination - and facially neutral never comes into it.

You can claim to be an astrophysicist and stand by that the sun rises in the west, doesn't make it true. Under strict scrutiny standards, the intent is crucial for determining whether a facially neutral policy is legal even if it has a disparate impact. Finding discrimination is not enough for an action to be illegal/unconstitutional. For this reason, many policies that have demonstrable disparate impact are perfectly legal. Having underlying intent is not the same as intentional discrimination, which is commonly used to reference disparate treatment (as opposed to disparate impact). The "intentional" part of intentional discrimination is in the mechanism of the policy, not the underlying intent. For example, a policy that excludes blacks from entering a room is disparate treatment and is intentional discrimination. I can't believe I have to explain this to a lawyer who claims to practice law in this area, unless by "area" you mean geographical area instead of subject matter.