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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Stop repeating the lie!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Possibly. Guess the choice for Asians is liberals who hate them or conservatives who tolerate them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You didn't answer the question.

Let's say that intent wasn't there. Another SB solely decided their goal was to increase geographic representation from across the county and increase the % of ED students and they came up with this same admissions process. Race was not a factor. And the % of Asians didn't change.

Is there an issue with the current process?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

They are "discriminatory" because they have an adverse impact.

With the current admissions process, Asian applicants have a significant advantage.

They have a higher-than-average admissions rate (19% > 18%). And they are represented in higher relative numbers than the general FCPS population.

The admissions process itself - not the decision around it - isn't discriminatory.

[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.

FCPS screwed up royally in this instance because they didn't effectively make the argument that the previous admissions process was discriminatory along both racial and socioeconomic lines. (There is not an argument, by the way, that the old process WASN'T discriminatory.)

FCPS tried to make this whole process about removal of barriers to admission - but quite frankly, they didn't try very hard. They probably should have started off with retaining the old process EXCEPT for the application fee and exam. (The application fee essentially paid for the exam, so it would have been easy to justify removal of the exam simply because the fee placed an undue burden on families applying to a public school.) Simply doing that piece would have raised application numbers in the key demographics that were underrepresented and might have isolated some more causes for discrepancies in admissions results.

In the end, the C4TJ goons would have sued no matter what the process was if the percentage of Asian students had declined noticeably. They are privately very open about the fact that they don't care about the fairness of the process - they are concerned with the existence of any sort of affirmative action writ large because of the groups that underwrite them. Exam-based admissions processes are deeply favorable to their approach to education, while education's approach is moving away exam-based admissions. The lawsuit was a cry of desperation and the attitude surrounding the whole admissions matched up with that desperation. C4TJ was very intelligent to file where they did and very fortunate to get a favorable judge assigned to the case who used favorable precedent to make his arguments..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

They are "discriminatory" because they have an adverse impact.

With the current admissions process, Asian applicants have a significant advantage.

They have a higher-than-average admissions rate (19% > 18%). And they are represented in higher relative numbers than the general FCPS population.

The admissions process itself - not the decision around it - isn't discriminatory.

WTF is this kind of logic? Why would everyone have the same admissions rate if it's merit based?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

They are "discriminatory" because they have an adverse impact.

With the current admissions process, Asian applicants have a significant advantage.

They have a higher-than-average admissions rate (19% > 18%). And they are represented in higher relative numbers than the general FCPS population.

The admissions process itself - not the decision around it - isn't discriminatory.

WTF is this kind of logic? Why would everyone have the same admissions rate if it's merit based?

This shows how unintelligent and incompetent the white liberals are. And they wanted to manipulate and dictate our lives! NO WAY!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

They are "discriminatory" because they have an adverse impact.

With the current admissions process, Asian applicants have a significant advantage.

They have a higher-than-average admissions rate (19% > 18%). And they are represented in higher relative numbers than the general FCPS population.

The admissions process itself - not the decision around it - isn't discriminatory.

+1000. It is indeed far easier and more straightforward to make the argument that the previous admissions process had an adverse impact on Black and Hispanic students than it is that the current admissions process has an adverse impact on Asian students. You have to come from a racist starting point of "Asians should have a supermajority of seats at TJ because they work harder and deserve it more" in order to believe that the new process adversely impacts them. And some of you folks have told on yourselves pretty hard by not only openly stating those racist opinions, but also not having the self-awareness to realize that they are among the ugliest forms of discriminatory rhetoric.

FCPS could have very easily - with proper strategic messaging - instituted a more equitable merit-based admissions process without an exam that would have had a similar impact without the messy question of intent. They were clumsy about it and are now paying the price. Time will tell how the new superintendent will approach the question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

They are "discriminatory" because they have an adverse impact.

With the current admissions process, Asian applicants have a significant advantage.

They have a higher-than-average admissions rate (19% > 18%). And they are represented in higher relative numbers than the general FCPS population.

The admissions process itself - not the decision around it - isn't discriminatory.

WTF is this kind of logic? Why would everyone have the same admissions rate if it's merit based?

Because there is no inherent difference between the races in how meritorious they are to attend a specialized selective high school. Thinking that there is is the literal definition of racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

They are "discriminatory" because they have an adverse impact.

With the current admissions process, Asian applicants have a significant advantage.

They have a higher-than-average admissions rate (19% > 18%). And they are represented in higher relative numbers than the general FCPS population.

The admissions process itself - not the decision around it - isn't discriminatory.

WTF is this kind of logic? Why would everyone have the same admissions rate if it's merit based?

Because there is no inherent difference between the races in how meritorious they are to attend a specialized selective high school. Thinking that there is is the literal definition of racism.

That's a lie yourself probably doesn't even believe. Do you call NBA racist too because it's black concentrated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

They are "discriminatory" because they have an adverse impact.

With the current admissions process, Asian applicants have a significant advantage.

They have a higher-than-average admissions rate (19% > 18%). And they are represented in higher relative numbers than the general FCPS population.

The admissions process itself - not the decision around it - isn't discriminatory.

WTF is this kind of logic? Why would everyone have the same admissions rate if it's merit based?

Seriously - how do you even ask a question like that??

When you ask that question, you are assuming that you know what people from other races do and do not deserve. And you don't. You may have an idea of what you and your community deserve, but I'll be damned if you tell me what me and mine deserve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

They are "discriminatory" because they have an adverse impact.

With the current admissions process, Asian applicants have a significant advantage.

They have a higher-than-average admissions rate (19% > 18%). And they are represented in higher relative numbers than the general FCPS population.

The admissions process itself - not the decision around it - isn't discriminatory.

WTF is this kind of logic? Why would everyone have the same admissions rate if it's merit based?

Seriously - how do you even ask a question like that??

When you ask that question, you are assuming that you know what people from other races do and do not deserve. And you don't. You may have an idea of what you and your community deserve, but I'll be damned if you tell me what me and mine deserve.

I can't believe how stupid you are. You were the one who made an assumption that everyone deserves the same regardless of their effort and aptitude, not me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

They are "discriminatory" because they have an adverse impact.

With the current admissions process, Asian applicants have a significant advantage.

They have a higher-than-average admissions rate (19% > 18%). And they are represented in higher relative numbers than the general FCPS population.

The admissions process itself - not the decision around it - isn't discriminatory.

WTF is this kind of logic? Why would everyone have the same admissions rate if it's merit based?

Because there is no inherent difference between the races in how meritorious they are to attend a specialized selective high school. Thinking that there is is the literal definition of racism.

That's a lie yourself probably doesn't even believe. Do you call NBA racist too because it's black concentrated?

The NBA is a professional basketball league with profit-motivated teams who are selecting players based on who can help them win games. There is no part of that profile that matches with TJ as a public magnet school.

Why do people insist on this comparison?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

They are "discriminatory" because they have an adverse impact.

With the current admissions process, Asian applicants have a significant advantage.

They have a higher-than-average admissions rate (19% > 18%). And they are represented in higher relative numbers than the general FCPS population.

The admissions process itself - not the decision around it - isn't discriminatory.

WTF is this kind of logic? Why would everyone have the same admissions rate if it's merit based?

Because there is no inherent difference between the races in how meritorious they are to attend a specialized selective high school. Thinking that there is is the literal definition of racism.

That's a lie yourself probably doesn't even believe. Do you call NBA racist too because it's black concentrated?

The NBA is a professional basketball league with profit-motivated teams who are selecting players based on who can help them win games. There is no part of that profile that matches with TJ as a public magnet school.

Why do people insist on this comparison?

Because we're talking about merit. It has nothing to do with the nature of the business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

They are "discriminatory" because they have an adverse impact.

With the current admissions process, Asian applicants have a significant advantage.

They have a higher-than-average admissions rate (19% > 18%). And they are represented in higher relative numbers than the general FCPS population.

The admissions process itself - not the decision around it - isn't discriminatory.

WTF is this kind of logic? Why would everyone have the same admissions rate if it's merit based?

Seriously - how do you even ask a question like that??

When you ask that question, you are assuming that you know what people from other races do and do not deserve. And you don't. You may have an idea of what you and your community deserve, but I'll be damned if you tell me what me and mine deserve.

I can't believe how stupid you are. You were the one who made an assumption that everyone deserves the same regardless of their effort and aptitude, not me.

I'm not the person you replied to, so you can kick rocks on that one.

No one here is assuming that everyone deserves the same regardless of their effort and aptitude. What people like me ARE saying is that there isn't nearly as big a difference in relative effort and aptitude between different racial groups as people like YOU seem to think there are.

I'll say this, though. People who choose not to exist in diverse spaces have no reason to know anything about people from other cultures. So your ignorance is excusable, but your attitude is not.