Federal judge rules that admissions changes at nation’s top public school discriminate against Asian

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What fraction of the score is the GPA?

The essays would reflect knowledge and insights gained from previous hardwork.

All kids applying are in an accelerated math path.

According to an earlier post on dcum, GPA is 200 points out of 1000, I believe. Essays are 800 points. Checking the free meals box gives 100 points. The essays were things like, "explain how you would advocate for yourself if you disagreed with a teacher's grade." The only technical essay asked something that an average 6th grader would have been able to answer. Kids with As in M7H and half of Algebra I (i.e. before any real math is even being assessed) were viewed as equals with kids who were in Algebra II Honors with As in all of Algebra I Honors, Geometry Honors, and half of Algebra II Honors (i.e. more than enough to prove their math chops).

What was the source for the scoring methodology? Is that public?

So was that all just BS or what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The other big reason why this case might set an important precedent is that it involves a “diversity” or “affirmative action” plan where the principal victims are Asian-Americans. Disproportionate effects on Asian-Americans have come up in other cases, most notably the currently ongoing litigation against Harvard’s affirmative action policies. But none of them involve targeting of Asian-Americans as blatant or as large-scale as in this case. And none involve a situation where it is so clear that the primary beneficiaries of the new policy will be whites, even though officials clearly also want to increase the percentage of African-Americans and Hispanics."

https://www.baconsrebellion.com/wp/tj-high-school-lawsuit-could-set-important-precedents/

The challenge with this precedent (if it ends up surviving appeal) is that it sets a standard whereby it's increasingly difficult to rectify any admissions process that is "facially neutral" if it has a "disparate impact" in the first place.

The old exam-based admissions process was every bit as "facially neutral" as the new one, and had a much greater "disparate impact" when measured against the applying population than the new one does by any mathematical standard of evaluation. But because it was pre-existing, and because the School Board was extremely clumsy in their implementation and communications, you ended up with the decision you had.

Imagine for a moment that TJ were a brand-new school and that its first incoming class were selected by this new process and that there were no problematic communications to look at - meaning that the process were to be evaluated on its own merit. Would it survive a legal challenge? I don't think Judge Hilton addressed this very important point at all in his opinion.

Why does he have to address a weird, irrelevant hypothetical question like that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The other big reason why this case might set an important precedent is that it involves a “diversity” or “affirmative action” plan where the principal victims are Asian-Americans. Disproportionate effects on Asian-Americans have come up in other cases, most notably the currently ongoing litigation against Harvard’s affirmative action policies. But none of them involve targeting of Asian-Americans as blatant or as large-scale as in this case. And none involve a situation where it is so clear that the primary beneficiaries of the new policy will be whites, even though officials clearly also want to increase the percentage of African-Americans and Hispanics."

https://www.baconsrebellion.com/wp/tj-high-school-lawsuit-could-set-important-precedents/

Maybe, maybe not. I don't think the facts support the judge's Order.

The opinion was fairly airtight. Admissions changes were racially motivated. The board made that fairly obvious from the onset. It just shows that we still have problems with racism in this country.

There’s no such thing as “fairly” airtight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The other big reason why this case might set an important precedent is that it involves a “diversity” or “affirmative action” plan where the principal victims are Asian-Americans. Disproportionate effects on Asian-Americans have come up in other cases, most notably the currently ongoing litigation against Harvard’s affirmative action policies. But none of them involve targeting of Asian-Americans as blatant or as large-scale as in this case. And none involve a situation where it is so clear that the primary beneficiaries of the new policy will be whites, even though officials clearly also want to increase the percentage of African-Americans and Hispanics."

https://www.baconsrebellion.com/wp/tj-high-school-lawsuit-could-set-important-precedents/

The challenge with this precedent (if it ends up surviving appeal) is that it sets a standard whereby it's increasingly difficult to rectify any admissions process that is "facially neutral" if it has a "disparate impact" in the first place.

The old exam-based admissions process was every bit as "facially neutral" as the new one, and had a much greater "disparate impact" when measured against the applying population than the new one does by any mathematical standard of evaluation. But because it was pre-existing, and because the School Board was extremely clumsy in their implementation and communications, you ended up with the decision you had.

Imagine for a moment that TJ were a brand-new school and that its first incoming class were selected by this new process and that there were no problematic communications to look at - meaning that the process were to be evaluated on its own merit. Would it survive a legal challenge? I don't think Judge Hilton addressed this very important point at all in his opinion.

Why does he have to address a weird, irrelevant hypothetical question like that?

Reject your premise that the question is weird or irrelevant. It is a hypothetical, but it gets at the core question, which is "Is the new admissions process, on its own, racially discriminatory?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ And they still are, to an enormous extent - although not quite as enormous as previously. They will always be if for no other reason than their extraordinary interest in the subject matter.

The fact that they are slightly less represented than previously in an attempt to invite other communities into the fold is neither racist nor oppressive.”

+1
Even with the new system Asian representation is almost triple their level in FCPS. and that is the system that is being complained about! The prior one seemed to yield slightly less than quadruple levels. Sorry that just does not scream “everything fine here! Nothing to see!”

Didn’t they also increase the class size? If so, what’s the impact on absolute numbers?

Recap of #s from 2024 to 2025:
+64 overall

+50 female
+14 male

+46 hispanic
+37 white
+29 black
+8 other/mixed
-56 asian

+142 from underrepresented MSs
-42 from "well"-represented MSs
-36 private school

+135 ED
-71 non-ED

Looking more at this...

For the feeder schools, there was only a 10% drop in numbers of admitted students from 408 to 366 (-42).

Seems like for the scale of the actual numbers (-10%) there seems to be a disproportionate response from these feeder school families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The other big reason why this case might set an important precedent is that it involves a “diversity” or “affirmative action” plan where the principal victims are Asian-Americans. Disproportionate effects on Asian-Americans have come up in other cases, most notably the currently ongoing litigation against Harvard’s affirmative action policies. But none of them involve targeting of Asian-Americans as blatant or as large-scale as in this case. And none involve a situation where it is so clear that the primary beneficiaries of the new policy will be whites, even though officials clearly also want to increase the percentage of African-Americans and Hispanics."

https://www.baconsrebellion.com/wp/tj-high-school-lawsuit-could-set-important-precedents/

The challenge with this precedent (if it ends up surviving appeal) is that it sets a standard whereby it's increasingly difficult to rectify any admissions process that is "facially neutral" if it has a "disparate impact" in the first place.

The old exam-based admissions process was every bit as "facially neutral" as the new one, and had a much greater "disparate impact" when measured against the applying population than the new one does by any mathematical standard of evaluation. But because it was pre-existing, and because the School Board was extremely clumsy in their implementation and communications, you ended up with the decision you had.

Imagine for a moment that TJ were a brand-new school and that its first incoming class were selected by this new process and that there were no problematic communications to look at - meaning that the process were to be evaluated on its own merit. Would it survive a legal challenge? I don't think Judge Hilton addressed this very important point at all in his opinion.

Why does he have to address a weird, irrelevant hypothetical question like that?

Reject your premise that the question is weird or irrelevant. It is a hypothetical, but it gets at the core question, which is "Is the new admissions process, on its own, racially discriminatory?"

Here is the other point from the article:

In this case, it will be very difficult for Fairfax County to show that they would have adopted the same policy even in the absence of the racial balancing goals that key officials openly said were their main objectives.

Combating this kind of “pretextual discrimination” is essential to enforcing constitutional guarantees against racial, ethnic, and religious discrimination. If courts turn a blind eye to such practices, it would be easy for government officials to target any group they want simply by focusing on some characteristic that correlates with membership in that group.

While there are many such pretextual discrimination rulings in cases involving traditional racial discrimination against minorities, we have not yet had a significant decision in a case where the challenged pretextual policy is an “affirmative action” seeking to promote “diversity” or racial balancing. The TJ case might fill that gap. And it could open the door to challenges to similar pretextually motivated policies, such as the Texas “Top Ten Percent Plan.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The other big reason why this case might set an important precedent is that it involves a “diversity” or “affirmative action” plan where the principal victims are Asian-Americans. Disproportionate effects on Asian-Americans have come up in other cases, most notably the currently ongoing litigation against Harvard’s affirmative action policies. But none of them involve targeting of Asian-Americans as blatant or as large-scale as in this case. And none involve a situation where it is so clear that the primary beneficiaries of the new policy will be whites, even though officials clearly also want to increase the percentage of African-Americans and Hispanics."

https://www.baconsrebellion.com/wp/tj-high-school-lawsuit-could-set-important-precedents/

The primary beneficiaries won't be white students unless they actually start applying to the school in greater numbers. They had a much smaller uptick in the class of 2025 than Black and Hispanic students did.

Are they not applying because the school is majority Asian and they not comfortable being a minority?

Haven't you heard the saying? In a college course, the rule of thumb is to drop the class if the class has 30% or more Asian students. They don't want to work too hard...

That's pretty much every class at any Engineering/CS program in a college that matters.. I don't think most people take that "rule" seriously. If they did, the class would be 80-90% Asian, wouldn't it.

Not just engineering/CS but the rule applies to math, physics, chemistry, biology, biochemistry etc. etc. After dropping once or twice, any requred classes must be taken sooner or later to graduate. Stop "Gaming" the system you non-Asian students you.

Ain' nutin free - stop being lazy bums. Do better. Stop askin for handouts.

+1

White people asking for handouts after having so many advantages is hilarious

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The other big reason why this case might set an important precedent is that it involves a “diversity” or “affirmative action” plan where the principal victims are Asian-Americans. Disproportionate effects on Asian-Americans have come up in other cases, most notably the currently ongoing litigation against Harvard’s affirmative action policies. But none of them involve targeting of Asian-Americans as blatant or as large-scale as in this case. And none involve a situation where it is so clear that the primary beneficiaries of the new policy will be whites, even though officials clearly also want to increase the percentage of African-Americans and Hispanics."

https://www.baconsrebellion.com/wp/tj-high-school-lawsuit-could-set-important-precedents/

The primary beneficiaries won't be white students unless they actually start applying to the school in greater numbers. They had a much smaller uptick in the class of 2025 than Black and Hispanic students did.

Are they not applying because the school is majority Asian and they not comfortable being a minority?

Haven't you heard the saying? In a college course, the rule of thumb is to drop the class if the class has 30% or more Asian students. They don't want to work too hard...

That's pretty much every class at any Engineering/CS program in a college that matters.. I don't think most people take that "rule" seriously. If they did, the class would be 80-90% Asian, wouldn't it.

Have you seen PhD program percentages in any top school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The other big reason why this case might set an important precedent is that it involves a “diversity” or “affirmative action” plan where the principal victims are Asian-Americans. Disproportionate effects on Asian-Americans have come up in other cases, most notably the currently ongoing litigation against Harvard’s affirmative action policies. But none of them involve targeting of Asian-Americans as blatant or as large-scale as in this case. And none involve a situation where it is so clear that the primary beneficiaries of the new policy will be whites, even though officials clearly also want to increase the percentage of African-Americans and Hispanics."

https://www.baconsrebellion.com/wp/tj-high-school-lawsuit-could-set-important-precedents/

The primary beneficiaries won't be white students unless they actually start applying to the school in greater numbers. They had a much smaller uptick in the class of 2025 than Black and Hispanic students did.

Are they not applying because the school is majority Asian and they not comfortable being a minority?

Haven't you heard the saying? In a college course, the rule of thumb is to drop the class if the class has 30% or more Asian students. They don't want to work too hard...

Let's point out a important point here. The Black community in Fairfax can mobilize and protest race issues, as they did with the hiring of the Fairfax Police Chief, where black pastors lead the charge. Notice that you did not see ANY Black protests or agitation on this issue. The agitators leading effort for reform where white, even Fairfax NAACP is majority white and serves as their mouthpiece. Their initial proposal was the merit lottery that would make TJ white again. It was only due to resistance from the Coalition that led to the new process the judge threw out. This was a white liberal hit on Asians. They haven't gone anywhere and they will try something else.

There is no truth to this assertion. The groups that were involved in the admissions reform would have been thrilled had the result of the changes been a class that was 70% Asian, 10% white, 10% Black, and 10% Hispanic. Especially if it had come along with the same changes as far as economically disadvantaged students.

The whole "white beneficiaries" thing is a red herring that is designed to elicit sympathy from progressives. It's effective, but it has no basis in reality. C4TJ attempted to put out a study that suggested that the merit lottery proposal (which I hated, btw) would have resulted in a class that was plurality-white at something like 44% - but it presumed that EVERY student eligible in the catchment areas would apply to TJ - something like 9000 applicants. There is NO stakeholder in this process who is interested in more white students at TJ.

You last statement is an outright lie!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The other big reason why this case might set an important precedent is that it involves a “diversity” or “affirmative action” plan where the principal victims are Asian-Americans. Disproportionate effects on Asian-Americans have come up in other cases, most notably the currently ongoing litigation against Harvard’s affirmative action policies. But none of them involve targeting of Asian-Americans as blatant or as large-scale as in this case. And none involve a situation where it is so clear that the primary beneficiaries of the new policy will be whites, even though officials clearly also want to increase the percentage of African-Americans and Hispanics."

https://www.baconsrebellion.com/wp/tj-high-school-lawsuit-could-set-important-precedents/

The challenge with this precedent (if it ends up surviving appeal) is that it sets a standard whereby it's increasingly difficult to rectify any admissions process that is "facially neutral" if it has a "disparate impact" in the first place.

The old exam-based admissions process was every bit as "facially neutral" as the new one, and had a much greater "disparate impact" when measured against the applying population than the new one does by any mathematical standard of evaluation. But because it was pre-existing, and because the School Board was extremely clumsy in their implementation and communications, you ended up with the decision you had.

Imagine for a moment that TJ were a brand-new school and that its first incoming class were selected by this new process and that there were no problematic communications to look at - meaning that the process were to be evaluated on its own merit. Would it survive a legal challenge? I don't think Judge Hilton addressed this very important point at all in his opinion.

Why does he have to address a weird, irrelevant hypothetical question like that?

Reject your premise that the question is weird or irrelevant. It is a hypothetical, but it gets at the core question, which is "Is the new admissions process, on its own, racially discriminatory?"

You are either a moron or a tool to suggest that the core question is one that completely overlooks the motivations of the 12 Democrats on the FCPS School Board for changing the TJ admissions process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The other big reason why this case might set an important precedent is that it involves a “diversity” or “affirmative action” plan where the principal victims are Asian-Americans. Disproportionate effects on Asian-Americans have come up in other cases, most notably the currently ongoing litigation against Harvard’s affirmative action policies. But none of them involve targeting of Asian-Americans as blatant or as large-scale as in this case. And none involve a situation where it is so clear that the primary beneficiaries of the new policy will be whites, even though officials clearly also want to increase the percentage of African-Americans and Hispanics."

https://www.baconsrebellion.com/wp/tj-high-school-lawsuit-could-set-important-precedents/

The challenge with this precedent (if it ends up surviving appeal) is that it sets a standard whereby it's increasingly difficult to rectify any admissions process that is "facially neutral" if it has a "disparate impact" in the first place.

The old exam-based admissions process was every bit as "facially neutral" as the new one, and had a much greater "disparate impact" when measured against the applying population than the new one does by any mathematical standard of evaluation. But because it was pre-existing, and because the School Board was extremely clumsy in their implementation and communications, you ended up with the decision you had.

Imagine for a moment that TJ were a brand-new school and that its first incoming class were selected by this new process and that there were no problematic communications to look at - meaning that the process were to be evaluated on its own merit. Would it survive a legal challenge? I don't think Judge Hilton addressed this very important point at all in his opinion.

Why does he have to address a weird, irrelevant hypothetical question like that?

Reject your premise that the question is weird or irrelevant. It is a hypothetical, but it gets at the core question, which is "Is the new admissions process, on its own, racially discriminatory?"

Here is the other point from the article:

In this case, it will be very difficult for Fairfax County to show that they would have adopted the same policy even in the absence of the racial balancing goals that key officials openly said were their main objectives.

Combating this kind of “pretextual discrimination” is essential to enforcing constitutional guarantees against racial, ethnic, and religious discrimination. If courts turn a blind eye to such practices, it would be easy for government officials to target any group they want simply by focusing on some characteristic that correlates with membership in that group.

While there are many such pretextual discrimination rulings in cases involving traditional racial discrimination against minorities, we have not yet had a significant decision in a case where the challenged pretextual policy is an “affirmative action” seeking to promote “diversity” or racial balancing. The TJ case might fill that gap. And it could open the door to challenges to similar pretextually motivated policies, such as the Texas “Top Ten Percent Plan.”

Another way to say this is “It will be impossible to rectify any system that is inherently racist, because the advantaged group will claim their rights are infringed”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The other big reason why this case might set an important precedent is that it involves a “diversity” or “affirmative action” plan where the principal victims are Asian-Americans. Disproportionate effects on Asian-Americans have come up in other cases, most notably the currently ongoing litigation against Harvard’s affirmative action policies. But none of them involve targeting of Asian-Americans as blatant or as large-scale as in this case. And none involve a situation where it is so clear that the primary beneficiaries of the new policy will be whites, even though officials clearly also want to increase the percentage of African-Americans and Hispanics."

https://www.baconsrebellion.com/wp/tj-high-school-lawsuit-could-set-important-precedents/

The primary beneficiaries won't be white students unless they actually start applying to the school in greater numbers. They had a much smaller uptick in the class of 2025 than Black and Hispanic students did.

Are they not applying because the school is majority Asian and they not comfortable being a minority?

Haven't you heard the saying? In a college course, the rule of thumb is to drop the class if the class has 30% or more Asian students. They don't want to work too hard...

Let's point out a important point here. The Black community in Fairfax can mobilize and protest race issues, as they did with the hiring of the Fairfax Police Chief, where black pastors lead the charge. Notice that you did not see ANY Black protests or agitation on this issue. The agitators leading effort for reform where white, even Fairfax NAACP is majority white and serves as their mouthpiece. Their initial proposal was the merit lottery that would make TJ white again. It was only due to resistance from the Coalition that led to the new process the judge threw out. This was a white liberal hit on Asians. They haven't gone anywhere and they will try something else.

There is no truth to this assertion. The groups that were involved in the admissions reform would have been thrilled had the result of the changes been a class that was 70% Asian, 10% white, 10% Black, and 10% Hispanic. Especially if it had come along with the same changes as far as economically disadvantaged students.

The whole "white beneficiaries" thing is a red herring that is designed to elicit sympathy from progressives. It's effective, but it has no basis in reality. C4TJ attempted to put out a study that suggested that the merit lottery proposal (which I hated, btw) would have resulted in a class that was plurality-white at something like 44% - but it presumed that EVERY student eligible in the catchment areas would apply to TJ - something like 9000 applicants. There is NO stakeholder in this process who is interested in more white students at TJ.

Let's call out that lie. Recall Michelle Leete's 'Let Them Die' speech? That was in front of a crowd of the white and woke. Not a black one. There wasn't any black leadership stoking the fires for this process. It was led by white wokies in cosplay as black revolutionarios.

[Anonymous]

In Loudoun at the school board meeting, an official said a motivation of the changes was to admit 'more black and brown kids'. Looks like their lawyer did a better job, as later in the presentation they put up a slide that said 'geography is not being used as a proxy for race.' explaining they needed that for legal reasons. Apparently that was enough to survive a court challenge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The other big reason why this case might set an important precedent is that it involves a “diversity” or “affirmative action” plan where the principal victims are Asian-Americans. Disproportionate effects on Asian-Americans have come up in other cases, most notably the currently ongoing litigation against Harvard’s affirmative action policies. But none of them involve targeting of Asian-Americans as blatant or as large-scale as in this case. And none involve a situation where it is so clear that the primary beneficiaries of the new policy will be whites, even though officials clearly also want to increase the percentage of African-Americans and Hispanics."

https://www.baconsrebellion.com/wp/tj-high-school-lawsuit-could-set-important-precedents/

The primary beneficiaries won't be white students unless they actually start applying to the school in greater numbers. They had a much smaller uptick in the class of 2025 than Black and Hispanic students did.

Are they not applying because the school is majority Asian and they not comfortable being a minority?

Haven't you heard the saying? In a college course, the rule of thumb is to drop the class if the class has 30% or more Asian students. They don't want to work too hard...

Let's point out a important point here. The Black community in Fairfax can mobilize and protest race issues, as they did with the hiring of the Fairfax Police Chief, where black pastors lead the charge. Notice that you did not see ANY Black protests or agitation on this issue. The agitators leading effort for reform where white, even Fairfax NAACP is majority white and serves as their mouthpiece. Their initial proposal was the merit lottery that would make TJ white again. It was only due to resistance from the Coalition that led to the new process the judge threw out. This was a white liberal hit on Asians. They haven't gone anywhere and they will try something else.

There is no truth to this assertion. The groups that were involved in the admissions reform would have been thrilled had the result of the changes been a class that was 70% Asian, 10% white, 10% Black, and 10% Hispanic. Especially if it had come along with the same changes as far as economically disadvantaged students.

The whole "white beneficiaries" thing is a red herring that is designed to elicit sympathy from progressives. It's effective, but it has no basis in reality. C4TJ attempted to put out a study that suggested that the merit lottery proposal (which I hated, btw) would have resulted in a class that was plurality-white at something like 44% - but it presumed that EVERY student eligible in the catchment areas would apply to TJ - something like 9000 applicants. There is NO stakeholder in this process who is interested in more white students at TJ.

Let's call out that lie. Recall Michelle Leete's 'Let Them Die' speech? That was in front of a crowd of the white and woke. Not a black one. There wasn't any black leadership stoking the fires for this process. It was led by white wokies in cosplay as black revolutionarios.

Yes, the ideals that drive parents to disrespect teachers and schools should die.

Who exactly are these white stakeholders pushing for more white people at TJ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The other big reason why this case might set an important precedent is that it involves a “diversity” or “affirmative action” plan where the principal victims are Asian-Americans. Disproportionate effects on Asian-Americans have come up in other cases, most notably the currently ongoing litigation against Harvard’s affirmative action policies. But none of them involve targeting of Asian-Americans as blatant or as large-scale as in this case. And none involve a situation where it is so clear that the primary beneficiaries of the new policy will be whites, even though officials clearly also want to increase the percentage of African-Americans and Hispanics."

https://www.baconsrebellion.com/wp/tj-high-school-lawsuit-could-set-important-precedents/

The challenge with this precedent (if it ends up surviving appeal) is that it sets a standard whereby it's increasingly difficult to rectify any admissions process that is "facially neutral" if it has a "disparate impact" in the first place.

The old exam-based admissions process was every bit as "facially neutral" as the new one, and had a much greater "disparate impact" when measured against the applying population than the new one does by any mathematical standard of evaluation. But because it was pre-existing, and because the School Board was extremely clumsy in their implementation and communications, you ended up with the decision you had.

Imagine for a moment that TJ were a brand-new school and that its first incoming class were selected by this new process and that there were no problematic communications to look at - meaning that the process were to be evaluated on its own merit. Would it survive a legal challenge? I don't think Judge Hilton addressed this very important point at all in his opinion.

Why does he have to address a weird, irrelevant hypothetical question like that?

Reject your premise that the question is weird or irrelevant. It is a hypothetical, but it gets at the core question, which is "Is the new admissions process, on its own, racially discriminatory?"

Here is the other point from the article:

In this case, it will be very difficult for Fairfax County to show that they would have adopted the same policy even in the absence of the racial balancing goals that key officials openly said were their main objectives.

Combating this kind of “pretextual discrimination” is essential to enforcing constitutional guarantees against racial, ethnic, and religious discrimination. If courts turn a blind eye to such practices, it would be easy for government officials to target any group they want simply by focusing on some characteristic that correlates with membership in that group.

While there are many such pretextual discrimination rulings in cases involving traditional racial discrimination against minorities, we have not yet had a significant decision in a case where the challenged pretextual policy is an “affirmative action” seeking to promote “diversity” or racial balancing. The TJ case might fill that gap. And it could open the door to challenges to similar pretextually motivated policies, such as the Texas “Top Ten Percent Plan.”

Another way to say this is “It will be impossible to rectify any system that is inherently racist, because the advantaged group will claim their rights are infringed”.

Yes, the entitled parents think they are entitled.