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:Four things:

1. Where is the data for this year? My kid (white) went to TJ. Math is sequenced by semester, not by year. What is the math placement for this class vs prior classes? How many are Math 1, 2 or 2.5 vs 3+? And how did the grade distribution compare to prior years? That data exists. How many kids are on academic probation for being below 3.5 vs past years? How many kids have dropped back to base school vs prior years? English and Stats grade distributions should also be shared. That’s how you know if TJ is getting kids who can manage the work. Not rocket science.

2. This is disparate impact because Omeish and other SB members said they were using geography, SES and other soft factors as a proxy for race. You can get to DI without someone saying “the goal is to be racist”. But Omeish texted the quiet part out loud. P She really made this a disparate treatment case.

What a moron.

Also, if aren’t a lawyer, please stop talking about DI. It’s complicated and you are doing it wrong.

3. The existence of this litigation is not a shock. If the SB and TJ Admissions don’t have a Plan B in case they cannot use the current system, that is inexcusable negligence. It should not suddenly dawn on them on 4/20 that they have a problem and need a new system. They should have had a contingency for months.

Now, they’re incompetent, so they don’t. But, they should.

4. The stay will remain in place. FCPS should try again and this time STOP TEXTING. They won’t. And they will lose. I think there is a good chance that the full case is ultimately heard by SCOTUS.

I'm a lawyer but not a con law lawyer and I find all of this confusing. There does seem to be a genuine issue whether strict scrutiny will be/should be applied here. FWIW

No, a school cannot really run two simultaneous admissions processes, as the district court advised FCPS and as FCPS failed to do. That's just impossible. And they cannot run the old admissions process, as some seem to be advocating, because the tests are unavailable (the test results are likewise unavailable-- I suppose advocates think that all 2500 applicants should simply show up this Saturday at a building and take the (unavailable) old tests in order to somehow go forward with the old admissions process).

The stay is what Roberts is currently considering -- in another 5 years or so, I doubt this case will get to the Supreme Court again. The climate will have changed by then (I meant the educational and political climate but I guess also the planet's climate, too).

Agreed. People who believe that somehow another admissions process should be designed and implemented have no idea how admissions processes work, especially for large schools or for public schools. Judge Hilton was the first to make this insane assertion but he certainly won't be the last.

They could absolutely use grades and portions of the student profile sheets and to make the selections and pull out geographic preference (which hurts Asian kids in AAP centers) and experience factors from the score. They knew in the fall there could be an issue, so they could have administered a test, gotten recommendations or gathered other objective data. But yeah— it’s too late now. It’s the knowing a problem exists then ignoring it, then saying, we don’t have time to i it that’s crazy making.

A third admissions process side-by-side with the new admissions process. That's what you think is reasonable?

That's not the old process, it's a different one. It would also have been contested. You're right that your proposal is crazy making. Desiring two admissions processes has made you crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Four things:

1. Where is the data for this year? My kid (white) went to TJ. Math is sequenced by semester, not by year. What is the math placement for this class vs prior classes? How many are Math 1, 2 or 2.5 vs 3+? And how did the grade distribution compare to prior years? That data exists. How many kids are on academic probation for being below 3.5 vs past years? How many kids have dropped back to base school vs prior years? English and Stats grade distributions should also be shared. That’s how you know if TJ is getting kids who can manage the work. Not rocket science.

2. This is disparate impact because Omeish and other SB members said they were using geography, SES and other soft factors as a proxy for race. You can get to DI without someone saying “the goal is to be racist”. But Omeish texted the quiet part out loud. P She really made this a disparate treatment case.

What a moron.

Also, if aren’t a lawyer, please stop talking about DI. It’s complicated and you are doing it wrong.

3. The existence of this litigation is not a shock. If the SB and TJ Admissions don’t have a Plan B in case they cannot use the current system, that is inexcusable negligence. It should not suddenly dawn on them on 4/20 that they have a problem and need a new system. They should have had a contingency for months.

Now, they’re incompetent, so they don’t. But, they should.

4. The stay will remain in place. FCPS should try again and this time STOP TEXTING. They won’t. And they will lose. I think there is a good chance that the full case is ultimately heard by SCOTUS.

Oh the irony. I'm not a lawyer but my understanding of disparate treatment is that the action is not facially neutral, so the TJ admissions policy does not meet this standard. Facially neutral but discriminatory policies/practices fall under disparate impact. Disparate impact can be justified based on "business necessity", or "compelling public interest" in the case of government action. However, we know that racial preference can never be the basis for compelling public interest so the racist intent eliminates this defense under strict scrutiny standards.

And given that Brabrand and Omeish outright stated they were evaluating different plans based on how much they would decrease Asian student enrollment, they tip toed up to the edge of DT. Realize that not all DI violations are intentional. The classic being an unnecessary lifting requirement that ends up weeding out women, but wasn’t out there for that reason. It’s a DI claim. But it’s unusual to have such solid proof of racial animus in DI. In a classic case you’d get there much more indirectly.

And I don’t know how you avoid strict scrutiny on the basis of race and ethnicity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Four things:

1. Where is the data for this year? My kid (white) went to TJ. Math is sequenced by semester, not by year. What is the math placement for this class vs prior classes? How many are Math 1, 2 or 2.5 vs 3+? And how did the grade distribution compare to prior years? That data exists. How many kids are on academic probation for being below 3.5 vs past years? How many kids have dropped back to base school vs prior years? English and Stats grade distributions should also be shared. That’s how you know if TJ is getting kids who can manage the work. Not rocket science.

2. This is disparate impact because Omeish and other SB members said they were using geography, SES and other soft factors as a proxy for race. You can get to DI without someone saying “the goal is to be racist”. But Omeish texted the quiet part out loud. P She really made this a disparate treatment case.

What a moron.

Also, if aren’t a lawyer, please stop talking about DI. It’s complicated and you are doing it wrong.

3. The existence of this litigation is not a shock. If the SB and TJ Admissions don’t have a Plan B in case they cannot use the current system, that is inexcusable negligence. It should not suddenly dawn on them on 4/20 that they have a problem and need a new system. They should have had a contingency for months.

Now, they’re incompetent, so they don’t. But, they should.

4. The stay will remain in place. FCPS should try again and this time STOP TEXTING. They won’t. And they will lose. I think there is a good chance that the full case is ultimately heard by SCOTUS.

I'm a lawyer but not a con law lawyer and I find all of this confusing. There does seem to be a genuine issue whether strict scrutiny will be/should be applied here. FWIW

No, a school cannot really run two simultaneous admissions processes, as the district court advised FCPS and as FCPS failed to do. That's just impossible. And they cannot run the old admissions process, as some seem to be advocating, because the tests are unavailable (the test results are likewise unavailable-- I suppose advocates think that all 2500 applicants should simply show up this Saturday at a building and take the (unavailable) old tests in order to somehow go forward with the old admissions process).

The stay is what Roberts is currently considering -- in another 5 years or so, I doubt this case will get to the Supreme Court again. The climate will have changed by then (I meant the educational and political climate but I guess also the planet's climate, too).

Agreed. People who believe that somehow another admissions process should be designed and implemented have no idea how admissions processes work, especially for large schools or for public schools. Judge Hilton was the first to make this insane assertion but he certainly won't be the last.

They could absolutely use grades and portions of the student profile sheets and to make the selections and pull out geographic preference (which hurts Asian kids in AAP centers) and experience factors from the score. They knew in the fall there could be an issue, so they could have administered a test, gotten recommendations or gathered other objective data. But yeah— it’s too late now. It’s the knowing a problem exists then ignoring it, then saying, we don’t have time to i it that’s crazy making.

A third admissions process side-by-side with the new admissions process. That's what you think is reasonable?

That's not the old process, it's a different one. It would also have been contested. You're right that your proposal is crazy making. Desiring two admissions processes has made you crazy.

The old admission process is gone. RIP. I want one plan, preferably based on merit and not race. But since EVERYONE KNEW THIS COULD HAPPEN, the SB needed a plan for when it did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Four things:

1. Where is the data for this year? My kid (white) went to TJ. Math is sequenced by semester, not by year. What is the math placement for this class vs prior classes? How many are Math 1, 2 or 2.5 vs 3+? And how did the grade distribution compare to prior years? That data exists. How many kids are on academic probation for being below 3.5 vs past years? How many kids have dropped back to base school vs prior years? English and Stats grade distributions should also be shared. That’s how you know if TJ is getting kids who can manage the work. Not rocket science.

2. This is disparate impact because Omeish and other SB members said they were using geography, SES and other soft factors as a proxy for race. You can get to DI without someone saying “the goal is to be racist”. But Omeish texted the quiet part out loud. P She really made this a disparate treatment case.

What a moron.

Also, if aren’t a lawyer, please stop talking about DI. It’s complicated and you are doing it wrong.

3. The existence of this litigation is not a shock. If the SB and TJ Admissions don’t have a Plan B in case they cannot use the current system, that is inexcusable negligence. It should not suddenly dawn on them on 4/20 that they have a problem and need a new system. They should have had a contingency for months.

Now, they’re incompetent, so they don’t. But, they should.

4. The stay will remain in place. FCPS should try again and this time STOP TEXTING. They won’t. And they will lose. I think there is a good chance that the full case is ultimately heard by SCOTUS.

Oh the irony. I'm not a lawyer but my understanding of disparate treatment is that the action is not facially neutral, so the TJ admissions policy does not meet this standard. Facially neutral but discriminatory policies/practices fall under disparate impact. Disparate impact can be justified based on "business necessity", or "compelling public interest" in the case of government action. However, we know that racial preference can never be the basis for compelling public interest so the racist intent eliminates this defense under strict scrutiny standards.

And given that Brabrand and Omeish outright stated they were evaluating different plans based on how much they would decrease Asian student enrollment, they tip toed up to the edge of DT. Realize that not all DI violations are intentional. The classic being an unnecessary lifting requirement that ends up weeding out women, but wasn’t out there for that reason. It’s a DI claim. But it’s unusual to have such solid proof of racial animus in DI. In a classic case you’d get there much more indirectly.

And I don’t know how you avoid strict scrutiny on the basis of race and ethnicity.

The bolded is not true. Several Board members obliquely mentioned "the diversity we seek" or something similar, and some asked whether or not the new processes would add enough Black and/or Hispanic students. Omeish texted the anti-Asian thing, seemingly in jest (that's what "lol" means for the uninitiated).

This is where you run up on the question of "because of" versus "in spite of".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Four things:

1. Where is the data for this year? My kid (white) went to TJ. Math is sequenced by semester, not by year. What is the math placement for this class vs prior classes? How many are Math 1, 2 or 2.5 vs 3+? And how did the grade distribution compare to prior years? That data exists. How many kids are on academic probation for being below 3.5 vs past years? How many kids have dropped back to base school vs prior years? English and Stats grade distributions should also be shared. That’s how you know if TJ is getting kids who can manage the work. Not rocket science.

2. This is disparate impact because Omeish and other SB members said they were using geography, SES and other soft factors as a proxy for race. You can get to DI without someone saying “the goal is to be racist”. But Omeish texted the quiet part out loud. P She really made this a disparate treatment case.

What a moron.

Also, if aren’t a lawyer, please stop talking about DI. It’s complicated and you are doing it wrong.

3. The existence of this litigation is not a shock. If the SB and TJ Admissions don’t have a Plan B in case they cannot use the current system, that is inexcusable negligence. It should not suddenly dawn on them on 4/20 that they have a problem and need a new system. They should have had a contingency for months.

Now, they’re incompetent, so they don’t. But, they should.

4. The stay will remain in place. FCPS should try again and this time STOP TEXTING. They won’t. And they will lose. I think there is a good chance that the full case is ultimately heard by SCOTUS.

I'm a lawyer but not a con law lawyer and I find all of this confusing. There does seem to be a genuine issue whether strict scrutiny will be/should be applied here. FWIW

No, a school cannot really run two simultaneous admissions processes, as the district court advised FCPS and as FCPS failed to do. That's just impossible. And they cannot run the old admissions process, as some seem to be advocating, because the tests are unavailable (the test results are likewise unavailable-- I suppose advocates think that all 2500 applicants should simply show up this Saturday at a building and take the (unavailable) old tests in order to somehow go forward with the old admissions process).

The stay is what Roberts is currently considering -- in another 5 years or so, I doubt this case will get to the Supreme Court again. The climate will have changed by then (I meant the educational and political climate but I guess also the planet's climate, too).

Agreed. People who believe that somehow another admissions process should be designed and implemented have no idea how admissions processes work, especially for large schools or for public schools. Judge Hilton was the first to make this insane assertion but he certainly won't be the last.

They could absolutely use grades and portions of the student profile sheets and to make the selections and pull out geographic preference (which hurts Asian kids in AAP centers) and experience factors from the score. They knew in the fall there could be an issue, so they could have administered a test, gotten recommendations or gathered other objective data. But yeah— it’s too late now. It’s the knowing a problem exists then ignoring it, then saying, we don’t have time to i it that’s crazy making.

You don't do any of those things for hypotheticals. Administering an exam is crazy expensive. Gathering recommendations is a huge time suck for teachers. Again, further evidence of a complete lack of understanding of how admissions processes work.

You don’t make contingency plans for events that have a significant possibility of happening? If I didn’t have a Plan B when Plan looks like might not happen, I’d lose my job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Four things:

1. Where is the data for this year? My kid (white) went to TJ. Math is sequenced by semester, not by year. What is the math placement for this class vs prior classes? How many are Math 1, 2 or 2.5 vs 3+? And how did the grade distribution compare to prior years? That data exists. How many kids are on academic probation for being below 3.5 vs past years? How many kids have dropped back to base school vs prior years? English and Stats grade distributions should also be shared. That’s how you know if TJ is getting kids who can manage the work. Not rocket science.

2. This is disparate impact because Omeish and other SB members said they were using geography, SES and other soft factors as a proxy for race. You can get to DI without someone saying “the goal is to be racist”. But Omeish texted the quiet part out loud. P She really made this a disparate treatment case.

What a moron.

Also, if aren’t a lawyer, please stop talking about DI. It’s complicated and you are doing it wrong.

3. The existence of this litigation is not a shock. If the SB and TJ Admissions don’t have a Plan B in case they cannot use the current system, that is inexcusable negligence. It should not suddenly dawn on them on 4/20 that they have a problem and need a new system. They should have had a contingency for months.

Now, they’re incompetent, so they don’t. But, they should.

4. The stay will remain in place. FCPS should try again and this time STOP TEXTING. They won’t. And they will lose. I think there is a good chance that the full case is ultimately heard by SCOTUS.

I'm a lawyer but not a con law lawyer and I find all of this confusing. There does seem to be a genuine issue whether strict scrutiny will be/should be applied here. FWIW

No, a school cannot really run two simultaneous admissions processes, as the district court advised FCPS and as FCPS failed to do. That's just impossible. And they cannot run the old admissions process, as some seem to be advocating, because the tests are unavailable (the test results are likewise unavailable-- I suppose advocates think that all 2500 applicants should simply show up this Saturday at a building and take the (unavailable) old tests in order to somehow go forward with the old admissions process).

The stay is what Roberts is currently considering -- in another 5 years or so, I doubt this case will get to the Supreme Court again. The climate will have changed by then (I meant the educational and political climate but I guess also the planet's climate, too).

Agreed. People who believe that somehow another admissions process should be designed and implemented have no idea how admissions processes work, especially for large schools or for public schools. Judge Hilton was the first to make this insane assertion but he certainly won't be the last.

They could absolutely use grades and portions of the student profile sheets and to make the selections and pull out geographic preference (which hurts Asian kids in AAP centers) and experience factors from the score. They knew in the fall there could be an issue, so they could have administered a test, gotten recommendations or gathered other objective data. But yeah— it’s too late now. It’s the knowing a problem exists then ignoring it, then saying, we don’t have time to i it that’s crazy making.

A third admissions process side-by-side with the new admissions process. That's what you think is reasonable?

That's not the old process, it's a different one. It would also have been contested. You're right that your proposal is crazy making. Desiring two admissions processes has made you crazy.

The old admission process is gone. RIP. I want one plan, preferably based on merit and not race. But since EVERYONE KNEW THIS COULD HAPPEN, the SB needed a plan for when it did.

That plan - just you watch - is going to end up being a lottery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Four things:

1. Where is the data for this year? My kid (white) went to TJ. Math is sequenced by semester, not by year. What is the math placement for this class vs prior classes? How many are Math 1, 2 or 2.5 vs 3+? And how did the grade distribution compare to prior years? That data exists. How many kids are on academic probation for being below 3.5 vs past years? How many kids have dropped back to base school vs prior years? English and Stats grade distributions should also be shared. That’s how you know if TJ is getting kids who can manage the work. Not rocket science.

2. This is disparate impact because Omeish and other SB members said they were using geography, SES and other soft factors as a proxy for race. You can get to DI without someone saying “the goal is to be racist”. But Omeish texted the quiet part out loud. P She really made this a disparate treatment case.

What a moron.

Also, if aren’t a lawyer, please stop talking about DI. It’s complicated and you are doing it wrong.

3. The existence of this litigation is not a shock. If the SB and TJ Admissions don’t have a Plan B in case they cannot use the current system, that is inexcusable negligence. It should not suddenly dawn on them on 4/20 that they have a problem and need a new system. They should have had a contingency for months.

Now, they’re incompetent, so they don’t. But, they should.

4. The stay will remain in place. FCPS should try again and this time STOP TEXTING. They won’t. And they will lose. I think there is a good chance that the full case is ultimately heard by SCOTUS.

Oh the irony. I'm not a lawyer but my understanding of disparate treatment is that the action is not facially neutral, so the TJ admissions policy does not meet this standard. Facially neutral but discriminatory policies/practices fall under disparate impact. Disparate impact can be justified based on "business necessity", or "compelling public interest" in the case of government action. However, we know that racial preference can never be the basis for compelling public interest so the racist intent eliminates this defense under strict scrutiny standards.

And given that Brabrand and Omeish outright stated they were evaluating different plans based on how much they would decrease Asian student enrollment, they tip toed up to the edge of DT. Realize that not all DI violations are intentional. The classic being an unnecessary lifting requirement that ends up weeding out women, but wasn’t out there for that reason. It’s a DI claim. But it’s unusual to have such solid proof of racial animus in DI. In a classic case you’d get there much more indirectly.

And I don’t know how you avoid strict scrutiny on the basis of race and ethnicity.

As I understand it, applicants are anonymous. Including demographic information. I don't really see how you get to strict scrutiny, in that light.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Four things:

1. Where is the data for this year? My kid (white) went to TJ. Math is sequenced by semester, not by year. What is the math placement for this class vs prior classes? How many are Math 1, 2 or 2.5 vs 3+? And how did the grade distribution compare to prior years? That data exists. How many kids are on academic probation for being below 3.5 vs past years? How many kids have dropped back to base school vs prior years? English and Stats grade distributions should also be shared. That’s how you know if TJ is getting kids who can manage the work. Not rocket science.

2. This is disparate impact because Omeish and other SB members said they were using geography, SES and other soft factors as a proxy for race. You can get to DI without someone saying “the goal is to be racist”. But Omeish texted the quiet part out loud. P She really made this a disparate treatment case.

What a moron.

Also, if aren’t a lawyer, please stop talking about DI. It’s complicated and you are doing it wrong.

3. The existence of this litigation is not a shock. If the SB and TJ Admissions don’t have a Plan B in case they cannot use the current system, that is inexcusable negligence. It should not suddenly dawn on them on 4/20 that they have a problem and need a new system. They should have had a contingency for months.

Now, they’re incompetent, so they don’t. But, they should.

4. The stay will remain in place. FCPS should try again and this time STOP TEXTING. They won’t. And they will lose. I think there is a good chance that the full case is ultimately heard by SCOTUS.

Oh the irony. I'm not a lawyer but my understanding of disparate treatment is that the action is not facially neutral, so the TJ admissions policy does not meet this standard. Facially neutral but discriminatory policies/practices fall under disparate impact. Disparate impact can be justified based on "business necessity", or "compelling public interest" in the case of government action. However, we know that racial preference can never be the basis for compelling public interest so the racist intent eliminates this defense under strict scrutiny standards.

And given that Brabrand and Omeish outright stated they were evaluating different plans based on how much they would decrease Asian student enrollment, they tip toed up to the edge of DT. Realize that not all DI violations are intentional. The classic being an unnecessary lifting requirement that ends up weeding out women, but wasn’t out there for that reason. It’s a DI claim. But it’s unusual to have such solid proof of racial animus in DI. In a classic case you’d get there much more indirectly.

And I don’t know how you avoid strict scrutiny on the basis of race and ethnicity.

The bolded is not true. Several Board members obliquely mentioned "the diversity we seek" or something similar, and some asked whether or not the new processes would add enough Black and/or Hispanic students. Omeish texted the anti-Asian thing, seemingly in jest (that's what "lol" means for the uninitiated).

This is where you run up on the question of "because of" versus "in spite of".

Look at the discovery. Brabrand was saying one plan was better than another— based on mathematical modeling— because it would hit the racial “targets” he wanted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Four things:

1. Where is the data for this year? My kid (white) went to TJ. Math is sequenced by semester, not by year. What is the math placement for this class vs prior classes? How many are Math 1, 2 or 2.5 vs 3+? And how did the grade distribution compare to prior years? That data exists. How many kids are on academic probation for being below 3.5 vs past years? How many kids have dropped back to base school vs prior years? English and Stats grade distributions should also be shared. That’s how you know if TJ is getting kids who can manage the work. Not rocket science.

2. This is disparate impact because Omeish and other SB members said they were using geography, SES and other soft factors as a proxy for race. You can get to DI without someone saying “the goal is to be racist”. But Omeish texted the quiet part out loud. P She really made this a disparate treatment case.

What a moron.

Also, if aren’t a lawyer, please stop talking about DI. It’s complicated and you are doing it wrong.

3. The existence of this litigation is not a shock. If the SB and TJ Admissions don’t have a Plan B in case they cannot use the current system, that is inexcusable negligence. It should not suddenly dawn on them on 4/20 that they have a problem and need a new system. They should have had a contingency for months.

Now, they’re incompetent, so they don’t. But, they should.

4. The stay will remain in place. FCPS should try again and this time STOP TEXTING. They won’t. And they will lose. I think there is a good chance that the full case is ultimately heard by SCOTUS.

I'm a lawyer but not a con law lawyer and I find all of this confusing. There does seem to be a genuine issue whether strict scrutiny will be/should be applied here. FWIW

No, a school cannot really run two simultaneous admissions processes, as the district court advised FCPS and as FCPS failed to do. That's just impossible. And they cannot run the old admissions process, as some seem to be advocating, because the tests are unavailable (the test results are likewise unavailable-- I suppose advocates think that all 2500 applicants should simply show up this Saturday at a building and take the (unavailable) old tests in order to somehow go forward with the old admissions process).

The stay is what Roberts is currently considering -- in another 5 years or so, I doubt this case will get to the Supreme Court again. The climate will have changed by then (I meant the educational and political climate but I guess also the planet's climate, too).

Agreed. People who believe that somehow another admissions process should be designed and implemented have no idea how admissions processes work, especially for large schools or for public schools. Judge Hilton was the first to make this insane assertion but he certainly won't be the last.

They could absolutely use grades and portions of the student profile sheets and to make the selections and pull out geographic preference (which hurts Asian kids in AAP centers) and experience factors from the score. They knew in the fall there could be an issue, so they could have administered a test, gotten recommendations or gathered other objective data. But yeah— it’s too late now. It’s the knowing a problem exists then ignoring it, then saying, we don’t have time to i it that’s crazy making.

You don't do any of those things for hypotheticals. Administering an exam is crazy expensive. Gathering recommendations is a huge time suck for teachers. Again, further evidence of a complete lack of understanding of how admissions processes work.

You don’t make contingency plans for events that have a significant possibility of happening? If I didn’t have a Plan B when Plan looks like might not happen, I’d lose my job.

Contingency plans are one thing - and I believe the current contingency plan to be a lottery. Gathering additional data and forcing students and teachers to submit information that may never be used - and in your mind is unlikely to be used because there's no precedent for overturning a race-neutral admissions process - is another thing entirely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Four things:

1. Where is the data for this year? My kid (white) went to TJ. Math is sequenced by semester, not by year. What is the math placement for this class vs prior classes? How many are Math 1, 2 or 2.5 vs 3+? And how did the grade distribution compare to prior years? That data exists. How many kids are on academic probation for being below 3.5 vs past years? How many kids have dropped back to base school vs prior years? English and Stats grade distributions should also be shared. That’s how you know if TJ is getting kids who can manage the work. Not rocket science.

2. This is disparate impact because Omeish and other SB members said they were using geography, SES and other soft factors as a proxy for race. You can get to DI without someone saying “the goal is to be racist”. But Omeish texted the quiet part out loud. P She really made this a disparate treatment case.

What a moron.

Also, if aren’t a lawyer, please stop talking about DI. It’s complicated and you are doing it wrong.

3. The existence of this litigation is not a shock. If the SB and TJ Admissions don’t have a Plan B in case they cannot use the current system, that is inexcusable negligence. It should not suddenly dawn on them on 4/20 that they have a problem and need a new system. They should have had a contingency for months.

Now, they’re incompetent, so they don’t. But, they should.

4. The stay will remain in place. FCPS should try again and this time STOP TEXTING. They won’t. And they will lose. I think there is a good chance that the full case is ultimately heard by SCOTUS.

Oh the irony. I'm not a lawyer but my understanding of disparate treatment is that the action is not facially neutral, so the TJ admissions policy does not meet this standard. Facially neutral but discriminatory policies/practices fall under disparate impact. Disparate impact can be justified based on "business necessity", or "compelling public interest" in the case of government action. However, we know that racial preference can never be the basis for compelling public interest so the racist intent eliminates this defense under strict scrutiny standards.

And given that Brabrand and Omeish outright stated they were evaluating different plans based on how much they would decrease Asian student enrollment, they tip toed up to the edge of DT. Realize that not all DI violations are intentional. The classic being an unnecessary lifting requirement that ends up weeding out women, but wasn’t out there for that reason. It’s a DI claim. But it’s unusual to have such solid proof of racial animus in DI. In a classic case you’d get there much more indirectly.

And I don’t know how you avoid strict scrutiny on the basis of race and ethnicity.

As I understand it, applicants are anonymous. Including demographic information. I don't really see how you get to strict scrutiny, in that light.

Disparate impact cases are evaluated at strict scrutiny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Four things:

1. Where is the data for this year? My kid (white) went to TJ. Math is sequenced by semester, not by year. What is the math placement for this class vs prior classes? How many are Math 1, 2 or 2.5 vs 3+? And how did the grade distribution compare to prior years? That data exists. How many kids are on academic probation for being below 3.5 vs past years? How many kids have dropped back to base school vs prior years? English and Stats grade distributions should also be shared. That’s how you know if TJ is getting kids who can manage the work. Not rocket science.

2. This is disparate impact because Omeish and other SB members said they were using geography, SES and other soft factors as a proxy for race. You can get to DI without someone saying “the goal is to be racist”. But Omeish texted the quiet part out loud. P She really made this a disparate treatment case.

What a moron.

Also, if aren’t a lawyer, please stop talking about DI. It’s complicated and you are doing it wrong.

3. The existence of this litigation is not a shock. If the SB and TJ Admissions don’t have a Plan B in case they cannot use the current system, that is inexcusable negligence. It should not suddenly dawn on them on 4/20 that they have a problem and need a new system. They should have had a contingency for months.

Now, they’re incompetent, so they don’t. But, they should.

4. The stay will remain in place. FCPS should try again and this time STOP TEXTING. They won’t. And they will lose. I think there is a good chance that the full case is ultimately heard by SCOTUS.

Oh the irony. I'm not a lawyer but my understanding of disparate treatment is that the action is not facially neutral, so the TJ admissions policy does not meet this standard. Facially neutral but discriminatory policies/practices fall under disparate impact. Disparate impact can be justified based on "business necessity", or "compelling public interest" in the case of government action. However, we know that racial preference can never be the basis for compelling public interest so the racist intent eliminates this defense under strict scrutiny standards.

And given that Brabrand and Omeish outright stated they were evaluating different plans based on how much they would decrease Asian student enrollment, they tip toed up to the edge of DT. Realize that not all DI violations are intentional. The classic being an unnecessary lifting requirement that ends up weeding out women, but wasn’t out there for that reason. It’s a DI claim. But it’s unusual to have such solid proof of racial animus in DI. In a classic case you’d get there much more indirectly.

And I don’t know how you avoid strict scrutiny on the basis of race and ethnicity.

The bolded is not true. Several Board members obliquely mentioned "the diversity we seek" or something similar, and some asked whether or not the new processes would add enough Black and/or Hispanic students. Omeish texted the anti-Asian thing, seemingly in jest (that's what "lol" means for the uninitiated).

This is where you run up on the question of "because of" versus "in spite of".

Look at the discovery. Brabrand was saying one plan was better than another— based on mathematical modeling— because it would hit the racial “targets” he wanted.

Yep. And those racial targets were about an increase in underserved populations. Period.

There is zero doubt in my mind that if the new admissions process had resulted in 70% Asian, 10% white, 10% Black, and 10% Hispanic, that the School Board would have thrown a party and called it a great success.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Four things:

1. Where is the data for this year? My kid (white) went to TJ. Math is sequenced by semester, not by year. What is the math placement for this class vs prior classes? How many are Math 1, 2 or 2.5 vs 3+? And how did the grade distribution compare to prior years? That data exists. How many kids are on academic probation for being below 3.5 vs past years? How many kids have dropped back to base school vs prior years? English and Stats grade distributions should also be shared. That’s how you know if TJ is getting kids who can manage the work. Not rocket science.

2. This is disparate impact because Omeish and other SB members said they were using geography, SES and other soft factors as a proxy for race. You can get to DI without someone saying “the goal is to be racist”. But Omeish texted the quiet part out loud. P She really made this a disparate treatment case.

What a moron.

Also, if aren’t a lawyer, please stop talking about DI. It’s complicated and you are doing it wrong.

3. The existence of this litigation is not a shock. If the SB and TJ Admissions don’t have a Plan B in case they cannot use the current system, that is inexcusable negligence. It should not suddenly dawn on them on 4/20 that they have a problem and need a new system. They should have had a contingency for months.

Now, they’re incompetent, so they don’t. But, they should.

4. The stay will remain in place. FCPS should try again and this time STOP TEXTING. They won’t. And they will lose. I think there is a good chance that the full case is ultimately heard by SCOTUS.

I'm a lawyer but not a con law lawyer and I find all of this confusing. There does seem to be a genuine issue whether strict scrutiny will be/should be applied here. FWIW

No, a school cannot really run two simultaneous admissions processes, as the district court advised FCPS and as FCPS failed to do. That's just impossible. And they cannot run the old admissions process, as some seem to be advocating, because the tests are unavailable (the test results are likewise unavailable-- I suppose advocates think that all 2500 applicants should simply show up this Saturday at a building and take the (unavailable) old tests in order to somehow go forward with the old admissions process).

The stay is what Roberts is currently considering -- in another 5 years or so, I doubt this case will get to the Supreme Court again. The climate will have changed by then (I meant the educational and political climate but I guess also the planet's climate, too).

Agreed. People who believe that somehow another admissions process should be designed and implemented have no idea how admissions processes work, especially for large schools or for public schools. Judge Hilton was the first to make this insane assertion but he certainly won't be the last.

They could absolutely use grades and portions of the student profile sheets and to make the selections and pull out geographic preference (which hurts Asian kids in AAP centers) and experience factors from the score. They knew in the fall there could be an issue, so they could have administered a test, gotten recommendations or gathered other objective data. But yeah— it’s too late now. It’s the knowing a problem exists then ignoring it, then saying, we don’t have time to i it that’s crazy making.

A third admissions process side-by-side with the new admissions process. That's what you think is reasonable?

That's not the old process, it's a different one. It would also have been contested. You're right that your proposal is crazy making. Desiring two admissions processes has made you crazy.

The old admission process is gone. RIP. I want one plan, preferably based on merit and not race. But since EVERYONE KNEW THIS COULD HAPPEN, the SB needed a plan for when it did.

That plan - just you watch - is going to end up being a lottery.

At this point it will have to be. If they had planned for this in the fall, we wouldn’t be in this position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Four things:

1. Where is the data for this year? My kid (white) went to TJ. Math is sequenced by semester, not by year. What is the math placement for this class vs prior classes? How many are Math 1, 2 or 2.5 vs 3+? And how did the grade distribution compare to prior years? That data exists. How many kids are on academic probation for being below 3.5 vs past years? How many kids have dropped back to base school vs prior years? English and Stats grade distributions should also be shared. That’s how you know if TJ is getting kids who can manage the work. Not rocket science.

2. This is disparate impact because Omeish and other SB members said they were using geography, SES and other soft factors as a proxy for race. You can get to DI without someone saying “the goal is to be racist”. But Omeish texted the quiet part out loud. P She really made this a disparate treatment case.

What a moron.

Also, if aren’t a lawyer, please stop talking about DI. It’s complicated and you are doing it wrong.

3. The existence of this litigation is not a shock. If the SB and TJ Admissions don’t have a Plan B in case they cannot use the current system, that is inexcusable negligence. It should not suddenly dawn on them on 4/20 that they have a problem and need a new system. They should have had a contingency for months.

Now, they’re incompetent, so they don’t. But, they should.

4. The stay will remain in place. FCPS should try again and this time STOP TEXTING. They won’t. And they will lose. I think there is a good chance that the full case is ultimately heard by SCOTUS.

Oh the irony. I'm not a lawyer but my understanding of disparate treatment is that the action is not facially neutral, so the TJ admissions policy does not meet this standard. Facially neutral but discriminatory policies/practices fall under disparate impact. Disparate impact can be justified based on "business necessity", or "compelling public interest" in the case of government action. However, we know that racial preference can never be the basis for compelling public interest so the racist intent eliminates this defense under strict scrutiny standards.

And given that Brabrand and Omeish outright stated they were evaluating different plans based on how much they would decrease Asian student enrollment, they tip toed up to the edge of DT. Realize that not all DI violations are intentional. The classic being an unnecessary lifting requirement that ends up weeding out women, but wasn’t out there for that reason. It’s a DI claim. But it’s unusual to have such solid proof of racial animus in DI. In a classic case you’d get there much more indirectly.

And I don’t know how you avoid strict scrutiny on the basis of race and ethnicity.

As I understand it, applicants are anonymous. Including demographic information. I don't really see how you get to strict scrutiny, in that light.

Disparate impact cases are evaluated at strict scrutiny.

Yeah. Not sure this case is/should be evaluated with strict scrutiny. It's admittedly been years since con law but I don't think it's a sure thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Four things:

1. Where is the data for this year? My kid (white) went to TJ. Math is sequenced by semester, not by year. What is the math placement for this class vs prior classes? How many are Math 1, 2 or 2.5 vs 3+? And how did the grade distribution compare to prior years? That data exists. How many kids are on academic probation for being below 3.5 vs past years? How many kids have dropped back to base school vs prior years? English and Stats grade distributions should also be shared. That’s how you know if TJ is getting kids who can manage the work. Not rocket science.

2. This is disparate impact because Omeish and other SB members said they were using geography, SES and other soft factors as a proxy for race. You can get to DI without someone saying “the goal is to be racist”. But Omeish texted the quiet part out loud. P She really made this a disparate treatment case.

What a moron.

Also, if aren’t a lawyer, please stop talking about DI. It’s complicated and you are doing it wrong.

3. The existence of this litigation is not a shock. If the SB and TJ Admissions don’t have a Plan B in case they cannot use the current system, that is inexcusable negligence. It should not suddenly dawn on them on 4/20 that they have a problem and need a new system. They should have had a contingency for months.

Now, they’re incompetent, so they don’t. But, they should.

4. The stay will remain in place. FCPS should try again and this time STOP TEXTING. They won’t. And they will lose. I think there is a good chance that the full case is ultimately heard by SCOTUS.

Oh the irony. I'm not a lawyer but my understanding of disparate treatment is that the action is not facially neutral, so the TJ admissions policy does not meet this standard. Facially neutral but discriminatory policies/practices fall under disparate impact. Disparate impact can be justified based on "business necessity", or "compelling public interest" in the case of government action. However, we know that racial preference can never be the basis for compelling public interest so the racist intent eliminates this defense under strict scrutiny standards.

And given that Brabrand and Omeish outright stated they were evaluating different plans based on how much they would decrease Asian student enrollment, they tip toed up to the edge of DT. Realize that not all DI violations are intentional. The classic being an unnecessary lifting requirement that ends up weeding out women, but wasn’t out there for that reason. It’s a DI claim. But it’s unusual to have such solid proof of racial animus in DI. In a classic case you’d get there much more indirectly.

And I don’t know how you avoid strict scrutiny on the basis of race and ethnicity.

The bolded is not true. Several Board members obliquely mentioned "the diversity we seek" or something similar, and some asked whether or not the new processes would add enough Black and/or Hispanic students. Omeish texted the anti-Asian thing, seemingly in jest (that's what "lol" means for the uninitiated).

This is where you run up on the question of "because of" versus "in spite of".

Look at the discovery. Brabrand was saying one plan was better than another— based on mathematical modeling— because it would hit the racial “targets” he wanted.

Yep. And those racial targets were about an increase in underserved populations. Period.

There is zero doubt in my mind that if the new admissions process had resulted in 70% Asian, 10% white, 10% Black, and 10% Hispanic, that the School Board would have thrown a party and called it a great success.

That’s not what their texts and emails said. And the system was mathematically modeled to prevent that outcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Four things:

1. Where is the data for this year? My kid (white) went to TJ. Math is sequenced by semester, not by year. What is the math placement for this class vs prior classes? How many are Math 1, 2 or 2.5 vs 3+? And how did the grade distribution compare to prior years? That data exists. How many kids are on academic probation for being below 3.5 vs past years? How many kids have dropped back to base school vs prior years? English and Stats grade distributions should also be shared. That’s how you know if TJ is getting kids who can manage the work. Not rocket science.

2. This is disparate impact because Omeish and other SB members said they were using geography, SES and other soft factors as a proxy for race. You can get to DI without someone saying “the goal is to be racist”. But Omeish texted the quiet part out loud. P She really made this a disparate treatment case.

What a moron.

Also, if aren’t a lawyer, please stop talking about DI. It’s complicated and you are doing it wrong.

3. The existence of this litigation is not a shock. If the SB and TJ Admissions don’t have a Plan B in case they cannot use the current system, that is inexcusable negligence. It should not suddenly dawn on them on 4/20 that they have a problem and need a new system. They should have had a contingency for months.

Now, they’re incompetent, so they don’t. But, they should.

4. The stay will remain in place. FCPS should try again and this time STOP TEXTING. They won’t. And they will lose. I think there is a good chance that the full case is ultimately heard by SCOTUS.

I'm a lawyer but not a con law lawyer and I find all of this confusing. There does seem to be a genuine issue whether strict scrutiny will be/should be applied here. FWIW

No, a school cannot really run two simultaneous admissions processes, as the district court advised FCPS and as FCPS failed to do. That's just impossible. And they cannot run the old admissions process, as some seem to be advocating, because the tests are unavailable (the test results are likewise unavailable-- I suppose advocates think that all 2500 applicants should simply show up this Saturday at a building and take the (unavailable) old tests in order to somehow go forward with the old admissions process).

The stay is what Roberts is currently considering -- in another 5 years or so, I doubt this case will get to the Supreme Court again. The climate will have changed by then (I meant the educational and political climate but I guess also the planet's climate, too).

Agreed. People who believe that somehow another admissions process should be designed and implemented have no idea how admissions processes work, especially for large schools or for public schools. Judge Hilton was the first to make this insane assertion but he certainly won't be the last.

They could absolutely use grades and portions of the student profile sheets and to make the selections and pull out geographic preference (which hurts Asian kids in AAP centers) and experience factors from the score. They knew in the fall there could be an issue, so they could have administered a test, gotten recommendations or gathered other objective data. But yeah— it’s too late now. It’s the knowing a problem exists then ignoring it, then saying, we don’t have time to i it that’s crazy making.

A third admissions process side-by-side with the new admissions process. That's what you think is reasonable?

That's not the old process, it's a different one. It would also have been contested. You're right that your proposal is crazy making. Desiring two admissions processes has made you crazy.

The old admission process is gone. RIP. I want one plan, preferably based on merit and not race. But since EVERYONE KNEW THIS COULD HAPPEN, the SB needed a plan for when it did.

That plan - just you watch - is going to end up being a lottery.

At this point it will have to be. If they had planned for this in the fall, we wouldn’t be in this position.

Any "Plan B" third admissions process would have been contested just as this one was. You are wishing for an impossibility.