U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Friday called for a response from a Virginia school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does this not portend that, one way or the other, the racially motivated change in the TJ admission policy is eventually going to be invalidated by the Supreme Court? It’s a conservative court and, while Roberts sometimes sides with the liberals, the fact that he got the matter on the “shadow docket” seems to suggest he has some sympathy for the plaintiffs.

The fact that he got the stay application is just a reflection that he is assigned to applications from the 4th circuit.

The fact that he asked for a response is an indication that someone on the court is taking the application seriously but doesn’t necessarily indicate which way they will break on the stay.

However, most of these (99%?) emergency applications are rejected summarily so the fact that this case (vacating stay) is going to be reviewed is a sign.

The partisan hacks the GOP has appointed to the court love this kind of thing.

Oh, yes, do tell us the liberals don’t do that! See “I can’t define a woman”.

Neither could Conservatives asked the same question. See also, Josh Hawley (“someone with a Uterus.” When asked what about people (like me) with a medically necessary hysterectomy, he said he didn’t know if we were women. Facepalm). Or Madison Crawthorn “no tallywhacker”— which isn’t the right euphemism and refers to a type of fish. And says a guy who got his junk blown off in Vietnam isn’t a man). Or the gift that keeps on giving. MTG “made of Adams rib (how do you test for that?), her husbands wife, the weaker sex”. Which mean she thinks she’s weaker than Schumer and Biden. So…. I’m no a biologist indeed looks good compared to what GOOPERS said.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The answer is very simple.

FCPS should just eliminate all the newly introduced proxy-to-race factors such as geographic quota and experienced factors. One would argue it's not that difficult to administer a test. But given the laziness of FCPS admins, I don't think they would administer one.

No the tests are proxies too is the problem.

Hmmm that's the definition of racism. Are you implying URMs can't do well in tests?

Given that they have less access to boutique expensive test prep opportunities because on balance they tend to have fewer resources, yes. Underrepresented groups (like, for example, poor Asians) can’t afford to send their kids to these companies to get a leg up on exams.

However, "poor Asians" are doing extremely well on the entrance exam for the Stuyvesant. They don;t have money for classes or tutors so they study with a book. Almost all the Asian admittees are "poor". Another inconvenient truth.

Stuyvesant is not TJ. A much higher percentage of the total applicants going for Stuy are low-income. Many of the wealthier kids applying for the NY elite public schools list others as their preference.

Bottom line is almost no poor Asians got in under the previous process and under the new process they were the biggest beneficiaries. More poor Asians admitted than total Black and total Hispanic students.

Hahahahaha That's your response - Stuyvesant is not TJ? You should just give it up if that's all you have. Inconvenient Truth!

Yes. They are different schools that exist in completely different economic spaces.

Yes they are different schools. They even have different school names. They are even in different states.

It's fascinating that no poor Asians got in under the previous system but under the new system they were the biggest beneficiaries!

If this is true, then it's hard to claim that this policy is anti-asian especially since they are still the largest group in these programs by a huge margin.

This claim is made on the basis of FARMS statistics. This metric was self reported last year. The question was poorly worded and everyone could respond with a “yes”. Many followed the “spirit” of the question and not the “letter” of the question and responded with a no. Many others said yes. Unlike other years, FARMS last year was not a representative metric of poverty. Braband claimed the new process gave greater access to lower income kids based on this flawed data. This was either stupidity on the part of the School Board or a cynical plan of manipulation (more likely the latter). You can search for this issue on this forum.

So the claim about greater access to lower income kids is in the same category as “largest crowds came to my inauguration” - utter BS

Are you calling Asians liars?

I am pointing to a flaw in the process that has been highlighted by many. I will let your prejudices lead you to your conclusions.

The claim was that the new system let more poor Asian kids into TJ. The response was that people lied on the application. The obvious implication is that whoever said that thinks the Asians who checked the FARMs box are lying

Gotcha works in settling playground arguments as does calling people names. Unfortunately it does not work in a court of law. It is immaterial if Asians or others responded truthfully or not. The question should not have allowed ambiguity in response. School Board officials had a duty to design a question that was unambiguous. They failed (either out of incompetence or by design). So yes whatever - you can call people names and please your soul. That is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Genuine question - do you have confirmation from any source that the self-reported data from the question asked was directly used in reporting the Economically Disadvantaged data? It's worth noting that while the question asked referenced eligibility for free/reduced meals, the listing on the press release indicated "Economically Disadvantaged".

The only information collected by the School Board that could point to “economically disadvantaged” is the FARMS question. This is also the standard proxy used by FCPS for calculating “economically disadvantaged” for other purposes. It has been discussed on this Forum that they don’t have access to tax returns and such to make a direct determination.

The school board is yet to clarify how they came to the conclusion on more “economically disadvantaged” were admitted and especially after the inconsistency on the FARMS question was highlighted.

Do you have a view on why we should believe the Board?

Well, for one thing, the Admissions Office liaises directly with the individual schools for each applicant, both for demographic information but also (more critically) to confirm that they're enrolled in the appropriate level of math. There's actually a member of the Student Services Department for each FCPS middle school who is directly responsible for managing all of these applications from the school side and they would have access to the same information that, in a normal year, determines if a student is FARMS-eligible.

The School Board has absolutely behaved inappropriately, but in this instance we're talking about reporting from the Admissions Office on data that they're getting from the schools directly.

We are not talking about how the data is collected. If the data is flawed and is collected by the principal themselves, it is still flawed. Unless you saying the school relied on information outside what was in the application. Which opens up a whole new line of concern.

Every student in the county has a file with information based what was supplied when the kid was initially enrolled. FARMs eligibility is part of that file

One, unlike race, economic status evolves and will not be the same from when the child enrolled. Certainly COVID impacted economic status of many families. The Board cannot defend using FARMS data that is not current.

Two, if I stated that my child was FARMS eligible in the application and some school officer overruled me based on his assessment of my child’s record then they need to ratify me and I should have an opportunity to appeal. None of this happened.

What happened was Braband and company chose to claim glory based on a flawed premise.

Y'all are nuts. Checking the FARMS box is fine as a proxy for ED, has been fine, and was fine during the worst of the pandemic. Virtually everyone experienced some financial hardship in 2020, not losing the house hardship but some form on food insecurity and other financial insecurity. That doesn't make FCPS wrong. It means the pandemic was hard.

We agree with you. Nothing wrong with anyone checking the FARMS box. What is disingenuous is the School Board claiming the process resulted in more of the “poorer” folks being admitted. We should drop that claim as thoroughly discredited.

There are absolutely more than 0.6% economically-disadvantaged students with the new process.

Maybe not 25% because there are likely some amoral parents trying to game the system, but certainly higher than 0.6%.

And Trump won the election. There are facts and there are opinions.

You are firmly at odds with established facts but like all of us, you are entitled to an opinion. So keep your progressive conscience at ear with your belief. Just don’t claim this opinion as the basis of some transformation at TJ

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does this not portend that, one way or the other, the racially motivated change in the TJ admission policy is eventually going to be invalidated by the Supreme Court? It’s a conservative court and, while Roberts sometimes sides with the liberals, the fact that he got the matter on the “shadow docket” seems to suggest he has some sympathy for the plaintiffs.

The fact that he got the stay application is just a reflection that he is assigned to applications from the 4th circuit.

The fact that he asked for a response is an indication that someone on the court is taking the application seriously but doesn’t necessarily indicate which way they will break on the stay.

However, most of these (99%?) emergency applications are rejected summarily so the fact that this case (vacating stay) is going to be reviewed is a sign.

The partisan hacks the GOP has appointed to the court love this kind of thing.

Oh, yes, do tell us the liberals don’t do that! See “I can’t define a woman”.

Neither could Conservatives asked the same question. See also, Josh Hawley (“someone with a Uterus.” When asked what about people (like me) with a medically necessary hysterectomy, he said he didn’t know if we were women. Facepalm). Or Madison Crawthorn “no tallywhacker”— which isn’t the right euphemism and refers to a type of fish. And says a guy who got his junk blown off in Vietnam isn’t a man). Or the gift that keeps on giving. MTG “made of Adams rib (how do you test for that?), her husbands wife, the weaker sex”. Which mean she thinks she’s weaker than Schumer and Biden. So…. I’m no a biologist indeed looks good compared to what GOOPERS said.

For me it's XX for 99.9% of people. And we can discuss mixed sex people with a biologist. I am really annoyed about Jackson's response.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are these legal battles the best use of fcps tax dollars? Maybe if they spent more money on other aap programs people wouldn’t need to clamor so hard to get into the scarce resource that’s TJ

Just get rid of all race on apps

TJ doesn’t have race on the app.

Disparate impact is a recognized legal theory.

Interesting. So if certain races have much lower acceptance rates & enrollment #s than others is that a disparate impact?

It basically means something that is race neutral can still be found to be discriminatory if it results in having a disparate impact on a protected class. Something that is race neutral can be a proxy for doing something racist if it has the result of being discriminatory against certain races. It depends on the facts and who and how it impacts.

Then the other side would have to show a legitimate not discriminating reason for doing it more or less.

With a strict scrutiny standard which is almost impossible to meet. TJ would be in an infinite loop because whatever happens with this case would then open them up to a lawsuit from black or Hispanic groups claiming disparate impact. Any fix would then open them to a suit from Asian American groups. It definitely would be be the most hilarious ending, but there is a reason conservative justices disfavor disparate impact. This last thing this Court wants is to make these kinds of suits easier.

Is it con law here? Are they suing under the constitution or something else? Isn’t strict scrutiny only for con law? Im not up to date on the legal theories being used here.

Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act. Race and Ethnic Origin are protected classes.

[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:

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:The answer is very simple.

FCPS should just eliminate all the newly introduced proxy-to-race factors such as geographic quota and experienced factors. One would argue it's not that difficult to administer a test. But given the laziness of FCPS admins, I don't think they would administer one.

No the tests are proxies too is the problem.

Hmmm that's the definition of racism. Are you implying URMs can't do well in tests?

Given that they have less access to boutique expensive test prep opportunities because on balance they tend to have fewer resources, yes. Underrepresented groups (like, for example, poor Asians) can’t afford to send their kids to these companies to get a leg up on exams.

However, "poor Asians" are doing extremely well on the entrance exam for the Stuyvesant. They don;t have money for classes or tutors so they study with a book. Almost all the Asian admittees are "poor". Another inconvenient truth.

Stuyvesant is not TJ. A much higher percentage of the total applicants going for Stuy are low-income. Many of the wealthier kids applying for the NY elite public schools list others as their preference.

Bottom line is almost no poor Asians got in under the previous process and under the new process they were the biggest beneficiaries. More poor Asians admitted than total Black and total Hispanic students.

Hahahahaha That's your response - Stuyvesant is not TJ? You should just give it up if that's all you have. Inconvenient Truth!

Yes. They are different schools that exist in completely different economic spaces.

Yes they are different schools. They even have different school names. They are even in different states.

It's fascinating that no poor Asians got in under the previous system but under the new system they were the biggest beneficiaries!

If this is true, then it's hard to claim that this policy is anti-asian especially since they are still the largest group in these programs by a huge margin.

This claim is made on the basis of FARMS statistics. This metric was self reported last year. The question was poorly worded and everyone could respond with a “yes”. Many followed the “spirit” of the question and not the “letter” of the question and responded with a no. Many others said yes. Unlike other years, FARMS last year was not a representative metric of poverty. Braband claimed the new process gave greater access to lower income kids based on this flawed data. This was either stupidity on the part of the School Board or a cynical plan of manipulation (more likely the latter). You can search for this issue on this forum.

So the claim about greater access to lower income kids is in the same category as “largest crowds came to my inauguration” - utter BS

Are you calling Asians liars?

I am pointing to a flaw in the process that has been highlighted by many. I will let your prejudices lead you to your conclusions.

The claim was that the new system let more poor Asian kids into TJ. The response was that people lied on the application. The obvious implication is that whoever said that thinks the Asians who checked the FARMs box are lying

Gotcha works in settling playground arguments as does calling people names. Unfortunately it does not work in a court of law. It is immaterial if Asians or others responded truthfully or not. The question should not have allowed ambiguity in response. School Board officials had a duty to design a question that was unambiguous. They failed (either out of incompetence or by design). So yes whatever - you can call people names and please your soul. That is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Genuine question - do you have confirmation from any source that the self-reported data from the question asked was directly used in reporting the Economically Disadvantaged data? It's worth noting that while the question asked referenced eligibility for free/reduced meals, the listing on the press release indicated "Economically Disadvantaged".

The only information collected by the School Board that could point to “economically disadvantaged” is the FARMS question. This is also the standard proxy used by FCPS for calculating “economically disadvantaged” for other purposes. It has been discussed on this Forum that they don’t have access to tax returns and such to make a direct determination.

The school board is yet to clarify how they came to the conclusion on more “economically disadvantaged” were admitted and especially after the inconsistency on the FARMS question was highlighted.

Do you have a view on why we should believe the Board?

Well, for one thing, the Admissions Office liaises directly with the individual schools for each applicant, both for demographic information but also (more critically) to confirm that they're enrolled in the appropriate level of math. There's actually a member of the Student Services Department for each FCPS middle school who is directly responsible for managing all of these applications from the school side and they would have access to the same information that, in a normal year, determines if a student is FARMS-eligible.

The School Board has absolutely behaved inappropriately, but in this instance we're talking about reporting from the Admissions Office on data that they're getting from the schools directly.

We are not talking about how the data is collected. If the data is flawed and is collected by the principal themselves, it is still flawed. Unless you saying the school relied on information outside what was in the application. Which opens up a whole new line of concern.

Every student in the county has a file with information based what was supplied when the kid was initially enrolled. FARMs eligibility is part of that file

One, unlike race, economic status evolves and will not be the same from when the child enrolled. Certainly COVID impacted economic status of many families. The Board cannot defend using FARMS data that is not current.

Two, if I stated that my child was FARMS eligible in the application and some school officer overruled me based on his assessment of my child’s record then they need to ratify me and I should have an opportunity to appeal. None of this happened.

What happened was Braband and company chose to claim glory based on a flawed premise.

Y'all are nuts. Checking the FARMS box is fine as a proxy for ED, has been fine, and was fine during the worst of the pandemic. Virtually everyone experienced some financial hardship in 2020, not losing the house hardship but some form on food insecurity and other financial insecurity. That doesn't make FCPS wrong. It means the pandemic was hard.

We agree with you. Nothing wrong with anyone checking the FARMS box. What is disingenuous is the School Board claiming the process resulted in more of the “poorer” folks being admitted. We should drop that claim as thoroughly discredited.

There are absolutely more than 0.6% economically-disadvantaged students with the new process.

Maybe not 25% because there are likely some amoral parents trying to game the system, but certainly higher than 0.6%.

And Trump won the election. There are facts and there are opinions.

You are firmly at odds with established facts but like all of us, you are entitled to an opinion. So keep your progressive conscience at ear with your belief. Just don’t claim this opinion as the basis of some transformation at TJ

You want to argue that the latest class has only 0.6% ED? Go nuts.

Simply by opening access to all middle schools, they are expanding the SES diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are these legal battles the best use of fcps tax dollars? Maybe if they spent more money on other aap programs people wouldn’t need to clamor so hard to get into the scarce resource that’s TJ

Just get rid of all race on apps

TJ doesn’t have race on the app.

Disparate impact is a recognized legal theory.

Interesting. So if certain races have much lower acceptance rates & enrollment #s than others is that a disparate impact?

It basically means something that is race neutral can still be found to be discriminatory if it results in having a disparate impact on a protected class. Something that is race neutral can be a proxy for doing something racist if it has the result of being discriminatory against certain races. It depends on the facts and who and how it impacts.

Right. So the current admissions process has a disparate impact on admissions for URMs — significantly lower rates of admission.

Is that what the facts show? What if you look at % of applicants of each race who applied that are accepted?

Yes. We already did that analysis on another thread.

Ok thanks. Why do we only care about URMs? There are poor Asians. And we didn’t have Hispanic people as slaves so it’s not reparations for them to be URMs. Sorry if that was already discussed.

Friendly reminder that poor Asians were the biggest beneficiaries of the new admissions process per the data that was recently released - far moreso than Black or Hispanic students...

Nope white students were the biggest beneficiaries by the numbers. Can’t speak to their SES.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is all so, so backwards. Helping POC and low income students should be happening in all K-8 schools. Including help with the AAP process, or eliminating AAP segregation. Not selectively hyperfocusing on 9th grade admission to the #1 high school in America as the place and time where the prior 9 years of public school inequities can be remedied.

We can't do two things at once. Because underserved or underrepresented students don't belong at the #1 high school in America.

Do you have a point or was that a rhetorical statement to earn you brownie points with your progressive faithful?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are these legal battles the best use of fcps tax dollars? Maybe if they spent more money on other aap programs people wouldn’t need to clamor so hard to get into the scarce resource that’s TJ

Just get rid of all race on apps

TJ doesn’t have race on the app.

Disparate impact is a recognized legal theory.

Interesting. So if certain races have much lower acceptance rates & enrollment #s than others is that a disparate impact?

It basically means something that is race neutral can still be found to be discriminatory if it results in having a disparate impact on a protected class. Something that is race neutral can be a proxy for doing something racist if it has the result of being discriminatory against certain races. It depends on the facts and who and how it impacts.

Right. So the current admissions process has a disparate impact on admissions for URMs — significantly lower rates of admission.

Is that what the facts show? What if you look at % of applicants of each race who applied that are accepted?

Yes. We already did that analysis on another thread.

Ok thanks. Why do we only care about URMs? There are poor Asians. And we didn’t have Hispanic people as slaves so it’s not reparations for them to be URMs. Sorry if that was already discussed.

Friendly reminder that poor Asians were the biggest beneficiaries of the new admissions process per the data that was recently released - far moreso than Black or Hispanic students...

Nope white students were the biggest beneficiaries by the numbers. Can’t speak to their SES.

That's completely false and has no basis in the data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is all so, so backwards. Helping POC and low income students should be happening in all K-8 schools. Including help with the AAP process, or eliminating AAP segregation. Not selectively hyperfocusing on 9th grade admission to the #1 high school in America as the place and time where the prior 9 years of public school inequities can be remedied.

We can't do two things at once. Because underserved or underrepresented students don't belong at the #1 high school in America.

Do you have a point or was that a rhetorical statement to earn you brownie points with your progressive faithful?

DP. Their point was that it's dumb to pretend that you can only do one or the other.

[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:Are these legal battles the best use of fcps tax dollars? Maybe if they spent more money on other aap programs people wouldn’t need to clamor so hard to get into the scarce resource that’s TJ

Just get rid of all race on apps

TJ doesn’t have race on the app.

Disparate impact is a recognized legal theory.

Interesting. So if certain races have much lower acceptance rates & enrollment #s than others is that a disparate impact?

It basically means something that is race neutral can still be found to be discriminatory if it results in having a disparate impact on a protected class. Something that is race neutral can be a proxy for doing something racist if it has the result of being discriminatory against certain races. It depends on the facts and who and how it impacts.

Right. So the current admissions process has a disparate impact on admissions for URMs — significantly lower rates of admission.

Is that what the facts show? What if you look at % of applicants of each race who applied that are accepted?

Yes. We already did that analysis on another thread.

Ok thanks. Why do we only care about URMs? There are poor Asians. And we didn’t have Hispanic people as slaves so it’s not reparations for them to be URMs. Sorry if that was already discussed.

Friendly reminder that poor Asians were the biggest beneficiaries of the new admissions process per the data that was recently released - far moreso than Black or Hispanic students...

Nope white students were the biggest beneficiaries by the numbers. Can’t speak to their SES.

That's completely false and has no basis in the data.

It's what was submitted to the SC. I think there is the data on it.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are these legal battles the best use of fcps tax dollars? Maybe if they spent more money on other aap programs people wouldn’t need to clamor so hard to get into the scarce resource that’s TJ

Just get rid of all race on apps

TJ doesn’t have race on the app.

Disparate impact is a recognized legal theory.

Interesting. So if certain races have much lower acceptance rates & enrollment #s than others is that a disparate impact?

It basically means something that is race neutral can still be found to be discriminatory if it results in having a disparate impact on a protected class. Something that is race neutral can be a proxy for doing something racist if it has the result of being discriminatory against certain races. It depends on the facts and who and how it impacts.

For godsake. destroying a school for equity purposes is absolutely obscene. you guys make me sick.

Right. So the current admissions process has a disparate impact on admissions for URMs — significantly lower rates of admission.

Is that what the facts show? What if you look at % of applicants of each race who applied that are accepted?

Yes. We already did that analysis on another thread.

Ok thanks. Why do we only care about URMs? There are poor Asians. And we didn’t have Hispanic people as slaves so it’s not reparations for them to be URMs. Sorry if that was already discussed.

Friendly reminder that poor Asians were the biggest beneficiaries of the new admissions process per the data that was recently released - far moreso than Black or Hispanic students...

This is not a competition to divide the spoils!! you guys just don't get it...

So we should only care about “disparate impact” for certain groups, not all?

That's literally coalition for TJ's argument. They are claiming the the current system has a disparate impact on Asian applicants even though the prior system had a disparate impact on literally every other group.

And I’d say that the new process STILL has a “disparate impact” on URMs given that admission rates are still disparate.

At the moment, one thing you can say as a positive for the new process is that the demographic of the admitted student pool roughly mirrors the demographic of the applicant pool. Which is a positive.

Not roughly. There were *still* disparities. This was covered on an old thread. I can’t look up at the moment but can try later.

You want disparate impact? Here are some egregious disparate impact:

Asians have been totally shut out of a County that Asians make up 20% for many years now.

No member of the school board, no member of the Board of Supervisors, no member of County judges, no House delegates from the County, no representation in the top positions of FCPS, no representation in the leadership positions at TJ, no principals at any County schools, no representation at leadership positions at County police on and on and on. Why so quiet about these egregious complete and total lack of representation?

Did you forget Moon? He was the chair of the school board for a long time. And last time I checked - Tran is a house delegate from this county. Maybe they should have more representation but at least get the facts straight.

Moon ain't there no mo and I am not sure about Tran.

Asians have been the victim of disparate impact for decades:

Fairfax Board of Supervisors must represent ALL the citizens of the county. Asians must make up 20% of the Board of Supervisors. Board of Supervisors must be exposed to the benefits of working in a "diverse" environment where they will be exposed to different ethnicities and cultures that is Fairfax County and that will make them a better human being and better government officials.

We need Asian Diversity & Inclusion Officer for the Fairfax County appointed immediately to promote Asians in ALL aspects of the County government. We need 20% Asians on the school board. We need 20% of Asian judges in the county. We need 20% Asian prosecutors in the county. We need 20% of top positions in the FCPS. We need Asian principal for TJ etc.

Election results not do not equal disparate impact. That should not be in the conversation at all.

Due to candidate suppression and voter suppression. Asians demand 20%.

Well maybe someone SHOULD look into how Moon didn't get on to the D sample ballot with FCDC.

During the 2019-2020 school year, my child was involved in a foreign exchange program that was a Moon pet project. He chose a company to provide the travel arrangements outside of normal contracting guidelines that was not bonded. They embezzled student fees (which ran to 4 figures per kid) and disappeared into the night. FCPS ended up making the students and their families whole out of ESOL funding after being threatened with a lawsuit and WaPo story. Super shady.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are these legal battles the best use of fcps tax dollars? Maybe if they spent more money on other aap programs people wouldn’t need to clamor so hard to get into the scarce resource that’s TJ

Just get rid of all race on apps

TJ doesn’t have race on the app.

Disparate impact is a recognized legal theory.

Interesting. So if certain races have much lower acceptance rates & enrollment #s than others is that a disparate impact?

It basically means something that is race neutral can still be found to be discriminatory if it results in having a disparate impact on a protected class. Something that is race neutral can be a proxy for doing something racist if it has the result of being discriminatory against certain races. It depends on the facts and who and how it impacts.

Right. So the current admissions process has a disparate impact on admissions for URMs — significantly lower rates of admission.

Is that what the facts show? What if you look at % of applicants of each race who applied that are accepted?

Yes. We already did that analysis on another thread.

Ok thanks. Why do we only care about URMs? There are poor Asians. And we didn’t have Hispanic people as slaves so it’s not reparations for them to be URMs. Sorry if that was already discussed.

Friendly reminder that poor Asians were the biggest beneficiaries of the new admissions process per the data that was recently released - far moreso than Black or Hispanic students...

Nope white students were the biggest beneficiaries by the numbers. Can’t speak to their SES.

I read it was Asians but they still make up 50%+ of the seats so hard not to be I guess.

[Anonymous]

demographic 2024 2025 %change
asian 73% 54% -26%
white 18% 22% +26%
hispanic 3% 11% +242%
black 2% 7% +245%
other 4% 5% +26%

[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:Are these legal battles the best use of fcps tax dollars? Maybe if they spent more money on other aap programs people wouldn’t need to clamor so hard to get into the scarce resource that’s TJ

Just get rid of all race on apps

TJ doesn’t have race on the app.

Disparate impact is a recognized legal theory.

Interesting. So if certain races have much lower acceptance rates & enrollment #s than others is that a disparate impact?

It basically means something that is race neutral can still be found to be discriminatory if it results in having a disparate impact on a protected class. Something that is race neutral can be a proxy for doing something racist if it has the result of being discriminatory against certain races. It depends on the facts and who and how it impacts.

If it contradicts the narrative that I like then it must be false!

Right. So the current admissions process has a disparate impact on admissions for URMs — significantly lower rates of admission.

Is that what the facts show? What if you look at % of applicants of each race who applied that are accepted?

Yes. We already did that analysis on another thread.

Ok thanks. Why do we only care about URMs? There are poor Asians. And we didn’t have Hispanic people as slaves so it’s not reparations for them to be URMs. Sorry if that was already discussed.

Friendly reminder that poor Asians were the biggest beneficiaries of the new admissions process per the data that was recently released - far moreso than Black or Hispanic students...

Nope white students were the biggest beneficiaries by the numbers. Can’t speak to their SES.

That's completely false and has no basis in the data.

It's what was submitted to the SC. I think there is the data on it.

[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:Are these legal battles the best use of fcps tax dollars? Maybe if they spent more money on other aap programs people wouldn’t need to clamor so hard to get into the scarce resource that’s TJ

Just get rid of all race on apps

TJ doesn’t have race on the app.

Disparate impact is a recognized legal theory.

Interesting. So if certain races have much lower acceptance rates & enrollment #s than others is that a disparate impact?

It basically means something that is race neutral can still be found to be discriminatory if it results in having a disparate impact on a protected class. Something that is race neutral can be a proxy for doing something racist if it has the result of being discriminatory against certain races. It depends on the facts and who and how it impacts.

Right. So the current admissions process has a disparate impact on admissions for URMs — significantly lower rates of admission.

Is that what the facts show? What if you look at % of applicants of each race who applied that are accepted?

Yes. We already did that analysis on another thread.

Ok thanks. Why do we only care about URMs? There are poor Asians. And we didn’t have Hispanic people as slaves so it’s not reparations for them to be URMs. Sorry if that was already discussed.

Friendly reminder that poor Asians were the biggest beneficiaries of the new admissions process per the data that was recently released - far moreso than Black or Hispanic students...

Nope white students were the biggest beneficiaries by the numbers. Can’t speak to their SES.

That's completely false and has no basis in the data.

It's what was submitted to the SC. I think there is the data on it.

There is no way to put that data together to suggest that white families were the biggest beneficiaries. Absolutely none.