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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone knows FCPS response to Roberts' request that was due on Wednesday?

Link shared on page 34. As expected, the argument runs along the line of showing the applicant-vs-offered ratio, completely ignoring the fact that the new policy disqualifies previously eligible Asians from applying in the first place.

Who precisely is disqualified from even applying as a result of the new admissions process? That's a new take.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And the Republicans are sweeping in to leverage Asian American discontent. 15 states’ AGs supporting Miyares.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/virginia-attorney-general-supreme-court-race-based-high-school-admissions

Self inflicted D wound.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like Republicans are only going to chip away at the traditional Asian-American support for Democrats among certain segments - primarily some (not all) of the higher-income Indian, Chinese, and Korean-American voters. If anything, it seems like more middle and low-income Vietnamese, Filipino, and Pakistani kids will probably get into TJ under the new policy, especially given that the size of the TJ classes were expanded to 550 students.

Keep hoping. TJ is just one issue. Asians have been subject to increased street crimes in the Pandemic years and graphic images of grandmothers being beaten up are etched in people’ minds. The law and order message will resonate with Asians of all ethnicities as well.

“Law and order” messages are nearly always crafted with the intent of weaponizing racial animus against Black and Hispanic people.

So yes, it would not surprise me if those resonate with a certain segment of Asian-Americans given what you hear from parent groups at TJ.

Hispanic people are keeping the Rs in power in FL. I don’t think the Ds are a great judge of what Hispanics want anymore.

False. White people and Cubans are keeping Rs in power in Florida. Cubans are uniquely vulnerable to anti-socialism messaging because of their experiences with the Castro regime.

Lol, what a word choice.

It was intentional. Much of conservative messaging has the heavy lift of convincing people to act against their self-interest at the voting booth.

This is a real elitist response - that they’re dumb and you know better than them about what good for them. Or maybe you should consider you don’t understand blue collar workers and maybe the Ds aren’t offering them anything they want.

PP. The Ds are focusing on the wrong aspects of their platform in messaging and are getting pounded by Rs who understand that fear is the greatest motivator and will cause people to overestimate threats against their safety - or in this case, their education preferences - in order to vote against their total self-interest.

Case in point: one of the two complainants identified by the Coalition as being irreparably harmed by the new admissions process has two other daughters - one of whom was admitted by the old admissions process, the other of whom was admitted by the new admissions process. You can't make this stuff up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And the Republicans are sweeping in to leverage Asian American discontent. 15 states’ AGs supporting Miyares.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/virginia-attorney-general-supreme-court-race-based-high-school-admissions

Self inflicted D wound.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like Republicans are only going to chip away at the traditional Asian-American support for Democrats among certain segments - primarily some (not all) of the higher-income Indian, Chinese, and Korean-American voters. If anything, it seems like more middle and low-income Vietnamese, Filipino, and Pakistani kids will probably get into TJ under the new policy, especially given that the size of the TJ classes were expanded to 550 students.

Keep hoping. TJ is just one issue. Asians have been subject to increased street crimes in the Pandemic years and graphic images of grandmothers being beaten up are etched in people’ minds. The law and order message will resonate with Asians of all ethnicities as well.

“Law and order” messages are nearly always crafted with the intent of weaponizing racial animus against Black and Hispanic people.

So yes, it would not surprise me if those resonate with a certain segment of Asian-Americans given what you hear from parent groups at TJ.

Hispanic people are keeping the Rs in power in FL. I don’t think the Ds are a great judge of what Hispanics want anymore.

False. White people and Cubans are keeping Rs in power in Florida. Cubans are uniquely vulnerable to anti-socialism messaging because of their experiences with the Castro regime.

Lol, what a word choice.

It was intentional. Much of conservative messaging has the heavy lift of convincing people to act against their self-interest at the voting booth.

This is a real elitist response - that they’re dumb and you know better than them about what good for them. Or maybe you should consider you don’t understand blue collar workers and maybe the Ds aren’t offering them anything they want.

PP. The Ds are focusing on the wrong aspects of their platform in messaging and are getting pounded by Rs who understand that fear is the greatest motivator and will cause people to overestimate threats against their safety - or in this case, their education preferences - in order to vote against their total self-interest.

Case in point: one of the two complainants identified by the Coalition as being irreparably harmed by the new admissions process has two other daughters - one of whom was admitted by the old admissions process, the other of whom was admitted by the new admissions process. You can't make this stuff up.

THey should just go full on lottery and put an end to all of this complaining.

[Anonymous]

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.

While it is tough to know for sure, my thought is that the Court is looking for support from the school to deny any relief, not the other way around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone knows FCPS response to Roberts' request that was due on Wednesday?

Link shared on page 34. As expected, the argument runs along the line of showing the applicant-vs-offered ratio, completely ignoring the fact that the new policy disqualifies previously eligible Asians from applying in the first place.

There's a lot more to it than that. They are also point out that the UT plan that the Court has endorsed and the California constitutional amendment banning race based admissions are both unconstitutional under the District Court's standards

Yea, but it's unconvincing. Hilton's opinion doesn't hinge only on disparate impact, but established racist intent based on board communications and publicly-available plan documentation. Hilton was very clear that disparate impact was only the "starting point". It does not stand alone. To characterize this as the only salient observation on Hilton's part is mischaracterizing his opinion. Even the board's own argument is self-contradictory on this point because if disparate impact alone cannot establish the unconstitutionality of their actions, then how is it meaningful to try and prove that there was no disparate impact? The answer is that they know it's only the starting point, and that bickering about the standard for establishing disparate impact serves to distract from the real issue of racist intent.

Personally, I don't believe any "diversity" goals that use race as a metric is constitutional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone knows FCPS response to Roberts' request that was due on Wednesday?

Link shared on page 34. As expected, the argument runs along the line of showing the applicant-vs-offered ratio, completely ignoring the fact that the new policy disqualifies previously eligible Asians from applying in the first place.

There's a lot more to it than that. They are also point out that the UT plan that the Court has endorsed and the California constitutional amendment banning race based admissions are both unconstitutional under the District Court's standards

Yea, but it's unconvincing. Hilton's opinion doesn't hinge only on disparate impact, but established racist intent based on board communications and publicly-available plan documentation. Hilton was very clear that disparate impact was only the "starting point". It does not stand alone. To characterize this as the only salient observation on Hilton's part is mischaracterizing his opinion. Even the board's own argument is self-contradictory on this point because if disparate impact alone cannot establish the unconstitutionality of their actions, then how is it meaningful to try and prove that there was no disparate impact? The answer is that they know it's only the starting point, and that bickering about the standard for establishing disparate impact serves to distract from the real issue of racist intent.

Personally, I don't believe any "diversity" goals that use race as a metric is constitutional.

If that's the standard, the the California amendment and UT systems both fall. Both systems had a racial motivation (easily demonstrated through on the record statements) and both achieved their relative goals

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone knows FCPS response to Roberts' request that was due on Wednesday?

Link shared on page 34. As expected, the argument runs along the line of showing the applicant-vs-offered ratio, completely ignoring the fact that the new policy disqualifies previously eligible Asians from applying in the first place.

Who precisely is disqualified from even applying as a result of the new admissions process? That's a new take.

The previously qualified Asians are not eligible to apply for one of the allocated seats because the allocation rule blocks them from applying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone knows FCPS response to Roberts' request that was due on Wednesday?

Link shared on page 34. As expected, the argument runs along the line of showing the applicant-vs-offered ratio, completely ignoring the fact that the new policy disqualifies previously eligible Asians from applying in the first place.

There's a lot more to it than that. They are also point out that the UT plan that the Court has endorsed and the California constitutional amendment banning race based admissions are both unconstitutional under the District Court's standards

Yea, but it's unconvincing. Hilton's opinion doesn't hinge only on disparate impact, but established racist intent based on board communications and publicly-available plan documentation. Hilton was very clear that disparate impact was only the "starting point". It does not stand alone. To characterize this as the only salient observation on Hilton's part is mischaracterizing his opinion. Even the board's own argument is self-contradictory on this point because if disparate impact alone cannot establish the unconstitutionality of their actions, then how is it meaningful to try and prove that there was no disparate impact? The answer is that they know it's only the starting point, and that bickering about the standard for establishing disparate impact serves to distract from the real issue of racist intent.

Personally, I don't believe any "diversity" goals that use race as a metric is constitutional.

You've said this before. Your opinion is as valid as anyone's but that's not the law. Not as it is currently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone knows FCPS response to Roberts' request that was due on Wednesday?

Link shared on page 34. As expected, the argument runs along the line of showing the applicant-vs-offered ratio, completely ignoring the fact that the new policy disqualifies previously eligible Asians from applying in the first place.

Who precisely is disqualified from even applying as a result of the new admissions process? That's a new take.

The previously qualified Asians are not eligible to apply for one of the allocated seats because the allocation rule blocks them from applying.

If you're complaint is geographical allocation, that's legal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone knows FCPS response to Roberts' request that was due on Wednesday?

Link shared on page 34. As expected, the argument runs along the line of showing the applicant-vs-offered ratio, completely ignoring the fact that the new policy disqualifies previously eligible Asians from applying in the first place.

There's a lot more to it than that. They are also point out that the UT plan that the Court has endorsed and the California constitutional amendment banning race based admissions are both unconstitutional under the District Court's standards

Yea, but it's unconvincing. Hilton's opinion doesn't hinge only on disparate impact, but established racist intent based on board communications and publicly-available plan documentation. Hilton was very clear that disparate impact was only the "starting point". It does not stand alone. To characterize this as the only salient observation on Hilton's part is mischaracterizing his opinion. Even the board's own argument is self-contradictory on this point because if disparate impact alone cannot establish the unconstitutionality of their actions, then how is it meaningful to try and prove that there was no disparate impact? The answer is that they know it's only the starting point, and that bickering about the standard for establishing disparate impact serves to distract from the real issue of racist intent.

Personally, I don't believe any "diversity" goals that use race as a metric is constitutional.

If that's the standard, the the California amendment and UT systems both fall. Both systems had a racial motivation (easily demonstrated through on the record statements) and both achieved their relative goals

Not sure about the UT systems rule but California proposition 209 eliminates race as a metric for consideration. I think you are playing games with the logic here. Identifying that there is a racist policy and pointing out its effect is not the same as using race as a metric to enact policy to discriminate on the basis of race (or a proxy for race).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone knows FCPS response to Roberts' request that was due on Wednesday?

Link shared on page 34. As expected, the argument runs along the line of showing the applicant-vs-offered ratio, completely ignoring the fact that the new policy disqualifies previously eligible Asians from applying in the first place.

Who precisely is disqualified from even applying as a result of the new admissions process? That's a new take.

The previously qualified Asians are not eligible to apply for one of the allocated seats because the allocation rule blocks them from applying.

If you're complaint is geographical allocation, that's legal

Sigh, here we go again. A facially neutral policy is illegal if it has a disparate impact and is motivated by racist intent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone knows FCPS response to Roberts' request that was due on Wednesday?

Link shared on page 34. As expected, the argument runs along the line of showing the applicant-vs-offered ratio, completely ignoring the fact that the new policy disqualifies previously eligible Asians from applying in the first place.

There's a lot more to it than that. They are also point out that the UT plan that the Court has endorsed and the California constitutional amendment banning race based admissions are both unconstitutional under the District Court's standards

Yea, but it's unconvincing. Hilton's opinion doesn't hinge only on disparate impact, but established racist intent based on board communications and publicly-available plan documentation. Hilton was very clear that disparate impact was only the "starting point". It does not stand alone. To characterize this as the only salient observation on Hilton's part is mischaracterizing his opinion. Even the board's own argument is self-contradictory on this point because if disparate impact alone cannot establish the unconstitutionality of their actions, then how is it meaningful to try and prove that there was no disparate impact? The answer is that they know it's only the starting point, and that bickering about the standard for establishing disparate impact serves to distract from the real issue of racist intent.

Personally, I don't believe any "diversity" goals that use race as a metric is constitutional.

You've said this before. Your opinion is as valid as anyone's but that's not the law. Not as it is currently.

I agree with this point. I'm hoping the current SCOTUS will change this once and for all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone knows FCPS response to Roberts' request that was due on Wednesday?

Link shared on page 34. As expected, the argument runs along the line of showing the applicant-vs-offered ratio, completely ignoring the fact that the new policy disqualifies previously eligible Asians from applying in the first place.

Who precisely is disqualified from even applying as a result of the new admissions process? That's a new take.

The previously qualified Asians are not eligible to apply for one of the allocated seats because the allocation rule blocks them from applying.

That's completely false. The allocation rule doesn't block anyone at all from applying. What makes you think that it does? The only thing that the allocation rule does is it makes students from previous "feeder" schools - which are still very much "feeder" schools, by the way - slightly less likely to gain admission than they were previously. But in no way are they enjoined from being a part of the application process.

Asian students from other non-feeder schools now have a significantly higher chance to get in than they did previously, and only two of the schools impacted - Carson and Rocky Run - are plurality (not even majority) Asian.

The new process vastly improved access to TJ for thousands of Asian students across FCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone knows FCPS response to Roberts' request that was due on Wednesday?

Link shared on page 34. As expected, the argument runs along the line of showing the applicant-vs-offered ratio, completely ignoring the fact that the new policy disqualifies previously eligible Asians from applying in the first place.

Who precisely is disqualified from even applying as a result of the new admissions process? That's a new take.

The previously qualified Asians are not eligible to apply for one of the allocated seats because the allocation rule blocks them from applying.

If you're complaint is geographical allocation, that's legal

Sigh, here we go again. A facially neutral policy is illegal if it has a disparate impact and is motivated by racist intent.

If the standard for racist intent is a knowledge that a group will fare worse under a policy, previously regimes that the Supreme Court has signed off on become unconstitutional

[Anonymous]

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.

While it is tough to know for sure, my thought is that the Court is looking for support from the school to deny any relief, not the other way around.

Eh? How did you come to this conclusion? Roberts is well known to be very hostile to affirmative action and similar practices.