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

[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?

There is no "what if" for a scenario with exactly ZERO probability because the exact intent of the TJ reform was to reduce Asian representation no matter how you spin it. This has been crystal clear in the judge ruling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Of course I know a petitioners memorandum is not sufficient. It is “biased” to their side. But seems like there are those who refuse to acknowledge the evidence in this case demonstrated by Discovery documents. The judge got it right and the memorandum highlights details from Discovery and more that weren’t mentioned in the judge’s opinion. The school board did extensive racial modeling and intentionally engineered a way to give bonus points that would result in the racial outcome they wanted to the detriment of Asian American students that they were fully aware of. The emails and texts show how unprofessional, biased and racist the school board and other officials are.

[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".

Oh yes, it is very "discriminatory"! What kind of a-hole and human scumbag would argue in favor of such an atrocious racist act!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The problem is that particular group is not white. When TJ was a white majority school, nobody made sound against it. Can't you all see the difference?

[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.

NO! You freaking clown - read the opinion! The Judge does not premise the analysis on "presuming the admission process is on its face discriminatory" and therefore strict scrutiny applies. He is presuming the exact opposite - that it is facially race neutral. He flat out says even though facially race neutral, strict scrutiny applies because it was adopted for a discriminatory purpose ("Strict scrutiny applies to government actions 'not just when they contain express racial classification, but also when, though race neutral on their face, they are motivated by a racial purpose or object.'" Miller v. Johnson. ) READ THE OPINION!!
It is literally the entirety of pages 12-13 of the opinion if you would bother to read it before posting your nonsense on this board. Read the opinion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The problem is that particular group is not white. When TJ was a white majority school, nobody made sound against it. Can't you all see the difference?

That's COMPLETELY false. In 2001 superintendent Daniel Domenech commissioned an entire investigative study into the representation issues at TJ - when it was 60-70% white - but the School Board didn't have the stomach to do anything about it.

It's been a topic of conversation FOREVER in this area.

[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".

Oh yes, it is very "discriminatory"! What kind of a-hole and human scumbag would argue in favor of such an atrocious racist act!

Which specific part of the current admissions process is “racially discriminatory”?

[Anonymous]

So what I learned from the TJ chaos: There is one group that desperately wanted to maintain their status quo even if they know they're so incompetent and that group is the white liberals. They don't like the Asian challenge because it makes their incompetence exposed and it's harder for them to continue stealing from and preying on other races.

[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".

Oh yes, it is very "discriminatory"! What kind of a-hole and human scumbag would argue in favor of such an atrocious racist act!

Which specific part of the current admissions process is “racially discriminatory”?

The tactics of keeping asking the same stupid questions won't work. Read the judge's ruling! Racial representation is racist in this context.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

lol. He spent more than 10 pages going through the undisputed facts and then another 10 pages explaining why the process could not survive strict scrutiny because it did not fall within any of the recognized (legal) exceptions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The problem is that particular group is not white. When TJ was a white majority school, nobody made sound against it. Can't you all see the difference?

That's COMPLETELY false. In 2001 superintendent Daniel Domenech commissioned an entire investigative study into the representation issues at TJ - when it was 60-70% white - but the School Board didn't have the stomach to do anything about it.

It's been a topic of conversation FOREVER in this area.

School board didn't have the stomach to do anything about it at that point because it was majority white. Guess they thought it was ok to try to crush the Asians now. Thank god for the judge. I was doubting fairness of America. There are still some sane voices.

[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".

Oh yes, it is very "discriminatory"! What kind of a-hole and human scumbag would argue in favor of such an atrocious racist act!

Which specific part of the current admissions process is “racially discriminatory”?

The tactics of keeping asking the same stupid questions won't work. Read the judge's ruling! Racial representation is racist in this context.

Admissions process is race blind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So what I learned from the TJ chaos: There is one group that desperately wanted to maintain their status quo even if they know they're so incompetent and that group is the white liberals. They don't like the Asian challenge because it makes their incompetence exposed and it's harder for them to continue stealing from and preying on other races.

That is what you "learned"? Which orifice did you pull that out of?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The problem is that particular group is not white. When TJ was a white majority school, nobody made sound against it. Can't you all see the difference?

That's COMPLETELY false. In 2001 superintendent Daniel Domenech commissioned an entire investigative study into the representation issues at TJ - when it was 60-70% white - but the School Board didn't have the stomach to do anything about it.

It's been a topic of conversation FOREVER in this area.

School board didn't have the stomach to do anything about it at that point because it was majority white. Guess they thought it was ok to try to crush the Asians now. Thank god for the judge. I was doubting fairness of America. There are still some sane voices.

More like the school board was conservative back then.

[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".

Oh yes, it is very "discriminatory"! What kind of a-hole and human scumbag would argue in favor of such an atrocious racist act!

Which specific part of the current admissions process is “racially discriminatory”?

The tactics of keeping asking the same stupid questions won't work. Read the judge's ruling! Racial representation is racist in this context.

Admissions process is race blind.

Please read the opinion. Poll taxes are race blind too. Facially racial neutral policies are discriminatory and subject to strict scrutiny review when adopted with a partial (or mainly) discriminatory intent. The admissions policy was determined to have been adopted with the purpose of "racial balancing" and set up in a manner to ensure fewer Asian admits. If you read the opinion it is fully explained in there.