New TJ Lawsuit Filed 3/10/21 by Pacific Legal Foundation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't imagine standing at the school house door telling a group of people that there are too many of them who are gifted and academically high achievers, so we are not going to accept their children into our program, even when we know they're deserving and qualified.

arguments like this are why fewer and fewer people sympathize with the folks running the poorly-named "coalition for tj". this is literally the best they can do, is some emotional appeal that borrows language from the civil rights movement as if having a smaller percentage of kids at tj is somehow comparable to being barred from receiving public education

The ignorance in this rebuttal is jaw-dropping. Is this appeal to emotion the best you can do? I mean you're literally doing exactly what you're accusing that other poster of doing.

nonsense reply, -1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't imagine standing at the school house door telling a group of people that there are too many of them who are gifted and academically high achievers, so we are not going to accept their children into our program, even when we know they're deserving and qualified.

arguments like this are why fewer and fewer people sympathize with the folks running the poorly-named "coalition for tj". this is literally the best they can do, is some emotional appeal that borrows language from the civil rights movement as if having a smaller percentage of kids at tj is somehow comparable to being barred from receiving public education

The ignorance in this rebuttal is jaw-dropping. Is this appeal to emotion the best you can do? I mean you're literally doing exactly what you're accusing that other poster of doing.

nonsense reply, -1

nonsense deflection, -1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't imagine standing at the school house door telling a group of people that there are too many of them who are gifted and academically high achievers, so we are not going to accept their children into our program, even when we know they're deserving and qualified.

It would be abhorrent if that were happening. What is actually happening is that people are standing at the school house door saying "there are groups of people who are systematically excluded from this school but who are also gifted and academically high achievers, and we are going to make room for them in part by expanding the overall size of each incoming class".

Again, just because it impacts you doesn't mean it's about you.

If you go from a policy which allows a particular group to assert its rights to one which does not allow them to assert its rights, AND a policy disproportionately affects that group, AND preexisting racism against that group exists, then that unambiguously allows for racism directed against that group, which basically guarantees that racism is a motive. Just because not about you to everyone doesn't mean it's not about you.

OK, what rights are not allowed to be asserted?

Weird, am I the only one who sees the subject line of this post which says that it's so obvious that there's been a lawsuit filed over it? I thought we were past the point of common forum social engineering where someone could just get away with pretending that they don't know what's going on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't imagine standing at the school house door telling a group of people that there are too many of them who are gifted and academically high achievers, so we are not going to accept their children into our program, even when we know they're deserving and qualified.

It would be abhorrent if that were happening. What is actually happening is that people are standing at the school house door saying "there are groups of people who are systematically excluded from this school but who are also gifted and academically high achievers, and we are going to make room for them in part by expanding the overall size of each incoming class".

Again, just because it impacts you doesn't mean it's about you.

If you go from a policy which allows a particular group to assert its rights to one which does not allow them to assert its rights, AND a policy disproportionately affects that group, AND preexisting racism against that group exists, then that unambiguously allows for racism directed against that group, which basically guarantees that racism is a motive. Just because not about you to everyone doesn't mean it's not about you.

OK, what rights are not allowed to be asserted?

Weird, am I the only one who sees the subject line of this post which says that it's so obvious that there's been a lawsuit filed over it? I thought we were past the point of common forum social engineering where someone could just get away with pretending that they don't know what's going on.

The dominant argument in this thread is that the lawsuit is without merit, which is exactly what the question PP asked is driving at. There hasn’t been a good answer to it yet. The filing of a lawsuit does not entitle the complainant to a presumption of legitimacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't imagine standing at the school house door telling a group of people that there are too many of them who are gifted and academically high achievers, so we are not going to accept their children into our program, even when we know they're deserving and qualified.

It would be abhorrent if that were happening. What is actually happening is that people are standing at the school house door saying "there are groups of people who are systematically excluded from this school but who are also gifted and academically high achievers, and we are going to make room for them in part by expanding the overall size of each incoming class".

Again, just because it impacts you doesn't mean it's about you.

If you go from a policy which allows a particular group to assert its rights to one which does not allow them to assert its rights, AND a policy disproportionately affects that group, AND preexisting racism against that group exists, then that unambiguously allows for racism directed against that group, which basically guarantees that racism is a motive. Just because not about you to everyone doesn't mean it's not about you.

OK, what rights are not allowed to be asserted?

Weird, am I the only one who sees the subject line of this post which says that it's so obvious that there's been a lawsuit filed over it? I thought we were past the point of common forum social engineering where someone could just get away with pretending that they don't know what's going on.

The dominant argument in this thread is that the lawsuit is without merit, which is exactly what the question PP asked is driving at. There hasn’t been a good answer to it yet. The filing of a lawsuit does not entitle the complainant to a presumption of legitimacy.

Yeah, but it's hardly a legitimate challenge. As we all know, every human on the planted is subject to unreasonable boredom when faced with excessive triviality. Kids who are "advanced" are no different, they just hit that threshold far sooner. An advanced program like TJ is a relief for those students which allows them to get an appropriate education rather than suffering through it while diminishing their abilities. Eliminating means by which such kids can qualify on their merits and switching to holistic means takes the power to ensure that they get an appropriate education out of their hands.

This should be common knowledge to anyone discussing the lawsuit which makes challenges along the lines of "ok, what rights are not allowed to be asserted" frivolous and in bad faith. Obviously people who have a history of being objectively wrong about things and a history of objectively harmful abuses would prefer to remove objectivity from the school system; that's not a question. It doesn't make it the right thing to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't imagine standing at the school house door telling a group of people that there are too many of them who are gifted and academically high achievers, so we are not going to accept their children into our program, even when we know they're deserving and qualified.

It would be abhorrent if that were happening. What is actually happening is that people are standing at the school house door saying "there are groups of people who are systematically excluded from this school but who are also gifted and academically high achievers, and we are going to make room for them in part by expanding the overall size of each incoming class".

Again, just because it impacts you doesn't mean it's about you.

If you go from a policy which allows a particular group to assert its rights to one which does not allow them to assert its rights, AND a policy disproportionately affects that group, AND preexisting racism against that group exists, then that unambiguously allows for racism directed against that group, which basically guarantees that racism is a motive. Just because not about you to everyone doesn't mean it's not about you.

OK, what rights are not allowed to be asserted?

Weird, am I the only one who sees the subject line of this post which says that it's so obvious that there's been a lawsuit filed over it? I thought we were past the point of common forum social engineering where someone could just get away with pretending that they don't know what's going on.

The dominant argument in this thread is that the lawsuit is without merit, which is exactly what the question PP asked is driving at. There hasn’t been a good answer to it yet. The filing of a lawsuit does not entitle the complainant to a presumption of legitimacy.

Yeah, but it's hardly a legitimate challenge. As we all know, every human on the planted is subject to unreasonable boredom when faced with excessive triviality. Kids who are "advanced" are no different, they just hit that threshold far sooner. An advanced program like TJ is a relief for those students which allows them to get an appropriate education rather than suffering through it while diminishing their abilities. Eliminating means by which such kids can qualify on their merits and switching to holistic means takes the power to ensure that they get an appropriate education out of their hands.

This should be common knowledge to anyone discussing the lawsuit which makes challenges along the lines of "ok, what rights are not allowed to be asserted" frivolous and in bad faith. Obviously people who have a history of being objectively wrong about things and a history of objectively harmful abuses would prefer to remove objectivity from the school system; that's not a question. It doesn't make it the right thing to do.

1) If your argument held any legal merit, public college admissions processes would look much different than they do

2) That whole second paragraph is a casserole of nonsense

3) You don’t have a right to dictate how your merit is measured

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't imagine standing at the school house door telling a group of people that there are too many of them who are gifted and academically high achievers, so we are not going to accept their children into our program, even when we know they're deserving and qualified.

It would be abhorrent if that were happening. What is actually happening is that people are standing at the school house door saying "there are groups of people who are systematically excluded from this school but who are also gifted and academically high achievers, and we are going to make room for them in part by expanding the overall size of each incoming class".

Again, just because it impacts you doesn't mean it's about you.

If you go from a policy which allows a particular group to assert its rights to one which does not allow them to assert its rights, AND a policy disproportionately affects that group, AND preexisting racism against that group exists, then that unambiguously allows for racism directed against that group, which basically guarantees that racism is a motive. Just because not about you to everyone doesn't mean it's not about you.

OK, what rights are not allowed to be asserted?

Weird, am I the only one who sees the subject line of this post which says that it's so obvious that there's been a lawsuit filed over it? I thought we were past the point of common forum social engineering where someone could just get away with pretending that they don't know what's going on.

The dominant argument in this thread is that the lawsuit is without merit, which is exactly what the question PP asked is driving at. There hasn’t been a good answer to it yet. The filing of a lawsuit does not entitle the complainant to a presumption of legitimacy.

Yeah, but it's hardly a legitimate challenge. As we all know, every human on the planted is subject to unreasonable boredom when faced with excessive triviality. Kids who are "advanced" are no different, they just hit that threshold far sooner. An advanced program like TJ is a relief for those students which allows them to get an appropriate education rather than suffering through it while diminishing their abilities. Eliminating means by which such kids can qualify on their merits and switching to holistic means takes the power to ensure that they get an appropriate education out of their hands.

This should be common knowledge to anyone discussing the lawsuit which makes challenges along the lines of "ok, what rights are not allowed to be asserted" frivolous and in bad faith. Obviously people who have a history of being objectively wrong about things and a history of objectively harmful abuses would prefer to remove objectivity from the school system; that's not a question. It doesn't make it the right thing to do.

This is a neat rhetorical bit of sophistry above attempting to isolate "merit" from "holistic evaluation". They are not mutually exclusive concepts. Every college in America (and frankly, every private school too) uses a holistic approach to determine what students qualify for admission. They all have their own processes, their own priorities, and their own methods for evaluating the merits of the students who apply to those schools.

There is a broad marketplace of options in Northern Virginia for families to find acceptable options for their kids to get an education that they feel is appropriate. TJ happens to be an excellent one that is also free to attend for students who are selected. There are THOUSANDS of perfectly capable and qualified students in the catchment area every year for FCPS to choose from, and a major thrust of this year's admissions process is to lower barriers to application.

They have changed what they are looking for. As a public school system, it's pretty easy to understand the interest they have in seeing all of their geographical areas represented appropriately. And the admissions process will only become more competitive (i.e. a greater number of applicants yielding a stronger eventual student body) as the process becomes accessible to a wider pool of demographics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't imagine standing at the school house door telling a group of people that there are too many of them who are gifted and academically high achievers, so we are not going to accept their children into our program, even when we know they're deserving and qualified.

It would be abhorrent if that were happening. What is actually happening is that people are standing at the school house door saying "there are groups of people who are systematically excluded from this school but who are also gifted and academically high achievers, and we are going to make room for them in part by expanding the overall size of each incoming class".

Again, just because it impacts you doesn't mean it's about you.

If you go from a policy which allows a particular group to assert its rights to one which does not allow them to assert its rights, AND a policy disproportionately affects that group, AND preexisting racism against that group exists, then that unambiguously allows for racism directed against that group, which basically guarantees that racism is a motive. Just because not about you to everyone doesn't mean it's not about you.

OK, what rights are not allowed to be asserted?

Weird, am I the only one who sees the subject line of this post which says that it's so obvious that there's been a lawsuit filed over it? I thought we were past the point of common forum social engineering where someone could just get away with pretending that they don't know what's going on.

The dominant argument in this thread is that the lawsuit is without merit, which is exactly what the question PP asked is driving at. There hasn’t been a good answer to it yet. The filing of a lawsuit does not entitle the complainant to a presumption of legitimacy.

Yeah, but it's hardly a legitimate challenge. As we all know, every human on the planted is subject to unreasonable boredom when faced with excessive triviality. Kids who are "advanced" are no different, they just hit that threshold far sooner. An advanced program like TJ is a relief for those students which allows them to get an appropriate education rather than suffering through it while diminishing their abilities. Eliminating means by which such kids can qualify on their merits and switching to holistic means takes the power to ensure that they get an appropriate education out of their hands.

This should be common knowledge to anyone discussing the lawsuit which makes challenges along the lines of "ok, what rights are not allowed to be asserted" frivolous and in bad faith. Obviously people who have a history of being objectively wrong about things and a history of objectively harmful abuses would prefer to remove objectivity from the school system; that's not a question. It doesn't make it the right thing to do.

Imagine thinking that "every human on the planted (sic) is subject to unreasonable boredom when faced with excessive triviality" was an argument for literally anything

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't imagine standing at the school house door telling a group of people that there are too many of them who are gifted and academically high achievers, so we are not going to accept their children into our program, even when we know they're deserving and qualified.

It would be abhorrent if that were happening. What is actually happening is that people are standing at the school house door saying "there are groups of people who are systematically excluded from this school but who are also gifted and academically high achievers, and we are going to make room for them in part by expanding the overall size of each incoming class".

Again, just because it impacts you doesn't mean it's about you.

If you go from a policy which allows a particular group to assert its rights to one which does not allow them to assert its rights, AND a policy disproportionately affects that group, AND preexisting racism against that group exists, then that unambiguously allows for racism directed against that group, which basically guarantees that racism is a motive. Just because not about you to everyone doesn't mean it's not about you.

OK, what rights are not allowed to be asserted?

Weird, am I the only one who sees the subject line of this post which says that it's so obvious that there's been a lawsuit filed over it? I thought we were past the point of common forum social engineering where someone could just get away with pretending that they don't know what's going on.

The dominant argument in this thread is that the lawsuit is without merit, which is exactly what the question PP asked is driving at. There hasn’t been a good answer to it yet. The filing of a lawsuit does not entitle the complainant to a presumption of legitimacy.

Yeah, but it's hardly a legitimate challenge. As we all know, every human on the planted is subject to unreasonable boredom when faced with excessive triviality. Kids who are "advanced" are no different, they just hit that threshold far sooner. An advanced program like TJ is a relief for those students which allows them to get an appropriate education rather than suffering through it while diminishing their abilities. Eliminating means by which such kids can qualify on their merits and switching to holistic means takes the power to ensure that they get an appropriate education out of their hands.

This should be common knowledge to anyone discussing the lawsuit which makes challenges along the lines of "ok, what rights are not allowed to be asserted" frivolous and in bad faith. Obviously people who have a history of being objectively wrong about things and a history of objectively harmful abuses would prefer to remove objectivity from the school system; that's not a question. It doesn't make it the right thing to do.

Imagine thinking that "every human on the planted (sic) is subject to unreasonable boredom when faced with excessive triviality" was an argument for literally anything

The lengths that otherwise intelligent people will go on these threads to reverse-justify protection of their status.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't imagine standing at the school house door telling a group of people that there are too many of them who are gifted and academically high achievers, so we are not going to accept their children into our program, even when we know they're deserving and qualified.

It would be abhorrent if that were happening. What is actually happening is that people are standing at the school house door saying "there are groups of people who are systematically excluded from this school but who are also gifted and academically high achievers, and we are going to make room for them in part by expanding the overall size of each incoming class".

Again, just because it impacts you doesn't mean it's about you.

If you go from a policy which allows a particular group to assert its rights to one which does not allow them to assert its rights, AND a policy disproportionately affects that group, AND preexisting racism against that group exists, then that unambiguously allows for racism directed against that group, which basically guarantees that racism is a motive. Just because not about you to everyone doesn't mean it's not about you.

OK, what rights are not allowed to be asserted?

Weird, am I the only one who sees the subject line of this post which says that it's so obvious that there's been a lawsuit filed over it? I thought we were past the point of common forum social engineering where someone could just get away with pretending that they don't know what's going on.

The dominant argument in this thread is that the lawsuit is without merit, which is exactly what the question PP asked is driving at. There hasn’t been a good answer to it yet. The filing of a lawsuit does not entitle the complainant to a presumption of legitimacy.

Yeah, but it's hardly a legitimate challenge. As we all know, every human on the planted is subject to unreasonable boredom when faced with excessive triviality. Kids who are "advanced" are no different, they just hit that threshold far sooner. An advanced program like TJ is a relief for those students which allows them to get an appropriate education rather than suffering through it while diminishing their abilities. Eliminating means by which such kids can qualify on their merits and switching to holistic means takes the power to ensure that they get an appropriate education out of their hands.

This should be common knowledge to anyone discussing the lawsuit which makes challenges along the lines of "ok, what rights are not allowed to be asserted" frivolous and in bad faith. Obviously people who have a history of being objectively wrong about things and a history of objectively harmful abuses would prefer to remove objectivity from the school system; that's not a question. It doesn't make it the right thing to do.

1) If your argument held any legal merit, public college admissions processes would look much different than they do

2) That whole second paragraph is a casserole of nonsense

3) You don’t have a right to dictate how your merit is measured

DP, but the Constitution definitely provides people with rights to dictate how their "merit" is measured (or, more precisely, to challenge when their merit is measured in discriminatory ways).

We're going to see quite a few of these admissions systems designed to discriminate against Asians in favor of soft quotas for Blacks and Hispanics tossed out as unconstitutional. The left can't even pack the Supreme Court, much less undo the judicial appointees of recent years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't imagine standing at the school house door telling a group of people that there are too many of them who are gifted and academically high achievers, so we are not going to accept their children into our program, even when we know they're deserving and qualified.

It would be abhorrent if that were happening. What is actually happening is that people are standing at the school house door saying "there are groups of people who are systematically excluded from this school but who are also gifted and academically high achievers, and we are going to make room for them in part by expanding the overall size of each incoming class".

Again, just because it impacts you doesn't mean it's about you.

If you go from a policy which allows a particular group to assert its rights to one which does not allow them to assert its rights, AND a policy disproportionately affects that group, AND preexisting racism against that group exists, then that unambiguously allows for racism directed against that group, which basically guarantees that racism is a motive. Just because not about you to everyone doesn't mean it's not about you.

OK, what rights are not allowed to be asserted?

Weird, am I the only one who sees the subject line of this post which says that it's so obvious that there's been a lawsuit filed over it? I thought we were past the point of common forum social engineering where someone could just get away with pretending that they don't know what's going on.

The dominant argument in this thread is that the lawsuit is without merit, which is exactly what the question PP asked is driving at. There hasn’t been a good answer to it yet. The filing of a lawsuit does not entitle the complainant to a presumption of legitimacy.

Yeah, but it's hardly a legitimate challenge. As we all know, every human on the planted is subject to unreasonable boredom when faced with excessive triviality. Kids who are "advanced" are no different, they just hit that threshold far sooner. An advanced program like TJ is a relief for those students which allows them to get an appropriate education rather than suffering through it while diminishing their abilities. Eliminating means by which such kids can qualify on their merits and switching to holistic means takes the power to ensure that they get an appropriate education out of their hands.

This should be common knowledge to anyone discussing the lawsuit which makes challenges along the lines of "ok, what rights are not allowed to be asserted" frivolous and in bad faith. Obviously people who have a history of being objectively wrong about things and a history of objectively harmful abuses would prefer to remove objectivity from the school system; that's not a question. It doesn't make it the right thing to do.

1) If your argument held any legal merit, public college admissions processes would look much different than they do

2) That whole second paragraph is a casserole of nonsense

3) You don’t have a right to dictate how your merit is measured

DP, but the Constitution definitely provides people with rights to dictate how their "merit" is measured (or, more precisely, to challenge when their merit is measured in discriminatory ways).

We're going to see quite a few of these admissions systems designed to discriminate against Asians in favor of soft quotas for Blacks and Hispanics tossed out as unconstitutional. The left can't even pack the Supreme Court, much less undo the judicial appointees of recent years.

If that was the case, there would be a ton of caselaw supporting your view with respect to public university admissions. There is caselaw, but it says the opposite of what you want it to

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't imagine standing at the school house door telling a group of people that there are too many of them who are gifted and academically high achievers, so we are not going to accept their children into our program, even when we know they're deserving and qualified.

It would be abhorrent if that were happening. What is actually happening is that people are standing at the school house door saying "there are groups of people who are systematically excluded from this school but who are also gifted and academically high achievers, and we are going to make room for them in part by expanding the overall size of each incoming class".

Again, just because it impacts you doesn't mean it's about you.

If you go from a policy which allows a particular group to assert its rights to one which does not allow them to assert its rights, AND a policy disproportionately affects that group, AND preexisting racism against that group exists, then that unambiguously allows for racism directed against that group, which basically guarantees that racism is a motive. Just because not about you to everyone doesn't mean it's not about you.

OK, what rights are not allowed to be asserted?

Weird, am I the only one who sees the subject line of this post which says that it's so obvious that there's been a lawsuit filed over it? I thought we were past the point of common forum social engineering where someone could just get away with pretending that they don't know what's going on.

The dominant argument in this thread is that the lawsuit is without merit, which is exactly what the question PP asked is driving at. There hasn’t been a good answer to it yet. The filing of a lawsuit does not entitle the complainant to a presumption of legitimacy.

Yeah, but it's hardly a legitimate challenge. As we all know, every human on the planted is subject to unreasonable boredom when faced with excessive triviality. Kids who are "advanced" are no different, they just hit that threshold far sooner. An advanced program like TJ is a relief for those students which allows them to get an appropriate education rather than suffering through it while diminishing their abilities. Eliminating means by which such kids can qualify on their merits and switching to holistic means takes the power to ensure that they get an appropriate education out of their hands.

This should be common knowledge to anyone discussing the lawsuit which makes challenges along the lines of "ok, what rights are not allowed to be asserted" frivolous and in bad faith. Obviously people who have a history of being objectively wrong about things and a history of objectively harmful abuses would prefer to remove objectivity from the school system; that's not a question. It doesn't make it the right thing to do.

1) If your argument held any legal merit, public college admissions processes would look much different than they do

2) That whole second paragraph is a casserole of nonsense

3) You don’t have a right to dictate how your merit is measured

DP, but the Constitution definitely provides people with rights to dictate how their "merit" is measured (or, more precisely, to challenge when their merit is measured in discriminatory ways).

We're going to see quite a few of these admissions systems designed to discriminate against Asians in favor of soft quotas for Blacks and Hispanics tossed out as unconstitutional. The left can't even pack the Supreme Court, much less undo the judicial appointees of recent years.

You sort of stepped in it here - it's much easier to argue/prove that a measure (standardized test) is itself discriminatory (which has been demonstrated repeatedly) than it is to argue/prove that the removal of a measure is discriminatory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't imagine standing at the school house door telling a group of people that there are too many of them who are gifted and academically high achievers, so we are not going to accept their children into our program, even when we know they're deserving and qualified.

It would be abhorrent if that were happening. What is actually happening is that people are standing at the school house door saying "there are groups of people who are systematically excluded from this school but who are also gifted and academically high achievers, and we are going to make room for them in part by expanding the overall size of each incoming class".

Again, just because it impacts you doesn't mean it's about you.

If you go from a policy which allows a particular group to assert its rights to one which does not allow them to assert its rights, AND a policy disproportionately affects that group, AND preexisting racism against that group exists, then that unambiguously allows for racism directed against that group, which basically guarantees that racism is a motive. Just because not about you to everyone doesn't mean it's not about you.

OK, what rights are not allowed to be asserted?

Weird, am I the only one who sees the subject line of this post which says that it's so obvious that there's been a lawsuit filed over it? I thought we were past the point of common forum social engineering where someone could just get away with pretending that they don't know what's going on.

The dominant argument in this thread is that the lawsuit is without merit, which is exactly what the question PP asked is driving at. There hasn’t been a good answer to it yet. The filing of a lawsuit does not entitle the complainant to a presumption of legitimacy.

Yeah, but it's hardly a legitimate challenge. As we all know, every human on the planted is subject to unreasonable boredom when faced with excessive triviality. Kids who are "advanced" are no different, they just hit that threshold far sooner. An advanced program like TJ is a relief for those students which allows them to get an appropriate education rather than suffering through it while diminishing their abilities. Eliminating means by which such kids can qualify on their merits and switching to holistic means takes the power to ensure that they get an appropriate education out of their hands.

This should be common knowledge to anyone discussing the lawsuit which makes challenges along the lines of "ok, what rights are not allowed to be asserted" frivolous and in bad faith. Obviously people who have a history of being objectively wrong about things and a history of objectively harmful abuses would prefer to remove objectivity from the school system; that's not a question. It doesn't make it the right thing to do.

1) If your argument held any legal merit, public college admissions processes would look much different than they do

2) That whole second paragraph is a casserole of nonsense

3) You don’t have a right to dictate how your merit is measured

DP, but the Constitution definitely provides people with rights to dictate how their "merit" is measured (or, more precisely, to challenge when their merit is measured in discriminatory ways).

We're going to see quite a few of these admissions systems designed to discriminate against Asians in favor of soft quotas for Blacks and Hispanics tossed out as unconstitutional. The left can't even pack the Supreme Court, much less undo the judicial appointees of recent years.

If that was the case, there would be a ton of caselaw supporting your view with respect to public university admissions. There is caselaw, but it says the opposite of what you want it to

Also, memo to Asians: conservatives are not your friends except inasmuch as they can use you to hurt Black people.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't imagine standing at the school house door telling a group of people that there are too many of them who are gifted and academically high achievers, so we are not going to accept their children into our program, even when we know they're deserving and qualified.

It would be abhorrent if that were happening. What is actually happening is that people are standing at the school house door saying "there are groups of people who are systematically excluded from this school but who are also gifted and academically high achievers, and we are going to make room for them in part by expanding the overall size of each incoming class".

Again, just because it impacts you doesn't mean it's about you.

If you go from a policy which allows a particular group to assert its rights to one which does not allow them to assert its rights, AND a policy disproportionately affects that group, AND preexisting racism against that group exists, then that unambiguously allows for racism directed against that group, which basically guarantees that racism is a motive. Just because not about you to everyone doesn't mean it's not about you.

OK, what rights are not allowed to be asserted?

Weird, am I the only one who sees the subject line of this post which says that it's so obvious that there's been a lawsuit filed over it? I thought we were past the point of common forum social engineering where someone could just get away with pretending that they don't know what's going on.

Please note that the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly stated that the use of race as a factor in student admissions for higher education due to the interests in the makeup of the student body does not apply to K-12.

The dominant argument in this thread is that the lawsuit is without merit, which is exactly what the question PP asked is driving at. There hasn’t been a good answer to it yet. The filing of a lawsuit does not entitle the complainant to a presumption of legitimacy.

Yeah, but it's hardly a legitimate challenge. As we all know, every human on the planted is subject to unreasonable boredom when faced with excessive triviality. Kids who are "advanced" are no different, they just hit that threshold far sooner. An advanced program like TJ is a relief for those students which allows them to get an appropriate education rather than suffering through it while diminishing their abilities. Eliminating means by which such kids can qualify on their merits and switching to holistic means takes the power to ensure that they get an appropriate education out of their hands.

This should be common knowledge to anyone discussing the lawsuit which makes challenges along the lines of "ok, what rights are not allowed to be asserted" frivolous and in bad faith. Obviously people who have a history of being objectively wrong about things and a history of objectively harmful abuses would prefer to remove objectivity from the school system; that's not a question. It doesn't make it the right thing to do.

1) If your argument held any legal merit, public college admissions processes would look much different than they do

2) That whole second paragraph is a casserole of nonsense

3) You don’t have a right to dictate how your merit is measured

DP, but the Constitution definitely provides people with rights to dictate how their "merit" is measured (or, more precisely, to challenge when their merit is measured in discriminatory ways).

We're going to see quite a few of these admissions systems designed to discriminate against Asians in favor of soft quotas for Blacks and Hispanics tossed out as unconstitutional. The left can't even pack the Supreme Court, much less undo the judicial appointees of recent years.

If that was the case, there would be a ton of caselaw supporting your view with respect to public university admissions. There is caselaw, but it says the opposite of what you want it to

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't imagine standing at the school house door telling a group of people that there are too many of them who are gifted and academically high achievers, so we are not going to accept their children into our program, even when we know they're deserving and qualified.

It would be abhorrent if that were happening. What is actually happening is that people are standing at the school house door saying "there are groups of people who are systematically excluded from this school but who are also gifted and academically high achievers, and we are going to make room for them in part by expanding the overall size of each incoming class".

Again, just because it impacts you doesn't mean it's about you.

If you go from a policy which allows a particular group to assert its rights to one which does not allow them to assert its rights, AND a policy disproportionately affects that group, AND preexisting racism against that group exists, then that unambiguously allows for racism directed against that group, which basically guarantees that racism is a motive. Just because not about you to everyone doesn't mean it's not about you.

OK, what rights are not allowed to be asserted?

Weird, am I the only one who sees the subject line of this post which says that it's so obvious that there's been a lawsuit filed over it? I thought we were past the point of common forum social engineering where someone could just get away with pretending that they don't know what's going on.

Please note that the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly stated that the use of race as a factor in student admissions for higher education due to the interests in the makeup of the student body does not apply to K-12.

The dominant argument in this thread is that the lawsuit is without merit, which is exactly what the question PP asked is driving at. There hasn’t been a good answer to it yet. The filing of a lawsuit does not entitle the complainant to a presumption of legitimacy.

Yeah, but it's hardly a legitimate challenge. As we all know, every human on the planted is subject to unreasonable boredom when faced with excessive triviality. Kids who are "advanced" are no different, they just hit that threshold far sooner. An advanced program like TJ is a relief for those students which allows them to get an appropriate education rather than suffering through it while diminishing their abilities. Eliminating means by which such kids can qualify on their merits and switching to holistic means takes the power to ensure that they get an appropriate education out of their hands.

This should be common knowledge to anyone discussing the lawsuit which makes challenges along the lines of "ok, what rights are not allowed to be asserted" frivolous and in bad faith. Obviously people who have a history of being objectively wrong about things and a history of objectively harmful abuses would prefer to remove objectivity from the school system; that's not a question. It doesn't make it the right thing to do.

1) If your argument held any legal merit, public college admissions processes would look much different than they do

2) That whole second paragraph is a casserole of nonsense

3) You don’t have a right to dictate how your merit is measured

DP, but the Constitution definitely provides people with rights to dictate how their "merit" is measured (or, more precisely, to challenge when their merit is measured in discriminatory ways).

We're going to see quite a few of these admissions systems designed to discriminate against Asians in favor of soft quotas for Blacks and Hispanics tossed out as unconstitutional. The left can't even pack the Supreme Court, much less undo the judicial appointees of recent years.

If that was the case, there would be a ton of caselaw supporting your view with respect to public university admissions. There is caselaw, but it says the opposite of what you want it to

The above referencing the Supreme Court got buried by formatting, but we're gonna need a big ol' citation on that.