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

[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.

+1.

Those opposed to the court's decision are trying to suggest that he would never permit FCPS to change the admissions process if it led to more Black students admitted to TJ.

That's quite a leap, as that's not how he analyzed the situation. He found discriminatory intent in the record, despite the facially neutral measures in the adopted policy.

That doesn't mean that any policy that might boost Black enrollment at TJ would be invalidated. It means FCPS's motives were questionable and subject to strict scrutiny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

+1 Why aren't we celebrating that we have a community are really hard working learners that are pursuing and achieving great things? Instead it is called toxic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Admissions process is race blind.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

+1.

Those opposed to the court's decision are trying to suggest that he would never permit FCPS to change the admissions process if it led to more Black students admitted to TJ.

That's quite a leap, as that's not how he analyzed the situation. He found discriminatory intent in the record, despite the facially neutral measures in the adopted policy.

That doesn't mean that any policy that might boost Black enrollment at TJ would be invalidated. It means FCPS's motives were questionable and subject to strict scrutiny.

Yes, yes! Finally someone that read the opinion and understands the situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I support that approach. Hard to believe it was never considered.

[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.

OK - sounds like a good word adjustment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

+1 Why aren't we celebrating that we have a community are really hard working learners that are pursuing and achieving great things? Instead it is called toxic.

Aren't they going to work hard and achieve great things whether they go to TJ or not?

Why is "achieving great things" only limited to that community? Why not the broader community of qualified students?


Time for an oldie but goodie:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I support that approach. Hard to believe it was never considered.

That's not very transparent...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Admissions process is race blind.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

+1.

Those opposed to the court's decision are trying to suggest that he would never permit FCPS to change the admissions process if it led to more Black students admitted to TJ.

That's quite a leap, as that's not how he analyzed the situation. He found discriminatory intent in the record, despite the facially neutral measures in the adopted policy.

That doesn't mean that any policy that might boost Black enrollment at TJ would be invalidated. It means FCPS's motives were questionable and subject to strict scrutiny.

Yes, yes! Finally someone that read the opinion and understands the situation.

We get that there may have been discriminatory intent.

The discussion is if the current admissions process is racially discriminatory to any groups.

[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.

Yeah, that was my first reaction, too, when I first heard about the changes a year and a half ago. It sounded to me like FCPS was trying to force the false equivalence that Black and Hispanic meant weak students who needed the help of a skewed admissions system. I thought it would have been a much better idea to treat it as an issue of community representation - basically, ask who the Black and Hispanic geniuses are, and ask why they should be the representative members of their respective communities.

Granted, society as a whole doesn't always like nerds, but we as AAP parents are biased to think of them as the most representative members of our communities. I think it would have been a good idea to campaign for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Because they're better students?

[Anonymous]

I fail to see how disproportionately-represented has any more or less negative connotation that over-represented and under-represented... the latter two are just more granular/specific classes of the former. They're all just mathematical and descriptive and neutral.

I'm all for being sensitive to avoiding terms that have certain connotations for certain groups, but this just seems a bridge too far, and I've never heard anyone in any other context express concern about this term. More and more I suspect we're just dealing with a troll... kudos on your skill, but wish you felt some shame/remorse for your characterization of an Asian parent POV.

[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%+

Oh right -Asians have a built in advantage when it comes to English. Wait, no whites and blacks do.

[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%+

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

Same in other places as well including NYC. Those Asians..

[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%+

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

Same in other places as well including NYC. Those Asians..

but 50% of AAP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Because they're better students?

WTAF?