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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

They are selecting from a group of qualified applicants.

[Anonymous]

What are the demographics of AAP? Take a look at https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/BPLQKV69B096/$file/FCPS%20final%20report%2005.05.20.pdf

There are very few in-pool URM students in the pipeline which is why they removed an emphasis on testing for a school like TJ and why they are changing AAP admission. FCPS has the data but they pick and choose from it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

+1000

[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.

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.

Words have context. In this context, it is racist. Period.

[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.

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.

Words have context. In this context, it is racist. Period.

The intent of using the word is clearly racist. Replacement is also not a racist word without any context. You do understand context and intent, don't you?

[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: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.

Words have context. In this context, it is racist. Period.

The intent of using the word is clearly racist. Replacement is also not a racist word without any context. You do understand context and intent, don't you?

Just in case you still don't understand. The use of the word overrepresent in this context is to demonize and "otherize". There are too many of THEM. We need to do something. Don't you see how evil the thought process is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

+1000

Agree

[Anonymous]

NP. Some people think that "overrepresented" in this context simply describes the circumstance in which a particular group comprises x% of the population and y% of TJ students, where x<y. One PP was careful to express that this purely quantitative comparison was their intent in using the word, and to explicitly distinguish it from a judgement as to how things should be, but they were still labelled racist for their use of the term.

Perhaps the word "overrepresented" (and presumably "underrepresented" too?) is indeed racist in this context, based on its usage by proponents of a particular view. That said, it is helpful to have a term to refer to the circumstance described above. What is the preferred non-racist term?>

[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: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.

We are in agreement! Not sure what the reason is for the attack...

[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: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.

Good grief... You're accepting the premise that strict scrutiny needs to be applied in this case because you are PRESUMING that the new admissions process is on its face discriminatory. The only argument that you can realistically make is that the CHANGE was discriminatory, not the new process.

Hilton failed to explain how the new process was discriminatory on its own. And therefore, he failed to address why the "strict scrutiny" test should be applied. I take issue with that premise.

[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: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.

Words have context. In this context, it is racist. Period.

The intent of using the word is clearly racist. Replacement is also not a racist word without any context. You do understand context and intent, don't you?

Just in case you still don't understand. The use of the word overrepresent in this context is to demonize and "otherize". There are too many of THEM. We need to do something. Don't you see how evil the thought process is?

Responding to this item, and by proxy, others.

Which word would you prefer I use to express that there is a larger (or smaller) number of folks who belong to a certain demographic within the TJ population than are within the catchment area? If you don't like "over-represented" because some people have used that word as a weapon, what word would be better for you?

My guess is that you would prefer not to have the conversation at all because it makes you uncomfortable.

[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: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.

Good grief... You're accepting the premise that strict scrutiny needs to be applied in this case because you are PRESUMING that the new admissions process is on its face discriminatory. The only argument that you can realistically make is that the CHANGE was discriminatory, not the new process.

Hilton failed to explain how the new process was discriminatory on its own. And therefore, he failed to address why the "strict scrutiny" test should be applied. I take issue with that premise.

Read the petitioner’s memorandum filed in support of summary judgment. It should help explain why strict scrutiny needs to apply.
Also, the FCPS school board or high ranking fcps officials acknowledged that they do not have a “pipeline issue” regarding underrepresented minorities. They said there are enough black and Hispanic kids in AAP to fill an entire TJ class. See the discovery documents - either as exhibits submitted to the court or they
are posted online under “TJ papers”

[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: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.

Good grief... You're accepting the premise that strict scrutiny needs to be applied in this case because you are PRESUMING that the new admissions process is on its face discriminatory. The only argument that you can realistically make is that the CHANGE was discriminatory, not the new process.

Hilton failed to explain how the new process was discriminatory on its own. And therefore, he failed to address why the "strict scrutiny" test should be applied. I take issue with that premise.

Read the petitioner’s memorandum filed in support of summary judgment. It should help explain why strict scrutiny needs to apply.
Also, the FCPS school board or high ranking fcps officials acknowledged that they do not have a “pipeline issue” regarding underrepresented minorities. They said there are enough black and Hispanic kids in AAP to fill an entire TJ class. See the discovery documents - either as exhibits submitted to the court or they
are posted online under “TJ papers”

A petitioner's memorandum is NEVER sufficient to explain why a legal test MUST be applied. It is simply their argument as to why the rules used to make the decision should favor their client. It's the judge's job to explain why they are correct - and he didn't do that with respect to the new admissions process as a stand-alone piece of legislation. He only compared it (and its results) to the previous process. He stated that the new process places an "undue burden" on Asian students, but he did nothing to explain how except to compare it to the previous process.

[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: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.

Words have context. In this context, it is racist. Period.

The intent of using the word is clearly racist. Replacement is also not a racist word without any context. You do understand context and intent, don't you?

Just in case you still don't understand. The use of the word overrepresent in this context is to demonize and "otherize". There are too many of THEM. We need to do something. Don't you see how evil the thought process is?

Responding to this item, and by proxy, others.

Which word would you prefer I use to express that there is a larger (or smaller) number of folks who belong to a certain demographic within the TJ population than are within the catchment area? If you don't like "over-represented" because some people have used that word as a weapon, what word would be better for you?

My guess is that you would prefer not to have the conversation at all because it makes you uncomfortable.

+1000 and here's the rub. It's not that folks on this board have any particular issue with the word "over-represented". There's nothing magical about that word. They have a problem with pro-reform folks bringing the stark difference between the composition of TJ and the composition of the draw districts to people's attention because it's inconvenient to their narrative.

It's the fact that you have a problem with people mentioning, not the word.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Great questions.