TJ Discrimination Case

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, the recent immigrants from developing countries in the predominantly low SES schools provide diverse viewpoints in debates during history and social studies in particular, elevating the quality of education.

In class discussions on 9/11 and the aftermath go to a substantialy higher level when child refugees from Iraq and Afghanistan are in the room, as an example.

Very soon, these immigrants will be on the negative list and be discriminated against as soon as start getting better than the natives. They are only cute as long as they stay in their lane.

As in discrimination against Asians.

For a group that makes up around 15% of the population and manages to gain 70% of the coveted TJ seats they are doing better than anyone so if you think this is discriminated, I was hoping they could discriminate against me too.

Missing the point as usual. Read the thread.

DP. That poster isn't missing the point - they are making a separate and very salient point.

The earth is round.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, the recent immigrants from developing countries in the predominantly low SES schools provide diverse viewpoints in debates during history and social studies in particular, elevating the quality of education.

In class discussions on 9/11 and the aftermath go to a substantialy higher level when child refugees from Iraq and Afghanistan are in the room, as an example.

Very soon, these immigrants will be on the negative list and be discriminated against as soon as start getting better than the natives. They are only cute as long as they stay in their lane.

As in discrimination against Asians.

For a group that makes up around 15% of the population and manages to gain 70% of the coveted TJ seats they are doing better than anyone so if you think this is discriminated, I was hoping they could discriminate against me too.

That exactly why the judge tossed this case. They weren't able to show actual harm.

Yep when 15% of the population still manages to secure over 60% of all TJ seats it's hard to show discrimination. Any other demographics groups would have an easier time demonstrating harm than the one suing since they're doing better than everyone. I guess that's what makes this so laughable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, the recent immigrants from developing countries in the predominantly low SES schools provide diverse viewpoints in debates during history and social studies in particular, elevating the quality of education.

In class discussions on 9/11 and the aftermath go to a substantialy higher level when child refugees from Iraq and Afghanistan are in the room, as an example.

Very soon, these immigrants will be on the negative list and be discriminated against as soon as start getting better than the natives. They are only cute as long as they stay in their lane.

As in discrimination against Asians.

For a group that makes up around 15% of the population and manages to gain 70% of the coveted TJ seats they are doing better than anyone so if you think this is discriminated, I was hoping they could discriminate against me too.

That exactly why the judge tossed this case. They weren't able to show actual harm.

Yep when 15% of the population still manages to secure over 60% of all TJ seats it's hard to show discrimination. Any other demographics groups would have an easier time demonstrating harm than the one suing since they're doing better than everyone. I guess that's what makes this so laughable.

We can go even a little bit deeper and take the most charitable angle when viewing this question...

Realistically, Asian students should probably have the majority of seats at TJ because they submit the majority of applications. But even here, discriminatory intent is incredibly difficulty to establish.

In a given normal year, Asian students will comprise 50-55% of the applicant pool and will secure 55-70% of spaces. If the new admissions process were discriminatory against Asian students, of necessity they would comprise a percentage of the student population that was less than (and probably significantly less than) their share of the applicant pool.

The new process isn't discriminatory against Asian students. It simply makes it a bit harder for students from certain schools (none of which are majority- or even plurality-Asian) from securing admission than it was in the previous process.

But when determining the actual impact of a selection process, the previous process used is completely irrelevant. The University of Virginia adopted a new admissions process in 1970 that allowed women to apply for the first time. Was the new process discriminatory against men simply because it made gaining admission harder for them than the previous process? No! It simply removed a process that was inequitable in favor of another one that would include important voices to the conversation.

The changes to the TJ Admissions process are no different. Just as one would have to believe in male supremacy to oppose UVA's change in policy, one must believe in Asian supremacy to oppose TJ's. And to your credit, some of you have genuinely owned up to your personally convenient and backwards idea that you create a stronger educational environment simply by selecting the highest scorers on some standardized exam. But TJ's status in Northern Virginia was on the decline since about 2010 (evidenced by reduced application numbers in an exploding population) for a reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, the recent immigrants from developing countries in the predominantly low SES schools provide diverse viewpoints in debates during history and social studies in particular, elevating the quality of education.

In class discussions on 9/11 and the aftermath go to a substantialy higher level when child refugees from Iraq and Afghanistan are in the room, as an example.

Very soon, these immigrants will be on the negative list and be discriminated against as soon as start getting better than the natives. They are only cute as long as they stay in their lane.

As in discrimination against Asians.

For a group that makes up around 15% of the population and manages to gain 70% of the coveted TJ seats they are doing better than anyone so if you think this is discriminated, I was hoping they could discriminate against me too.

That exactly why the judge tossed this case. They weren't able to show actual harm.

Yep when 15% of the population still manages to secure over 60% of all TJ seats it's hard to show discrimination. Any other demographics groups would have an easier time demonstrating harm than the one suing since they're doing better than everyone. I guess that's what makes this so laughable.

We can go even a little bit deeper and take the most charitable angle when viewing this question...

Realistically, Asian students should probably have the majority of seats at TJ because they submit the majority of applications. But even here, discriminatory intent is incredibly difficulty to establish.

In a given normal year, Asian students will comprise 50-55% of the applicant pool and will secure 55-70% of spaces. If the new admissions process were discriminatory against Asian students, of necessity they would comprise a percentage of the student population that was less than (and probably significantly less than) their share of the applicant pool.

The new process isn't discriminatory against Asian students. It simply makes it a bit harder for students from certain schools (none of which are majority- or even plurality-Asian) from securing admission than it was in the previous process.

But when determining the actual impact of a selection process, the previous process used is completely irrelevant. The University of Virginia adopted a new admissions process in 1970 that allowed women to apply for the first time. Was the new process discriminatory against men simply because it made gaining admission harder for them than the previous process? No! It simply removed a process that was inequitable in favor of another one that would include important voices to the conversation.

The changes to the TJ Admissions process are no different. Just as one would have to believe in male supremacy to oppose UVA's change in policy, one must believe in Asian supremacy to oppose TJ's. And to your credit, some of you have genuinely owned up to your personally convenient and backwards idea that you create a stronger educational environment simply by selecting the highest scorers on some standardized exam. But TJ's status in Northern Virginia was on the decline since about 2010 (evidenced by reduced application numbers in an exploding population) for a reason.

Your logic is circular i.e., "we are the best people because we tell ourselves this all the time". Creating a toxic environment where others are not welcome doesn't mean you are entitled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, the recent immigrants from developing countries in the predominantly low SES schools provide diverse viewpoints in debates during history and social studies in particular, elevating the quality of education.

In class discussions on 9/11 and the aftermath go to a substantialy higher level when child refugees from Iraq and Afghanistan are in the room, as an example.

Very soon, these immigrants will be on the negative list and be discriminated against as soon as start getting better than the natives. They are only cute as long as they stay in their lane.

As in discrimination against Asians.

For a group that makes up around 15% of the population and manages to gain 70% of the coveted TJ seats they are doing better than anyone so if you think this is discriminated, I was hoping they could discriminate against me too.

That exactly why the judge tossed this case. They weren't able to show actual harm.

Yep when 15% of the population still manages to secure over 60% of all TJ seats it's hard to show discrimination. Any other demographics groups would have an easier time demonstrating harm than the one suing since they're doing better than everyone. I guess that's what makes this so laughable.

We can go even a little bit deeper and take the most charitable angle when viewing this question...

Realistically, Asian students should probably have the majority of seats at TJ because they submit the majority of applications. But even here, discriminatory intent is incredibly difficulty to establish.

In a given normal year, Asian students will comprise 50-55% of the applicant pool and will secure 55-70% of spaces. If the new admissions process were discriminatory against Asian students, of necessity they would comprise a percentage of the student population that was less than (and probably significantly less than) their share of the applicant pool.

The new process isn't discriminatory against Asian students. It simply makes it a bit harder for students from certain schools (none of which are majority- or even plurality-Asian) from securing admission than it was in the previous process.

But when determining the actual impact of a selection process, the previous process used is completely irrelevant. The University of Virginia adopted a new admissions process in 1970 that allowed women to apply for the first time. Was the new process discriminatory against men simply because it made gaining admission harder for them than the previous process? No! It simply removed a process that was inequitable in favor of another one that would include important voices to the conversation.

The changes to the TJ Admissions process are no different. Just as one would have to believe in male supremacy to oppose UVA's change in policy, one must believe in Asian supremacy to oppose TJ's. And to your credit, some of you have genuinely owned up to your personally convenient and backwards idea that you create a stronger educational environment simply by selecting the highest scorers on some standardized exam. But TJ's status in Northern Virginia was on the decline since about 2010 (evidenced by reduced application numbers in an exploding population) for a reason.

Your logic is circular i.e., "we are the best people because we tell ourselves this all the time". Creating a toxic environment where others are not welcome doesn't mean you are entitled.

Did you have a point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, the recent immigrants from developing countries in the predominantly low SES schools provide diverse viewpoints in debates during history and social studies in particular, elevating the quality of education.

In class discussions on 9/11 and the aftermath go to a substantialy higher level when child refugees from Iraq and Afghanistan are in the room, as an example.

Very soon, these immigrants will be on the negative list and be discriminated against as soon as start getting better than the natives. They are only cute as long as they stay in their lane.

As in discrimination against Asians.

For a group that makes up around 15% of the population and manages to gain 70% of the coveted TJ seats they are doing better than anyone so if you think this is discriminated, I was hoping they could discriminate against me too.

That exactly why the judge tossed this case. They weren't able to show actual harm.

Yep when 15% of the population still manages to secure over 60% of all TJ seats it's hard to show discrimination. Any other demographics groups would have an easier time demonstrating harm than the one suing since they're doing better than everyone. I guess that's what makes this so laughable.

We can go even a little bit deeper and take the most charitable angle when viewing this question...

Realistically, Asian students should probably have the majority of seats at TJ because they submit the majority of applications. But even here, discriminatory intent is incredibly difficulty to establish.

In a given normal year, Asian students will comprise 50-55% of the applicant pool and will secure 55-70% of spaces. If the new admissions process were discriminatory against Asian students, of necessity they would comprise a percentage of the student population that was less than (and probably significantly less than) their share of the applicant pool.

The new process isn't discriminatory against Asian students. It simply makes it a bit harder for students from certain schools (none of which are majority- or even plurality-Asian) from securing admission than it was in the previous process.

But when determining the actual impact of a selection process, the previous process used is completely irrelevant. The University of Virginia adopted a new admissions process in 1970 that allowed women to apply for the first time. Was the new process discriminatory against men simply because it made gaining admission harder for them than the previous process? No! It simply removed a process that was inequitable in favor of another one that would include important voices to the conversation.

The changes to the TJ Admissions process are no different. Just as one would have to believe in male supremacy to oppose UVA's change in policy, one must believe in Asian supremacy to oppose TJ's. And to your credit, some of you have genuinely owned up to your personally convenient and backwards idea that you create a stronger educational environment simply by selecting the highest scorers on some standardized exam. But TJ's status in Northern Virginia was on the decline since about 2010 (evidenced by reduced application numbers in an exploding population) for a reason.

Your logic is circular i.e., "we are the best people because we tell ourselves this all the time". Creating a toxic environment where others are not welcome doesn't mean you are entitled.

With friends like these I agree. absolutely circulat logic!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, the recent immigrants from developing countries in the predominantly low SES schools provide diverse viewpoints in debates during history and social studies in particular, elevating the quality of education.

In class discussions on 9/11 and the aftermath go to a substantialy higher level when child refugees from Iraq and Afghanistan are in the room, as an example.

Very soon, these immigrants will be on the negative list and be discriminated against as soon as start getting better than the natives. They are only cute as long as they stay in their lane.

As in discrimination against Asians.

For a group that makes up around 15% of the population and manages to gain 70% of the coveted TJ seats they are doing better than anyone so if you think this is discriminated, I was hoping they could discriminate against me too.

That exactly why the judge tossed this case. They weren't able to show actual harm.

Yep when 15% of the population still manages to secure over 60% of all TJ seats it's hard to show discrimination. Any other demographics groups would have an easier time demonstrating harm than the one suing since they're doing better than everyone. I guess that's what makes this so laughable.

We can go even a little bit deeper and take the most charitable angle when viewing this question...

Realistically, Asian students should probably have the majority of seats at TJ because they submit the majority of applications. But even here, discriminatory intent is incredibly difficulty to establish.

In a given normal year, Asian students will comprise 50-55% of the applicant pool and will secure 55-70% of spaces. If the new admissions process were discriminatory against Asian students, of necessity they would comprise a percentage of the student population that was less than (and probably significantly less than) their share of the applicant pool.

The new process isn't discriminatory against Asian students. It simply makes it a bit harder for students from certain schools (none of which are majority- or even plurality-Asian) from securing admission than it was in the previous process.

But when determining the actual impact of a selection process, the previous process used is completely irrelevant. The University of Virginia adopted a new admissions process in 1970 that allowed women to apply for the first time. Was the new process discriminatory against men simply because it made gaining admission harder for them than the previous process? No! It simply removed a process that was inequitable in favor of another one that would include important voices to the conversation.

The changes to the TJ Admissions process are no different. Just as one would have to believe in male supremacy to oppose UVA's change in policy, one must believe in Asian supremacy to oppose TJ's. And to your credit, some of you have genuinely owned up to your personally convenient and backwards idea that you create a stronger educational environment simply by selecting the highest scorers on some standardized exam. But TJ's status in Northern Virginia was on the decline since about 2010 (evidenced by reduced application numbers in an exploding population) for a reason.

Your logic is circular i.e., "we are the best people because we tell ourselves this all the time". Creating a toxic environment where others are not welcome doesn't mean you are entitled.

Did you have a point?

It was just too long a post for them to read. He had his tallking point to share anyway..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, the recent immigrants from developing countries in the predominantly low SES schools provide diverse viewpoints in debates during history and social studies in particular, elevating the quality of education.

In class discussions on 9/11 and the aftermath go to a substantialy higher level when child refugees from Iraq and Afghanistan are in the room, as an example.

Very soon, these immigrants will be on the negative list and be discriminated against as soon as start getting better than the natives. They are only cute as long as they stay in their lane.

As in discrimination against Asians.

For a group that makes up around 15% of the population and manages to gain 70% of the coveted TJ seats they are doing better than anyone so if you think this is discriminated, I was hoping they could discriminate against me too.

That exactly why the judge tossed this case. They weren't able to show actual harm.

Yep when 15% of the population still manages to secure over 60% of all TJ seats it's hard to show discrimination. Any other demographics groups would have an easier time demonstrating harm than the one suing since they're doing better than everyone. I guess that's what makes this so laughable.

We can go even a little bit deeper and take the most charitable angle when viewing this question...

Realistically, Asian students should probably have the majority of seats at TJ because they submit the majority of applications. But even here, discriminatory intent is incredibly difficulty to establish.

In a given normal year, Asian students will comprise 50-55% of the applicant pool and will secure 55-70% of spaces. If the new admissions process were discriminatory against Asian students, of necessity they would comprise a percentage of the student population that was less than (and probably significantly less than) their share of the applicant pool.

The new process isn't discriminatory against Asian students. It simply makes it a bit harder for students from certain schools (none of which are majority- or even plurality-Asian) from securing admission than it was in the previous process.

But when determining the actual impact of a selection process, the previous process used is completely irrelevant. The University of Virginia adopted a new admissions process in 1970 that allowed women to apply for the first time. Was the new process discriminatory against men simply because it made gaining admission harder for them than the previous process? No! It simply removed a process that was inequitable in favor of another one that would include important voices to the conversation.

The changes to the TJ Admissions process are no different. Just as one would have to believe in male supremacy to oppose UVA's change in policy, one must believe in Asian supremacy to oppose TJ's. And to your credit, some of you have genuinely owned up to your personally convenient and backwards idea that you create a stronger educational environment simply by selecting the highest scorers on some standardized exam. But TJ's status in Northern Virginia was on the decline since about 2010 (evidenced by reduced application numbers in an exploding population) for a reason.

Carson and Rocky Run are both plurality Asian. Carson is close to majority Asian.

Also, in assessing discriminatory intent and effect, one can look at the factual background (a documented desire to reduce the percentage of Asian kids based on their race/ethnicity and to increase the percentage of Black and Hispanic, again based on their race and/or ethnicity) and the actual results (turning away Asian kids who were better qualified while admitting less qualified students from schools with far lower percentages of Asian kids).

One need not believe in "Asian supremacy," as if it were an immutable principle, to be of the view that, as long as Asian kids are working harder and better qualified under criteria traditionally used to admit students to magnet programs for the gifted, a school system should not intentionally create road blocks to impede their access to TJ.

[Anonymous]

You need to break down the numbers a bit more to assess whether Asians are being discriminated against. The new policies are largely impacting FCPS students, but a significant portion of the Asian population comes from LCPS. In LCPS, probably close to 100% both of applications and admissions are Asian students. What are the FCPS numbers?

Also, the numbers are lumping South Asians and East Asians into the same pot. But, it is entirely likely that the two groups have very different TJ representation as well as admissions rates. It could simultaneously be true that South Asians are grossly overrepresented at TJ, while East Asians are being discriminated against.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You need to break down the numbers a bit more to assess whether Asians are being discriminated against. The new policies are largely impacting FCPS students, but a significant portion of the Asian population comes from LCPS. In LCPS, probably close to 100% both of applications and admissions are Asian students. What are the FCPS numbers?

Also, the numbers are lumping South Asians and East Asians into the same pot. But, it is entirely likely that the two groups have very different TJ representation as well as admissions rates. It could simultaneously be true that South Asians are grossly overrepresented at TJ, while East Asians are being discriminated against.

Why is all this sounding like a current Supreme Court argument

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to break down the numbers a bit more to assess whether Asians are being discriminated against. The new policies are largely impacting FCPS students, but a significant portion of the Asian population comes from LCPS. In LCPS, probably close to 100% both of applications and admissions are Asian students. What are the FCPS numbers?

Also, the numbers are lumping South Asians and East Asians into the same pot. But, it is entirely likely that the two groups have very different TJ representation as well as admissions rates. It could simultaneously be true that South Asians are grossly overrepresented at TJ, while East Asians are being discriminated against.

Why is all this sounding like a current Supreme Court argument

Because someone wants to relitigate the two cases they anticipate will go against them next June.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, the recent immigrants from developing countries in the predominantly low SES schools provide diverse viewpoints in debates during history and social studies in particular, elevating the quality of education.

In class discussions on 9/11 and the aftermath go to a substantialy higher level when child refugees from Iraq and Afghanistan are in the room, as an example.

Very soon, these immigrants will be on the negative list and be discriminated against as soon as start getting better than the natives. They are only cute as long as they stay in their lane.

As in discrimination against Asians.

For a group that makes up around 15% of the population and manages to gain 70% of the coveted TJ seats they are doing better than anyone so if you think this is discriminated, I was hoping they could discriminate against me too.

That exactly why the judge tossed this case. They weren't able to show actual harm.

Yep when 15% of the population still manages to secure over 60% of all TJ seats it's hard to show discrimination. Any other demographics groups would have an easier time demonstrating harm than the one suing since they're doing better than everyone. I guess that's what makes this so laughable.

We can go even a little bit deeper and take the most charitable angle when viewing this question...

Realistically, Asian students should probably have the majority of seats at TJ because they submit the majority of applications. But even here, discriminatory intent is incredibly difficulty to establish.

In a given normal year, Asian students will comprise 50-55% of the applicant pool and will secure 55-70% of spaces. If the new admissions process were discriminatory against Asian students, of necessity they would comprise a percentage of the student population that was less than (and probably significantly less than) their share of the applicant pool.

The new process isn't discriminatory against Asian students. It simply makes it a bit harder for students from certain schools (none of which are majority- or even plurality-Asian) from securing admission than it was in the previous process.

But when determining the actual impact of a selection process, the previous process used is completely irrelevant. The University of Virginia adopted a new admissions process in 1970 that allowed women to apply for the first time. Was the new process discriminatory against men simply because it made gaining admission harder for them than the previous process? No! It simply removed a process that was inequitable in favor of another one that would include important voices to the conversation.

The changes to the TJ Admissions process are no different. Just as one would have to believe in male supremacy to oppose UVA's change in policy, one must believe in Asian supremacy to oppose TJ's. And to your credit, some of you have genuinely owned up to your personally convenient and backwards idea that you create a stronger educational environment simply by selecting the highest scorers on some standardized exam. But TJ's status in Northern Virginia was on the decline since about 2010 (evidenced by reduced application numbers in an exploding population) for a reason.

UVa was excluding women before. TJ had a race blind admissions process before, and is now using geography as a proxy for race, though not as much as Loudoun with AoL admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, the recent immigrants from developing countries in the predominantly low SES schools provide diverse viewpoints in debates during history and social studies in particular, elevating the quality of education.

In class discussions on 9/11 and the aftermath go to a substantialy higher level when child refugees from Iraq and Afghanistan are in the room, as an example.

Very soon, these immigrants will be on the negative list and be discriminated against as soon as start getting better than the natives. They are only cute as long as they stay in their lane.

As in discrimination against Asians.

For a group that makes up around 15% of the population and manages to gain 70% of the coveted TJ seats they are doing better than anyone so if you think this is discriminated, I was hoping they could discriminate against me too.

That exactly why the judge tossed this case. They weren't able to show actual harm.

Yep when 15% of the population still manages to secure over 60% of all TJ seats it's hard to show discrimination. Any other demographics groups would have an easier time demonstrating harm than the one suing since they're doing better than everyone. I guess that's what makes this so laughable.

We can go even a little bit deeper and take the most charitable angle when viewing this question...

Realistically, Asian students should probably have the majority of seats at TJ because they submit the majority of applications. But even here, discriminatory intent is incredibly difficulty to establish.

In a given normal year, Asian students will comprise 50-55% of the applicant pool and will secure 55-70% of spaces. If the new admissions process were discriminatory against Asian students, of necessity they would comprise a percentage of the student population that was less than (and probably significantly less than) their share of the applicant pool.

The new process isn't discriminatory against Asian students. It simply makes it a bit harder for students from certain schools (none of which are majority- or even plurality-Asian) from securing admission than it was in the previous process.

But when determining the actual impact of a selection process, the previous process used is completely irrelevant. The University of Virginia adopted a new admissions process in 1970 that allowed women to apply for the first time. Was the new process discriminatory against men simply because it made gaining admission harder for them than the previous process? No! It simply removed a process that was inequitable in favor of another one that would include important voices to the conversation.

The changes to the TJ Admissions process are no different. Just as one would have to believe in male supremacy to oppose UVA's change in policy, one must believe in Asian supremacy to oppose TJ's. And to your credit, some of you have genuinely owned up to your personally convenient and backwards idea that you create a stronger educational environment simply by selecting the highest scorers on some standardized exam. But TJ's status in Northern Virginia was on the decline since about 2010 (evidenced by reduced application numbers in an exploding population) for a reason.

UVa was excluding women before. TJ had a race blind admissions process before, and is now using geography as a proxy for race, though not as much as Loudoun with AoL admissions.

Not at all. It's simply ensuring that less affluent areas that can't afford to invest heavily in outside in enrichment get a fair shot at a quality public education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, the recent immigrants from developing countries in the predominantly low SES schools provide diverse viewpoints in debates during history and social studies in particular, elevating the quality of education.

In class discussions on 9/11 and the aftermath go to a substantialy higher level when child refugees from Iraq and Afghanistan are in the room, as an example.

Very soon, these immigrants will be on the negative list and be discriminated against as soon as start getting better than the natives. They are only cute as long as they stay in their lane.

As in discrimination against Asians.

For a group that makes up around 15% of the population and manages to gain 70% of the coveted TJ seats they are doing better than anyone so if you think this is discriminated, I was hoping they could discriminate against me too.

That exactly why the judge tossed this case. They weren't able to show actual harm.

Yep when 15% of the population still manages to secure over 60% of all TJ seats it's hard to show discrimination. Any other demographics groups would have an easier time demonstrating harm than the one suing since they're doing better than everyone. I guess that's what makes this so laughable.

We can go even a little bit deeper and take the most charitable angle when viewing this question...

Realistically, Asian students should probably have the majority of seats at TJ because they submit the majority of applications. But even here, discriminatory intent is incredibly difficulty to establish.

In a given normal year, Asian students will comprise 50-55% of the applicant pool and will secure 55-70% of spaces. If the new admissions process were discriminatory against Asian students, of necessity they would comprise a percentage of the student population that was less than (and probably significantly less than) their share of the applicant pool.

The new process isn't discriminatory against Asian students. It simply makes it a bit harder for students from certain schools (none of which are majority- or even plurality-Asian) from securing admission than it was in the previous process.

But when determining the actual impact of a selection process, the previous process used is completely irrelevant. The University of Virginia adopted a new admissions process in 1970 that allowed women to apply for the first time. Was the new process discriminatory against men simply because it made gaining admission harder for them than the previous process? No! It simply removed a process that was inequitable in favor of another one that would include important voices to the conversation.

The changes to the TJ Admissions process are no different. Just as one would have to believe in male supremacy to oppose UVA's change in policy, one must believe in Asian supremacy to oppose TJ's. And to your credit, some of you have genuinely owned up to your personally convenient and backwards idea that you create a stronger educational environment simply by selecting the highest scorers on some standardized exam. But TJ's status in Northern Virginia was on the decline since about 2010 (evidenced by reduced application numbers in an exploding population) for a reason.

UVa was excluding women before. TJ had a race blind admissions process before, and is now using geography as a proxy for race, though not as much as Loudoun with AoL admissions.

Not at all. It's simply ensuring that less affluent areas that can't afford to invest heavily in outside in enrichment get a fair shot at a quality public education.

This is the unbridled arrogance of the TJ AAG types on full display: anti-Asian discrimination is necessary because only TJ offers a “quality public education.”

Seriously, could you people be any more insufferable?

[Anonymous]

28 pages of the same handful of people making the same arguments over and over again. It’s impressive dedication to the cause, I’ll give you that.