Forum Index
»
Advanced Academic Programs (AAP)
If you think Republicans are going to kill the TJ lottery....
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Changing the Asian composition of a school from 78% to 34%, while increasing the White representation from 18% to 45% is not race blind. Flipping the racial composition from Asians to Whites so that 17 blacks can enter is not race-blind. It is race targeting in both directions. https://asrainvestigates.substack.com/p/breaking-analysis-tj-lottery-would?r=1k5zy |
Anonymous
Also, assuming that the likely new justice will be offended by a lottery because it might help poor URM kids seems a little misplaced as she adopted two black kids for the impoverished country of Haiti. In addition, Roberts isn't a super conservative, so I don't see this facially race neutral lottery being struck down by the court just because conservatives dislike anything that can be vaguely be viewed as affirmative action. I think there are posters here that actually think FCPS will get nervous if they keep saying the lottery will be struck down as unconstitutional. FCPS is going full steam ahead on this. Posters here seem to think that anything that doesn't maintain the 70% Asian makeup of TJ will be struck down because FCPS has voiced a desire to increase URM participation. I can guarantee that whatever comes out of this process will not maintain anything close to that. |
Anonymous
I'm white, and I don't support the merit lottery. You shouldn't just assume the opposition is all Asians trying to maintain the current racial composition. The opposition to this ludicrous proposal consists of all races trying to preserve the excellence of a school. |
Anonymous
+1 Imagine a company like McKenzie (top tier consulting) deciding to not take the top 5% of applicants and instead randomly selecting form the top 15%. This whole idea makes 0 logical sense. |
Anonymous
If race is not considered as a criteria for admissions, which is the case for any lottery, admissions are race blind. This is actually a really simple legal principle. |
Anonymous
preserving the excellence of a public school isn't grounds for a legal challenge (at least a successful one) |
Anonymous
Yes, the PP keeps asserting that since the proposal may have the effect of changing the racial composition of the school, it is not race blind. That's just mixing up different concepts in discrimination law. A disparate impact analysis (not disparate effect) applies when there is a race blind policy that adversely impacts one race. It is not used when there is a policy that specifically targets race. There are multiple arguments here, which could be made in the alternative. Broadly speaking: - The intent of the policy is to change the racial makeup of the school. As a subsidiary point, the permissible reasons the school board gives for change are pretexts for discrimination. - Even if the change is facially race neutral and not a pretext for discrimination, it has an adverse impact on certain minority groups. No idea whether either of those arguments would prevail, but that's what they are. |
Anonymous
The whole purpose is to change the racial distribution though, and dramatically at that. I am not in law. So excuse me if this does not make sense to me. The lottery itself is race-blind. But the implementation of the lottery seems not. |
Anonymous
politicians are allowed to correct racial imbalances, they are just limited in the tools they can use- a race blind lottery is a tool they are allowed (and one that has bipartisan support). Calling a race blind lottery constitutional isn't even a controversial statement outside of the people screaming about TJ |
Anonymous
Imagine NBA teams lottery off some slots to Asians for representation, Supreme Court lotteries off seats for racial representation, Surgeons and dentists need to have a fixed racial makeup, Rocket scientists need to have a certain racial makeup. Why do we look at TJ only through the lens of race? How about 100% readiness for college, 40% NMSFs, 30% short, 10% fat ... It's probably one of the most diverse school out there. Diversity =/= race only. |
Anonymous
it's almost like employers hiring employees and public schools deciding who to admit to certain schools have different criteria |
Anonymous
I am not sure where in the constitution says politicians are allowed to correct racial makeup. How about a school has 70% gays, 60% fat people, 70% Catholics, 60% from India, 80% tall people, 100% girls? Do politicians are allowed to correct them? You can't invent rights in the constitution. You definitely can't discriminate based on race, which this proposal does. The whole purpose of this proposal is to "correct" racial makeup. It has everything to do with race. The outcome of the proposal is to reduce the representation of one race. It seems a slam dunk to me as unconstitutional. AA may go down with it. |
Anonymous
if you really believe that, pass the hat and hire a law firm to pursue the case. The fact that you've heard crickets from the prominent conservative advocacy firms on this speaks volumes |
Anonymous
Hats are being passed so give it a few months. Besides, the proposal seems to be in trouble since one or more jurisdictions are unhappy with the proposal so this may have to be addressed by the legislature and not fcps. In addition, regional governing body is required for a regional governor school under the applicable statute. |
Anonymous
| The FCPS board is the governing body for now and the legislature is the group pushing the changes. If there was a real constitutional issue, firms would already be jockeying to get the case. They aren’t because there is no constitutional issue (outside of the minds of people on this board) |