Coalition4TJ’s request to block TJ admissions process DENIED 6-3 by Supreme Court

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just another example of opportunity hogging by the UMC on display. All these parents would fight tooth and nail to keep AA kids out. It’s just like during desegregation but instead of spitting at the kids, you throw lawsuits. Gross!

This is just ignorance. This is nothing like segregation.

Sure, it's a total coincidence that letting AA students into TJ is the action that precipitated the lawsuit

I look at it a different way - the school board is led by a rich White person by the name of Brabrand. Brabrand has consistently demonstrated that when it counts, he has horrible leadership skills (see: pandemic response, for instance) - the hallmark of someone who got to where he was on political lines rather than on his merits. It comes as no surprise, then, that when faced with the problem of racial inequity, the solution he would push would (1) be illegal while still being allowed to proceed, (2) devalue merit as a factor, while emphasizing the importance of political factors, and (3) redistribute inequity rather than finding a way to address the underlying inequity. Of course any of those factors would prompt a well-deserved backlash, including from the Black people who've gone on record with their disapproval of the new system (I'm assuming that by AA, you didn't mean Asian-Americans). The idea that admitting more Blacks was ever the problem is a lie.

The prominent Black person who has gone on record against the new system - and takes every opportunity to remind everyone that he is Black and therefore beyond reproach - has Asian-American children.

C4TJ want to ensure the poor have limited access and the rich can buy entry. It's all about requiring expensive prep where students gain up front access to the test. It's so ridiculous.

That's exactly the message that Brabrand's bought-and-paid-for PR team has been pushing all along without making any attempt at adapting itself to the situation.

Adapting how. Paying millions every year to make new tests to foil the cheaters? That's a total waste of time and resources. They would just adapt.

You are right in one way. Whatever test based on math and writing may have been designed by FCPS, the Asians would still have done well. The only way for white progressive, flowery essay types to get their kids in was to eliminate the test. Putting in geographic criteria alone would not have helped these sorts.

Most white don’t care about TJ.

Only 50% of eligible white students apply. vs 90%+ of Asian or Black.

I guess 1 in 2 care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another idiot who doesn’t believe that a student can take the test cold and succeed. What’s your connection to TJHSST again?

Does seeing the format of the questions help at all?

It wasn't just seeing the format. Many claimed they saw the actual questions ahead of time.

That's a great reason to eliminate the Quant-Q. It doesn't explain why the process was gutted to the point that it's impossible to distinguish between a highly gifted kid and a somewhat above average one. They could have retained a baseline proficiency test, teacher recommendations, more substantial problem solving essays, credit for notable accomplishments etc. while still minimizing the impact of extreme prep.

Well with people buying the test the quantQ didn't help differentiate between students either.

just a complete digression to dehumanise Asian kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another idiot who doesn’t believe that a student can take the test cold and succeed. What’s your connection to TJHSST again?

Does seeing the format of the questions help at all?

It wasn't just seeing the format. Many claimed they saw the actual questions ahead of time.

That's a great reason to eliminate the Quant-Q. It doesn't explain why the process was gutted to the point that it's impossible to distinguish between a highly gifted kid and a somewhat above average one. They could have retained a baseline proficiency test, teacher recommendations, more substantial problem solving essays, credit for notable accomplishments etc. while still minimizing the impact of extreme prep.

doesn't matter what you say, we will go on bleating that asians are cheaters and evil.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just another example of opportunity hogging by the UMC on display. All these parents would fight tooth and nail to keep AA kids out. It’s just like during desegregation but instead of spitting at the kids, you throw lawsuits. Gross!

This is just ignorance. This is nothing like segregation.

Sure, it's a total coincidence that letting AA students into TJ is the action that precipitated the lawsuit

I look at it a different way - the school board is led by a rich White person by the name of Brabrand. Brabrand has consistently demonstrated that when it counts, he has horrible leadership skills (see: pandemic response, for instance) - the hallmark of someone who got to where he was on political lines rather than on his merits. It comes as no surprise, then, that when faced with the problem of racial inequity, the solution he would push would (1) be illegal while still being allowed to proceed, (2) devalue merit as a factor, while emphasizing the importance of political factors, and (3) redistribute inequity rather than finding a way to address the underlying inequity. Of course any of those factors would prompt a well-deserved backlash, including from the Black people who've gone on record with their disapproval of the new system (I'm assuming that by AA, you didn't mean Asian-Americans). The idea that admitting more Blacks was ever the problem is a lie.

How many black people have gone on the record with their disapproval of the new system? I'm guessing very few. Also, do they speak for all black people? I'm black and I support the new system because I think TJ should serve all areas of Fairfax County. I didn't support the old system that allowed a situation where 30 percent of a class came from one prep center that cost $4,000+. Many people in Fairfax County of all races couldn't afford that. I, of course, don't speak for all black people but nor do the black people "who've gone on record with their disapproval of the new system." You pulling that out is like the "I have a black friend so..." argument.

FWIW, I'm Asian and completely agree with you. I also support greater inclusion.

But do you support greater inclusion implemented through racist discrimination?

I support greater inclusion through greater inclusion. This is a county magnet school. Not a private academy. Not a charter school. But a public school that serves the county. All quadrants, including north, south, east, and west of (pick one) Route 1, Route 28, Route 7, Route 50, etc.

[Anonymous]

What would be the composition of TJ without the test support camps, the test thieving, and the test scheming. Riddle me that. It would be drastically different than even the most recent class matriculants. There's that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What would be the composition of TJ without the test support camps, the test thieving, and the test scheming. Riddle me that. It would be drastically different than even the most recent class matriculants. There's that.

Dunno...the number of white applicants has dropped steadily for several years to around half of what it once was. Uptick this year, probably from the low income non feeder schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just another example of opportunity hogging by the UMC on display. All these parents would fight tooth and nail to keep AA kids out. It’s just like during desegregation but instead of spitting at the kids, you throw lawsuits. Gross!

This is just ignorance. This is nothing like segregation.

Sure, it's a total coincidence that letting AA students into TJ is the action that precipitated the lawsuit

I look at it a different way - the school board is led by a rich White person by the name of Brabrand. Brabrand has consistently demonstrated that when it counts, he has horrible leadership skills (see: pandemic response, for instance) - the hallmark of someone who got to where he was on political lines rather than on his merits. It comes as no surprise, then, that when faced with the problem of racial inequity, the solution he would push would (1) be illegal while still being allowed to proceed, (2) devalue merit as a factor, while emphasizing the importance of political factors, and (3) redistribute inequity rather than finding a way to address the underlying inequity. Of course any of those factors would prompt a well-deserved backlash, including from the Black people who've gone on record with their disapproval of the new system (I'm assuming that by AA, you didn't mean Asian-Americans). The idea that admitting more Blacks was ever the problem is a lie.

How many black people have gone on the record with their disapproval of the new system? I'm guessing very few. Also, do they speak for all black people? I'm black and I support the new system because I think TJ should serve all areas of Fairfax County. I didn't support the old system that allowed a situation where 30 percent of a class came from one prep center that cost $4,000+. Many people in Fairfax County of all races couldn't afford that. I, of course, don't speak for all black people but nor do the black people "who've gone on record with their disapproval of the new system." You pulling that out is like the "I have a black friend so..." argument.

Nobody suggested that these Black people spoke for all Black people. But come on. It was strongly insinuated that Black people who held an opinion different than your own didn't exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I just want to take a 50,000 ft view of the issues being debated here. The fact that the current Supreme Court, as conservative as they are. still let the new admissions policy stand should be a signal that the war is lost. Even if there will still be changes to the new admissions system, it seems highly unlikely to ever go back to the way it was.

I sympathize with the old admissions system, but I also don't think it was ever appropriate to set up a public school in this way. This is what private schools should be for. A private school can offer financial aid to those who can't afford it.

I also think all TJ parents need to take a step back and consider whether TJ is really the best thing for their kids. Having so many high-achieving kids clumped together in that school actually makes it harder for them to be accepted to a top school. MIT isn't going to admit 50 TJ kids in any given year. It is very much harder to stand out there. I get that iron sharpens iron, but it also comes with a significant risk of having nothing to show for all the effort than if they had just gone to their local high school.

I married into an Asian family, and I know that many times the drive to go TJ is from the parents who demand the kids to go to the "best" school or the "prestigious" school without considering that it is more than likely not going to be the big stepping stone they think it will be. Even the guy who wrote the op-ed in the Washington Post, while I respect his accomplishments, he could gotten into the Naval Academy and had all his success coming from any of the other excellent public schools in the area, because kids do it all the time. It's not like he invented the iPhone or made the next major scientific discovery, which is what the intense nature of TJ would lead one to believe is going to happen.

You must be high. I also don't have a dog in this fight but it's not clear at all that this racist admissions policy will be allowed to stand in the long term. Roberts has been very vocal about his negative view on affirmative action and any other racially motificated government policies that discriminate on the basis of race, even if it is done through proxies of facially neutral measures. Note that the Supreme Court's decision on the application to vacate is not a ruling on the merits of the case, but consideration of procedural/administrative issues. In this case, I suspect that Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh considered the potential impact on the current batch of students if the stay was vacated, because FCPS did not prepare for an alternative admission process. Despite concerns of students having their constitutional rights violated by the new admissions policy, the courts, including SCOTUS, tend to let existing procedures stand unless there was some serious procedural error made in the appeals court.

Now, onto the rest of your points. I don't understand why you find selectivity to be an issue for publicly funded educational institutions. Are you saying there should be no public colleges, and that if we do have public colleges, every single one of them should admit every student that applies? Aside from admissions, there are a lot of achievement-based opportunities and privileges even inside any given public high school. A student doesn't go into the next level of higher math until they've achieved a sufficient grade in a prerequisite class. Just because the bar is often set fairly low doesn't change the fact that there is a bar, and that failing students do not advance. Being able to take the next level class is not automatic, but an earned privilege that is the outcome of some prior achievement. Being able to get into TJ based on demonstrated merit is the same concept in this sense.

The rest of your rationalizing about whether TJ is healthy or unhealthy, and the existence of alternatives is relevant to exactly one person: you. These are subjective opinions and are no more valid than any one else's, including those of parents who find that the rigor of TJ is a great fit for their kids, and that it is the place where their kids can obtain a superior education and be exceptionally well prepared for future studies and professional work in STEM fields.

Lastly, none of what you wrote, regardless of the underlying logic and passion, excuses the fact that the new admissions policy was implemented with racist intent and effect. Shame on you for making excuses for its continued existence.

Well said!

It's not racist to want to include a broader cross section of Fairfax County. Basically anything that reduced Asian representation would be called racist. That people think there can't be a change in policy the might change the racial composition of TJ so Asians aren't 60-70 percent of the school indefinitely seems crazy. It's a public school and its admissions should not be skewed toward people who can afford $4,000 test prep centers. Then those who pay for those prep centers claim their kids are just inherently more intelligent and so more deserving than other kids who don't score as high on the test without equivalent prep. If your kid is so inherently bright, they'll succeed anywhere. Why all the angst?

If that "broader cross section" is done on the basis of race, it is racist and illegal per our laws. Go ask black people "why all the angst" when they were raging against the racist laws during the civil rights movement.

The new policy does not mention race. It's based on allocation slots to various middle schools and a lottery.

For the n-th time for the benefit of the ignorant - facially neutral policies implemented with racist intent are still illegal.

You'll lose on this. The intent was to reduce overrepresentation which is not racist. If whites were overrepresented it wouldn't be "racist" to make more opportunities available to members of other groups. I'm reallyt tired of listening to your allegation of "racism" Again, plaintiffs are going to lose on this one.

LOL, racial balancing is unconstitutional and illegal. There is no argument here. Do some research before you post again.

I practice law in this area. I stand by what I said. And your comment above that "facially neutral policies implemented with racist intent are still illegal" mixes two legal theories, and misstates one of them. Facially neutral policies may discriminate if they have a disparate impact, no 'Intent" is required to find discrimination. And if there is intent, well that's called intentional discrimination - and facially neutral never comes into it.

You can claim to be an astrophysicist and stand by that the sun rises in the west, doesn't make it true. Under strict scrutiny standards, the intent is crucial for determining whether a facially neutral policy is legal even if it has a disparate impact. Finding discrimination is not enough for an action to be illegal/unconstitutional. For this reason, many policies that have demonstrable disparate impact are perfectly legal. Having underlying intent is not the same as intentional discrimination, which is commonly used to reference disparate treatment (as opposed to disparate impact). The "intentional" part of intentional discrimination is in the mechanism of the policy, not the underlying intent. For example, a policy that excludes blacks from entering a room is disparate treatment and is intentional discrimination. I can't believe I have to explain this to a lawyer who claims to practice law in this area, unless by "area" you mean geographical area instead of subject matter.

Pretty sure I've argued more of these cases as a civil rights lawyer than you have. I found that paragraph so incoherent I can't really comment on it, but it doesn't reflect the state of the law. We'll see; the matter isn't going to be litigated here.

Then what's the point of your response? Just to wave your credentials around a bit? I am not a lawyer. You win?

I apologize if it sounded that way. Are you the pp who said you were surprised that you had to explain the basics of discrimination/4th amendment equal protection law to me?

Yes, I am the PP and no that's not what I said. You claimed that racist intent made it intentional discrimination, but this is not true based on my research and laid out my understanding of what intentional discrimination means. If you disagree you can reference any third party definition to support your use of "intentional discrimination." I am open to learning if I have made mistakes but I give very little deference to people's credentials. When I talk to people about subject matter that I am an expert in, I never have to resort to telling people what my credentials are. The facts and logic speak for themselves.

Racial intent, if shown, is direct evidence of discrimination. I really don't know what you're talking about.

A lot of folks on the Coalition side talk as though “racist intent” has been proven in this particular case because of the language in one judge’s opinion - which has been widely panned by dispassionate legal scholars across the political spectrum. It has also been thoroughly destroyed by a higher court judge, who showed pretty concretely in his concurrence why Judge Hilton has been stuck at the District Court level despite a 40-year career, with 20 of those under Republican presidencies.

In no way is it a fact in evidence that the School Board acted with racist intent.

True. The concurring opinion in the 4th Circuit makes clear that Judge anyway saw FCPS's selection methods to be race neutral. And that's the way I read the facts as well. As such, "strict scrutiny" never comes into the picture. The Google U lawyer is just confused.

You are yet another clown and clearly never read the original opinion on summary judgment. The Judge said that while facially neutral, it was enacted for a discriminatory purpose, and therefor strict scrutiny applies. It was literally 2 pages of his opinion. Please read the opinion before you post your nonsense.

But it doesn't and he's wrong. And the stay was issued obviously because of no likelihood of success on the merits.
Can you cite a case (other than Hilton's dubious opinion) where race neutral methods were subject to strict scrutiny because the court found there was racial "intent."
Think about it -- you're saying FCPS intended to discriminate but used lawful means to do it? Courts only look at the means used. Strict scrutiny doesn't even come into play when race neutral measures are used.

Google U JD poster here. I am not the PP you are replying to. My readings led me to Rogers v. Lodge, which references Washington v Davis and Arlington Heights v Metropolitan Housing Corp for its use of strict scrutiny when there is racist intent.

but there isn’t.

That's not the salient point being argued in this specific sub-thread. The point here is that racist intent results in strict scrutiny even with facially neutral policies.

The premise that racist intent exists here or has been somehow “proven” is incorrect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I just want to take a 50,000 ft view of the issues being debated here. The fact that the current Supreme Court, as conservative as they are. still let the new admissions policy stand should be a signal that the war is lost. Even if there will still be changes to the new admissions system, it seems highly unlikely to ever go back to the way it was.

I sympathize with the old admissions system, but I also don't think it was ever appropriate to set up a public school in this way. This is what private schools should be for. A private school can offer financial aid to those who can't afford it.

I also think all TJ parents need to take a step back and consider whether TJ is really the best thing for their kids. Having so many high-achieving kids clumped together in that school actually makes it harder for them to be accepted to a top school. MIT isn't going to admit 50 TJ kids in any given year. It is very much harder to stand out there. I get that iron sharpens iron, but it also comes with a significant risk of having nothing to show for all the effort than if they had just gone to their local high school.

I married into an Asian family, and I know that many times the drive to go TJ is from the parents who demand the kids to go to the "best" school or the "prestigious" school without considering that it is more than likely not going to be the big stepping stone they think it will be. Even the guy who wrote the op-ed in the Washington Post, while I respect his accomplishments, he could gotten into the Naval Academy and had all his success coming from any of the other excellent public schools in the area, because kids do it all the time. It's not like he invented the iPhone or made the next major scientific discovery, which is what the intense nature of TJ would lead one to believe is going to happen.

You must be high. I also don't have a dog in this fight but it's not clear at all that this racist admissions policy will be allowed to stand in the long term. Roberts has been very vocal about his negative view on affirmative action and any other racially motificated government policies that discriminate on the basis of race, even if it is done through proxies of facially neutral measures. Note that the Supreme Court's decision on the application to vacate is not a ruling on the merits of the case, but consideration of procedural/administrative issues. In this case, I suspect that Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh considered the potential impact on the current batch of students if the stay was vacated, because FCPS did not prepare for an alternative admission process. Despite concerns of students having their constitutional rights violated by the new admissions policy, the courts, including SCOTUS, tend to let existing procedures stand unless there was some serious procedural error made in the appeals court.

Now, onto the rest of your points. I don't understand why you find selectivity to be an issue for publicly funded educational institutions. Are you saying there should be no public colleges, and that if we do have public colleges, every single one of them should admit every student that applies? Aside from admissions, there are a lot of achievement-based opportunities and privileges even inside any given public high school. A student doesn't go into the next level of higher math until they've achieved a sufficient grade in a prerequisite class. Just because the bar is often set fairly low doesn't change the fact that there is a bar, and that failing students do not advance. Being able to take the next level class is not automatic, but an earned privilege that is the outcome of some prior achievement. Being able to get into TJ based on demonstrated merit is the same concept in this sense.

The rest of your rationalizing about whether TJ is healthy or unhealthy, and the existence of alternatives is relevant to exactly one person: you. These are subjective opinions and are no more valid than any one else's, including those of parents who find that the rigor of TJ is a great fit for their kids, and that it is the place where their kids can obtain a superior education and be exceptionally well prepared for future studies and professional work in STEM fields.

Lastly, none of what you wrote, regardless of the underlying logic and passion, excuses the fact that the new admissions policy was implemented with racist intent and effect. Shame on you for making excuses for its continued existence.

Well said!

It's not racist to want to include a broader cross section of Fairfax County. Basically anything that reduced Asian representation would be called racist. That people think there can't be a change in policy the might change the racial composition of TJ so Asians aren't 60-70 percent of the school indefinitely seems crazy. It's a public school and its admissions should not be skewed toward people who can afford $4,000 test prep centers. Then those who pay for those prep centers claim their kids are just inherently more intelligent and so more deserving than other kids who don't score as high on the test without equivalent prep. If your kid is so inherently bright, they'll succeed anywhere. Why all the angst?

If that "broader cross section" is done on the basis of race, it is racist and illegal per our laws. Go ask black people "why all the angst" when they were raging against the racist laws during the civil rights movement.

The new policy does not mention race. It's based on allocation slots to various middle schools and a lottery.

For the n-th time for the benefit of the ignorant - facially neutral policies implemented with racist intent are still illegal.

You'll lose on this. The intent was to reduce overrepresentation which is not racist. If whites were overrepresented it wouldn't be "racist" to make more opportunities available to members of other groups. I'm reallyt tired of listening to your allegation of "racism" Again, plaintiffs are going to lose on this one.

LOL, racial balancing is unconstitutional and illegal. There is no argument here. Do some research before you post again.

I practice law in this area. I stand by what I said. And your comment above that "facially neutral policies implemented with racist intent are still illegal" mixes two legal theories, and misstates one of them. Facially neutral policies may discriminate if they have a disparate impact, no 'Intent" is required to find discrimination. And if there is intent, well that's called intentional discrimination - and facially neutral never comes into it.

You can claim to be an astrophysicist and stand by that the sun rises in the west, doesn't make it true. Under strict scrutiny standards, the intent is crucial for determining whether a facially neutral policy is legal even if it has a disparate impact. Finding discrimination is not enough for an action to be illegal/unconstitutional. For this reason, many policies that have demonstrable disparate impact are perfectly legal. Having underlying intent is not the same as intentional discrimination, which is commonly used to reference disparate treatment (as opposed to disparate impact). The "intentional" part of intentional discrimination is in the mechanism of the policy, not the underlying intent. For example, a policy that excludes blacks from entering a room is disparate treatment and is intentional discrimination. I can't believe I have to explain this to a lawyer who claims to practice law in this area, unless by "area" you mean geographical area instead of subject matter.

Pretty sure I've argued more of these cases as a civil rights lawyer than you have. I found that paragraph so incoherent I can't really comment on it, but it doesn't reflect the state of the law. We'll see; the matter isn't going to be litigated here.

Then what's the point of your response? Just to wave your credentials around a bit? I am not a lawyer. You win?

I apologize if it sounded that way. Are you the pp who said you were surprised that you had to explain the basics of discrimination/4th amendment equal protection law to me?

Yes, I am the PP and no that's not what I said. You claimed that racist intent made it intentional discrimination, but this is not true based on my research and laid out my understanding of what intentional discrimination means. If you disagree you can reference any third party definition to support your use of "intentional discrimination." I am open to learning if I have made mistakes but I give very little deference to people's credentials. When I talk to people about subject matter that I am an expert in, I never have to resort to telling people what my credentials are. The facts and logic speak for themselves.

Racial intent, if shown, is direct evidence of discrimination. I really don't know what you're talking about.

A lot of folks on the Coalition side talk as though “racist intent” has been proven in this particular case because of the language in one judge’s opinion - which has been widely panned by dispassionate legal scholars across the political spectrum. It has also been thoroughly destroyed by a higher court judge, who showed pretty concretely in his concurrence why Judge Hilton has been stuck at the District Court level despite a 40-year career, with 20 of those under Republican presidencies.

In no way is it a fact in evidence that the School Board acted with racist intent.

True. The concurring opinion in the 4th Circuit makes clear that Judge anyway saw FCPS's selection methods to be race neutral. And that's the way I read the facts as well. As such, "strict scrutiny" never comes into the picture. The Google U lawyer is just confused.

You are yet another clown and clearly never read the original opinion on summary judgment. The Judge said that while facially neutral, it was enacted for a discriminatory purpose, and therefor strict scrutiny applies. It was literally 2 pages of his opinion. Please read the opinion before you post your nonsense.

But it doesn't and he's wrong. And the stay was issued obviously because of no likelihood of success on the merits.
Can you cite a case (other than Hilton's dubious opinion) where race neutral methods were subject to strict scrutiny because the court found there was racial "intent."
Think about it -- you're saying FCPS intended to discriminate but used lawful means to do it? Courts only look at the means used. Strict scrutiny doesn't even come into play when race neutral measures are used.

Google U JD poster here. I am not the PP you are replying to. My readings led me to Rogers v. Lodge, which references Washington v Davis and Arlington Heights v Metropolitan Housing Corp for its use of strict scrutiny when there is racist intent.

but there isn’t.

That's not the salient point being argued in this specific sub-thread. The point here is that racist intent results in strict scrutiny even with facially neutral policies.

The premise that racist intent exists here or has been somehow “proven” is incorrect.

What do you mean by "proven?" It has indeed been "proven" in a court of law. C4TJ met its burden to show that there was genuine issue of material fact that the Board adopted the policy at least in part to limit the chances of Asians to get admitted for the purpose of racially balancing the school. I understand that the conclusion was not admitted to by the Board, but rather the test to infer intent using Arlington Heights factors what Judge Hilton followed and found that there was no issue of material fact that the circumstantial evidence showed that C4TJ met its burden to show that the Board adopted the policy at least in part to limit the chances of Asians to get admitted for the purpose of racially balancing the school. So, it has been proven to the extent the Supreme Court required it to be. Now the issue is whether the Judge was correct in saying there was no issue of material fact that the inference was correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I just want to take a 50,000 ft view of the issues being debated here. The fact that the current Supreme Court, as conservative as they are. still let the new admissions policy stand should be a signal that the war is lost. Even if there will still be changes to the new admissions system, it seems highly unlikely to ever go back to the way it was.

I sympathize with the old admissions system, but I also don't think it was ever appropriate to set up a public school in this way. This is what private schools should be for. A private school can offer financial aid to those who can't afford it.

I also think all TJ parents need to take a step back and consider whether TJ is really the best thing for their kids. Having so many high-achieving kids clumped together in that school actually makes it harder for them to be accepted to a top school. MIT isn't going to admit 50 TJ kids in any given year. It is very much harder to stand out there. I get that iron sharpens iron, but it also comes with a significant risk of having nothing to show for all the effort than if they had just gone to their local high school.

I married into an Asian family, and I know that many times the drive to go TJ is from the parents who demand the kids to go to the "best" school or the "prestigious" school without considering that it is more than likely not going to be the big stepping stone they think it will be. Even the guy who wrote the op-ed in the Washington Post, while I respect his accomplishments, he could gotten into the Naval Academy and had all his success coming from any of the other excellent public schools in the area, because kids do it all the time. It's not like he invented the iPhone or made the next major scientific discovery, which is what the intense nature of TJ would lead one to believe is going to happen.

You must be high. I also don't have a dog in this fight but it's not clear at all that this racist admissions policy will be allowed to stand in the long term. Roberts has been very vocal about his negative view on affirmative action and any other racially motificated government policies that discriminate on the basis of race, even if it is done through proxies of facially neutral measures. Note that the Supreme Court's decision on the application to vacate is not a ruling on the merits of the case, but consideration of procedural/administrative issues. In this case, I suspect that Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh considered the potential impact on the current batch of students if the stay was vacated, because FCPS did not prepare for an alternative admission process. Despite concerns of students having their constitutional rights violated by the new admissions policy, the courts, including SCOTUS, tend to let existing procedures stand unless there was some serious procedural error made in the appeals court.

Now, onto the rest of your points. I don't understand why you find selectivity to be an issue for publicly funded educational institutions. Are you saying there should be no public colleges, and that if we do have public colleges, every single one of them should admit every student that applies? Aside from admissions, there are a lot of achievement-based opportunities and privileges even inside any given public high school. A student doesn't go into the next level of higher math until they've achieved a sufficient grade in a prerequisite class. Just because the bar is often set fairly low doesn't change the fact that there is a bar, and that failing students do not advance. Being able to take the next level class is not automatic, but an earned privilege that is the outcome of some prior achievement. Being able to get into TJ based on demonstrated merit is the same concept in this sense.

The rest of your rationalizing about whether TJ is healthy or unhealthy, and the existence of alternatives is relevant to exactly one person: you. These are subjective opinions and are no more valid than any one else's, including those of parents who find that the rigor of TJ is a great fit for their kids, and that it is the place where their kids can obtain a superior education and be exceptionally well prepared for future studies and professional work in STEM fields.

Lastly, none of what you wrote, regardless of the underlying logic and passion, excuses the fact that the new admissions policy was implemented with racist intent and effect. Shame on you for making excuses for its continued existence.

Well said!

It's not racist to want to include a broader cross section of Fairfax County. Basically anything that reduced Asian representation would be called racist. That people think there can't be a change in policy the might change the racial composition of TJ so Asians aren't 60-70 percent of the school indefinitely seems crazy. It's a public school and its admissions should not be skewed toward people who can afford $4,000 test prep centers. Then those who pay for those prep centers claim their kids are just inherently more intelligent and so more deserving than other kids who don't score as high on the test without equivalent prep. If your kid is so inherently bright, they'll succeed anywhere. Why all the angst?

If that "broader cross section" is done on the basis of race, it is racist and illegal per our laws. Go ask black people "why all the angst" when they were raging against the racist laws during the civil rights movement.

The new policy does not mention race. It's based on allocation slots to various middle schools and a lottery.

For the n-th time for the benefit of the ignorant - facially neutral policies implemented with racist intent are still illegal.

You'll lose on this. The intent was to reduce overrepresentation which is not racist. If whites were overrepresented it wouldn't be "racist" to make more opportunities available to members of other groups. I'm reallyt tired of listening to your allegation of "racism" Again, plaintiffs are going to lose on this one.

LOL, racial balancing is unconstitutional and illegal. There is no argument here. Do some research before you post again.

I practice law in this area. I stand by what I said. And your comment above that "facially neutral policies implemented with racist intent are still illegal" mixes two legal theories, and misstates one of them. Facially neutral policies may discriminate if they have a disparate impact, no 'Intent" is required to find discrimination. And if there is intent, well that's called intentional discrimination - and facially neutral never comes into it.

You can claim to be an astrophysicist and stand by that the sun rises in the west, doesn't make it true. Under strict scrutiny standards, the intent is crucial for determining whether a facially neutral policy is legal even if it has a disparate impact. Finding discrimination is not enough for an action to be illegal/unconstitutional. For this reason, many policies that have demonstrable disparate impact are perfectly legal. Having underlying intent is not the same as intentional discrimination, which is commonly used to reference disparate treatment (as opposed to disparate impact). The "intentional" part of intentional discrimination is in the mechanism of the policy, not the underlying intent. For example, a policy that excludes blacks from entering a room is disparate treatment and is intentional discrimination. I can't believe I have to explain this to a lawyer who claims to practice law in this area, unless by "area" you mean geographical area instead of subject matter.

Pretty sure I've argued more of these cases as a civil rights lawyer than you have. I found that paragraph so incoherent I can't really comment on it, but it doesn't reflect the state of the law. We'll see; the matter isn't going to be litigated here.

Then what's the point of your response? Just to wave your credentials around a bit? I am not a lawyer. You win?

I apologize if it sounded that way. Are you the pp who said you were surprised that you had to explain the basics of discrimination/4th amendment equal protection law to me?

Yes, I am the PP and no that's not what I said. You claimed that racist intent made it intentional discrimination, but this is not true based on my research and laid out my understanding of what intentional discrimination means. If you disagree you can reference any third party definition to support your use of "intentional discrimination." I am open to learning if I have made mistakes but I give very little deference to people's credentials. When I talk to people about subject matter that I am an expert in, I never have to resort to telling people what my credentials are. The facts and logic speak for themselves.

Racial intent, if shown, is direct evidence of discrimination. I really don't know what you're talking about.

A lot of folks on the Coalition side talk as though “racist intent” has been proven in this particular case because of the language in one judge’s opinion - which has been widely panned by dispassionate legal scholars across the political spectrum. It has also been thoroughly destroyed by a higher court judge, who showed pretty concretely in his concurrence why Judge Hilton has been stuck at the District Court level despite a 40-year career, with 20 of those under Republican presidencies.

In no way is it a fact in evidence that the School Board acted with racist intent.

True. The concurring opinion in the 4th Circuit makes clear that Judge anyway saw FCPS's selection methods to be race neutral. And that's the way I read the facts as well. As such, "strict scrutiny" never comes into the picture. The Google U lawyer is just confused.

You are yet another clown and clearly never read the original opinion on summary judgment. The Judge said that while facially neutral, it was enacted for a discriminatory purpose, and therefor strict scrutiny applies. It was literally 2 pages of his opinion. Please read the opinion before you post your nonsense.

But it doesn't and he's wrong. And the stay was issued obviously because of no likelihood of success on the merits.
Can you cite a case (other than Hilton's dubious opinion) where race neutral methods were subject to strict scrutiny because the court found there was racial "intent."
Think about it -- you're saying FCPS intended to discriminate but used lawful means to do it? Courts only look at the means used. Strict scrutiny doesn't even come into play when race neutral measures are used.

Google U JD poster here. I am not the PP you are replying to. My readings led me to Rogers v. Lodge, which references Washington v Davis and Arlington Heights v Metropolitan Housing Corp for its use of strict scrutiny when there is racist intent.

but there isn’t.

That's not the salient point being argued in this specific sub-thread. The point here is that racist intent results in strict scrutiny even with facially neutral policies.

The premise that racist intent exists here or has been somehow “proven” is incorrect.

What do you mean by "proven?" It has indeed been "proven" in a court of law. C4TJ met its burden to show that there was genuine issue of material fact that the Board adopted the policy at least in part to limit the chances of Asians to get admitted for the purpose of racially balancing the school. I understand that the conclusion was not admitted to by the Board, but rather the test to infer intent using Arlington Heights factors what Judge Hilton followed and found that there was no issue of material fact that the circumstantial evidence showed that C4TJ met its burden to show that the Board adopted the policy at least in part to limit the chances of Asians to get admitted for the purpose of racially balancing the school. So, it has been proven to the extent the Supreme Court required it to be. Now the issue is whether the Judge was correct in saying there was no issue of material fact that the inference was correct.

Word salad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I just want to take a 50,000 ft view of the issues being debated here. The fact that the current Supreme Court, as conservative as they are. still let the new admissions policy stand should be a signal that the war is lost. Even if there will still be changes to the new admissions system, it seems highly unlikely to ever go back to the way it was.

I sympathize with the old admissions system, but I also don't think it was ever appropriate to set up a public school in this way. This is what private schools should be for. A private school can offer financial aid to those who can't afford it.

I also think all TJ parents need to take a step back and consider whether TJ is really the best thing for their kids. Having so many high-achieving kids clumped together in that school actually makes it harder for them to be accepted to a top school. MIT isn't going to admit 50 TJ kids in any given year. It is very much harder to stand out there. I get that iron sharpens iron, but it also comes with a significant risk of having nothing to show for all the effort than if they had just gone to their local high school.

I married into an Asian family, and I know that many times the drive to go TJ is from the parents who demand the kids to go to the "best" school or the "prestigious" school without considering that it is more than likely not going to be the big stepping stone they think it will be. Even the guy who wrote the op-ed in the Washington Post, while I respect his accomplishments, he could gotten into the Naval Academy and had all his success coming from any of the other excellent public schools in the area, because kids do it all the time. It's not like he invented the iPhone or made the next major scientific discovery, which is what the intense nature of TJ would lead one to believe is going to happen.

You must be high. I also don't have a dog in this fight but it's not clear at all that this racist admissions policy will be allowed to stand in the long term. Roberts has been very vocal about his negative view on affirmative action and any other racially motificated government policies that discriminate on the basis of race, even if it is done through proxies of facially neutral measures. Note that the Supreme Court's decision on the application to vacate is not a ruling on the merits of the case, but consideration of procedural/administrative issues. In this case, I suspect that Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh considered the potential impact on the current batch of students if the stay was vacated, because FCPS did not prepare for an alternative admission process. Despite concerns of students having their constitutional rights violated by the new admissions policy, the courts, including SCOTUS, tend to let existing procedures stand unless there was some serious procedural error made in the appeals court.

Now, onto the rest of your points. I don't understand why you find selectivity to be an issue for publicly funded educational institutions. Are you saying there should be no public colleges, and that if we do have public colleges, every single one of them should admit every student that applies? Aside from admissions, there are a lot of achievement-based opportunities and privileges even inside any given public high school. A student doesn't go into the next level of higher math until they've achieved a sufficient grade in a prerequisite class. Just because the bar is often set fairly low doesn't change the fact that there is a bar, and that failing students do not advance. Being able to take the next level class is not automatic, but an earned privilege that is the outcome of some prior achievement. Being able to get into TJ based on demonstrated merit is the same concept in this sense.

The rest of your rationalizing about whether TJ is healthy or unhealthy, and the existence of alternatives is relevant to exactly one person: you. These are subjective opinions and are no more valid than any one else's, including those of parents who find that the rigor of TJ is a great fit for their kids, and that it is the place where their kids can obtain a superior education and be exceptionally well prepared for future studies and professional work in STEM fields.

Lastly, none of what you wrote, regardless of the underlying logic and passion, excuses the fact that the new admissions policy was implemented with racist intent and effect. Shame on you for making excuses for its continued existence.

Well said!

It's not racist to want to include a broader cross section of Fairfax County. Basically anything that reduced Asian representation would be called racist. That people think there can't be a change in policy the might change the racial composition of TJ so Asians aren't 60-70 percent of the school indefinitely seems crazy. It's a public school and its admissions should not be skewed toward people who can afford $4,000 test prep centers. Then those who pay for those prep centers claim their kids are just inherently more intelligent and so more deserving than other kids who don't score as high on the test without equivalent prep. If your kid is so inherently bright, they'll succeed anywhere. Why all the angst?

If that "broader cross section" is done on the basis of race, it is racist and illegal per our laws. Go ask black people "why all the angst" when they were raging against the racist laws during the civil rights movement.

The new policy does not mention race. It's based on allocation slots to various middle schools and a lottery.

For the n-th time for the benefit of the ignorant - facially neutral policies implemented with racist intent are still illegal.

You'll lose on this. The intent was to reduce overrepresentation which is not racist. If whites were overrepresented it wouldn't be "racist" to make more opportunities available to members of other groups. I'm reallyt tired of listening to your allegation of "racism" Again, plaintiffs are going to lose on this one.

LOL, racial balancing is unconstitutional and illegal. There is no argument here. Do some research before you post again.

I practice law in this area. I stand by what I said. And your comment above that "facially neutral policies implemented with racist intent are still illegal" mixes two legal theories, and misstates one of them. Facially neutral policies may discriminate if they have a disparate impact, no 'Intent" is required to find discrimination. And if there is intent, well that's called intentional discrimination - and facially neutral never comes into it.

You can claim to be an astrophysicist and stand by that the sun rises in the west, doesn't make it true. Under strict scrutiny standards, the intent is crucial for determining whether a facially neutral policy is legal even if it has a disparate impact. Finding discrimination is not enough for an action to be illegal/unconstitutional. For this reason, many policies that have demonstrable disparate impact are perfectly legal. Having underlying intent is not the same as intentional discrimination, which is commonly used to reference disparate treatment (as opposed to disparate impact). The "intentional" part of intentional discrimination is in the mechanism of the policy, not the underlying intent. For example, a policy that excludes blacks from entering a room is disparate treatment and is intentional discrimination. I can't believe I have to explain this to a lawyer who claims to practice law in this area, unless by "area" you mean geographical area instead of subject matter.

Pretty sure I've argued more of these cases as a civil rights lawyer than you have. I found that paragraph so incoherent I can't really comment on it, but it doesn't reflect the state of the law. We'll see; the matter isn't going to be litigated here.

Then what's the point of your response? Just to wave your credentials around a bit? I am not a lawyer. You win?

I apologize if it sounded that way. Are you the pp who said you were surprised that you had to explain the basics of discrimination/4th amendment equal protection law to me?

Yes, I am the PP and no that's not what I said. You claimed that racist intent made it intentional discrimination, but this is not true based on my research and laid out my understanding of what intentional discrimination means. If you disagree you can reference any third party definition to support your use of "intentional discrimination." I am open to learning if I have made mistakes but I give very little deference to people's credentials. When I talk to people about subject matter that I am an expert in, I never have to resort to telling people what my credentials are. The facts and logic speak for themselves.

Racial intent, if shown, is direct evidence of discrimination. I really don't know what you're talking about.

A lot of folks on the Coalition side talk as though “racist intent” has been proven in this particular case because of the language in one judge’s opinion - which has been widely panned by dispassionate legal scholars across the political spectrum. It has also been thoroughly destroyed by a higher court judge, who showed pretty concretely in his concurrence why Judge Hilton has been stuck at the District Court level despite a 40-year career, with 20 of those under Republican presidencies.

In no way is it a fact in evidence that the School Board acted with racist intent.

True. The concurring opinion in the 4th Circuit makes clear that Judge anyway saw FCPS's selection methods to be race neutral. And that's the way I read the facts as well. As such, "strict scrutiny" never comes into the picture. The Google U lawyer is just confused.

You are yet another clown and clearly never read the original opinion on summary judgment. The Judge said that while facially neutral, it was enacted for a discriminatory purpose, and therefor strict scrutiny applies. It was literally 2 pages of his opinion. Please read the opinion before you post your nonsense.

But it doesn't and he's wrong. And the stay was issued obviously because of no likelihood of success on the merits.
Can you cite a case (other than Hilton's dubious opinion) where race neutral methods were subject to strict scrutiny because the court found there was racial "intent."
Think about it -- you're saying FCPS intended to discriminate but used lawful means to do it? Courts only look at the means used. Strict scrutiny doesn't even come into play when race neutral measures are used.

Google U JD poster here. I am not the PP you are replying to. My readings led me to Rogers v. Lodge, which references Washington v Davis and Arlington Heights v Metropolitan Housing Corp for its use of strict scrutiny when there is racist intent.

but there isn’t.

That's not the salient point being argued in this specific sub-thread. The point here is that racist intent results in strict scrutiny even with facially neutral policies.

The premise that racist intent exists here or has been somehow “proven” is incorrect.

What do you mean by "proven?" It has indeed been "proven" in a court of law. C4TJ met its burden to show that there was genuine issue of material fact that the Board adopted the policy at least in part to limit the chances of Asians to get admitted for the purpose of racially balancing the school. I understand that the conclusion was not admitted to by the Board, but rather the test to infer intent using Arlington Heights factors what Judge Hilton followed and found that there was no issue of material fact that the circumstantial evidence showed that C4TJ met its burden to show that the Board adopted the policy at least in part to limit the chances of Asians to get admitted for the purpose of racially balancing the school. So, it has been proven to the extent the Supreme Court required it to be. Now the issue is whether the Judge was correct in saying there was no issue of material fact that the inference was correct.

Word salad.

You mean you can't bother to read.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just another example of opportunity hogging by the UMC on display. All these parents would fight tooth and nail to keep AA kids out. It’s just like during desegregation but instead of spitting at the kids, you throw lawsuits. Gross!

This is just ignorance. This is nothing like segregation.

Sure, it's a total coincidence that letting AA students into TJ is the action that precipitated the lawsuit

I look at it a different way - the school board is led by a rich White person by the name of Brabrand. Brabrand has consistently demonstrated that when it counts, he has horrible leadership skills (see: pandemic response, for instance) - the hallmark of someone who got to where he was on political lines rather than on his merits. It comes as no surprise, then, that when faced with the problem of racial inequity, the solution he would push would (1) be illegal while still being allowed to proceed, (2) devalue merit as a factor, while emphasizing the importance of political factors, and (3) redistribute inequity rather than finding a way to address the underlying inequity. Of course any of those factors would prompt a well-deserved backlash, including from the Black people who've gone on record with their disapproval of the new system (I'm assuming that by AA, you didn't mean Asian-Americans). The idea that admitting more Blacks was ever the problem is a lie.

How many black people have gone on the record with their disapproval of the new system? I'm guessing very few. Also, do they speak for all black people? I'm black and I support the new system because I think TJ should serve all areas of Fairfax County. I didn't support the old system that allowed a situation where 30 percent of a class came from one prep center that cost $4,000+. Many people in Fairfax County of all races couldn't afford that. I, of course, don't speak for all black people but nor do the black people "who've gone on record with their disapproval of the new system." You pulling that out is like the "I have a black friend so..." argument.

FWIW, I'm Asian and completely agree with you. I also support greater inclusion.

FWIW, I'm Asian and completely disagree with you. I also support greater inclusion w/o discrimination against Asians.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVdQtLASnQs

That is a powerful video.

Same playbook in TJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I just want to take a 50,000 ft view of the issues being debated here. The fact that the current Supreme Court, as conservative as they are. still let the new admissions policy stand should be a signal that the war is lost. Even if there will still be changes to the new admissions system, it seems highly unlikely to ever go back to the way it was.

I sympathize with the old admissions system, but I also don't think it was ever appropriate to set up a public school in this way. This is what private schools should be for. A private school can offer financial aid to those who can't afford it.

I also think all TJ parents need to take a step back and consider whether TJ is really the best thing for their kids. Having so many high-achieving kids clumped together in that school actually makes it harder for them to be accepted to a top school. MIT isn't going to admit 50 TJ kids in any given year. It is very much harder to stand out there. I get that iron sharpens iron, but it also comes with a significant risk of having nothing to show for all the effort than if they had just gone to their local high school.

I married into an Asian family, and I know that many times the drive to go TJ is from the parents who demand the kids to go to the "best" school or the "prestigious" school without considering that it is more than likely not going to be the big stepping stone they think it will be. Even the guy who wrote the op-ed in the Washington Post, while I respect his accomplishments, he could gotten into the Naval Academy and had all his success coming from any of the other excellent public schools in the area, because kids do it all the time. It's not like he invented the iPhone or made the next major scientific discovery, which is what the intense nature of TJ would lead one to believe is going to happen.

You must be high. I also don't have a dog in this fight but it's not clear at all that this racist admissions policy will be allowed to stand in the long term. Roberts has been very vocal about his negative view on affirmative action and any other racially motificated government policies that discriminate on the basis of race, even if it is done through proxies of facially neutral measures. Note that the Supreme Court's decision on the application to vacate is not a ruling on the merits of the case, but consideration of procedural/administrative issues. In this case, I suspect that Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh considered the potential impact on the current batch of students if the stay was vacated, because FCPS did not prepare for an alternative admission process. Despite concerns of students having their constitutional rights violated by the new admissions policy, the courts, including SCOTUS, tend to let existing procedures stand unless there was some serious procedural error made in the appeals court.

Now, onto the rest of your points. I don't understand why you find selectivity to be an issue for publicly funded educational institutions. Are you saying there should be no public colleges, and that if we do have public colleges, every single one of them should admit every student that applies? Aside from admissions, there are a lot of achievement-based opportunities and privileges even inside any given public high school. A student doesn't go into the next level of higher math until they've achieved a sufficient grade in a prerequisite class. Just because the bar is often set fairly low doesn't change the fact that there is a bar, and that failing students do not advance. Being able to take the next level class is not automatic, but an earned privilege that is the outcome of some prior achievement. Being able to get into TJ based on demonstrated merit is the same concept in this sense.

The rest of your rationalizing about whether TJ is healthy or unhealthy, and the existence of alternatives is relevant to exactly one person: you. These are subjective opinions and are no more valid than any one else's, including those of parents who find that the rigor of TJ is a great fit for their kids, and that it is the place where their kids can obtain a superior education and be exceptionally well prepared for future studies and professional work in STEM fields.

Lastly, none of what you wrote, regardless of the underlying logic and passion, excuses the fact that the new admissions policy was implemented with racist intent and effect. Shame on you for making excuses for its continued existence.

Well said!

It's not racist to want to include a broader cross section of Fairfax County. Basically anything that reduced Asian representation would be called racist. That people think there can't be a change in policy the might change the racial composition of TJ so Asians aren't 60-70 percent of the school indefinitely seems crazy. It's a public school and its admissions should not be skewed toward people who can afford $4,000 test prep centers. Then those who pay for those prep centers claim their kids are just inherently more intelligent and so more deserving than other kids who don't score as high on the test without equivalent prep. If your kid is so inherently bright, they'll succeed anywhere. Why all the angst?

If that "broader cross section" is done on the basis of race, it is racist and illegal per our laws. Go ask black people "why all the angst" when they were raging against the racist laws during the civil rights movement.

The new policy does not mention race. It's based on allocation slots to various middle schools and a lottery.

For the n-th time for the benefit of the ignorant - facially neutral policies implemented with racist intent are still illegal.

You'll lose on this. The intent was to reduce overrepresentation which is not racist. If whites were overrepresented it wouldn't be "racist" to make more opportunities available to members of other groups. I'm reallyt tired of listening to your allegation of "racism" Again, plaintiffs are going to lose on this one.

LOL, racial balancing is unconstitutional and illegal. There is no argument here. Do some research before you post again.

I practice law in this area. I stand by what I said. And your comment above that "facially neutral policies implemented with racist intent are still illegal" mixes two legal theories, and misstates one of them. Facially neutral policies may discriminate if they have a disparate impact, no 'Intent" is required to find discrimination. And if there is intent, well that's called intentional discrimination - and facially neutral never comes into it.

You can claim to be an astrophysicist and stand by that the sun rises in the west, doesn't make it true. Under strict scrutiny standards, the intent is crucial for determining whether a facially neutral policy is legal even if it has a disparate impact. Finding discrimination is not enough for an action to be illegal/unconstitutional. For this reason, many policies that have demonstrable disparate impact are perfectly legal. Having underlying intent is not the same as intentional discrimination, which is commonly used to reference disparate treatment (as opposed to disparate impact). The "intentional" part of intentional discrimination is in the mechanism of the policy, not the underlying intent. For example, a policy that excludes blacks from entering a room is disparate treatment and is intentional discrimination. I can't believe I have to explain this to a lawyer who claims to practice law in this area, unless by "area" you mean geographical area instead of subject matter.

Pretty sure I've argued more of these cases as a civil rights lawyer than you have. I found that paragraph so incoherent I can't really comment on it, but it doesn't reflect the state of the law. We'll see; the matter isn't going to be litigated here.

Then what's the point of your response? Just to wave your credentials around a bit? I am not a lawyer. You win?

I apologize if it sounded that way. Are you the pp who said you were surprised that you had to explain the basics of discrimination/4th amendment equal protection law to me?

Yes, I am the PP and no that's not what I said. You claimed that racist intent made it intentional discrimination, but this is not true based on my research and laid out my understanding of what intentional discrimination means. If you disagree you can reference any third party definition to support your use of "intentional discrimination." I am open to learning if I have made mistakes but I give very little deference to people's credentials. When I talk to people about subject matter that I am an expert in, I never have to resort to telling people what my credentials are. The facts and logic speak for themselves.

Racial intent, if shown, is direct evidence of discrimination. I really don't know what you're talking about.

A lot of folks on the Coalition side talk as though “racist intent” has been proven in this particular case because of the language in one judge’s opinion - which has been widely panned by dispassionate legal scholars across the political spectrum. It has also been thoroughly destroyed by a higher court judge, who showed pretty concretely in his concurrence why Judge Hilton has been stuck at the District Court level despite a 40-year career, with 20 of those under Republican presidencies.

In no way is it a fact in evidence that the School Board acted with racist intent.

True. The concurring opinion in the 4th Circuit makes clear that Judge anyway saw FCPS's selection methods to be race neutral. And that's the way I read the facts as well. As such, "strict scrutiny" never comes into the picture. The Google U lawyer is just confused.

You are yet another clown and clearly never read the original opinion on summary judgment. The Judge said that while facially neutral, it was enacted for a discriminatory purpose, and therefor strict scrutiny applies. It was literally 2 pages of his opinion. Please read the opinion before you post your nonsense.

But it doesn't and he's wrong. And the stay was issued obviously because of no likelihood of success on the merits.
Can you cite a case (other than Hilton's dubious opinion) where race neutral methods were subject to strict scrutiny because the court found there was racial "intent."
Think about it -- you're saying FCPS intended to discriminate but used lawful means to do it? Courts only look at the means used. Strict scrutiny doesn't even come into play when race neutral measures are used.

Google U JD poster here. I am not the PP you are replying to. My readings led me to Rogers v. Lodge, which references Washington v Davis and Arlington Heights v Metropolitan Housing Corp for its use of strict scrutiny when there is racist intent.

but there isn’t.

That's not the salient point being argued in this specific sub-thread. The point here is that racist intent results in strict scrutiny even with facially neutral policies.

The premise that racist intent exists here or has been somehow “proven” is incorrect.

What do you mean by "proven?" It has indeed been "proven" in a court of law. C4TJ met its burden to show that there was genuine issue of material fact that the Board adopted the policy at least in part to limit the chances of Asians to get admitted for the purpose of racially balancing the school. I understand that the conclusion was not admitted to by the Board, but rather the test to infer intent using Arlington Heights factors what Judge Hilton followed and found that there was no issue of material fact that the circumstantial evidence showed that C4TJ met its burden to show that the Board adopted the policy at least in part to limit the chances of Asians to get admitted for the purpose of racially balancing the school. So, it has been proven to the extent the Supreme Court required it to be. Now the issue is whether the Judge was correct in saying there was no issue of material fact that the inference was correct.

Word salad.

You mean you can't bother to read.

DP. I agree with the salad poster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just another example of opportunity hogging by the UMC on display. All these parents would fight tooth and nail to keep AA kids out. It’s just like during desegregation but instead of spitting at the kids, you throw lawsuits. Gross!

This is just ignorance. This is nothing like segregation.

Sure, it's a total coincidence that letting AA students into TJ is the action that precipitated the lawsuit

I look at it a different way - the school board is led by a rich White person by the name of Brabrand. Brabrand has consistently demonstrated that when it counts, he has horrible leadership skills (see: pandemic response, for instance) - the hallmark of someone who got to where he was on political lines rather than on his merits. It comes as no surprise, then, that when faced with the problem of racial inequity, the solution he would push would (1) be illegal while still being allowed to proceed, (2) devalue merit as a factor, while emphasizing the importance of political factors, and (3) redistribute inequity rather than finding a way to address the underlying inequity. Of course any of those factors would prompt a well-deserved backlash, including from the Black people who've gone on record with their disapproval of the new system (I'm assuming that by AA, you didn't mean Asian-Americans). The idea that admitting more Blacks was ever the problem is a lie.

The prominent Black person who has gone on record against the new system - and takes every opportunity to remind everyone that he is Black and therefore beyond reproach - has Asian-American children.

C4TJ want to ensure the poor have limited access and the rich can buy entry. It's all about requiring expensive prep where students gain up front access to the test. It's so ridiculous.

That's exactly the message that Brabrand's bought-and-paid-for PR team has been pushing all along without making any attempt at adapting itself to the situation.

Adapting how. Paying millions every year to make new tests to foil the cheaters? That's a total waste of time and resources. They would just adapt.

You are right in one way. Whatever test based on math and writing may have been designed by FCPS, the Asians would still have done well. The only way for white progressive, flowery essay types to get their kids in was to eliminate the test. Putting in geographic criteria alone would not have helped these sorts.

Most white don’t care about TJ.

Only 50% of eligible white students apply. vs 90%+ of Asian or Black.

I guess 1 in 2 care.

Many kids aren’t even eligible. So, no, most don’t care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I just want to take a 50,000 ft view of the issues being debated here. The fact that the current Supreme Court, as conservative as they are. still let the new admissions policy stand should be a signal that the war is lost. Even if there will still be changes to the new admissions system, it seems highly unlikely to ever go back to the way it was.

I sympathize with the old admissions system, but I also don't think it was ever appropriate to set up a public school in this way. This is what private schools should be for. A private school can offer financial aid to those who can't afford it.

I also think all TJ parents need to take a step back and consider whether TJ is really the best thing for their kids. Having so many high-achieving kids clumped together in that school actually makes it harder for them to be accepted to a top school. MIT isn't going to admit 50 TJ kids in any given year. It is very much harder to stand out there. I get that iron sharpens iron, but it also comes with a significant risk of having nothing to show for all the effort than if they had just gone to their local high school.

I married into an Asian family, and I know that many times the drive to go TJ is from the parents who demand the kids to go to the "best" school or the "prestigious" school without considering that it is more than likely not going to be the big stepping stone they think it will be. Even the guy who wrote the op-ed in the Washington Post, while I respect his accomplishments, he could gotten into the Naval Academy and had all his success coming from any of the other excellent public schools in the area, because kids do it all the time. It's not like he invented the iPhone or made the next major scientific discovery, which is what the intense nature of TJ would lead one to believe is going to happen.

You must be high. I also don't have a dog in this fight but it's not clear at all that this racist admissions policy will be allowed to stand in the long term. Roberts has been very vocal about his negative view on affirmative action and any other racially motificated government policies that discriminate on the basis of race, even if it is done through proxies of facially neutral measures. Note that the Supreme Court's decision on the application to vacate is not a ruling on the merits of the case, but consideration of procedural/administrative issues. In this case, I suspect that Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh considered the potential impact on the current batch of students if the stay was vacated, because FCPS did not prepare for an alternative admission process. Despite concerns of students having their constitutional rights violated by the new admissions policy, the courts, including SCOTUS, tend to let existing procedures stand unless there was some serious procedural error made in the appeals court.

Now, onto the rest of your points. I don't understand why you find selectivity to be an issue for publicly funded educational institutions. Are you saying there should be no public colleges, and that if we do have public colleges, every single one of them should admit every student that applies? Aside from admissions, there are a lot of achievement-based opportunities and privileges even inside any given public high school. A student doesn't go into the next level of higher math until they've achieved a sufficient grade in a prerequisite class. Just because the bar is often set fairly low doesn't change the fact that there is a bar, and that failing students do not advance. Being able to take the next level class is not automatic, but an earned privilege that is the outcome of some prior achievement. Being able to get into TJ based on demonstrated merit is the same concept in this sense.

The rest of your rationalizing about whether TJ is healthy or unhealthy, and the existence of alternatives is relevant to exactly one person: you. These are subjective opinions and are no more valid than any one else's, including those of parents who find that the rigor of TJ is a great fit for their kids, and that it is the place where their kids can obtain a superior education and be exceptionally well prepared for future studies and professional work in STEM fields.

Lastly, none of what you wrote, regardless of the underlying logic and passion, excuses the fact that the new admissions policy was implemented with racist intent and effect. Shame on you for making excuses for its continued existence.

Well said!

It's not racist to want to include a broader cross section of Fairfax County. Basically anything that reduced Asian representation would be called racist. That people think there can't be a change in policy the might change the racial composition of TJ so Asians aren't 60-70 percent of the school indefinitely seems crazy. It's a public school and its admissions should not be skewed toward people who can afford $4,000 test prep centers. Then those who pay for those prep centers claim their kids are just inherently more intelligent and so more deserving than other kids who don't score as high on the test without equivalent prep. If your kid is so inherently bright, they'll succeed anywhere. Why all the angst?

If that "broader cross section" is done on the basis of race, it is racist and illegal per our laws. Go ask black people "why all the angst" when they were raging against the racist laws during the civil rights movement.

The new policy does not mention race. It's based on allocation slots to various middle schools and a lottery.

For the n-th time for the benefit of the ignorant - facially neutral policies implemented with racist intent are still illegal.

You'll lose on this. The intent was to reduce overrepresentation which is not racist. If whites were overrepresented it wouldn't be "racist" to make more opportunities available to members of other groups. I'm reallyt tired of listening to your allegation of "racism" Again, plaintiffs are going to lose on this one.

LOL, racial balancing is unconstitutional and illegal. There is no argument here. Do some research before you post again.

I practice law in this area. I stand by what I said. And your comment above that "facially neutral policies implemented with racist intent are still illegal" mixes two legal theories, and misstates one of them. Facially neutral policies may discriminate if they have a disparate impact, no 'Intent" is required to find discrimination. And if there is intent, well that's called intentional discrimination - and facially neutral never comes into it.

You can claim to be an astrophysicist and stand by that the sun rises in the west, doesn't make it true. Under strict scrutiny standards, the intent is crucial for determining whether a facially neutral policy is legal even if it has a disparate impact. Finding discrimination is not enough for an action to be illegal/unconstitutional. For this reason, many policies that have demonstrable disparate impact are perfectly legal. Having underlying intent is not the same as intentional discrimination, which is commonly used to reference disparate treatment (as opposed to disparate impact). The "intentional" part of intentional discrimination is in the mechanism of the policy, not the underlying intent. For example, a policy that excludes blacks from entering a room is disparate treatment and is intentional discrimination. I can't believe I have to explain this to a lawyer who claims to practice law in this area, unless by "area" you mean geographical area instead of subject matter.

Pretty sure I've argued more of these cases as a civil rights lawyer than you have. I found that paragraph so incoherent I can't really comment on it, but it doesn't reflect the state of the law. We'll see; the matter isn't going to be litigated here.

Then what's the point of your response? Just to wave your credentials around a bit? I am not a lawyer. You win?

I apologize if it sounded that way. Are you the pp who said you were surprised that you had to explain the basics of discrimination/4th amendment equal protection law to me?

Yes, I am the PP and no that's not what I said. You claimed that racist intent made it intentional discrimination, but this is not true based on my research and laid out my understanding of what intentional discrimination means. If you disagree you can reference any third party definition to support your use of "intentional discrimination." I am open to learning if I have made mistakes but I give very little deference to people's credentials. When I talk to people about subject matter that I am an expert in, I never have to resort to telling people what my credentials are. The facts and logic speak for themselves.

Racial intent, if shown, is direct evidence of discrimination. I really don't know what you're talking about.

A lot of folks on the Coalition side talk as though “racist intent” has been proven in this particular case because of the language in one judge’s opinion - which has been widely panned by dispassionate legal scholars across the political spectrum. It has also been thoroughly destroyed by a higher court judge, who showed pretty concretely in his concurrence why Judge Hilton has been stuck at the District Court level despite a 40-year career, with 20 of those under Republican presidencies.

In no way is it a fact in evidence that the School Board acted with racist intent.

True. The concurring opinion in the 4th Circuit makes clear that Judge anyway saw FCPS's selection methods to be race neutral. And that's the way I read the facts as well. As such, "strict scrutiny" never comes into the picture. The Google U lawyer is just confused.

You are yet another clown and clearly never read the original opinion on summary judgment. The Judge said that while facially neutral, it was enacted for a discriminatory purpose, and therefor strict scrutiny applies. It was literally 2 pages of his opinion. Please read the opinion before you post your nonsense.

But it doesn't and he's wrong. And the stay was issued obviously because of no likelihood of success on the merits.
Can you cite a case (other than Hilton's dubious opinion) where race neutral methods were subject to strict scrutiny because the court found there was racial "intent."
Think about it -- you're saying FCPS intended to discriminate but used lawful means to do it? Courts only look at the means used. Strict scrutiny doesn't even come into play when race neutral measures are used.

Google U JD poster here. I am not the PP you are replying to. My readings led me to Rogers v. Lodge, which references Washington v Davis and Arlington Heights v Metropolitan Housing Corp for its use of strict scrutiny when there is racist intent.

but there isn’t.

That's not the salient point being argued in this specific sub-thread. The point here is that racist intent results in strict scrutiny even with facially neutral policies.

The premise that racist intent exists here or has been somehow “proven” is incorrect.

Whether or not racist intent was proven is beside the point. Learn to read.