Has the Coalition for TJ (or any other groups) considered another lawsuit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect that if the C4TJ types keep screaming about “discrimination” even though Asian kids are still admitted at a higher rate than average and have just as many students as ever before that FCPS will eventually just scrap TJ.

Or they will stop discriminating.

I guess they can stop screaming about it right now since there is no discrimination.

It's like you don't understand what structural racism is.

It’s like you are ignoring the acceptance rates and enrollment numbers.

No discrimination.

You can be over-represented and discriminated against. In this case the discrimination is BECAUSE of the over-representation.
Get a clue

The admissions process is race-blind.
The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

The "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

There are real, serious issues with race and discrimination in the world. This is not one of them.

Grandfather clauses were race blind. Facially neutral criteria can be racist.
Over-representation is the reason for the discrimination. If asians weren't over-represented, nobody would have wanted to change the admissions criteria.

The group that saw the largest gain were white kids, the wealthiest group in fairfax.

The change in admission policy absolutely has a disparate impact on asians.

This is definitely one of the serious issues with racism in this world. The fact that it doesn't bother people like you is even more evidence that this is a serious issue.

No reasonable person would call it discrimination. There are groups who actually could legitimately claim discrimination and disparate impact by admissions - and they aren't Asian students.

And yet all the evidence from the Harvard SFFA case says otherwise.
If you don't think asians were discriminated against then you are lying to yourself.

The issue wasn't Asian overrepresentation; it was the underrepresentation of other groups. They wanted to expand access to more kids, not exclude anyone. That's why they added seats. If they simply wanted to get rid of Asian students then they wouldn't have changed the number of seats. There are just as many Asian students enrolled as ever before.

There are fewer asians and the percentage of asians (AND ONLY ASIANS) in the entering class plummeted. Black enrollment went up, hispanic enrollment went up, white enrollment went up. This was by design.

Again:
- The admissions process is race-blind.
- The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
- Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
- The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
- The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

Judge: "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

Arlington Heights analysis is pretty clear on how this case should have been decided.

That judge doesn't understand disparate impact. By their reckoning disparate impact cannot apply to any group that is over-represented.
Supreme Court Justice: "The Fourth Circuit’s decision is based on a theory that is flagrantly wrong and should not be allowed to stand."
"What the Fourth Circuit majority held, in essence, is that intentional racial discrimination is constitutional so long as it is not too severe. This reasoning is indefensible, and it cries out for correction."

Harvard admissions is a different beast and not comparable. TJ admissions is race blind.

The number of Asian students enrolled in TJ has not significantly changed. No reasonable person, or non-corrupt justice, would believe this is "harm":

And yet before the change in admissions the number of asian students enrolled was steadily increasing every year.
After the change it dropped while all other races rose.
This was the intended consequence of the change.
That is discrimination.

The argument seems to be that asians are over-represented so it's OK to discriminate against them a little bit (and you get to decide how much is a little bit).

Once again, there was a finding of intentional discrimination at trial.
The appellate court said that there was no harm because asians were still over-represented.
That is a pretty clear error of law.

That's completely wrong. Asians make up the majority of the school. The selection process is race blind. Acceptances mirror applications by demographic cohort within a few percent meaning that their process treats everyone about the same. Asian environment before and after the change is about the same and the largest beneficiary of the change were low income agents. The court was correct when they asserted there was no arm done.

Asians went from 70%+ to 50%+ of the admitted students.
This was the intended result of the change in admissions process.
This is why you are not disputing the fact that there was intentional racial discrimination in developing the new admissions process.

You can be race blind and still be discriminatory. See literacy tests and grandfather clauses
You can be over-represented and still be discriminated against. See discrimination against blacks in baseball AFTER Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier.

You are no different than any of the racists from generations past. Most racists thinks their particular brand of racism is virtuous.

I am racist and classist. I don't think TJ, a public high school program serving an extremely diverse area, should be 100% of any one particular race or filled almost entirely by kids from wealthy feeder schools. Sue me.

Given that there are just as many Asian students at TJ as ever before demonstrates that there was no harm by adding additional seats for kids who didn't attend wealthy feeder schools.

All of this "outrage" reminds me of men's ridiculous calls of "discrimination" when women were first admitted to college. Probably pushed by a bunch of RWNJs back then too.

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

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

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

We should try to reduce the FARMS rate in the county, not penalize schools with a FARMS rate hovering near the percentage that an FCPS-commissioned study concluded begins to impede academic performance.

But, sure, let's keep racing to the bottom and finding new ways to stigmatize merit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect that if the C4TJ types keep screaming about “discrimination” even though Asian kids are still admitted at a higher rate than average and have just as many students as ever before that FCPS will eventually just scrap TJ.

Or they will stop discriminating.

I guess they can stop screaming about it right now since there is no discrimination.

It's like you don't understand what structural racism is.

It’s like you are ignoring the acceptance rates and enrollment numbers.

No discrimination.

You can be over-represented and discriminated against. In this case the discrimination is BECAUSE of the over-representation.
Get a clue

The admissions process is race-blind.
The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

The "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

There are real, serious issues with race and discrimination in the world. This is not one of them.

Grandfather clauses were race blind. Facially neutral criteria can be racist.
Over-representation is the reason for the discrimination. If asians weren't over-represented, nobody would have wanted to change the admissions criteria.

The group that saw the largest gain were white kids, the wealthiest group in fairfax.

The change in admission policy absolutely has a disparate impact on asians.

This is definitely one of the serious issues with racism in this world. The fact that it doesn't bother people like you is even more evidence that this is a serious issue.

No reasonable person would call it discrimination. There are groups who actually could legitimately claim discrimination and disparate impact by admissions - and they aren't Asian students.

And yet all the evidence from the Harvard SFFA case says otherwise.
If you don't think asians were discriminated against then you are lying to yourself.

The issue wasn't Asian overrepresentation; it was the underrepresentation of other groups. They wanted to expand access to more kids, not exclude anyone. That's why they added seats. If they simply wanted to get rid of Asian students then they wouldn't have changed the number of seats. There are just as many Asian students enrolled as ever before.

There are fewer asians and the percentage of asians (AND ONLY ASIANS) in the entering class plummeted. Black enrollment went up, hispanic enrollment went up, white enrollment went up. This was by design.

Again:
- The admissions process is race-blind.
- The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
- Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
- The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
- The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

Judge: "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

Arlington Heights analysis is pretty clear on how this case should have been decided.

That judge doesn't understand disparate impact. By their reckoning disparate impact cannot apply to any group that is over-represented.
Supreme Court Justice: "The Fourth Circuit’s decision is based on a theory that is flagrantly wrong and should not be allowed to stand."
"What the Fourth Circuit majority held, in essence, is that intentional racial discrimination is constitutional so long as it is not too severe. This reasoning is indefensible, and it cries out for correction."

Harvard admissions is a different beast and not comparable. TJ admissions is race blind.

The number of Asian students enrolled in TJ has not significantly changed. No reasonable person, or non-corrupt justice, would believe this is "harm":

And yet before the change in admissions the number of asian students enrolled was steadily increasing every year.
After the change it dropped while all other races rose.
This was the intended consequence of the change.
That is discrimination.

The argument seems to be that asians are over-represented so it's OK to discriminate against them a little bit (and you get to decide how much is a little bit).

Once again, there was a finding of intentional discrimination at trial.
The appellate court said that there was no harm because asians were still over-represented.
That is a pretty clear error of law.

That's completely wrong. Asians make up the majority of the school. The selection process is race blind. Acceptances mirror applications by demographic cohort within a few percent meaning that their process treats everyone about the same. Asian environment before and after the change is about the same and the largest beneficiary of the change were low income agents. The court was correct when they asserted there was no arm done.

Asians went from 70%+ to 50%+ of the admitted students.
This was the intended result of the change in admissions process.
This is why you are not disputing the fact that there was intentional racial discrimination in developing the new admissions process.

You can be race blind and still be discriminatory. See literacy tests and grandfather clauses
You can be over-represented and still be discriminated against. See discrimination against blacks in baseball AFTER Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier.

You are no different than any of the racists from generations past. Most racists thinks their particular brand of racism is virtuous.

I am racist and classist. I don't think TJ, a public high school program serving an extremely diverse area, should be 100% of any one particular race or filled almost entirely by kids from wealthy feeder schools. Sue me.

Given that there are just as many Asian students at TJ as ever before demonstrates that there was no harm by adding additional seats for kids who didn't attend wealthy feeder schools.

All of this "outrage" reminds me of men's ridiculous calls of "discrimination" when women were first admitted to college. Probably pushed by a bunch of RWNJs back then too.

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

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

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

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

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

Your insistence that selection should mirror applications and the like is social engineering. Asian people come here because of the school system, even if it means living in a 200 square foot basement for a family of four. Other races who have been here for generations prioritize space or sports, etc. The distribution of academic performance is not evenly distributed. Perhaps in the general population, but definitely not in this region. That is the problem. Have a less random way of selecting the top students. One can add students who you think are deserving as well. But at least have the first filter not so random.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect that if the C4TJ types keep screaming about “discrimination” even though Asian kids are still admitted at a higher rate than average and have just as many students as ever before that FCPS will eventually just scrap TJ.

Or they will stop discriminating.

I guess they can stop screaming about it right now since there is no discrimination.

It's like you don't understand what structural racism is.

It’s like you are ignoring the acceptance rates and enrollment numbers.

No discrimination.

You can be over-represented and discriminated against. In this case the discrimination is BECAUSE of the over-representation.
Get a clue

The admissions process is race-blind.
The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

The "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

There are real, serious issues with race and discrimination in the world. This is not one of them.

Grandfather clauses were race blind. Facially neutral criteria can be racist.
Over-representation is the reason for the discrimination. If asians weren't over-represented, nobody would have wanted to change the admissions criteria.

The group that saw the largest gain were white kids, the wealthiest group in fairfax.

The change in admission policy absolutely has a disparate impact on asians.

This is definitely one of the serious issues with racism in this world. The fact that it doesn't bother people like you is even more evidence that this is a serious issue.

No reasonable person would call it discrimination. There are groups who actually could legitimately claim discrimination and disparate impact by admissions - and they aren't Asian students.

And yet all the evidence from the Harvard SFFA case says otherwise.
If you don't think asians were discriminated against then you are lying to yourself.

The issue wasn't Asian overrepresentation; it was the underrepresentation of other groups. They wanted to expand access to more kids, not exclude anyone. That's why they added seats. If they simply wanted to get rid of Asian students then they wouldn't have changed the number of seats. There are just as many Asian students enrolled as ever before.

There are fewer asians and the percentage of asians (AND ONLY ASIANS) in the entering class plummeted. Black enrollment went up, hispanic enrollment went up, white enrollment went up. This was by design.

Again:
- The admissions process is race-blind.
- The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
- Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
- The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
- The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

Judge: "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

Arlington Heights analysis is pretty clear on how this case should have been decided.

That judge doesn't understand disparate impact. By their reckoning disparate impact cannot apply to any group that is over-represented.
Supreme Court Justice: "The Fourth Circuit’s decision is based on a theory that is flagrantly wrong and should not be allowed to stand."
"What the Fourth Circuit majority held, in essence, is that intentional racial discrimination is constitutional so long as it is not too severe. This reasoning is indefensible, and it cries out for correction."

Harvard admissions is a different beast and not comparable. TJ admissions is race blind.

The number of Asian students enrolled in TJ has not significantly changed. No reasonable person, or non-corrupt justice, would believe this is "harm":

And yet before the change in admissions the number of asian students enrolled was steadily increasing every year.
After the change it dropped while all other races rose.
This was the intended consequence of the change.
That is discrimination.

The argument seems to be that asians are over-represented so it's OK to discriminate against them a little bit (and you get to decide how much is a little bit).

Once again, there was a finding of intentional discrimination at trial.
The appellate court said that there was no harm because asians were still over-represented.
That is a pretty clear error of law.

That's completely wrong. Asians make up the majority of the school. The selection process is race blind. Acceptances mirror applications by demographic cohort within a few percent meaning that their process treats everyone about the same. Asian environment before and after the change is about the same and the largest beneficiary of the change were low income agents. The court was correct when they asserted there was no arm done.

Asians went from 70%+ to 50%+ of the admitted students.
This was the intended result of the change in admissions process.
This is why you are not disputing the fact that there was intentional racial discrimination in developing the new admissions process.

You can be race blind and still be discriminatory. See literacy tests and grandfather clauses
You can be over-represented and still be discriminated against. See discrimination against blacks in baseball AFTER Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier.

You are no different than any of the racists from generations past. Most racists thinks their particular brand of racism is virtuous.

I am racist and classist. I don't think TJ, a public high school program serving an extremely diverse area, should be 100% of any one particular race or filled almost entirely by kids from wealthy feeder schools. Sue me.

Given that there are just as many Asian students at TJ as ever before demonstrates that there was no harm by adding additional seats for kids who didn't attend wealthy feeder schools.

All of this "outrage" reminds me of men's ridiculous calls of "discrimination" when women were first admitted to college. Probably pushed by a bunch of RWNJs back then too.

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

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

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

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

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

Your insistence that selection should mirror applications and the like is social engineering. Asian people come here because of the school system, even if it means living in a 200 square foot basement for a family of four. Other races who have been here for generations prioritize space or sports, etc. The distribution of academic performance is not evenly distributed. Perhaps in the general population, but definitely not in this region. That is the problem. Have a less random way of selecting the top students. One can add students who you think are deserving as well. But at least have the first filter not so random.

Then the boost to admissions from higher poverty middle schools should be a good thing for them

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect that if the C4TJ types keep screaming about “discrimination” even though Asian kids are still admitted at a higher rate than average and have just as many students as ever before that FCPS will eventually just scrap TJ.

Or they will stop discriminating.

I guess they can stop screaming about it right now since there is no discrimination.

It's like you don't understand what structural racism is.

It’s like you are ignoring the acceptance rates and enrollment numbers.

No discrimination.

You can be over-represented and discriminated against. In this case the discrimination is BECAUSE of the over-representation.
Get a clue

The admissions process is race-blind.
The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

The "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

There are real, serious issues with race and discrimination in the world. This is not one of them.

Grandfather clauses were race blind. Facially neutral criteria can be racist.
Over-representation is the reason for the discrimination. If asians weren't over-represented, nobody would have wanted to change the admissions criteria.

The group that saw the largest gain were white kids, the wealthiest group in fairfax.

The change in admission policy absolutely has a disparate impact on asians.

This is definitely one of the serious issues with racism in this world. The fact that it doesn't bother people like you is even more evidence that this is a serious issue.

No reasonable person would call it discrimination. There are groups who actually could legitimately claim discrimination and disparate impact by admissions - and they aren't Asian students.

And yet all the evidence from the Harvard SFFA case says otherwise.
If you don't think asians were discriminated against then you are lying to yourself.

The issue wasn't Asian overrepresentation; it was the underrepresentation of other groups. They wanted to expand access to more kids, not exclude anyone. That's why they added seats. If they simply wanted to get rid of Asian students then they wouldn't have changed the number of seats. There are just as many Asian students enrolled as ever before.

There are fewer asians and the percentage of asians (AND ONLY ASIANS) in the entering class plummeted. Black enrollment went up, hispanic enrollment went up, white enrollment went up. This was by design.

Again:
- The admissions process is race-blind.
- The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
- Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
- The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
- The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

Judge: "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

Arlington Heights analysis is pretty clear on how this case should have been decided.

That judge doesn't understand disparate impact. By their reckoning disparate impact cannot apply to any group that is over-represented.
Supreme Court Justice: "The Fourth Circuit’s decision is based on a theory that is flagrantly wrong and should not be allowed to stand."
"What the Fourth Circuit majority held, in essence, is that intentional racial discrimination is constitutional so long as it is not too severe. This reasoning is indefensible, and it cries out for correction."

Harvard admissions is a different beast and not comparable. TJ admissions is race blind.

The number of Asian students enrolled in TJ has not significantly changed. No reasonable person, or non-corrupt justice, would believe this is "harm":

And yet before the change in admissions the number of asian students enrolled was steadily increasing every year.
After the change it dropped while all other races rose.
This was the intended consequence of the change.
That is discrimination.

The argument seems to be that asians are over-represented so it's OK to discriminate against them a little bit (and you get to decide how much is a little bit).

Once again, there was a finding of intentional discrimination at trial.
The appellate court said that there was no harm because asians were still over-represented.
That is a pretty clear error of law.

That's completely wrong. Asians make up the majority of the school. The selection process is race blind. Acceptances mirror applications by demographic cohort within a few percent meaning that their process treats everyone about the same. Asian environment before and after the change is about the same and the largest beneficiary of the change were low income agents. The court was correct when they asserted there was no arm done.

Asians went from 70%+ to 50%+ of the admitted students.
This was the intended result of the change in admissions process.
This is why you are not disputing the fact that there was intentional racial discrimination in developing the new admissions process.

You can be race blind and still be discriminatory. See literacy tests and grandfather clauses
You can be over-represented and still be discriminated against. See discrimination against blacks in baseball AFTER Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier.

You are no different than any of the racists from generations past. Most racists thinks their particular brand of racism is virtuous.

I am racist and classist. I don't think TJ, a public high school program serving an extremely diverse area, should be 100% of any one particular race or filled almost entirely by kids from wealthy feeder schools. Sue me.

Given that there are just as many Asian students at TJ as ever before demonstrates that there was no harm by adding additional seats for kids who didn't attend wealthy feeder schools.

All of this "outrage" reminds me of men's ridiculous calls of "discrimination" when women were first admitted to college. Probably pushed by a bunch of RWNJs back then too.

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

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

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

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

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

Your insistence that selection should mirror applications and the like is social engineering. Asian people come here because of the school system, even if it means living in a 200 square foot basement for a family of four. Other races who have been here for generations prioritize space or sports, etc. The distribution of academic performance is not evenly distributed. Perhaps in the general population, but definitely not in this region. That is the problem. Have a less random way of selecting the top students. One can add students who you think are deserving as well. But at least have the first filter not so random.

Then the boost to admissions from higher poverty middle schools should be a good thing for them

These are at what you call the wealthy feeders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect that if the C4TJ types keep screaming about “discrimination” even though Asian kids are still admitted at a higher rate than average and have just as many students as ever before that FCPS will eventually just scrap TJ.

Or they will stop discriminating.

I guess they can stop screaming about it right now since there is no discrimination.

It's like you don't understand what structural racism is.

It’s like you are ignoring the acceptance rates and enrollment numbers.

No discrimination.

You can be over-represented and discriminated against. In this case the discrimination is BECAUSE of the over-representation.
Get a clue

The admissions process is race-blind.
The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

The "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

There are real, serious issues with race and discrimination in the world. This is not one of them.

Grandfather clauses were race blind. Facially neutral criteria can be racist.
Over-representation is the reason for the discrimination. If asians weren't over-represented, nobody would have wanted to change the admissions criteria.

The group that saw the largest gain were white kids, the wealthiest group in fairfax.

The change in admission policy absolutely has a disparate impact on asians.

This is definitely one of the serious issues with racism in this world. The fact that it doesn't bother people like you is even more evidence that this is a serious issue.

No reasonable person would call it discrimination. There are groups who actually could legitimately claim discrimination and disparate impact by admissions - and they aren't Asian students.

And yet all the evidence from the Harvard SFFA case says otherwise.
If you don't think asians were discriminated against then you are lying to yourself.

The issue wasn't Asian overrepresentation; it was the underrepresentation of other groups. They wanted to expand access to more kids, not exclude anyone. That's why they added seats. If they simply wanted to get rid of Asian students then they wouldn't have changed the number of seats. There are just as many Asian students enrolled as ever before.

There are fewer asians and the percentage of asians (AND ONLY ASIANS) in the entering class plummeted. Black enrollment went up, hispanic enrollment went up, white enrollment went up. This was by design.

Again:
- The admissions process is race-blind.
- The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
- Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
- The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
- The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

Judge: "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

Arlington Heights analysis is pretty clear on how this case should have been decided.

That judge doesn't understand disparate impact. By their reckoning disparate impact cannot apply to any group that is over-represented.
Supreme Court Justice: "The Fourth Circuit’s decision is based on a theory that is flagrantly wrong and should not be allowed to stand."
"What the Fourth Circuit majority held, in essence, is that intentional racial discrimination is constitutional so long as it is not too severe. This reasoning is indefensible, and it cries out for correction."

Harvard admissions is a different beast and not comparable. TJ admissions is race blind.

The number of Asian students enrolled in TJ has not significantly changed. No reasonable person, or non-corrupt justice, would believe this is "harm":

And yet before the change in admissions the number of asian students enrolled was steadily increasing every year.
After the change it dropped while all other races rose.
This was the intended consequence of the change.
That is discrimination.

The argument seems to be that asians are over-represented so it's OK to discriminate against them a little bit (and you get to decide how much is a little bit).

Once again, there was a finding of intentional discrimination at trial.
The appellate court said that there was no harm because asians were still over-represented.
That is a pretty clear error of law.

That's completely wrong. Asians make up the majority of the school. The selection process is race blind. Acceptances mirror applications by demographic cohort within a few percent meaning that their process treats everyone about the same. Asian environment before and after the change is about the same and the largest beneficiary of the change were low income agents. The court was correct when they asserted there was no arm done.

Asians went from 70%+ to 50%+ of the admitted students.
This was the intended result of the change in admissions process.
This is why you are not disputing the fact that there was intentional racial discrimination in developing the new admissions process.

You can be race blind and still be discriminatory. See literacy tests and grandfather clauses
You can be over-represented and still be discriminated against. See discrimination against blacks in baseball AFTER Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier.

You are no different than any of the racists from generations past. Most racists thinks their particular brand of racism is virtuous.

I am racist and classist. I don't think TJ, a public high school program serving an extremely diverse area, should be 100% of any one particular race or filled almost entirely by kids from wealthy feeder schools. Sue me.

Given that there are just as many Asian students at TJ as ever before demonstrates that there was no harm by adding additional seats for kids who didn't attend wealthy feeder schools.

All of this "outrage" reminds me of men's ridiculous calls of "discrimination" when women were first admitted to college. Probably pushed by a bunch of RWNJs back then too.

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

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

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

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

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

Asian students still have an edge wrt admissions - they have a higher acceptance rate than others. More than a few points over other groups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect that if the C4TJ types keep screaming about “discrimination” even though Asian kids are still admitted at a higher rate than average and have just as many students as ever before that FCPS will eventually just scrap TJ.

Or they will stop discriminating.

I guess they can stop screaming about it right now since there is no discrimination.

It's like you don't understand what structural racism is.

It’s like you are ignoring the acceptance rates and enrollment numbers.

No discrimination.

You can be over-represented and discriminated against. In this case the discrimination is BECAUSE of the over-representation.
Get a clue

The admissions process is race-blind.
The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

The "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

There are real, serious issues with race and discrimination in the world. This is not one of them.

Grandfather clauses were race blind. Facially neutral criteria can be racist.
Over-representation is the reason for the discrimination. If asians weren't over-represented, nobody would have wanted to change the admissions criteria.

The group that saw the largest gain were white kids, the wealthiest group in fairfax.

The change in admission policy absolutely has a disparate impact on asians.

This is definitely one of the serious issues with racism in this world. The fact that it doesn't bother people like you is even more evidence that this is a serious issue.

No reasonable person would call it discrimination. There are groups who actually could legitimately claim discrimination and disparate impact by admissions - and they aren't Asian students.

And yet all the evidence from the Harvard SFFA case says otherwise.
If you don't think asians were discriminated against then you are lying to yourself.

The issue wasn't Asian overrepresentation; it was the underrepresentation of other groups. They wanted to expand access to more kids, not exclude anyone. That's why they added seats. If they simply wanted to get rid of Asian students then they wouldn't have changed the number of seats. There are just as many Asian students enrolled as ever before.

There are fewer asians and the percentage of asians (AND ONLY ASIANS) in the entering class plummeted. Black enrollment went up, hispanic enrollment went up, white enrollment went up. This was by design.

Again:
- The admissions process is race-blind.
- The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
- Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
- The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
- The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

Judge: "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

Arlington Heights analysis is pretty clear on how this case should have been decided.

That judge doesn't understand disparate impact. By their reckoning disparate impact cannot apply to any group that is over-represented.
Supreme Court Justice: "The Fourth Circuit’s decision is based on a theory that is flagrantly wrong and should not be allowed to stand."
"What the Fourth Circuit majority held, in essence, is that intentional racial discrimination is constitutional so long as it is not too severe. This reasoning is indefensible, and it cries out for correction."

Harvard admissions is a different beast and not comparable. TJ admissions is race blind.

The number of Asian students enrolled in TJ has not significantly changed. No reasonable person, or non-corrupt justice, would believe this is "harm":

And yet before the change in admissions the number of asian students enrolled was steadily increasing every year.
After the change it dropped while all other races rose.
This was the intended consequence of the change.
That is discrimination.

The argument seems to be that asians are over-represented so it's OK to discriminate against them a little bit (and you get to decide how much is a little bit).

Once again, there was a finding of intentional discrimination at trial.
The appellate court said that there was no harm because asians were still over-represented.
That is a pretty clear error of law.

That's completely wrong. Asians make up the majority of the school. The selection process is race blind. Acceptances mirror applications by demographic cohort within a few percent meaning that their process treats everyone about the same. Asian environment before and after the change is about the same and the largest beneficiary of the change were low income agents. The court was correct when they asserted there was no arm done.

Asians went from 70%+ to 50%+ of the admitted students.
This was the intended result of the change in admissions process.
This is why you are not disputing the fact that there was intentional racial discrimination in developing the new admissions process.

You can be race blind and still be discriminatory. See literacy tests and grandfather clauses
You can be over-represented and still be discriminated against. See discrimination against blacks in baseball AFTER Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier.

You are no different than any of the racists from generations past. Most racists thinks their particular brand of racism is virtuous.

I am racist and classist. I don't think TJ, a public high school program serving an extremely diverse area, should be 100% of any one particular race or filled almost entirely by kids from wealthy feeder schools. Sue me.

Given that there are just as many Asian students at TJ as ever before demonstrates that there was no harm by adding additional seats for kids who didn't attend wealthy feeder schools.

All of this "outrage" reminds me of men's ridiculous calls of "discrimination" when women were first admitted to college. Probably pushed by a bunch of RWNJs back then too.

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

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

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

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

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

Asian students still have an edge wrt admissions - they have a higher acceptance rate than others. More than a few points over other groups.

I thought they had the second highest rate by 1 or 2% but all were pretty close so I think it's just hair splitting and in the end acceptance rate was just a function of who applied.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect that if the C4TJ types keep screaming about “discrimination” even though Asian kids are still admitted at a higher rate than average and have just as many students as ever before that FCPS will eventually just scrap TJ.

Or they will stop discriminating.

I guess they can stop screaming about it right now since there is no discrimination.

It's like you don't understand what structural racism is.

It’s like you are ignoring the acceptance rates and enrollment numbers.

No discrimination.

You can be over-represented and discriminated against. In this case the discrimination is BECAUSE of the over-representation.
Get a clue

The admissions process is race-blind.
The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

The "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

There are real, serious issues with race and discrimination in the world. This is not one of them.

Grandfather clauses were race blind. Facially neutral criteria can be racist.
Over-representation is the reason for the discrimination. If asians weren't over-represented, nobody would have wanted to change the admissions criteria.

The group that saw the largest gain were white kids, the wealthiest group in fairfax.

The change in admission policy absolutely has a disparate impact on asians.

This is definitely one of the serious issues with racism in this world. The fact that it doesn't bother people like you is even more evidence that this is a serious issue.

No reasonable person would call it discrimination. There are groups who actually could legitimately claim discrimination and disparate impact by admissions - and they aren't Asian students.

And yet all the evidence from the Harvard SFFA case says otherwise.
If you don't think asians were discriminated against then you are lying to yourself.

The issue wasn't Asian overrepresentation; it was the underrepresentation of other groups. They wanted to expand access to more kids, not exclude anyone. That's why they added seats. If they simply wanted to get rid of Asian students then they wouldn't have changed the number of seats. There are just as many Asian students enrolled as ever before.

There are fewer asians and the percentage of asians (AND ONLY ASIANS) in the entering class plummeted. Black enrollment went up, hispanic enrollment went up, white enrollment went up. This was by design.

Again:
- The admissions process is race-blind.
- The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
- Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
- The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
- The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

Judge: "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

Arlington Heights analysis is pretty clear on how this case should have been decided.

That judge doesn't understand disparate impact. By their reckoning disparate impact cannot apply to any group that is over-represented.
Supreme Court Justice: "The Fourth Circuit’s decision is based on a theory that is flagrantly wrong and should not be allowed to stand."
"What the Fourth Circuit majority held, in essence, is that intentional racial discrimination is constitutional so long as it is not too severe. This reasoning is indefensible, and it cries out for correction."

Harvard admissions is a different beast and not comparable. TJ admissions is race blind.

The number of Asian students enrolled in TJ has not significantly changed. No reasonable person, or non-corrupt justice, would believe this is "harm":

And yet before the change in admissions the number of asian students enrolled was steadily increasing every year.
After the change it dropped while all other races rose.
This was the intended consequence of the change.
That is discrimination.

The argument seems to be that asians are over-represented so it's OK to discriminate against them a little bit (and you get to decide how much is a little bit).

Once again, there was a finding of intentional discrimination at trial.
The appellate court said that there was no harm because asians were still over-represented.
That is a pretty clear error of law.

That's completely wrong. Asians make up the majority of the school. The selection process is race blind. Acceptances mirror applications by demographic cohort within a few percent meaning that their process treats everyone about the same. Asian environment before and after the change is about the same and the largest beneficiary of the change were low income agents. The court was correct when they asserted there was no arm done.

Asians went from 70%+ to 50%+ of the admitted students.
This was the intended result of the change in admissions process.
This is why you are not disputing the fact that there was intentional racial discrimination in developing the new admissions process.

You can be race blind and still be discriminatory. See literacy tests and grandfather clauses
You can be over-represented and still be discriminated against. See discrimination against blacks in baseball AFTER Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier.

You are no different than any of the racists from generations past. Most racists thinks their particular brand of racism is virtuous.

I am racist and classist. I don't think TJ, a public high school program serving an extremely diverse area, should be 100% of any one particular race or filled almost entirely by kids from wealthy feeder schools. Sue me.

Given that there are just as many Asian students at TJ as ever before demonstrates that there was no harm by adding additional seats for kids who didn't attend wealthy feeder schools.

All of this "outrage" reminds me of men's ridiculous calls of "discrimination" when women were first admitted to college. Probably pushed by a bunch of RWNJs back then too.

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

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

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

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

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

Your insistence that selection should mirror applications and the like is social engineering. Asian people come here because of the school system, even if it means living in a 200 square foot basement for a family of four. Other races who have been here for generations prioritize space or sports, etc. The distribution of academic performance is not evenly distributed. Perhaps in the general population, but definitely not in this region. That is the problem. Have a less random way of selecting the top students. One can add students who you think are deserving as well. But at least have the first filter not so random.

It's not insistence. It's what the data showed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect that if the C4TJ types keep screaming about “discrimination” even though Asian kids are still admitted at a higher rate than average and have just as many students as ever before that FCPS will eventually just scrap TJ.

Or they will stop discriminating.

I guess they can stop screaming about it right now since there is no discrimination.

It's like you don't understand what structural racism is.

It’s like you are ignoring the acceptance rates and enrollment numbers.

No discrimination.

You can be over-represented and discriminated against. In this case the discrimination is BECAUSE of the over-representation.
Get a clue

The admissions process is race-blind.
The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

The "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

There are real, serious issues with race and discrimination in the world. This is not one of them.

Grandfather clauses were race blind. Facially neutral criteria can be racist.
Over-representation is the reason for the discrimination. If asians weren't over-represented, nobody would have wanted to change the admissions criteria.

The group that saw the largest gain were white kids, the wealthiest group in fairfax.

The change in admission policy absolutely has a disparate impact on asians.

This is definitely one of the serious issues with racism in this world. The fact that it doesn't bother people like you is even more evidence that this is a serious issue.

No reasonable person would call it discrimination. There are groups who actually could legitimately claim discrimination and disparate impact by admissions - and they aren't Asian students.

And yet all the evidence from the Harvard SFFA case says otherwise.
If you don't think asians were discriminated against then you are lying to yourself.

The issue wasn't Asian overrepresentation; it was the underrepresentation of other groups. They wanted to expand access to more kids, not exclude anyone. That's why they added seats. If they simply wanted to get rid of Asian students then they wouldn't have changed the number of seats. There are just as many Asian students enrolled as ever before.

There are fewer asians and the percentage of asians (AND ONLY ASIANS) in the entering class plummeted. Black enrollment went up, hispanic enrollment went up, white enrollment went up. This was by design.

Again:
- The admissions process is race-blind.
- The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
- Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
- The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
- The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

Judge: "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

Arlington Heights analysis is pretty clear on how this case should have been decided.

That judge doesn't understand disparate impact. By their reckoning disparate impact cannot apply to any group that is over-represented.
Supreme Court Justice: "The Fourth Circuit’s decision is based on a theory that is flagrantly wrong and should not be allowed to stand."
"What the Fourth Circuit majority held, in essence, is that intentional racial discrimination is constitutional so long as it is not too severe. This reasoning is indefensible, and it cries out for correction."

Harvard admissions is a different beast and not comparable. TJ admissions is race blind.

The number of Asian students enrolled in TJ has not significantly changed. No reasonable person, or non-corrupt justice, would believe this is "harm":

And yet before the change in admissions the number of asian students enrolled was steadily increasing every year.
After the change it dropped while all other races rose.
This was the intended consequence of the change.
That is discrimination.

The argument seems to be that asians are over-represented so it's OK to discriminate against them a little bit (and you get to decide how much is a little bit).

Once again, there was a finding of intentional discrimination at trial.
The appellate court said that there was no harm because asians were still over-represented.
That is a pretty clear error of law.

That's completely wrong. Asians make up the majority of the school. The selection process is race blind. Acceptances mirror applications by demographic cohort within a few percent meaning that their process treats everyone about the same. Asian environment before and after the change is about the same and the largest beneficiary of the change were low income agents. The court was correct when they asserted there was no arm done.

Asians went from 70%+ to 50%+ of the admitted students.
This was the intended result of the change in admissions process.
This is why you are not disputing the fact that there was intentional racial discrimination in developing the new admissions process.

You can be race blind and still be discriminatory. See literacy tests and grandfather clauses
You can be over-represented and still be discriminated against. See discrimination against blacks in baseball AFTER Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier.

You are no different than any of the racists from generations past. Most racists thinks their particular brand of racism is virtuous.

I am racist and classist. I don't think TJ, a public high school program serving an extremely diverse area, should be 100% of any one particular race or filled almost entirely by kids from wealthy feeder schools. Sue me.

Given that there are just as many Asian students at TJ as ever before demonstrates that there was no harm by adding additional seats for kids who didn't attend wealthy feeder schools.

All of this "outrage" reminds me of men's ridiculous calls of "discrimination" when women were first admitted to college. Probably pushed by a bunch of RWNJs back then too.

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

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

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

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

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

Your insistence that selection should mirror applications and the like is social engineering. Asian people come here because of the school system, even if it means living in a 200 square foot basement for a family of four. Other races who have been here for generations prioritize space or sports, etc. The distribution of academic performance is not evenly distributed. Perhaps in the general population, but definitely not in this region. That is the problem. Have a less random way of selecting the top students. One can add students who you think are deserving as well. But at least have the first filter not so random.

Then the boost to admissions from higher poverty middle schools should be a good thing for them

It's completely not random now and pretty fair overall, but I think a lot of people seem to resent that it isn't as easy to game as it used to be. So we'll post se false flags.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect that if the C4TJ types keep screaming about “discrimination” even though Asian kids are still admitted at a higher rate than average and have just as many students as ever before that FCPS will eventually just scrap TJ.

Or they will stop discriminating.

I guess they can stop screaming about it right now since there is no discrimination.

It's like you don't understand what structural racism is.

It’s like you are ignoring the acceptance rates and enrollment numbers.

No discrimination.

You can be over-represented and discriminated against. In this case the discrimination is BECAUSE of the over-representation.
Get a clue

The admissions process is race-blind.
The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

The "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

There are real, serious issues with race and discrimination in the world. This is not one of them.

Grandfather clauses were race blind. Facially neutral criteria can be racist.
Over-representation is the reason for the discrimination. If asians weren't over-represented, nobody would have wanted to change the admissions criteria.

The group that saw the largest gain were white kids, the wealthiest group in fairfax.

The change in admission policy absolutely has a disparate impact on asians.

This is definitely one of the serious issues with racism in this world. The fact that it doesn't bother people like you is even more evidence that this is a serious issue.

No reasonable person would call it discrimination. There are groups who actually could legitimately claim discrimination and disparate impact by admissions - and they aren't Asian students.

And yet all the evidence from the Harvard SFFA case says otherwise.
If you don't think asians were discriminated against then you are lying to yourself.

The issue wasn't Asian overrepresentation; it was the underrepresentation of other groups. They wanted to expand access to more kids, not exclude anyone. That's why they added seats. If they simply wanted to get rid of Asian students then they wouldn't have changed the number of seats. There are just as many Asian students enrolled as ever before.

There are fewer asians and the percentage of asians (AND ONLY ASIANS) in the entering class plummeted. Black enrollment went up, hispanic enrollment went up, white enrollment went up. This was by design.

Again:
- The admissions process is race-blind.
- The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
- Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
- The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
- The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

Judge: "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

Arlington Heights analysis is pretty clear on how this case should have been decided.

That judge doesn't understand disparate impact. By their reckoning disparate impact cannot apply to any group that is over-represented.
Supreme Court Justice: "The Fourth Circuit’s decision is based on a theory that is flagrantly wrong and should not be allowed to stand."
"What the Fourth Circuit majority held, in essence, is that intentional racial discrimination is constitutional so long as it is not too severe. This reasoning is indefensible, and it cries out for correction."

Harvard admissions is a different beast and not comparable. TJ admissions is race blind.

The number of Asian students enrolled in TJ has not significantly changed. No reasonable person, or non-corrupt justice, would believe this is "harm":

And yet before the change in admissions the number of asian students enrolled was steadily increasing every year.
After the change it dropped while all other races rose.
This was the intended consequence of the change.
That is discrimination.

The argument seems to be that asians are over-represented so it's OK to discriminate against them a little bit (and you get to decide how much is a little bit).

Once again, there was a finding of intentional discrimination at trial.
The appellate court said that there was no harm because asians were still over-represented.
That is a pretty clear error of law.

That's completely wrong. Asians make up the majority of the school. The selection process is race blind. Acceptances mirror applications by demographic cohort within a few percent meaning that their process treats everyone about the same. Asian environment before and after the change is about the same and the largest beneficiary of the change were low income agents. The court was correct when they asserted there was no arm done.

Asians went from 70%+ to 50%+ of the admitted students.
This was the intended result of the change in admissions process.
This is why you are not disputing the fact that there was intentional racial discrimination in developing the new admissions process.

You can be race blind and still be discriminatory. See literacy tests and grandfather clauses
You can be over-represented and still be discriminated against. See discrimination against blacks in baseball AFTER Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier.

You are no different than any of the racists from generations past. Most racists thinks their particular brand of racism is virtuous.

I am racist and classist. I don't think TJ, a public high school program serving an extremely diverse area, should be 100% of any one particular race or filled almost entirely by kids from wealthy feeder schools. Sue me.

Given that there are just as many Asian students at TJ as ever before demonstrates that there was no harm by adding additional seats for kids who didn't attend wealthy feeder schools.

All of this "outrage" reminds me of men's ridiculous calls of "discrimination" when women were first admitted to college. Probably pushed by a bunch of RWNJs back then too.

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

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

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

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

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

Your insistence that selection should mirror applications and the like is social engineering. Asian people come here because of the school system, even if it means living in a 200 square foot basement for a family of four. Other races who have been here for generations prioritize space or sports, etc. The distribution of academic performance is not evenly distributed. Perhaps in the general population, but definitely not in this region. That is the problem. Have a less random way of selecting the top students. One can add students who you think are deserving as well. But at least have the first filter not so random.

Then the boost to admissions from higher poverty middle schools should be a good thing for them

It's completely not random now and pretty fair overall, but I think a lot of people seem to resent that it isn't as easy to game as it used to be. So we'll post se false flags.

It's pretty random.

So many unprepared kids get screw by the social engineers trying to create the perfect color palette for the TJ student body.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect that if the C4TJ types keep screaming about “discrimination” even though Asian kids are still admitted at a higher rate than average and have just as many students as ever before that FCPS will eventually just scrap TJ.

Or they will stop discriminating.

I guess they can stop screaming about it right now since there is no discrimination.

It's like you don't understand what structural racism is.

It’s like you are ignoring the acceptance rates and enrollment numbers.

No discrimination.

You can be over-represented and discriminated against. In this case the discrimination is BECAUSE of the over-representation.
Get a clue

The admissions process is race-blind.
The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

The "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

There are real, serious issues with race and discrimination in the world. This is not one of them.

Grandfather clauses were race blind. Facially neutral criteria can be racist.
Over-representation is the reason for the discrimination. If asians weren't over-represented, nobody would have wanted to change the admissions criteria.

The group that saw the largest gain were white kids, the wealthiest group in fairfax.

The change in admission policy absolutely has a disparate impact on asians.

This is definitely one of the serious issues with racism in this world. The fact that it doesn't bother people like you is even more evidence that this is a serious issue.

No reasonable person would call it discrimination. There are groups who actually could legitimately claim discrimination and disparate impact by admissions - and they aren't Asian students.

And yet all the evidence from the Harvard SFFA case says otherwise.
If you don't think asians were discriminated against then you are lying to yourself.

The issue wasn't Asian overrepresentation; it was the underrepresentation of other groups. They wanted to expand access to more kids, not exclude anyone. That's why they added seats. If they simply wanted to get rid of Asian students then they wouldn't have changed the number of seats. There are just as many Asian students enrolled as ever before.

There are fewer asians and the percentage of asians (AND ONLY ASIANS) in the entering class plummeted. Black enrollment went up, hispanic enrollment went up, white enrollment went up. This was by design.

Again:
- The admissions process is race-blind.
- The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
- Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
- The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
- The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

Judge: "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

Arlington Heights analysis is pretty clear on how this case should have been decided.

That judge doesn't understand disparate impact. By their reckoning disparate impact cannot apply to any group that is over-represented.
Supreme Court Justice: "The Fourth Circuit’s decision is based on a theory that is flagrantly wrong and should not be allowed to stand."
"What the Fourth Circuit majority held, in essence, is that intentional racial discrimination is constitutional so long as it is not too severe. This reasoning is indefensible, and it cries out for correction."

Harvard admissions is a different beast and not comparable. TJ admissions is race blind.

The number of Asian students enrolled in TJ has not significantly changed. No reasonable person, or non-corrupt justice, would believe this is "harm":

And yet before the change in admissions the number of asian students enrolled was steadily increasing every year.
After the change it dropped while all other races rose.
This was the intended consequence of the change.
That is discrimination.

The argument seems to be that asians are over-represented so it's OK to discriminate against them a little bit (and you get to decide how much is a little bit).

Once again, there was a finding of intentional discrimination at trial.
The appellate court said that there was no harm because asians were still over-represented.
That is a pretty clear error of law.

That's completely wrong. Asians make up the majority of the school. The selection process is race blind. Acceptances mirror applications by demographic cohort within a few percent meaning that their process treats everyone about the same. Asian environment before and after the change is about the same and the largest beneficiary of the change were low income agents. The court was correct when they asserted there was no arm done.

Asians went from 70%+ to 50%+ of the admitted students.
This was the intended result of the change in admissions process.
This is why you are not disputing the fact that there was intentional racial discrimination in developing the new admissions process.

You can be race blind and still be discriminatory. See literacy tests and grandfather clauses
You can be over-represented and still be discriminated against. See discrimination against blacks in baseball AFTER Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier.

You are no different than any of the racists from generations past. Most racists thinks their particular brand of racism is virtuous.

I am racist and classist. I don't think TJ, a public high school program serving an extremely diverse area, should be 100% of any one particular race or filled almost entirely by kids from wealthy feeder schools. Sue me.

Given that there are just as many Asian students at TJ as ever before demonstrates that there was no harm by adding additional seats for kids who didn't attend wealthy feeder schools.

All of this "outrage" reminds me of men's ridiculous calls of "discrimination" when women were first admitted to college. Probably pushed by a bunch of RWNJs back then too.

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

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

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

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

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

Your insistence that selection should mirror applications and the like is social engineering. Asian people come here because of the school system, even if it means living in a 200 square foot basement for a family of four. Other races who have been here for generations prioritize space or sports, etc. The distribution of academic performance is not evenly distributed. Perhaps in the general population, but definitely not in this region. That is the problem. Have a less random way of selecting the top students. One can add students who you think are deserving as well. But at least have the first filter not so random.

Then the boost to admissions from higher poverty middle schools should be a good thing for them

It's completely not random now and pretty fair overall, but I think a lot of people seem to resent that it isn't as easy to game as it used to be. So we'll post se false flags.

You nailed it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect that if the C4TJ types keep screaming about “discrimination” even though Asian kids are still admitted at a higher rate than average and have just as many students as ever before that FCPS will eventually just scrap TJ.

Or they will stop discriminating.

I guess they can stop screaming about it right now since there is no discrimination.

It's like you don't understand what structural racism is.

It’s like you are ignoring the acceptance rates and enrollment numbers.

No discrimination.

You can be over-represented and discriminated against. In this case the discrimination is BECAUSE of the over-representation.
Get a clue

The admissions process is race-blind.
The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

The "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

There are real, serious issues with race and discrimination in the world. This is not one of them.

Grandfather clauses were race blind. Facially neutral criteria can be racist.
Over-representation is the reason for the discrimination. If asians weren't over-represented, nobody would have wanted to change the admissions criteria.

The group that saw the largest gain were white kids, the wealthiest group in fairfax.

The change in admission policy absolutely has a disparate impact on asians.

This is definitely one of the serious issues with racism in this world. The fact that it doesn't bother people like you is even more evidence that this is a serious issue.

No reasonable person would call it discrimination. There are groups who actually could legitimately claim discrimination and disparate impact by admissions - and they aren't Asian students.

And yet all the evidence from the Harvard SFFA case says otherwise.
If you don't think asians were discriminated against then you are lying to yourself.

The issue wasn't Asian overrepresentation; it was the underrepresentation of other groups. They wanted to expand access to more kids, not exclude anyone. That's why they added seats. If they simply wanted to get rid of Asian students then they wouldn't have changed the number of seats. There are just as many Asian students enrolled as ever before.

There are fewer asians and the percentage of asians (AND ONLY ASIANS) in the entering class plummeted. Black enrollment went up, hispanic enrollment went up, white enrollment went up. This was by design.

Again:
- The admissions process is race-blind.
- The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
- Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
- The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
- The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

Judge: "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

Arlington Heights analysis is pretty clear on how this case should have been decided.

That judge doesn't understand disparate impact. By their reckoning disparate impact cannot apply to any group that is over-represented.
Supreme Court Justice: "The Fourth Circuit’s decision is based on a theory that is flagrantly wrong and should not be allowed to stand."
"What the Fourth Circuit majority held, in essence, is that intentional racial discrimination is constitutional so long as it is not too severe. This reasoning is indefensible, and it cries out for correction."

Harvard admissions is a different beast and not comparable. TJ admissions is race blind.

The number of Asian students enrolled in TJ has not significantly changed. No reasonable person, or non-corrupt justice, would believe this is "harm":

And yet before the change in admissions the number of asian students enrolled was steadily increasing every year.
After the change it dropped while all other races rose.
This was the intended consequence of the change.
That is discrimination.

The argument seems to be that asians are over-represented so it's OK to discriminate against them a little bit (and you get to decide how much is a little bit).

Once again, there was a finding of intentional discrimination at trial.
The appellate court said that there was no harm because asians were still over-represented.
That is a pretty clear error of law.

That's completely wrong. Asians make up the majority of the school. The selection process is race blind. Acceptances mirror applications by demographic cohort within a few percent meaning that their process treats everyone about the same. Asian environment before and after the change is about the same and the largest beneficiary of the change were low income agents. The court was correct when they asserted there was no arm done.

Asians went from 70%+ to 50%+ of the admitted students.
This was the intended result of the change in admissions process.
This is why you are not disputing the fact that there was intentional racial discrimination in developing the new admissions process.

You can be race blind and still be discriminatory. See literacy tests and grandfather clauses
You can be over-represented and still be discriminated against. See discrimination against blacks in baseball AFTER Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier.

You are no different than any of the racists from generations past. Most racists thinks their particular brand of racism is virtuous.

I am racist and classist. I don't think TJ, a public high school program serving an extremely diverse area, should be 100% of any one particular race or filled almost entirely by kids from wealthy feeder schools. Sue me.

Given that there are just as many Asian students at TJ as ever before demonstrates that there was no harm by adding additional seats for kids who didn't attend wealthy feeder schools.

All of this "outrage" reminds me of men's ridiculous calls of "discrimination" when women were first admitted to college. Probably pushed by a bunch of RWNJs back then too.

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

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

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

We should try to reduce the FARMS rate in the county, not penalize schools with a FARMS rate hovering near the percentage that an FCPS-commissioned study concluded begins to impede academic performance.

But, sure, let's keep racing to the bottom and finding new ways to stigmatize merit.

That's the thing. They think the way to reduce FARM rate is to send unprepared kids to TJ.

The liberal left has always had a distorted view of what social mobility means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect that if the C4TJ types keep screaming about “discrimination” even though Asian kids are still admitted at a higher rate than average and have just as many students as ever before that FCPS will eventually just scrap TJ.

Or they will stop discriminating.

I guess they can stop screaming about it right now since there is no discrimination.

It's like you don't understand what structural racism is.

It’s like you are ignoring the acceptance rates and enrollment numbers.

No discrimination.

You can be over-represented and discriminated against. In this case the discrimination is BECAUSE of the over-representation.
Get a clue

The admissions process is race-blind.
The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

The "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

There are real, serious issues with race and discrimination in the world. This is not one of them.

Grandfather clauses were race blind. Facially neutral criteria can be racist.
Over-representation is the reason for the discrimination. If asians weren't over-represented, nobody would have wanted to change the admissions criteria.

The group that saw the largest gain were white kids, the wealthiest group in fairfax.

The change in admission policy absolutely has a disparate impact on asians.

This is definitely one of the serious issues with racism in this world. The fact that it doesn't bother people like you is even more evidence that this is a serious issue.

No reasonable person would call it discrimination. There are groups who actually could legitimately claim discrimination and disparate impact by admissions - and they aren't Asian students.

And yet all the evidence from the Harvard SFFA case says otherwise.
If you don't think asians were discriminated against then you are lying to yourself.

The issue wasn't Asian overrepresentation; it was the underrepresentation of other groups. They wanted to expand access to more kids, not exclude anyone. That's why they added seats. If they simply wanted to get rid of Asian students then they wouldn't have changed the number of seats. There are just as many Asian students enrolled as ever before.

There are fewer asians and the percentage of asians (AND ONLY ASIANS) in the entering class plummeted. Black enrollment went up, hispanic enrollment went up, white enrollment went up. This was by design.

Again:
- The admissions process is race-blind.
- The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
- Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
- The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
- The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

Judge: "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

Arlington Heights analysis is pretty clear on how this case should have been decided.

That judge doesn't understand disparate impact. By their reckoning disparate impact cannot apply to any group that is over-represented.
Supreme Court Justice: "The Fourth Circuit’s decision is based on a theory that is flagrantly wrong and should not be allowed to stand."
"What the Fourth Circuit majority held, in essence, is that intentional racial discrimination is constitutional so long as it is not too severe. This reasoning is indefensible, and it cries out for correction."

Harvard admissions is a different beast and not comparable. TJ admissions is race blind.

The number of Asian students enrolled in TJ has not significantly changed. No reasonable person, or non-corrupt justice, would believe this is "harm":

And yet before the change in admissions the number of asian students enrolled was steadily increasing every year.
After the change it dropped while all other races rose.
This was the intended consequence of the change.
That is discrimination.

The argument seems to be that asians are over-represented so it's OK to discriminate against them a little bit (and you get to decide how much is a little bit).

Once again, there was a finding of intentional discrimination at trial.
The appellate court said that there was no harm because asians were still over-represented.
That is a pretty clear error of law.

That's completely wrong. Asians make up the majority of the school. The selection process is race blind. Acceptances mirror applications by demographic cohort within a few percent meaning that their process treats everyone about the same. Asian environment before and after the change is about the same and the largest beneficiary of the change were low income agents. The court was correct when they asserted there was no arm done.

Asians went from 70%+ to 50%+ of the admitted students.
This was the intended result of the change in admissions process.
This is why you are not disputing the fact that there was intentional racial discrimination in developing the new admissions process.

You can be race blind and still be discriminatory. See literacy tests and grandfather clauses
You can be over-represented and still be discriminated against. See discrimination against blacks in baseball AFTER Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier.

You are no different than any of the racists from generations past. Most racists thinks their particular brand of racism is virtuous.

I am racist and classist. I don't think TJ, a public high school program serving an extremely diverse area, should be 100% of any one particular race or filled almost entirely by kids from wealthy feeder schools. Sue me.

Given that there are just as many Asian students at TJ as ever before demonstrates that there was no harm by adding additional seats for kids who didn't attend wealthy feeder schools.

All of this "outrage" reminds me of men's ridiculous calls of "discrimination" when women were first admitted to college. Probably pushed by a bunch of RWNJs back then too.

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

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

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

We should try to reduce the FARMS rate in the county, not penalize schools with a FARMS rate hovering near the percentage that an FCPS-commissioned study concluded begins to impede academic performance.

But, sure, let's keep racing to the bottom and finding new ways to stigmatize merit.

That's the thing. They think the way to reduce FARM rate is to send unprepared kids to TJ.

The liberal left has always had a distorted view of what social mobility means.

There's no concrete evidence to support this. It's a thing only in the minds of the delusionally paranoid fringe-right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect that if the C4TJ types keep screaming about “discrimination” even though Asian kids are still admitted at a higher rate than average and have just as many students as ever before that FCPS will eventually just scrap TJ.

Or they will stop discriminating.

I guess they can stop screaming about it right now since there is no discrimination.

It's like you don't understand what structural racism is.

It’s like you are ignoring the acceptance rates and enrollment numbers.

No discrimination.

You can be over-represented and discriminated against. In this case the discrimination is BECAUSE of the over-representation.
Get a clue

The admissions process is race-blind.
The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

The "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

There are real, serious issues with race and discrimination in the world. This is not one of them.

Grandfather clauses were race blind. Facially neutral criteria can be racist.
Over-representation is the reason for the discrimination. If asians weren't over-represented, nobody would have wanted to change the admissions criteria.

The group that saw the largest gain were white kids, the wealthiest group in fairfax.

The change in admission policy absolutely has a disparate impact on asians.

This is definitely one of the serious issues with racism in this world. The fact that it doesn't bother people like you is even more evidence that this is a serious issue.

No reasonable person would call it discrimination. There are groups who actually could legitimately claim discrimination and disparate impact by admissions - and they aren't Asian students.

And yet all the evidence from the Harvard SFFA case says otherwise.
If you don't think asians were discriminated against then you are lying to yourself.

The issue wasn't Asian overrepresentation; it was the underrepresentation of other groups. They wanted to expand access to more kids, not exclude anyone. That's why they added seats. If they simply wanted to get rid of Asian students then they wouldn't have changed the number of seats. There are just as many Asian students enrolled as ever before.

There are fewer asians and the percentage of asians (AND ONLY ASIANS) in the entering class plummeted. Black enrollment went up, hispanic enrollment went up, white enrollment went up. This was by design.

Again:
- The admissions process is race-blind.
- The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
- Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
- The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
- The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

Judge: "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

Arlington Heights analysis is pretty clear on how this case should have been decided.

That judge doesn't understand disparate impact. By their reckoning disparate impact cannot apply to any group that is over-represented.
Supreme Court Justice: "The Fourth Circuit’s decision is based on a theory that is flagrantly wrong and should not be allowed to stand."
"What the Fourth Circuit majority held, in essence, is that intentional racial discrimination is constitutional so long as it is not too severe. This reasoning is indefensible, and it cries out for correction."

Harvard admissions is a different beast and not comparable. TJ admissions is race blind.

The number of Asian students enrolled in TJ has not significantly changed. No reasonable person, or non-corrupt justice, would believe this is "harm":

And yet before the change in admissions the number of asian students enrolled was steadily increasing every year.
After the change it dropped while all other races rose.
This was the intended consequence of the change.
That is discrimination.

The argument seems to be that asians are over-represented so it's OK to discriminate against them a little bit (and you get to decide how much is a little bit).

Once again, there was a finding of intentional discrimination at trial.
The appellate court said that there was no harm because asians were still over-represented.
That is a pretty clear error of law.

That's completely wrong. Asians make up the majority of the school. The selection process is race blind. Acceptances mirror applications by demographic cohort within a few percent meaning that their process treats everyone about the same. Asian environment before and after the change is about the same and the largest beneficiary of the change were low income agents. The court was correct when they asserted there was no arm done.

Asians went from 70%+ to 50%+ of the admitted students.
This was the intended result of the change in admissions process.
This is why you are not disputing the fact that there was intentional racial discrimination in developing the new admissions process.

You can be race blind and still be discriminatory. See literacy tests and grandfather clauses
You can be over-represented and still be discriminated against. See discrimination against blacks in baseball AFTER Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier.

You are no different than any of the racists from generations past. Most racists thinks their particular brand of racism is virtuous.

I am racist and classist. I don't think TJ, a public high school program serving an extremely diverse area, should be 100% of any one particular race or filled almost entirely by kids from wealthy feeder schools. Sue me.

Given that there are just as many Asian students at TJ as ever before demonstrates that there was no harm by adding additional seats for kids who didn't attend wealthy feeder schools.

All of this "outrage" reminds me of men's ridiculous calls of "discrimination" when women were first admitted to college. Probably pushed by a bunch of RWNJs back then too.

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

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

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

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

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

Asian students still have an edge wrt admissions - they have a higher acceptance rate than others. More than a few points over other groups.

To what degree is the edge due to having higher grades or being better writers?

On that note, what are the demographics of the top 50%, 25%, and 10% at TJ with respect to weighted GPA? If all races have very similar admissions rates, yet the Asians at TJ are objectively much stronger and better prepared students than everyone else, it's pretty apparent that they're being discriminated against in admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect that if the C4TJ types keep screaming about “discrimination” even though Asian kids are still admitted at a higher rate than average and have just as many students as ever before that FCPS will eventually just scrap TJ.

Or they will stop discriminating.

I guess they can stop screaming about it right now since there is no discrimination.

It's like you don't understand what structural racism is.

It’s like you are ignoring the acceptance rates and enrollment numbers.

No discrimination.

You can be over-represented and discriminated against. In this case the discrimination is BECAUSE of the over-representation.
Get a clue

The admissions process is race-blind.
The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

The "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

There are real, serious issues with race and discrimination in the world. This is not one of them.

Grandfather clauses were race blind. Facially neutral criteria can be racist.
Over-representation is the reason for the discrimination. If asians weren't over-represented, nobody would have wanted to change the admissions criteria.

The group that saw the largest gain were white kids, the wealthiest group in fairfax.

The change in admission policy absolutely has a disparate impact on asians.

This is definitely one of the serious issues with racism in this world. The fact that it doesn't bother people like you is even more evidence that this is a serious issue.

No reasonable person would call it discrimination. There are groups who actually could legitimately claim discrimination and disparate impact by admissions - and they aren't Asian students.

And yet all the evidence from the Harvard SFFA case says otherwise.
If you don't think asians were discriminated against then you are lying to yourself.

The issue wasn't Asian overrepresentation; it was the underrepresentation of other groups. They wanted to expand access to more kids, not exclude anyone. That's why they added seats. If they simply wanted to get rid of Asian students then they wouldn't have changed the number of seats. There are just as many Asian students enrolled as ever before.

There are fewer asians and the percentage of asians (AND ONLY ASIANS) in the entering class plummeted. Black enrollment went up, hispanic enrollment went up, white enrollment went up. This was by design.

Again:
- The admissions process is race-blind.
- The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
- Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
- The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
- The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

Judge: "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

Arlington Heights analysis is pretty clear on how this case should have been decided.

That judge doesn't understand disparate impact. By their reckoning disparate impact cannot apply to any group that is over-represented.
Supreme Court Justice: "The Fourth Circuit’s decision is based on a theory that is flagrantly wrong and should not be allowed to stand."
"What the Fourth Circuit majority held, in essence, is that intentional racial discrimination is constitutional so long as it is not too severe. This reasoning is indefensible, and it cries out for correction."

Harvard admissions is a different beast and not comparable. TJ admissions is race blind.

The number of Asian students enrolled in TJ has not significantly changed. No reasonable person, or non-corrupt justice, would believe this is "harm":

And yet before the change in admissions the number of asian students enrolled was steadily increasing every year.
After the change it dropped while all other races rose.
This was the intended consequence of the change.
That is discrimination.

The argument seems to be that asians are over-represented so it's OK to discriminate against them a little bit (and you get to decide how much is a little bit).

Once again, there was a finding of intentional discrimination at trial.
The appellate court said that there was no harm because asians were still over-represented.
That is a pretty clear error of law.

That's completely wrong. Asians make up the majority of the school. The selection process is race blind. Acceptances mirror applications by demographic cohort within a few percent meaning that their process treats everyone about the same. Asian environment before and after the change is about the same and the largest beneficiary of the change were low income agents. The court was correct when they asserted there was no arm done.

Asians went from 70%+ to 50%+ of the admitted students.
This was the intended result of the change in admissions process.
This is why you are not disputing the fact that there was intentional racial discrimination in developing the new admissions process.

You can be race blind and still be discriminatory. See literacy tests and grandfather clauses
You can be over-represented and still be discriminated against. See discrimination against blacks in baseball AFTER Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier.

You are no different than any of the racists from generations past. Most racists thinks their particular brand of racism is virtuous.

I am racist and classist. I don't think TJ, a public high school program serving an extremely diverse area, should be 100% of any one particular race or filled almost entirely by kids from wealthy feeder schools. Sue me.

Given that there are just as many Asian students at TJ as ever before demonstrates that there was no harm by adding additional seats for kids who didn't attend wealthy feeder schools.

All of this "outrage" reminds me of men's ridiculous calls of "discrimination" when women were first admitted to college. Probably pushed by a bunch of RWNJs back then too.

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

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

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

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

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

Your insistence that selection should mirror applications and the like is social engineering. Asian people come here because of the school system, even if it means living in a 200 square foot basement for a family of four. Other races who have been here for generations prioritize space or sports, etc. The distribution of academic performance is not evenly distributed. Perhaps in the general population, but definitely not in this region. That is the problem. Have a less random way of selecting the top students. One can add students who you think are deserving as well. But at least have the first filter not so random.

It's not insistence. It's what the data showed.

And this is social engineering given the distribution of GPAs, test scores, etc. of the broader population at FCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect that if the C4TJ types keep screaming about “discrimination” even though Asian kids are still admitted at a higher rate than average and have just as many students as ever before that FCPS will eventually just scrap TJ.

Or they will stop discriminating.

I guess they can stop screaming about it right now since there is no discrimination.

It's like you don't understand what structural racism is.

It’s like you are ignoring the acceptance rates and enrollment numbers.

No discrimination.

You can be over-represented and discriminated against. In this case the discrimination is BECAUSE of the over-representation.
Get a clue

The admissions process is race-blind.
The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

The "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

There are real, serious issues with race and discrimination in the world. This is not one of them.

Grandfather clauses were race blind. Facially neutral criteria can be racist.
Over-representation is the reason for the discrimination. If asians weren't over-represented, nobody would have wanted to change the admissions criteria.

The group that saw the largest gain were white kids, the wealthiest group in fairfax.

The change in admission policy absolutely has a disparate impact on asians.

This is definitely one of the serious issues with racism in this world. The fact that it doesn't bother people like you is even more evidence that this is a serious issue.

No reasonable person would call it discrimination. There are groups who actually could legitimately claim discrimination and disparate impact by admissions - and they aren't Asian students.

And yet all the evidence from the Harvard SFFA case says otherwise.
If you don't think asians were discriminated against then you are lying to yourself.

The issue wasn't Asian overrepresentation; it was the underrepresentation of other groups. They wanted to expand access to more kids, not exclude anyone. That's why they added seats. If they simply wanted to get rid of Asian students then they wouldn't have changed the number of seats. There are just as many Asian students enrolled as ever before.

There are fewer asians and the percentage of asians (AND ONLY ASIANS) in the entering class plummeted. Black enrollment went up, hispanic enrollment went up, white enrollment went up. This was by design.

Again:
- The admissions process is race-blind.
- The acceptance rate for Asian students is higher than average.
- Asian students make up a huge majority of the students enrolled.
- The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ is at a near all-time high.
- The group that saw the most gains were Asian students from low-income families.

Judge: "admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students."

Arlington Heights analysis is pretty clear on how this case should have been decided.

That judge doesn't understand disparate impact. By their reckoning disparate impact cannot apply to any group that is over-represented.
Supreme Court Justice: "The Fourth Circuit’s decision is based on a theory that is flagrantly wrong and should not be allowed to stand."
"What the Fourth Circuit majority held, in essence, is that intentional racial discrimination is constitutional so long as it is not too severe. This reasoning is indefensible, and it cries out for correction."

Harvard admissions is a different beast and not comparable. TJ admissions is race blind.

The number of Asian students enrolled in TJ has not significantly changed. No reasonable person, or non-corrupt justice, would believe this is "harm":

And yet before the change in admissions the number of asian students enrolled was steadily increasing every year.
After the change it dropped while all other races rose.
This was the intended consequence of the change.
That is discrimination.

The argument seems to be that asians are over-represented so it's OK to discriminate against them a little bit (and you get to decide how much is a little bit).

Once again, there was a finding of intentional discrimination at trial.
The appellate court said that there was no harm because asians were still over-represented.
That is a pretty clear error of law.

That's completely wrong. Asians make up the majority of the school. The selection process is race blind. Acceptances mirror applications by demographic cohort within a few percent meaning that their process treats everyone about the same. Asian environment before and after the change is about the same and the largest beneficiary of the change were low income agents. The court was correct when they asserted there was no arm done.

Asians went from 70%+ to 50%+ of the admitted students.
This was the intended result of the change in admissions process.
This is why you are not disputing the fact that there was intentional racial discrimination in developing the new admissions process.

You can be race blind and still be discriminatory. See literacy tests and grandfather clauses
You can be over-represented and still be discriminated against. See discrimination against blacks in baseball AFTER Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier.

You are no different than any of the racists from generations past. Most racists thinks their particular brand of racism is virtuous.

I am racist and classist. I don't think TJ, a public high school program serving an extremely diverse area, should be 100% of any one particular race or filled almost entirely by kids from wealthy feeder schools. Sue me.

Given that there are just as many Asian students at TJ as ever before demonstrates that there was no harm by adding additional seats for kids who didn't attend wealthy feeder schools.

All of this "outrage" reminds me of men's ridiculous calls of "discrimination" when women were first admitted to college. Probably pushed by a bunch of RWNJs back then too.

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

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

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

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

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

Your insistence that selection should mirror applications and the like is social engineering. Asian people come here because of the school system, even if it means living in a 200 square foot basement for a family of four. Other races who have been here for generations prioritize space or sports, etc. The distribution of academic performance is not evenly distributed. Perhaps in the general population, but definitely not in this region. That is the problem. Have a less random way of selecting the top students. One can add students who you think are deserving as well. But at least have the first filter not so random.

It's not insistence. It's what the data showed.

And this is social engineering given the distribution of GPAs, test scores, etc. of the broader population at FCPS.

There is no social engineering that's just fake news. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide a citation.