Has the Coalition for TJ (or any other groups) considered another lawsuit?

[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:Is there data somewhere to back this claim?

2) the largest beneficiaries of the change were low-income Asians

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221280.P.pdf
page 16
[i]"Nevertheless, in the 2021 application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."


Other groups saw large increases, but not “sixfold”.

This is called data scraping.

You look for some subset of data that makes your conclusions right.

The discrimination against asians is no less because some asian subgroups increased and other asian subgroups decreased.
The number of asians getting in was reduced despite the trajectory of asians being admitted was an increase pretty much every year since the school opened.
You could just as easily claim that there was no anti-asian discrimination because the number of asian ELLs tripled, or the number of mongolian kids quintupled, etc.
Ultimately the dsicrimination was directed at asians and the number of asians went down.

That is what the court concluded, not me. I don't have that data.

We do have TJ enrollment. The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ after the change has been greater than almost all other years in the school's history.

The trial court, the finder of fact, found that there was intentional discrimination.
The circuit court's opinion is so bad that is actually drew a very rare dissent when SCOTUS denied cert.
Do you know how rarely a denial of cert has a dissent attached?

A dissent from two corrupt, partisan hacks only gives the circuit court’s opinion more credit.

No, no it doesn't.
SCOTUS dissents from denial of cert are rare and telegraphs what the likely outcome of an actual case would have been if cert had been granted.
The disparate impact analysis of the 4th circuit inn the TJ case was embarrassingly bad.

They aren’t “rare” and obviously anything coming from those two corrupt clowns should be ignorance.

Of courser it's rare.
Just google it.


Here is an article about a sotomayor diseent to a denial of cert calling it "very rare"

"It is very rare for a Justice to issue a dissent when the Court denies cert, "
https://thedig.howard.edu/all-stories/justice-sotomayor-issues-dissent-reaction-denial-cert-petition-filed-howard-law-civil-rights-clinic

I guess issuing 5 in one day is "rare"? OK...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/110722zor_8m58.pdf

Anything coming from those two corrupt clowns should be ignored. Period.

You literally picked the one week that had so many dissents issued that scotusblog wrote and article about how unusual it was:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/11/denials-of-review-in-five-cases-draw-dissents-from-various-justices/

Something like 10% of denials of cert have a dissent filed by a justice.

They just said it was "far from mundane", not that dissents are "rare". Citation on the 10%?

Alito and Thomas are corrupt clowns in a corrupt court. Their partisan dissent only gives more validity to the circuit court opinion.

by your own admission unequivocally, sotomayor, kegan and jackson are bigger clowns, then?

No, I clearly did not say that.

Alito and Thomas are clowns because they are corrupt, RWNJ hacks. Not because they wrote a dissent.

Exactly, and the court had found no evidence of harm done since the process is race-blind and Asian enrollment remained at a historic high, so the case was laughed out of court.

sockpuppeting!

I's factual.

The sockpuppeting is definitely factual.

[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:Is there data somewhere to back this claim?

2) the largest beneficiaries of the change were low-income Asians

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221280.P.pdf
page 16
[i]"Nevertheless, in the 2021 application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."


Other groups saw large increases, but not “sixfold”.

This is called data scraping.

You look for some subset of data that makes your conclusions right.

The discrimination against asians is no less because some asian subgroups increased and other asian subgroups decreased.
The number of asians getting in was reduced despite the trajectory of asians being admitted was an increase pretty much every year since the school opened.
You could just as easily claim that there was no anti-asian discrimination because the number of asian ELLs tripled, or the number of mongolian kids quintupled, etc.
Ultimately the dsicrimination was directed at asians and the number of asians went down.

That is what the court concluded, not me. I don't have that data.

We do have TJ enrollment. The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ after the change has been greater than almost all other years in the school's history.

The trial court, the finder of fact, found that there was intentional discrimination.
The circuit court's opinion is so bad that is actually drew a very rare dissent when SCOTUS denied cert.
Do you know how rarely a denial of cert has a dissent attached?

A dissent from two corrupt, partisan hacks only gives the circuit court’s opinion more credit.

No, no it doesn't.
SCOTUS dissents from denial of cert are rare and telegraphs what the likely outcome of an actual case would have been if cert had been granted.
The disparate impact analysis of the 4th circuit inn the TJ case was embarrassingly bad.

They aren’t “rare” and obviously anything coming from those two corrupt clowns should be ignorance.

Of courser it's rare.
Just google it.


Here is an article about a sotomayor diseent to a denial of cert calling it "very rare"

"It is very rare for a Justice to issue a dissent when the Court denies cert, "
https://thedig.howard.edu/all-stories/justice-sotomayor-issues-dissent-reaction-denial-cert-petition-filed-howard-law-civil-rights-clinic

I guess issuing 5 in one day is "rare"? OK...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/110722zor_8m58.pdf

Anything coming from those two corrupt clowns should be ignored. Period.

You literally picked the one week that had so many dissents issued that scotusblog wrote and article about how unusual it was:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/11/denials-of-review-in-five-cases-draw-dissents-from-various-justices/

Something like 10% of denials of cert have a dissent filed by a justice.

They just said it was "far from mundane", not that dissents are "rare". Citation on the 10%?

Alito and Thomas are corrupt clowns in a corrupt court. Their partisan dissent only gives more validity to the circuit court opinion.

That was a post prior to that.
https://thedig.howard.edu/all-stories/justice-sotomayor-issues-dissent-reaction-denial-cert-petition-filed-howard-law-civil-rights-clinic

They're not corrupt just because you don't like their rulings.
I won't defend Thomas but in order for there to be corruption you have to point to a decision or opinion that you think is improperly influenced.

I call them corrupt simply because they are corrupt.
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-alito-94de3ccad328b421924ef3cd4696da98
https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-money-complaints-sparked-resignation-fears-scotus
https://www.propublica.org/article/samuel-alito-luxury-fishing-trip-paul-singer-scotus-supreme-court
https://www.citizensforethics.org/legal-action/letters/crew-raises-alarm-to-chief-justice-roberts-over-alito-misconduct/

None of this is corruption.
Alito's exercise of free speech by flying a flag is not corruption.
Trump talking to Alito about somebody he will about to hire is not corruption.
I won't defend Thomas but his votes are about the most predictable votes on the supreme court. The allegation seems to be that they were effectively paying him to not retire.
And NONE of these touch on the affirmative action case.

Sotomayor gets money from colleges in speaking fees.
Colleges and libraries are also prodded to buy Sotomayor's books.
This includes colleges that submitted amicus briefs to the affirmative action case.
Should she have recused herself from the affirmative action case?

Kagan works for Harvard as a paid visiting professor, should she have recused herself from the affirmative action case?

Your standards for what constitutes corruption seems to depend on whether or not you agree with their rulings.

This all looks like corruption to anyone who hasn’t gone down the MAGA rabbit hole.

Obviously, Alito should have excused himself from the case around the 2020 election. Etc etc.

SCOTUS has lost credibility. Dissents from two of the most partisan hacks are meaningless.

[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:Is there data somewhere to back this claim?

2) the largest beneficiaries of the change were low-income Asians

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221280.P.pdf
page 16
[i]"Nevertheless, in the 2021 application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."


Other groups saw large increases, but not “sixfold”.

This is called data scraping.

You look for some subset of data that makes your conclusions right.

The discrimination against asians is no less because some asian subgroups increased and other asian subgroups decreased.
The number of asians getting in was reduced despite the trajectory of asians being admitted was an increase pretty much every year since the school opened.
You could just as easily claim that there was no anti-asian discrimination because the number of asian ELLs tripled, or the number of mongolian kids quintupled, etc.
Ultimately the dsicrimination was directed at asians and the number of asians went down.

That is what the court concluded, not me. I don't have that data.

We do have TJ enrollment. The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ after the change has been greater than almost all other years in the school's history.

The trial court, the finder of fact, found that there was intentional discrimination.
The circuit court's opinion is so bad that is actually drew a very rare dissent when SCOTUS denied cert.
Do you know how rarely a denial of cert has a dissent attached?

A dissent from two corrupt, partisan hacks only gives the circuit court’s opinion more credit.

No, no it doesn't.
SCOTUS dissents from denial of cert are rare and telegraphs what the likely outcome of an actual case would have been if cert had been granted.
The disparate impact analysis of the 4th circuit inn the TJ case was embarrassingly bad.

They aren’t “rare” and obviously anything coming from those two corrupt clowns should be ignorance.

Of courser it's rare.
Just google it.


Here is an article about a sotomayor diseent to a denial of cert calling it "very rare"

"It is very rare for a Justice to issue a dissent when the Court denies cert, "
https://thedig.howard.edu/all-stories/justice-sotomayor-issues-dissent-reaction-denial-cert-petition-filed-howard-law-civil-rights-clinic

I guess issuing 5 in one day is "rare"? OK...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/110722zor_8m58.pdf

Anything coming from those two corrupt clowns should be ignored. Period.

You literally picked the one week that had so many dissents issued that scotusblog wrote and article about how unusual it was:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/11/denials-of-review-in-five-cases-draw-dissents-from-various-justices/

Something like 10% of denials of cert have a dissent filed by a justice.

They just said it was "far from mundane", not that dissents are "rare". Citation on the 10%?

Alito and Thomas are corrupt clowns in a corrupt court. Their partisan dissent only gives more validity to the circuit court opinion.

by your own admission unequivocally, sotomayor, kegan and jackson are bigger clowns, then?

No, I clearly did not say that.

Alito and Thomas are clowns because they are corrupt, RWNJ hacks. Not because they wrote a dissent.

Exactly, and the court had found no evidence of harm done since the process is race-blind and Asian enrollment remained at a historic high, so the case was laughed out of court.

sockpuppeting!

This wasn’t sockpuppeting. Ask Jeff.

[Anonymous]

New Dept of Education memo is going to put an end to the TJ Admissions. Effective in 14 days!!!!!!!!! Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Although some programs may appear neutral on their face, a closer look reveals that they are, in fact, motivated by racial considerations.8 And race-based decision-making, no matter the form, remains impermissible. For example, a school may not use students’ personal essays, writing samples, participation in extracurriculars, or other cues as a means of determining or predicting a student’s race and favoring or disfavoring such students.

Relying on non-racial information as a proxy for race, and making decisions based on that information, violates the law. That is true whether the proxies are used to grant preferences on an individual basis or a systematic one. It would, for instance, be unlawful for an educational institution to eliminate standardized testing to achieve a desired racial balance or to increase racial diversity.

[Anonymous]

This letter was sent to the departments of education in all 50 states, notifying them they have 14 days to remove all DEI programming in all public schools. Institutions which fail to comply may face a loss of federal funding. DOGE.

https://www.ed.gov/media/document/dear-collea...v-harvard-109506.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This letter was sent to the departments of education in all 50 states, notifying them they have 14 days to remove all DEI programming in all public schools. Institutions which fail to comply may face a loss of federal funding. DOGE.

https://www.ed.gov/media/document/dear-collea...v-harvard-109506.pdf

It would be ideal if the DoE recommended a merit-based selection process within each ethnicity, prioritizing hard work over a random lottery. Otherwise, racial proxies will continue to be created.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This letter was sent to the departments of education in all 50 states, notifying them they have 14 days to remove all DEI programming in all public schools. Institutions which fail to comply may face a loss of federal funding. DOGE.

https://www.ed.gov/media/document/dear-collea...v-harvard-109506.pdf

So no more Black history month?

No more Women In Science and Engineeering?

No more Young Scholars?

[Anonymous]

https://www.aol.com/department-education-warns-public-schools-110148773.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAIK7A6jsQORHrxGwiykvRSY2UwOXeG5vC7ARi-13Alzso0F-dqBJtYNCVA7lD_-X5Xn8xl_0jut91ST_fMcNwDhaBL0Vsw-dLrvfNbWLUxJmg2LptfRSs99GFk9lWk7dWA0dRL3O0O2geTA4VAt4G32-okqO75ZdHnbbrPB426M0

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This letter was sent to the departments of education in all 50 states, notifying them they have 14 days to remove all DEI programming in all public schools. Institutions which fail to comply may face a loss of federal funding. DOGE.

https://www.ed.gov/media/document/dear-collea...v-harvard-109506.pdf

So no more Black history month?

No more Women In Science and Engineeering?

No more Young Scholars?

Need a Library month, people seem to have forgotten that one exists. A Love & Respect month can remind people to be considerate to each other. Etc...

[Anonymous]

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/BPLQKV69B096/$file/FCPS%20final%20report%2005.05.20.pdf


When FCPS hired outside consultants to perform a program review of Advanced Academics in FCPS, part of the recommendation was that the top 2% cutoff scores for NNAT and CogAT are extremely high.

They also recommended discontinuation of GBRS and NNAT scores.



d. Examination of the initial universal screening cutoff score. The current cut scores for NNAT or CogAT are extremely high - only the top ~2% of students in the country would be expected to be further considered for identification and placement in Level IV Centers, even fewer from traditionally underrepresented groups. If the referral pathway was restricted, the universal screening cut scores could be lowered without overburdening the Central Selection Committee process. Furthermore, if local (i.e., building-level) norms were used to make placements, the cut scores would (and should) vary considerably among building.

[Anonymous]

For those who think that that letter is somehow going to impact the TJ admissions process… precisely how do you see that playing out?

The Supreme Court already elected not to hear the case that was brought by C4TJ. That case has already been litigated. What exactly do you think is going to happen?

Do you think Secretary Guidera is going to somehow dictate to FCPS what their admissions process is going to look like? Do you think that will take effect for this cycle? Do you understand that there will be elections in Virginia - where Republicans will get CRUSHED because of Trump - coming up in just nine months?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This letter was sent to the departments of education in all 50 states, notifying them they have 14 days to remove all DEI programming in all public schools. Institutions which fail to comply may face a loss of federal funding. DOGE.

https://www.ed.gov/media/document/dear-collea...v-harvard-109506.pdf

So no more Black history month?

No more Women In Science and Engineeering?

No more Young Scholars?

LOL

So you prefer show over substance. Instead of tackling problems with real solutions, you want to make a show of helping people.

This is precisely what liberals have done. Rename schools, remove testing from admissions, promote "intersectionality", "microagressions" and other such nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those who think that that letter is somehow going to impact the TJ admissions process… precisely how do you see that playing out?

The Supreme Court already elected not to hear the case that was brought by C4TJ. That case has already been litigated. What exactly do you think is going to happen?

Do you think Secretary Guidera is going to somehow dictate to FCPS what their admissions process is going to look like? Do you think that will take effect for this cycle? Do you understand that there will be elections in Virginia - where Republicans will get CRUSHED because of Trump - coming up in just nine months?

I thought we are in a dictatorship. Come on, we are under a facist right? So why do you think we would have elections anymore?

[Anonymous]

How much money does FCPS receive each year from Dept of education and overall Federal. What was it in 2023-2024?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those who think that that letter is somehow going to impact the TJ admissions process… precisely how do you see that playing out?

The Supreme Court already elected not to hear the case that was brought by C4TJ. That case has already been litigated. What exactly do you think is going to happen?

Do you think Secretary Guidera is going to somehow dictate to FCPS what their admissions process is going to look like? Do you think that will take effect for this cycle? Do you understand that there will be elections in Virginia - where Republicans will get CRUSHED because of Trump - coming up in just nine months?

Exactly. So you can keep bringing cases until they hear the case.

Secretary gifts can withhold funding to FCPS. FCPS received over $150 million in federal funding last year. That's only like 5% of the budget but the budget is already very very tight.