Counsel for School Board Submits Brief to SCOTUS Requesting Denial of Certiorari

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your taxpayer dollars are paying for this.

It's too bad these nutjobs in C4TJ are forcing the county to do this.

If the nutjobs hadn't created the problem in the first place by discriminating against Asian students.

They’re not discriminating against Asian students. They removed advantages for Asian students. Critical difference, but it looks the same to the untrained/intentionally ignorant eye.

They removed advantages for kids from affluent families.

Kids from lower-income Asian families benefitted from the change.

Please stop spreading these facts. It hurts our false narrative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your taxpayer dollars are paying for this.

It's too bad these nutjobs in C4TJ are forcing the county to do this.

If the nutjobs hadn't created the problem in the first place by discriminating against Asian students.

They’re not discriminating against Asian students. They removed advantages for Asian students. Critical difference, but it looks the same to the untrained/intentionally ignorant eye.

They removed advantages for kids from affluent families.

Kids from lower-income Asian families benefitted from the change.

Please stop spreading these facts. It hurts our false narrative.

They deliberately set out to reduce Asian numbers and they did in fact reduce Asian numbers by approximately 37% each year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your taxpayer dollars are paying for this.

It's too bad these nutjobs in C4TJ are forcing the county to do this.

If the nutjobs hadn't created the problem in the first place by discriminating against Asian students.

They’re not discriminating against Asian students. They removed advantages for Asian students. Critical difference, but it looks the same to the untrained/intentionally ignorant eye.

They removed advantages for kids from affluent families.

Kids from lower-income Asian families benefitted from the change.

Please stop spreading these facts. It hurts our false narrative.

They deliberately set out to reduce Asian numbers and they did in fact reduce Asian numbers by approximately 37% each year.

That's weird because last I heard TJ was 60% Asian despite the county being around 15% Asian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your taxpayer dollars are paying for this.

It's too bad these nutjobs in C4TJ are forcing the county to do this.

If the nutjobs hadn't created the problem in the first place by discriminating against Asian students.

They’re not discriminating against Asian students. They removed advantages for Asian students. Critical difference, but it looks the same to the untrained/intentionally ignorant eye.

They removed advantages for kids from affluent families.

Kids from lower-income Asian families benefitted from the change.

Please stop spreading these facts. It hurts our false narrative.

They deliberately set out to reduce Asian numbers and they did in fact reduce Asian numbers by approximately 37% each year.

I heard they just wanted to ensure that all residents had equal opportunities, not just those who were dumping $10k into Curie's prpe. Afterall Curie's ad showed that 30% of the incoming class had been their customers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your taxpayer dollars are paying for this.

It's too bad these nutjobs in C4TJ are forcing the county to do this.

If the nutjobs hadn't created the problem in the first place by discriminating against Asian students.

They’re not discriminating against Asian students. They removed advantages for Asian students. Critical difference, but it looks the same to the untrained/intentionally ignorant eye.

They removed advantages for kids from affluent families.

Kids from lower-income Asian families benefitted from the change.

Yes, please stop using these facts to disprove the false narrative we've been pushing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your taxpayer dollars are paying for this.

It's too bad these nutjobs in C4TJ are forcing the county to do this.

If the nutjobs hadn't created the problem in the first place by discriminating against Asian students.

They’re not discriminating against Asian students. They removed advantages for Asian students. Critical difference, but it looks the same to the untrained/intentionally ignorant eye.

They removed advantages for kids from affluent families.

Kids from lower-income Asian families benefitted from the change.

Yes, please stop using these facts to disprove the false narrative we've been pushing.

Stop propagating lies and disinformation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your taxpayer dollars are paying for this.

It's too bad these nutjobs in C4TJ are forcing the county to do this.

If the nutjobs hadn't created the problem in the first place by discriminating against Asian students.

They’re not discriminating against Asian students. They removed advantages for Asian students. Critical difference, but it looks the same to the untrained/intentionally ignorant eye.

They removed advantages for kids from affluent families.

Kids from lower-income Asian families benefitted from the change.

Yes, please stop using these facts to disprove the false narrative we've been pushing.

Stop propagating lies and disinformation.

DP. By all means, feel free to be specific about the exact lie you're referring to - and support your assertion with evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your taxpayer dollars are paying for this.

It's too bad these nutjobs in C4TJ are forcing the county to do this.

If the nutjobs hadn't created the problem in the first place by discriminating against Asian students.

They’re not discriminating against Asian students. They removed advantages for Asian students. Critical difference, but it looks the same to the untrained/intentionally ignorant eye.

They removed advantages for kids from affluent families.

Kids from lower-income Asian families benefitted from the change.

Very true and it appears the voters of Fairfax county agree with this assessment given the board outcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your taxpayer dollars are paying for this.

It's too bad these nutjobs in C4TJ are forcing the county to do this.

If the nutjobs hadn't created the problem in the first place by discriminating against Asian students.

They’re not discriminating against Asian students. They removed advantages for Asian students. Critical difference, but it looks the same to the untrained/intentionally ignorant eye.

They removed advantages for kids from affluent families.

Kids from lower-income Asian families benefitted from the change.

Very true and it appears the voters of Fairfax County agree with this assessment, given the board outcome.

Dems swept the school board?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your taxpayer dollars are paying for this.

It's too bad these nutjobs in C4TJ are forcing the county to do this.

If the nutjobs hadn't created the problem in the first place by discriminating against Asian students.

They’re not discriminating against Asian students. They removed advantages for Asian students. Critical difference, but it looks the same to the untrained/intentionally ignorant eye.

They removed advantages for kids from affluent families.

Kids from lower-income Asian families benefitted from the change.

Very true and it appears the voters of Fairfax County agree with this assessment, given the board outcome.

Dems swept the school board?

Seems so, yes

[Anonymous]

The results of last night's School Board election pretty much rendered the Supreme Court case irrelevant.

The composition of the Democrats on the board now is much more experienced, competent, and moderate than the outgoing group and it would not surprise me at all if they put together a working group to study the new process after the Class of 2028 is selected to propose tweaks.

Given that the Coalition's specific arguments on this specific case are fairly narrowly tailored, it doesn't seem like it will be applicable to a broad range of similar cases. That means that the Supreme Court would be choosing to spend its time on a single case whose resolution will probably have little to no impact on the appellants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The results of last night's School Board election pretty much rendered the Supreme Court case irrelevant.

The composition of the Democrats on the board now is much more experienced, competent, and moderate than the outgoing group and it would not surprise me at all if they put together a working group to study the new process after the Class of 2028 is selected to propose tweaks.

Given that the Coalition's specific arguments on this specific case are fairly narrowly tailored, it doesn't seem like it will be applicable to a broad range of similar cases. That means that the Supreme Court would be choosing to spend its time on a single case whose resolution will probably have little to no impact on the appellants.

It was always a laughable case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The results of last night's School Board election pretty much rendered the Supreme Court case irrelevant.

The composition of the Democrats on the board now is much more experienced, competent, and moderate than the outgoing group and it would not surprise me at all if they put together a working group to study the new process after the Class of 2028 is selected to propose tweaks.

Given that the Coalition's specific arguments on this specific case are fairly narrowly tailored, it doesn't seem like it will be applicable to a broad range of similar cases. That means that the Supreme Court would be choosing to spend its time on a single case whose resolution will probably have little to no impact on the appellants.

Replying to myself. To be clear, it is my expectation that whenever there are adjustments to the process, the fundamentals of it (the allocated seats, the lack of a standardized exam, and application fee) will remain in place. But I could definitely see teacher recommendations re-introduced as long as they aren't simply an open essay format, and I could see bonus point weighting changing (perhaps greater weight given to SES and lesser to ELL).