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

[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:Their problem is they were too transparent. They need to be like the colleges. "Holistic" admissions means we admit whomever we want for whatever reason we want, and go ahead and try to prove we did this because of racial considerations. (Which every college in the country does).

The holistic BS does not work for public education. I need full transparency on how my tax $$ are being spent. If not, be prepared for school vouchers. Won't be pretty.

Colleges got away with that sh*t because people were honestly sleeping through that change. Do you realize how much we subsidize those colleges - Public and Private? What right do they have to use MY money and deny me fair process. They are more than welcome to pay full taxes as I do and do what they want. I won't complain. Holistic away on your own dime!

Nope.

My tax money goes to support our community. Not just the entitled few.

My tax dollars are not for you to discriminate Asian Americans either.

Exactly. The judge's decision showed the school board made a racially discriminatory admissions policy based on emotions after George Floyd and attempted to shield the policy from public view. Not only was the board racist but grossly incompetent, neither of which should be tolerated in this rich, educated, and diverse county.

The admissions policy is race blind. It increases geographic & SES diversity.

Asian students are still accepted at a higher-than-average rate. And still are over-represented by a large amount. How is that “racially discriminatory”?

The comments were disgusting but the policy is a step in the right direction.

Read the opinion, or news reports on the issue, to answer your facetious question. As to your characterizing Asians as "over-represented," I will call that what it is: racism. Shame on you.

Asians ARE overrepresented at TJ, to a very significant extent.

That's not a matter of judgment or opinion - it is a numerical fact. East and Southeast Asians account for about 17-18% of the population of the TJ catchment area, and about 25-30% of the TJ population. South Asians account for about 5-8% of the population of the catchment area and about 40-45% of the TJ population pre-admissions changes.

We can have an argument here about whether or not Asians SHOULD be overrepresented at TJ (most arguments in favor generally come from a premise that Asians work harder than everyone else in STEM disciplines), but for someone to state that they ARE is not evidence of racism. It is evidence of the ability to read data.

I can't believe that you don't see how racist it is for you to say a group is over-represented. You pronounce it as if you are god. Echoes of a country on Europe where a certain dude who thought like you pronounced a certain group as being over-represented.

It's literally a math problem. Black people are overrepresented in the NBA, white males are overrepresented in Congress.... the word "over-represented" does not inherently connote any sort of judgment whatsoever.

There are literally zero opinions in the post you quoted that one could use to divine my thought processes or motives. I'm simply correcting a misinterpretation of a word.

It is racist when you forcibly try to correct it by targeting the group. For example if you target black people in the NBA because they are over-represented. Exactly what FCPS tried to do at TJ by targeting the Asians. And that's why the judge saw it for what it was.

Your assertion is that the use of the word "over-represented" is racist. It is not. Period. It is a word that is mathematically accurate to use in this instance - indeed, there isn't another word that would be as accurate.

As I said, we can have an argument about whether or not the actions taken to address the over-representation are or were racist, either in their intent or in their impact. I think you can make an argument based on the sloppy communications of FCPS personnel that the intent might have been racist, and that's really disappointing.

Words have context. In this context, it is racist. Period.

Racists never admit or realize they are racists. If there are only 10 people qualified, and 7 of them happen to be Asians, why do you call them "over-represented" and insist a "rebalancing"? Just because they happen to be Asians? Billionaires are overwhelmingly white. Should we give their money to other races?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I'm the PP who suggested disproportonately. In a vacuum, I agree with you that over and under represented are just more granular/specific classes of the former. But as I explained, political rhetoric has now added extra implications to over and under representation. Both carry stigmas and have caused people to get defensive when characterized that way. Overrepresented populations like whites and Asian Americans are accused of having white privilege or prepped. Underrepresented have the connotation that they are less qualified and need affirmative action to protect them. We have built up a systemic implications to those terms that carry a lot of baggage.

The suggestion was just to move away from the loaded terms and try for new terms to suggest the underlying issue, that the proportions of acceptances do not match the demographics of the local population and that they are trying to get a student body that more accurately represents the community that they live in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

What part of that is confusing?

WTAF?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

What part of that is confusing?

[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.

DP. Yes. FCPS has many options to revise its policy in a way that would avoid returning to the inequitable previous approach.

[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.

DP. Yes. FCPS has many options to revise its policy in a way that would avoid returning to the inequitable previous approach.

Inequitable in what way?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Time for the NCAAP to sue under the same facts. The school needs to close

If you were really one of the "colored people" this group represents, you'd know it is NAACP, not NCAAP. With the old system, when dumb rich uncolored kids get rejected and jealous and say "you only got in because you aren't a white male", they can easily know that person is dead wrong and LYING.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I'm the PP who suggested disproportonately. In a vacuum, I agree with you that over and under represented are just more granular/specific classes of the former. But as I explained, political rhetoric has now added extra implications to over and under representation. Both carry stigmas and have caused people to get defensive when characterized that way. Overrepresented populations like whites and Asian Americans are accused of having white privilege or prepped. Underrepresented have the connotation that they are less qualified and need affirmative action to protect them. We have built up a systemic implications to those terms that carry a lot of baggage.

The suggestion was just to move away from the loaded terms and try for new terms to suggest the underlying issue, that the proportions of acceptances do not match the demographics of the local population and that they are trying to get a student body that more accurately represents the community that they live in.

I was the poster who had a problem with the term overrepresented. It is being used as a blunt weapon and driven by bad intent. I am not quite sure whether your suggestion comes from a good place. Because your underlying premise/belief still seems to me that a STEM magnet program acceptance through a competitive process somehow has to be in line with the demographics of the community. Pardon me for being cynical but somehow I think you are just trying a new fancy PR spin but with the same intent of demonizing a group.

[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?

Some other PPs have suggested different approaches to selecting TJ students that could be tried. All I am saying is that yes when the numbers areTHAT enormously out of whack (again, not just 50% let alone even double but many times over) then it does not seem like a fair system working well for the county as a whole.

[Anonymous]

If you go into any STEM middle school activity in NoVa, it is over 90% Asian. Those are the kids who interested and apply to TJ. It's not anything TJ did to dissuade URMs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you go into any STEM middle school activity in NoVa, it is over 90% Asian. Those are the kids who interested and apply to TJ. It's not anything TJ did to dissuade URMs.

This. Asians are "overrepresented" in math contests that are open for any and all participants. They are heavily "overrepresented" among the winners of these contests. There is no cheating or gatekeeping involved in this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what I learned from the TJ chaos: There is one group that desperately wanted to maintain their status quo even if they know they're so incompetent and that group is the white liberals. They don't like the Asian challenge because it makes their incompetence exposed and it's harder for them to continue stealing from and preying on other races.

That is what you "learned"? Which orifice did you pull that out of?

NP I agree with PP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I'm the PP who suggested disproportonately. In a vacuum, I agree with you that over and under represented are just more granular/specific classes of the former. But as I explained, political rhetoric has now added extra implications to over and under representation. Both carry stigmas and have caused people to get defensive when characterized that way. Overrepresented populations like whites and Asian Americans are accused of having white privilege or prepped. Underrepresented have the connotation that they are less qualified and need affirmative action to protect them. We have built up a systemic implications to those terms that carry a lot of baggage.

The suggestion was just to move away from the loaded terms and try for new terms to suggest the underlying issue, that the proportions of acceptances do not match the demographics of the local population and that they are trying to get a student body that more accurately represents the community that they live in.

I was the poster who had a problem with the term overrepresented. It is being used as a blunt weapon and driven by bad intent. I am not quite sure whether your suggestion comes from a good place. Because your underlying premise/belief still seems to me that a STEM magnet program acceptance through a competitive process somehow has to be in line with the demographics of the community. Pardon me for being cynical but somehow I think you are just trying a new fancy PR spin but with the same intent of demonizing a group.

DP: I understand where both of the above posts are coming from. “Overrepresented” is loaded because it implies that there should be a proper representation that corresponds with the percentage of students from a given background in the catchment area. Thus, when we say “Asians are overrepresented,” we are not merely saying that the percentage of Asian American students at TJ is higher than the catchment area, but that it also should be lower—regardless of the merit of an individual application being submitted by an Asian American student. At the same time, we can acknowledge facts—that the percentage of Asian American students at TJ is higher than the percentage of Asian American students in the catchment area. And there can be reasonable debates, based upon those facts, about what standards TJ should apply to its admissions process and whether students from other backgrounds have had similar opportunities as many of the students who come from populations where their percentages are higher at TJ than the overall population. I’m afraid there may be no single term that wouldn’t be subject to the same type of bias as “overrepresented,” but that doesn’t mean that we can’t identify an issue, determine whether there is a problem, and implement policies that try to address that problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I'm the PP who suggested disproportonately. In a vacuum, I agree with you that over and under represented are just more granular/specific classes of the former. But as I explained, political rhetoric has now added extra implications to over and under representation. Both carry stigmas and have caused people to get defensive when characterized that way. Overrepresented populations like whites and Asian Americans are accused of having white privilege or prepped. Underrepresented have the connotation that they are less qualified and need affirmative action to protect them. We have built up a systemic implications to those terms that carry a lot of baggage.

The suggestion was just to move away from the loaded terms and try for new terms to suggest the underlying issue, that the proportions of acceptances do not match the demographics of the local population and that they are trying to get a student body that more accurately represents the community that they live in.

I was the poster who had a problem with the term overrepresented. It is being used as a blunt weapon and driven by bad intent. I am not quite sure whether your suggestion comes from a good place. Because your underlying premise/belief still seems to me that a STEM magnet program acceptance through a competitive process somehow has to be in line with the demographics of the community. Pardon me for being cynical but somehow I think you are just trying a new fancy PR spin but with the same intent of demonizing a group.

Suggesting that a publicly funded educational opportunity should have some demographic resemblance to the community of taxpayers it serves (and I don't think anyone serious is suggesting that it needs to be 100% demographically aligned) is not the same as demonizing a group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what I learned from the TJ chaos: There is one group that desperately wanted to maintain their status quo even if they know they're so incompetent and that group is the white liberals. They don't like the Asian challenge because it makes their incompetence exposed and it's harder for them to continue stealing from and preying on other races.

That is what you "learned"? Which orifice did you pull that out of?

NP I agree with PP

I also agree.