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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Nope.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is racist when you forcibly try to correct it by targeting the group. For example if you target black people in the NBA because they are over-represented. Exactly what FCPS tried to do at TJ by targeting the Asians. And that's why the judge saw it for what it was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Nope.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes. If you are a lawyer, you should change your profession.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry typo on my phone.

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

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

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

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

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

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Nope.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe you should read it again. You clearly missed the rationale. You are also wrong about the old admissions policy being discriminatory. In fact, it was challenged by Professor Lloyd Cohen of GMU for being biased in favor of African American candidates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Nope.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is racist when you forcibly try to correct it by targeting the group. For example if you target black people in the NBA because they are over-represented. Exactly what FCPS tried to do at TJ by targeting the Asians. And that's why the judge saw it for what it was.

Your assertion is that the use of the word "over-represented" is racist. It is not. Period. It is a word that is mathematically accurate to use in this instance - indeed, there isn't another word that would be as accurate.

As I said, we can have an argument about whether or not the actions taken to address the over-representation are or were racist, either in their intent or in their impact. I think you can make an argument based on the sloppy communications of FCPS personnel that the intent might have been racist, and that's really disappointing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Nope.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is racist when you forcibly try to correct it by targeting the group. For example if you target black people in the NBA because they are over-represented. Exactly what FCPS tried to do at TJ by targeting the Asians. And that's why the judge saw it for what it was.

While these individuals may have made some disgusting racist remarks, the actual admissions process itself is not "discriminatory".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry typo on my phone.

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

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

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

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

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

+1000

Why is it a problem if a program attracts a lot of people of a particular minority group? This is the part I'm not understanding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Nope.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes. If you are a lawyer, you should change your profession.

What is the basis for your assertion? That's the issue that was unclear from your statement.

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

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

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

Nope.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am a lawyer and I can tell you flat out from experience that once the case was assigned to Claude Hilton the outcome was a forgone conclusion. The Defendants were not going to win. He makes some valid points, he is courageous in some ways in calling it like it is, but I think nearly any other judge not a Reagan or Bush appointee would have gone the other way.

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

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

Yes. If you are a lawyer, you should change your profession.

What is the basis for your assertion? That's the issue that was unclear from your statement.

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

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

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

Nope.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am a lawyer and I can tell you flat out from experience that once the case was assigned to Claude Hilton the outcome was a forgone conclusion. The Defendants were not going to win. He makes some valid points, he is courageous in some ways in calling it like it is, but I think nearly any other judge not a Reagan or Bush appointee would have gone the other way.

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

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

Yes. If you are a lawyer, you should change your profession.

What is the basis for your assertion? That's the issue that was unclear from your statement.

Let me try that again:

I am a lawyer and I can tell you flat out from experience that once the case was assigned to Claude Hilton the outcome was a forgone conclusion. The Defendants were not going to win. He makes some valid points, he is courageous in some ways in calling it like it is, but I think nearly any other judge not a Reagan or Bush appointee would have gone the other way.

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

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

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

Nope.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is racist when you forcibly try to correct it by targeting the group. For example if you target black people in the NBA because they are over-represented. Exactly what FCPS tried to do at TJ by targeting the Asians. And that's why the judge saw it for what it was.

While these individuals may have made some disgusting racist remarks, the actual admissions process itself is not "discriminatory".

+1

This is where Hilton's line of reasoning is likely to be challenged. There is a much stronger argument for "the School Board should be held accountable for their unacceptable behavior" than there is for "the admissions process is invalid because it's discriminatory".

Hilton doesn't really address at all why the new admissions process is discriminatory on its own - he only discusses the questionable motives of the School Board and compares the impact of the new process to the old process and uses that impact to reel in old precedents.

The question remains - without referencing the old process or the old demographic of the school, what is it about the new admissions process that is discriminatory?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Nope.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, exactly. It's just math. Various groups can be under/over/well represented.

> more students from all over the county; every single MS is now represented
REPRESENTED (100%)

> more students from ED backgrounds, going from <1% to 25% of the freshman class (27% of FCPS students are ED)
LIKELY UNDER REPRESENTED (25% is likely overstatement < 27%)

> more Hispanic students, 3% to 11% (27% of FCPS)
UNDER REPRESENTED (11% < 27%)

> more black/mixed students, 6% to 13% (16% of FCPS)
SLIGHTLY UNDER REPRESENTED (13% < 16%)

> more white students, 18% to 22% (38% of FCPS)
UNDER REPRESENTED (22% < 38%)

> more female students, 42% to 46% (48% of FCPS)
CLOSE TO REPRESENTED (46% ~ 48%)

> fewer Asian students, 73% to 54% (20% of FCPS)
OVER REPRESENTED (54% > 20%)


Overall, the new admissions process resulted in a freshman class that is better representative of the FCPS population than the previous process. It's just math.

Whether you think it should be representative - or not - is a different story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

It is racist when you forcibly try to correct it by targeting the group. For example if you target black people in the NBA because they are over-represented. Exactly what FCPS tried to do at TJ by targeting the Asians. And that's why the judge saw it for what it was.

DP, by your logic no situation with an under-represented group could ever be remedied, because by definition if you increase the representation of that group, you either make another group even more under-represented and/or you take an over-represented group and make it "less over-represented", and that latter case (which is the "Asians at TJ" situation) you are referring to as "targeting" the over-represented group. Sorry everyone else, we have our share of the pie... you can grow yours, but not if it diminishes ours (which in a fixed number of seats environment is obviously an illogical statement).

What if the changes to promote geographic and SES diversity in admissions had resulted in no change to % Asian representation? Would you be ok with that? In other words, are you really concerned about the fairness of the process itself, or just invested in maintaining an arbitrary status quo outcome?

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

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

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

Nope.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is racist when you forcibly try to correct it by targeting the group. For example if you target black people in the NBA because they are over-represented. Exactly what FCPS tried to do at TJ by targeting the Asians. And that's why the judge saw it for what it was.

While these individuals may have made some disgusting racist remarks, the actual admissions process itself is not "discriminatory".

+1

This is where Hilton's line of reasoning is likely to be challenged. There is a much stronger argument for "the School Board should be held accountable for their unacceptable behavior" than there is for "the admissions process is invalid because it's discriminatory".

Hilton doesn't really address at all why the new admissions process is discriminatory on its own - he only discusses the questionable motives of the School Board and compares the impact of the new process to the old process and uses that impact to reel in old precedents.

The question remains - without referencing the old process or the old demographic of the school, what is it about the new admissions process that is discriminatory?

All of you so-called lawyers on this board are hacks. Please read his opinion. He goes through the 4-factor test of Arlington Heights and finds that there was no dispute of material fact and that the facts show that the admissions policy fails the analysis (strict scrutiny). He explains exactly what is wrong with the new admissions process - it was intentionally designed and put in place to disadvantage individuals based on their race. Why is this so hard for people to grasp? We all know this is true, we just didn't know if it was being done in a Constitutional manner or not. Now we know.

[Anonymous]

The problem is treating children as mere categories instead of as individuals. If I do or do not have the demonstrated ability to succeed at TJ, it means that I don’t.

I shouldn’t be accepted or rejected because the school “needs more” of, or “has too many” children in the same racial/socioeconomic/gender/religious/etc category.

This is why the use of “representation” in this context is racist.