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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there a troll pretending to be a hysterical Asian parent?

Some of these comments are over-the-top.

As over-the-top as FCPS discriminating Asian Americans in the name of equity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there a troll pretending to be a hysterical Asian parent?

Some of these comments are over-the-top.

It wouldn’t surprise me if there was someone on here trying to make Asian parents look bad. That is the caliber of argument that you’re seeing on that side.

I’m honestly not sure which would be worse - a fake troll or someone who actually believes that nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Actually Canada will accept 400000+ immigrants each year for the next 3 years to make up for the pandemic - and they are pretty welcoming for americans who want to mover there

[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:
Admissions process is race blind.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why do people insist on this comparison?

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

TJ is not a business. It is a publicly funded educational opportunity. Why do you believe that you get to decide what constitutes merit with respect to TJ?

Exactly. You don't get to decide either. As a matter of fact, you have been ruled as a racist in a federal court.

I have? When was I ruled as a racist? I have spent no time in a federal court and my name has never been attached to any lawsuit in a federal court.

You as in you and your white liberal criminal partners in FCPS.

I don’t have any of those. In fact, I am a person who believes that FCPS screwed up big time in approaching this issue the way that they did.

But you go ahead and do you.

I know. You thought you were being so smooth with the racism. But got caught You do you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Asians were wildly over represented before. While it is not reasonable to expect that merit outcomes will be identical to population levels when the population varies considerably in SES and English competency, it also is not reasonable to think peke are not going to bat an eyelash when the process yields more than TRIPLE the level of Asians compared to their level in the student population. Not 50% more or even 100% more - more than triple!

20% vs 70%+

It is the same with magnet schools in Maryland. These damn Asians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Asians were wildly over represented before. While it is not reasonable to expect that merit outcomes will be identical to population levels when the population varies considerably in SES and English competency, it also is not reasonable to think peke are not going to bat an eyelash when the process yields more than TRIPLE the level of Asians compared to their level in the student population. Not 50% more or even 100% more - more than triple!

20% vs 70%+

This disproportionality is even greater when you talk about South Asians. They represent about 5-6% of the total Northern VA population and about 40-45% of TJ pre-admissions changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asians were wildly over represented before. While it is not reasonable to expect that merit outcomes will be identical to population levels when the population varies considerably in SES and English competency, it also is not reasonable to think peke are not going to bat an eyelash when the process yields more than TRIPLE the level of Asians compared to their level in the student population. Not 50% more or even 100% more - more than triple!

20% vs 70%+

This disproportionality is even greater when you talk about South Asians. They represent about 5-6% of the total Northern VA population and about 40-45% of TJ pre-admissions changes.

Do you have a new racist plan to take care of them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Responding to this item, and by proxy, others.

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

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

NP here. I've been mostly lurking on this thread, but watching it.

The problem with using 'overrepresented' suggests that there are some in the targeted group that are present when they shouldn't be. It suggests that they are not there by their qualifications, but are there because they are a member of some favored group. I think a better word is a that the group is disproportionately represented. It says that the population within the representation does not match the demographics. It doesn't say whether they are over or under represented. Overrepresented carries a negative connotation and using disportionately represented does not attach that negative impression to the target groups.

The whole problem with words like overrepresented or URM is that due to political rhetoric, they have started to get negative stigma attached that carries implications that are then transferred to the minority groups. URM now carries the stigma that the targeted groups are not as qualified as the rest of the general populace causing them to need affirmative action to be admitted. Overrepresented suggests that the affected groups are there not because of merit but because of racial preferences like white privilege. So, rather than use loaded words that have acquired political connotations, just say that they are disproportionately represented to the demographics of the general populace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Responding to this item, and by proxy, others.

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

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

NP here. I've been mostly lurking on this thread, but watching it.

The problem with using 'overrepresented' suggests that there are some in the targeted group that are present when they shouldn't be. It suggests that they are not there by their qualifications, but are there because they are a member of some favored group. I think a better word is a that the group is disproportionately represented. It says that the population within the representation does not match the demographics. It doesn't say whether they are over or under represented. Overrepresented carries a negative connotation and using disportionately represented does not attach that negative impression to the target groups.

The whole problem with words like overrepresented or URM is that due to political rhetoric, they have started to get negative stigma attached that carries implications that are then transferred to the minority groups. URM now carries the stigma that the targeted groups are not as qualified as the rest of the general populace causing them to need affirmative action to be admitted. Overrepresented suggests that the affected groups are there not because of merit but because of racial preferences like white privilege. So, rather than use loaded words that have acquired political connotations, just say that they are disproportionately represented to the demographics of the general populace.

PP. This was a genuinely really thoughtful response and I appreciate it. Kudos to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asians were wildly over represented before. While it is not reasonable to expect that merit outcomes will be identical to population levels when the population varies considerably in SES and English competency, it also is not reasonable to think peke are not going to bat an eyelash when the process yields more than TRIPLE the level of Asians compared to their level in the student population. Not 50% more or even 100% more - more than triple!

20% vs 70%+

This disproportionality is even greater when you talk about South Asians. They represent about 5-6% of the total Northern VA population and about 40-45% of TJ pre-admissions changes.

Do you have a new racist plan to take care of them?

Still thinking?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Admissions process is race blind.

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

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

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

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

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

You just don't understand Constitutional law. The point being made was the Judge did not say the process was facially discriminatory, but rather facially neutral (which poll taxes are) but adopted with a racial balancing motive so strict scrutiny applies. You are now changing the argument into something very different rather than conceding you were wrong about the premise. Please let go of your cognitive dissonance and just read the opinion and then comment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a troll pretending to be a hysterical Asian parent?

Some of these comments are over-the-top.

It wouldn’t surprise me if there was someone on here trying to make Asian parents look bad. That is the caliber of argument that you’re seeing on that side.

I’m honestly not sure which would be worse - a fake troll or someone who actually believes that nonsense.

Yes, that side sure has a bee in their bonnet about their kids being told they are too Asian to attend a school for which they otherwise qualify.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Admissions process is race blind.

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

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

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

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

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

You just don't understand Constitutional law. The point being made was the Judge did not say the process was facially discriminatory, but rather facially neutral (which poll taxes are) but adopted with a racial balancing motive so strict scrutiny applies. You are now changing the argument into something very different rather than conceding you were wrong about the premise. Please let go of your cognitive dissonance and just read the opinion and then comment.

You are conflating posters. I haven't changed my argument at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a troll pretending to be a hysterical Asian parent?

Some of these comments are over-the-top.

It wouldn’t surprise me if there was someone on here trying to make Asian parents look bad. That is the caliber of argument that you’re seeing on that side.

I’m honestly not sure which would be worse - a fake troll or someone who actually believes that nonsense.

Yes, that side sure has a bee in their bonnet about their kids being told they are too Asian to attend a school for which they otherwise qualify.

There are a lot of kids who qualify. Why are some kids more entitled than others?

[Anonymous]

As few pointed earlier, if the FCPS clearly listed out all the barriers that under represented groups are facing to get into TJ and propose the steps it was planning to take, very few would have had any objection. Instead, the whole process was so obviously designed to hurt asians by specifically cutting the advantages they have forcing asians compete with each other. The quota system system stupid as it isolates people into groups gives an impression that merit doesn't matter as kids are forced into different socio economic groups and each group declare their own winner(s). Discounting of AAP and unweighted GPA is another example of implying hard work doesn't matter. Since asians tend to be concentrated in specific areas and many are in AAP, the attending school based quotas have an explicit racial bias. To top it off, its ridiculous to give so much weightage to essays, portrait sheet and other 'experience factor' as compared to GPA doesn't look good for the merit based approach.

FCPS could have have removed the initial screening test and instead focused more on the GPA, teacher recommendations and general interest in STEM (based on the opportunities available) and not discount the AAP and/or difficult courses students take. Along with this, they could have allocated few seats to each of the 'base' school as long as min criteria is met (with out calling a quota or % allocation etc), then no one would have raised an eye. FCPS could then see how this approach increases the diversity and gradually make other changes in future to improve the process.