Supreme Court Is Asked to Hear a New Admissions Case on Race

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The Fairfax County School Board members exchanged messages saying that Asian numbers should go down... The US District Court found as a matter of factual finding that the school system had racially discriminatory intent (messages) and that 'disparate impact' (Asian students going from about 73% to 54%) was established and ruled the new admission system unconstitutional as being discriminatory against Asians.

Does the amicus brief mention the Asian student suppression from 73% to 54%? Link?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A federal appeals court blocks a grant program for Black female entrepreneurs.

A legal battle between a program that awards grants to female entrepreneurs of color and a conservative nonprofit organization is expected to raise broader legal questions on the use of diversity programs in corporate America.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta ruled on Saturday to temporarily block the Fearless Fund from running its Strivers Grant Contest, which awards $20,000 grants to small businesses that are led by at least one woman of color and other requirements.

The panel of judges decided 2-1 that the venture capital fund is "racially discriminatory."

In a statement to NPR on Monday, Blum said his organization is pleased by the court's most recent decision and hopeful for a favorable outcome.

"The members of the American Alliance for Equal Rights are gratified that the 11th Circuit has recognized the likelihood that the Fearless Strivers Grant Contest is illegal. We look forward to the final resolution of this lawsuit," Blum said.

https://www.npr.org/2023/10/03/1203221945/affirmative-action-black-female-entrepreneurs

TJ case is next!

Let's hope the supreme court calls out and condemns the Anti Asian American discriminatory practices within FCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Playing arm-chair lawyer here:

To prove a policy has disparate impact, plaintiff has to prove:
(1) establish an adverse impact caused by the practice
(2) does the practice have legitimate justification
(3) Is there any less discriminatory alternative.

I'd think allocated seats for top students in every FCPS school would be a solid practice.

1) Asians largest cohort at TJ as a percentage of the population and largest beneficiary of the selection changes again were lower-income Asians
2) More students throughout the county now participate in this program not mainly ones from the affluent schools
3) The current alterative is race-blind so discrimination isn't an issue

I also fail to see the problem here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Playing arm-chair lawyer here:

To prove a policy has disparate impact, plaintiff has to prove:
(1) establish an adverse impact caused by the practice
(2) does the practice have legitimate justification
(3) Is there any less discriminatory alternative.

I'd think allocated seats for top students in every FCPS school would be a solid practice.

1) Asians largest cohort at TJ as a percentage of the population and largest beneficiary of the selection changes again were lower-income Asians
2) More students throughout the county now participate in this program not mainly ones from the affluent schools
3) The current alterative is race-blind so discrimination isn't an issue

I also fail to see the problem here.

It's pre-election RWNJ hysteria.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

1) Asians largest cohort at TJ as a percentage of the population and largest beneficiary of the selection changes again were lower-income Asians
2) More students throughout the county now participate in this program not mainly ones from the affluent schools
3) The current alterative is race-blind so discrimination isn't an issue

1) false & misrepresentation
2) total false
3) absolutely false

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

1) Asians largest cohort at TJ as a percentage of the population and largest beneficiary of the selection changes again were lower-income Asians
2) More students throughout the county now participate in this program not mainly ones from the affluent schools
3) The current alterative is race-blind so discrimination isn't an issue

1) false & misrepresentation
2) total false
3) absolutely false

You're correct in the Upside Down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Fairfax County School Board members exchanged messages saying that Asian numbers should go down... The US District Court found as a matter of factual finding that the school system had racially discriminatory intent (messages) and that 'disparate impact' (Asian students going from about 73% to 54%) was established and ruled the new admission system unconstitutional as being discriminatory against Asians.

Does the amicus brief mention the Asian student suppression from 73% to 54%? Link?

yes, it does. But I cant find the link at the moment. It is signed by 20 state Attorney Generals, that empathically call out and ask the highest court to reject the Asian American suppression at schools across America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Playing arm-chair lawyer here:

To prove a policy has disparate impact, plaintiff has to prove:
(1) establish an adverse impact caused by the practice
(2) does the practice have legitimate justification
(3) Is there any less discriminatory alternative.

I'd think allocated seats for top students in every FCPS school would be a solid practice.

1) Asians largest cohort at TJ as a percentage of the population and largest beneficiary of the selection changes again were lower-income Asians
2) More students throughout the county now participate in this program not mainly ones from the affluent schools
3) The current alterative is race-blind so discrimination isn't an issue

This is reality. Unfortunately many of these posters are in denial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A federal appeals court blocks a grant program for Black female entrepreneurs.

A legal battle between a program that awards grants to female entrepreneurs of color and a conservative nonprofit organization is expected to raise broader legal questions on the use of diversity programs in corporate America.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta ruled on Saturday to temporarily block the Fearless Fund from running its Strivers Grant Contest, which awards $20,000 grants to small businesses that are led by at least one woman of color and other requirements.

The panel of judges decided 2-1 that the venture capital fund is "racially discriminatory."

In a statement to NPR on Monday, Blum said his organization is pleased by the court's most recent decision and hopeful for a favorable outcome.

"The members of the American Alliance for Equal Rights are gratified that the 11th Circuit has recognized the likelihood that the Fearless Strivers Grant Contest is illegal. We look forward to the final resolution of this lawsuit," Blum said.

https://www.npr.org/2023/10/03/1203221945/affirmative-action-black-female-entrepreneurs

TJ case is next!

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A federal appeals court blocks a grant program for Black female entrepreneurs.

A legal battle between a program that awards grants to female entrepreneurs of color and a conservative nonprofit organization is expected to raise broader legal questions on the use of diversity programs in corporate America.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta ruled on Saturday to temporarily block the Fearless Fund from running its Strivers Grant Contest, which awards $20,000 grants to small businesses that are led by at least one woman of color and other requirements.

The panel of judges decided 2-1 that the venture capital fund is "racially discriminatory."

In a statement to NPR on Monday, Blum said his organization is pleased by the court's most recent decision and hopeful for a favorable outcome.

"The members of the American Alliance for Equal Rights are gratified that the 11th Circuit has recognized the likelihood that the Fearless Strivers Grant Contest is illegal. We look forward to the final resolution of this lawsuit," Blum said.

https://www.npr.org/2023/10/03/1203221945/affirmative-action-black-female-entrepreneurs

TJ case is next!

+1

If only it weren't a race-blind process that selects mostly Asians. Then we'd have something to talk about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A federal appeals court blocks a grant program for Black female entrepreneurs.

A legal battle between a program that awards grants to female entrepreneurs of color and a conservative nonprofit organization is expected to raise broader legal questions on the use of diversity programs in corporate America.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta ruled on Saturday to temporarily block the Fearless Fund from running its Strivers Grant Contest, which awards $20,000 grants to small businesses that are led by at least one woman of color and other requirements.

The panel of judges decided 2-1 that the venture capital fund is "racially discriminatory."

In a statement to NPR on Monday, Blum said his organization is pleased by the court's most recent decision and hopeful for a favorable outcome.

"The members of the American Alliance for Equal Rights are gratified that the 11th Circuit has recognized the likelihood that the Fearless Strivers Grant Contest is illegal. We look forward to the final resolution of this lawsuit," Blum said.

https://www.npr.org/2023/10/03/1203221945/affirmative-action-black-female-entrepreneurs

TJ case is next!

All of these examples you provided involve explicit qualifications based on race. The TJ case does not.

Supreme Court precedent actually favors measures similar to what FCPS did with respect to university admissions.

When there is no 'racial' intent unlike the TJ case.

By all means, please feel free to cite your conclusive proof that the intent of the admissions changes was specifically to reduce the proportion of Asian students at TJ.

Still crickets....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A federal appeals court blocks a grant program for Black female entrepreneurs.

A legal battle between a program that awards grants to female entrepreneurs of color and a conservative nonprofit organization is expected to raise broader legal questions on the use of diversity programs in corporate America.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta ruled on Saturday to temporarily block the Fearless Fund from running its Strivers Grant Contest, which awards $20,000 grants to small businesses that are led by at least one woman of color and other requirements.

The panel of judges decided 2-1 that the venture capital fund is "racially discriminatory."

In a statement to NPR on Monday, Blum said his organization is pleased by the court's most recent decision and hopeful for a favorable outcome.

"The members of the American Alliance for Equal Rights are gratified that the 11th Circuit has recognized the likelihood that the Fearless Strivers Grant Contest is illegal. We look forward to the final resolution of this lawsuit," Blum said.

https://www.npr.org/2023/10/03/1203221945/affirmative-action-black-female-entrepreneurs

TJ case is next!

Can you explain the twisted logic that it took to get from an 11th circuit ruling about grants that are facially discriminatory to TJ?

[Anonymous]

"73% of the offers extended to the last class admitted under the previous, meritocratic system were extended to Asian-American applicants. Only 54% of offers for the first class
after the Board imposed the <essay based> admission policy were extended to Asian-American applicants"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A federal appeals court blocks a grant program for Black female entrepreneurs.

A legal battle between a program that awards grants to female entrepreneurs of color and a conservative nonprofit organization is expected to raise broader legal questions on the use of diversity programs in corporate America.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta ruled on Saturday to temporarily block the Fearless Fund from running its Strivers Grant Contest, which awards $20,000 grants to small businesses that are led by at least one woman of color and other requirements.

The panel of judges decided 2-1 that the venture capital fund is "racially discriminatory."

In a statement to NPR on Monday, Blum said his organization is pleased by the court's most recent decision and hopeful for a favorable outcome.

"The members of the American Alliance for Equal Rights are gratified that the 11th Circuit has recognized the likelihood that the Fearless Strivers Grant Contest is illegal. We look forward to the final resolution of this lawsuit," Blum said.

https://www.npr.org/2023/10/03/1203221945/affirmative-action-black-female-entrepreneurs

TJ case is next!

Can you explain the twisted logic that it took to get from an 11th circuit ruling about grants that are facially discriminatory to TJ?

What is the use of explaining anything to you when you blindly repeat the narrative provided to you? When presented with facts, brainwashed individuals like you experience cognitive dissonance, which leads to discomfort and defensiveness rather than a willingness to reconsider the misinformation that you have been told to believe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"73% of the offers extended to the last class admitted under the previous, meritocratic system were extended to Asian-American applicants. Only 54% of offers for the first class
after the Board imposed the <essay based> admission policy were extended to Asian-American applicants"

If there is no way to admit a diverse student body or a student body from the whole county, the reasonable thing is to turn the school into an academy modeled on one of the governors schools in SWVA