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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's also irrelevant as an element in this discussion because FCPS is not using race as a factor in their upcoming admissions process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's also irrelevant as an element in this discussion because FCPS is not using race as a factor in their upcoming admissions process.

They're using demographics.

[Anonymous]

Here is the case where the Supreme Court struck down using race as the basis to admit or deny students. Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007) It's pretty famous so clearly none of you clowns did well in Con. Law in law school. The argument FCSB is trying to make is that racial balancing is NOT what is motivating the admissions change which THEY will have to show passes STRICT SCRUTINY. Below is the most famous quote from the case by Chief Justice Roberts:

As counsel who appeared before this Court for the plaintiffs in Brown put it: “We have one fundamental contention which we will seek to develop in the course of this argument, and that contention is that no State has any authority under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to use race as a factor in affording educational opportunities among its citizens.” Tr. of Oral Arg. in Brown I, p. 7 (Robert L. Carter, Dec. 9, 1952). There is no ambiguity in that statement. And it was that position that prevailed in this Court, which emphasized in its remedial opinion that what was “[a]t stake is the personal interest of the plaintiffs in admission to public schools as soon as practicable on a nondiscriminatory basis,” and what was required was “determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis.” Brown II, supra, at 300–301 (emphasis added). What do the racial classifications do in these cases, if not determine admission to a public school on a racial basis? Before Brown, schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school based on the color of their skin. The school districts in these cases have not carried the heavy burden of demonstrating that we should allow this once again—even for very different reasons. For schools that never segregated on the basis of race, such as Seattle, or that have removed the vestiges of past segregation, such as Jefferson County, the way “to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis,” Brown II, 349 U. S., at 300–301, is to stop assigning students on a racial basis. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's also irrelevant as an element in this discussion because FCPS is not using race as a factor in their upcoming admissions process.

They're using demographics.

Geography, to be precise, along with "experience factors" - a phrase chosen specifically because it survives legal scrutiny.

This class of 2025 is going to be selected and seated within the next few weeks and attempts at injunctive relief have failed. It's time for the status-quo adherents to stop tilting at these windmills and focus their energy on unseating the School Board in November of 2023.

Hopefully the ones whose children are no longer impacted (including several of the complainants in the legal filings) still care about the matter, because by that point the Classes of 2025, 26, and 27 will have been seated and a majority of the school will have been selected under new admissions guidelines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is the case where the Supreme Court struck down using race as the basis to admit or deny students. Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007) It's pretty famous so clearly none of you clowns did well in Con. Law in law school. The argument FCSB is trying to make is that racial balancing is NOT what is motivating the admissions change which THEY will have to show passes STRICT SCRUTINY. Below is the most famous quote from the case by Chief Justice Roberts:

As counsel who appeared before this Court for the plaintiffs in Brown put it: “We have one fundamental contention which we will seek to develop in the course of this argument, and that contention is that no State has any authority under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to use race as a factor in affording educational opportunities among its citizens.” Tr. of Oral Arg. in Brown I, p. 7 (Robert L. Carter, Dec. 9, 1952). There is no ambiguity in that statement. And it was that position that prevailed in this Court, which emphasized in its remedial opinion that what was “[a]t stake is the personal interest of the plaintiffs in admission to public schools as soon as practicable on a nondiscriminatory basis,” and what was required was “determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis.” Brown II, supra, at 300–301 (emphasis added). What do the racial classifications do in these cases, if not determine admission to a public school on a racial basis? Before Brown, schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school based on the color of their skin. The school districts in these cases have not carried the heavy burden of demonstrating that we should allow this once again—even for very different reasons. For schools that never segregated on the basis of race, such as Seattle, or that have removed the vestiges of past segregation, such as Jefferson County, the way “to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis,” Brown II, 349 U. S., at 300–301, is to stop assigning students on a racial basis. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

And here is the part of the opinion that says the racial weighing of higher education allowed in previous cases does not govern K-12 public schools:

Prior to Grutter, the courts of appeals rejected as unconstitutional attempts to implement race-based assignment plans—such as the plans at issue here—in primary and secondary schools. See, e.g., Eisenberg v. Montgomery Cty. Public Schools, 197 F. 3d 123, 133 (CA4 1999); Tuttle v. Arlington Cty. School Bd., 195 F. 3d 698, 701 (CA4 1999); Wessman v. Gittens, 160 F. 3d 790, 809 (CA1 1998). See also Ho v. San Francisco Unified School Dist., 147 F. 3d 854, 865 (CA9 1998). After Grutter, however, the two Courts of Appeals in these cases, and one other, found that race-based assignments were permissible at the elementary and secondary level, largely in reliance on that case. See Parents Involved VII, 426 F. 3d, at 1166; McFarland II, 416 F. 3d, at 514; Comfort v. Lynn School Comm., 418 F. 3d 1, 13 (CA1 2005).

In upholding the admissions plan in Grutter, though, this Court relied upon considerations unique to institutions of higher education, noting that in light of “the expansive freedoms of speech and thought associated with the university environment, universities occupy a special niche in our constitutional tradition.” 539 U. S., at 329. See also Bakke, supra, at 312, 313 (opinion of Powell, J.). The Court explained that “[c]ontext matters” in applying strict scrutiny, and repeatedly noted that it was addressing the use of race “in the context of higher education.” Grutter, supra, at 327, 328, 334. The Court in Grutter expressly articulated key limitations on its holding—defining a specific type of broad-based diversity and noting the unique context of higher education—but these limitations were largely disregarded by the lower courts in extending Grutter to uphold race-based assignments in elementary and secondary schools. The present cases are not governed by Grutter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is the case where the Supreme Court struck down using race as the basis to admit or deny students. Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007) It's pretty famous so clearly none of you clowns did well in Con. Law in law school. The argument FCSB is trying to make is that racial balancing is NOT what is motivating the admissions change which THEY will have to show passes STRICT SCRUTINY. Below is the most famous quote from the case by Chief Justice Roberts:

As counsel who appeared before this Court for the plaintiffs in Brown put it: “We have one fundamental contention which we will seek to develop in the course of this argument, and that contention is that no State has any authority under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to use race as a factor in affording educational opportunities among its citizens.” Tr. of Oral Arg. in Brown I, p. 7 (Robert L. Carter, Dec. 9, 1952). There is no ambiguity in that statement. And it was that position that prevailed in this Court, which emphasized in its remedial opinion that what was “[a]t stake is the personal interest of the plaintiffs in admission to public schools as soon as practicable on a nondiscriminatory basis,” and what was required was “determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis.” Brown II, supra, at 300–301 (emphasis added). What do the racial classifications do in these cases, if not determine admission to a public school on a racial basis? Before Brown, schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school based on the color of their skin. The school districts in these cases have not carried the heavy burden of demonstrating that we should allow this once again—even for very different reasons. For schools that never segregated on the basis of race, such as Seattle, or that have removed the vestiges of past segregation, such as Jefferson County, the way “to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis,” Brown II, 349 U. S., at 300–301, is to stop assigning students on a racial basis. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

A fabulous piece of legal writing by the Chief Justice. But what is at issue in this case is the removal of a process that demonstrably has discriminated on the basis of race for entirely too long.

If you have been connected with TJ for any length of time during the entirety of its existence, and fail to comprehend that the previous admissions processes systematically excluded Black and Hispanic students, your ignorance is either willful or pitiable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the case where the Supreme Court struck down using race as the basis to admit or deny students. Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007) It's pretty famous so clearly none of you clowns did well in Con. Law in law school. The argument FCSB is trying to make is that racial balancing is NOT what is motivating the admissions change which THEY will have to show passes STRICT SCRUTINY. Below is the most famous quote from the case by Chief Justice Roberts:

As counsel who appeared before this Court for the plaintiffs in Brown put it: “We have one fundamental contention which we will seek to develop in the course of this argument, and that contention is that no State has any authority under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to use race as a factor in affording educational opportunities among its citizens.” Tr. of Oral Arg. in Brown I, p. 7 (Robert L. Carter, Dec. 9, 1952). There is no ambiguity in that statement. And it was that position that prevailed in this Court, which emphasized in its remedial opinion that what was “[a]t stake is the personal interest of the plaintiffs in admission to public schools as soon as practicable on a nondiscriminatory basis,” and what was required was “determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis.” Brown II, supra, at 300–301 (emphasis added). What do the racial classifications do in these cases, if not determine admission to a public school on a racial basis? Before Brown, schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school based on the color of their skin. The school districts in these cases have not carried the heavy burden of demonstrating that we should allow this once again—even for very different reasons. For schools that never segregated on the basis of race, such as Seattle, or that have removed the vestiges of past segregation, such as Jefferson County, the way “to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis,” Brown II, 349 U. S., at 300–301, is to stop assigning students on a racial basis. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

And here is the part of the opinion that says the racial weighing of higher education allowed in previous cases does not govern K-12 public schools:

Prior to Grutter, the courts of appeals rejected as unconstitutional attempts to implement race-based assignment plans—such as the plans at issue here—in primary and secondary schools. See, e.g., Eisenberg v. Montgomery Cty. Public Schools, 197 F. 3d 123, 133 (CA4 1999); Tuttle v. Arlington Cty. School Bd., 195 F. 3d 698, 701 (CA4 1999); Wessman v. Gittens, 160 F. 3d 790, 809 (CA1 1998). See also Ho v. San Francisco Unified School Dist., 147 F. 3d 854, 865 (CA9 1998). After Grutter, however, the two Courts of Appeals in these cases, and one other, found that race-based assignments were permissible at the elementary and secondary level, largely in reliance on that case. See Parents Involved VII, 426 F. 3d, at 1166; McFarland II, 416 F. 3d, at 514; Comfort v. Lynn School Comm., 418 F. 3d 1, 13 (CA1 2005).

In upholding the admissions plan in Grutter, though, this Court relied upon considerations unique to institutions of higher education, noting that in light of “the expansive freedoms of speech and thought associated with the university environment, universities occupy a special niche in our constitutional tradition.” 539 U. S., at 329. See also Bakke, supra, at 312, 313 (opinion of Powell, J.). The Court explained that “[c]ontext matters” in applying strict scrutiny, and repeatedly noted that it was addressing the use of race “in the context of higher education.” Grutter, supra, at 327, 328, 334. The Court in Grutter expressly articulated key limitations on its holding—defining a specific type of broad-based diversity and noting the unique context of higher education—but these limitations were largely disregarded by the lower courts in extending Grutter to uphold race-based assignments in elementary and secondary schools. The present cases are not governed by Grutter.

you're forgetting the threshold question - whether or not a district has ever operated a segregated system. Fairfax has

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the case where the Supreme Court struck down using race as the basis to admit or deny students. Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007) It's pretty famous so clearly none of you clowns did well in Con. Law in law school. The argument FCSB is trying to make is that racial balancing is NOT what is motivating the admissions change which THEY will have to show passes STRICT SCRUTINY. Below is the most famous quote from the case by Chief Justice Roberts:

As counsel who appeared before this Court for the plaintiffs in Brown put it: “We have one fundamental contention which we will seek to develop in the course of this argument, and that contention is that no State has any authority under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to use race as a factor in affording educational opportunities among its citizens.” Tr. of Oral Arg. in Brown I, p. 7 (Robert L. Carter, Dec. 9, 1952). There is no ambiguity in that statement. And it was that position that prevailed in this Court, which emphasized in its remedial opinion that what was “[a]t stake is the personal interest of the plaintiffs in admission to public schools as soon as practicable on a nondiscriminatory basis,” and what was required was “determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis.” Brown II, supra, at 300–301 (emphasis added). What do the racial classifications do in these cases, if not determine admission to a public school on a racial basis? Before Brown, schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school based on the color of their skin. The school districts in these cases have not carried the heavy burden of demonstrating that we should allow this once again—even for very different reasons. For schools that never segregated on the basis of race, such as Seattle, or that have removed the vestiges of past segregation, such as Jefferson County, the way “to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis,” Brown II, 349 U. S., at 300–301, is to stop assigning students on a racial basis. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

And here is the part of the opinion that says the racial weighing of higher education allowed in previous cases does not govern K-12 public schools:

Prior to Grutter, the courts of appeals rejected as unconstitutional attempts to implement race-based assignment plans—such as the plans at issue here—in primary and secondary schools. See, e.g., Eisenberg v. Montgomery Cty. Public Schools, 197 F. 3d 123, 133 (CA4 1999); Tuttle v. Arlington Cty. School Bd., 195 F. 3d 698, 701 (CA4 1999); Wessman v. Gittens, 160 F. 3d 790, 809 (CA1 1998). See also Ho v. San Francisco Unified School Dist., 147 F. 3d 854, 865 (CA9 1998). After Grutter, however, the two Courts of Appeals in these cases, and one other, found that race-based assignments were permissible at the elementary and secondary level, largely in reliance on that case. See Parents Involved VII, 426 F. 3d, at 1166; McFarland II, 416 F. 3d, at 514; Comfort v. Lynn School Comm., 418 F. 3d 1, 13 (CA1 2005).

In upholding the admissions plan in Grutter, though, this Court relied upon considerations unique to institutions of higher education, noting that in light of “the expansive freedoms of speech and thought associated with the university environment, universities occupy a special niche in our constitutional tradition.” 539 U. S., at 329. See also Bakke, supra, at 312, 313 (opinion of Powell, J.). The Court explained that “[c]ontext matters” in applying strict scrutiny, and repeatedly noted that it was addressing the use of race “in the context of higher education.” Grutter, supra, at 327, 328, 334. The Court in Grutter expressly articulated key limitations on its holding—defining a specific type of broad-based diversity and noting the unique context of higher education—but these limitations were largely disregarded by the lower courts in extending Grutter to uphold race-based assignments in elementary and secondary schools. The present cases are not governed by Grutter.

you're forgetting the threshold question - whether or not a district has ever operated a segregated system. Fairfax has

Yep - just see the work of our old friend W.T. Woodson, previous segregationist superintendent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the case where the Supreme Court struck down using race as the basis to admit or deny students. Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007) It's pretty famous so clearly none of you clowns did well in Con. Law in law school. The argument FCSB is trying to make is that racial balancing is NOT what is motivating the admissions change which THEY will have to show passes STRICT SCRUTINY. Below is the most famous quote from the case by Chief Justice Roberts:

As counsel who appeared before this Court for the plaintiffs in Brown put it: “We have one fundamental contention which we will seek to develop in the course of this argument, and that contention is that no State has any authority under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to use race as a factor in affording educational opportunities among its citizens.” Tr. of Oral Arg. in Brown I, p. 7 (Robert L. Carter, Dec. 9, 1952). There is no ambiguity in that statement. And it was that position that prevailed in this Court, which emphasized in its remedial opinion that what was “[a]t stake is the personal interest of the plaintiffs in admission to public schools as soon as practicable on a nondiscriminatory basis,” and what was required was “determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis.” Brown II, supra, at 300–301 (emphasis added). What do the racial classifications do in these cases, if not determine admission to a public school on a racial basis? Before Brown, schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school based on the color of their skin. The school districts in these cases have not carried the heavy burden of demonstrating that we should allow this once again—even for very different reasons. For schools that never segregated on the basis of race, such as Seattle, or that have removed the vestiges of past segregation, such as Jefferson County, the way “to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis,” Brown II, 349 U. S., at 300–301, is to stop assigning students on a racial basis. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

A fabulous piece of legal writing by the Chief Justice. But what is at issue in this case is the removal of a process that demonstrably has discriminated on the basis of race for entirely too long.

If you have been connected with TJ for any length of time during the entirety of its existence, and fail to comprehend that the previous admissions processes systematically excluded Black and Hispanic students, your ignorance is either willful or pitiable.

A race-blind test is not racist. Far from it. It's actually racist for you to think that Black and Hispanic students aren't capable of performing well on a standardized test. Your better argument is income inequality as opposed to race. But all of you SJWs are racists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the case where the Supreme Court struck down using race as the basis to admit or deny students. Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007) It's pretty famous so clearly none of you clowns did well in Con. Law in law school. The argument FCSB is trying to make is that racial balancing is NOT what is motivating the admissions change which THEY will have to show passes STRICT SCRUTINY. Below is the most famous quote from the case by Chief Justice Roberts:

As counsel who appeared before this Court for the plaintiffs in Brown put it: “We have one fundamental contention which we will seek to develop in the course of this argument, and that contention is that no State has any authority under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to use race as a factor in affording educational opportunities among its citizens.” Tr. of Oral Arg. in Brown I, p. 7 (Robert L. Carter, Dec. 9, 1952). There is no ambiguity in that statement. And it was that position that prevailed in this Court, which emphasized in its remedial opinion that what was “[a]t stake is the personal interest of the plaintiffs in admission to public schools as soon as practicable on a nondiscriminatory basis,” and what was required was “determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis.” Brown II, supra, at 300–301 (emphasis added). What do the racial classifications do in these cases, if not determine admission to a public school on a racial basis? Before Brown, schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school based on the color of their skin. The school districts in these cases have not carried the heavy burden of demonstrating that we should allow this once again—even for very different reasons. For schools that never segregated on the basis of race, such as Seattle, or that have removed the vestiges of past segregation, such as Jefferson County, the way “to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis,” Brown II, 349 U. S., at 300–301, is to stop assigning students on a racial basis. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

And here is the part of the opinion that says the racial weighing of higher education allowed in previous cases does not govern K-12 public schools:

Prior to Grutter, the courts of appeals rejected as unconstitutional attempts to implement race-based assignment plans—such as the plans at issue here—in primary and secondary schools. See, e.g., Eisenberg v. Montgomery Cty. Public Schools, 197 F. 3d 123, 133 (CA4 1999); Tuttle v. Arlington Cty. School Bd., 195 F. 3d 698, 701 (CA4 1999); Wessman v. Gittens, 160 F. 3d 790, 809 (CA1 1998). See also Ho v. San Francisco Unified School Dist., 147 F. 3d 854, 865 (CA9 1998). After Grutter, however, the two Courts of Appeals in these cases, and one other, found that race-based assignments were permissible at the elementary and secondary level, largely in reliance on that case. See Parents Involved VII, 426 F. 3d, at 1166; McFarland II, 416 F. 3d, at 514; Comfort v. Lynn School Comm., 418 F. 3d 1, 13 (CA1 2005).

In upholding the admissions plan in Grutter, though, this Court relied upon considerations unique to institutions of higher education, noting that in light of “the expansive freedoms of speech and thought associated with the university environment, universities occupy a special niche in our constitutional tradition.” 539 U. S., at 329. See also Bakke, supra, at 312, 313 (opinion of Powell, J.). The Court explained that “[c]ontext matters” in applying strict scrutiny, and repeatedly noted that it was addressing the use of race “in the context of higher education.” Grutter, supra, at 327, 328, 334. The Court in Grutter expressly articulated key limitations on its holding—defining a specific type of broad-based diversity and noting the unique context of higher education—but these limitations were largely disregarded by the lower courts in extending Grutter to uphold race-based assignments in elementary and secondary schools. The present cases are not governed by Grutter.

you're forgetting the threshold question - whether or not a district has ever operated a segregated system. Fairfax has[/quote

They already lost on that argument years ago in the lawsuit when they tried to impose quotas. It would be really something if FCSB tried to say that segregation prior to 1960s led to a school becoming 80% minority and dominated by Asians. That's funny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's also irrelevant as an element in this discussion because FCPS is not using race as a factor in their upcoming admissions process.

They're using demographics.

Geography, to be precise, along with "experience factors" - a phrase chosen specifically because it survives legal scrutiny.

This class of 2025 is going to be selected and seated within the next few weeks and attempts at injunctive relief have failed. It's time for the status-quo adherents to stop tilting at these windmills and focus their energy on unseating the School Board in November of 2023.

Hopefully the ones whose children are no longer impacted (including several of the complainants in the legal filings) still care about the matter, because by that point the Classes of 2025, 26, and 27 will have been seated and a majority of the school will have been selected under new admissions guidelines.

Wrong. This fight needs to be fought to the end. We deserve to know once and for all if this country will allow students to be excluded from admissions based on their race. Millions of Asians and generations to come want this resolved. The fact that a school board can drag out the process to foreclose immediate relief is a small part of the battle against this discrimination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's also irrelevant as an element in this discussion because FCPS is not using race as a factor in their upcoming admissions process.

They're using demographics.

Geography, to be precise, along with "experience factors" - a phrase chosen specifically because it survives legal scrutiny.

This class of 2025 is going to be selected and seated within the next few weeks and attempts at injunctive relief have failed. It's time for the status-quo adherents to stop tilting at these windmills and focus their energy on unseating the School Board in November of 2023.

Hopefully the ones whose children are no longer impacted (including several of the complainants in the legal filings) still care about the matter, because by that point the Classes of 2025, 26, and 27 will have been seated and a majority of the school will have been selected under new admissions guidelines.

Wrong. This fight needs to be fought to the end. We deserve to know once and for all if this country will allow students to be excluded from admissions based on their race. Millions of Asians and generations to come want this resolved. The fact that a school board can drag out the process to foreclose immediate relief is a small part of the battle against this discrimination.

.....Asians are still likely to be a majority through the new admissions process and you're claiming exclusion and discrimination?

The lack of self-awareness is REMARKABLE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's also irrelevant as an element in this discussion because FCPS is not using race as a factor in their upcoming admissions process.

They're using demographics.

Geography, to be precise, along with "experience factors" - a phrase chosen specifically because it survives legal scrutiny.

This class of 2025 is going to be selected and seated within the next few weeks and attempts at injunctive relief have failed. It's time for the status-quo adherents to stop tilting at these windmills and focus their energy on unseating the School Board in November of 2023.

Hopefully the ones whose children are no longer impacted (including several of the complainants in the legal filings) still care about the matter, because by that point the Classes of 2025, 26, and 27 will have been seated and a majority of the school will have been selected under new admissions guidelines.

Wrong. This fight needs to be fought to the end. We deserve to know once and for all if this country will allow students to be excluded from admissions based on their race. Millions of Asians and generations to come want this resolved. The fact that a school board can drag out the process to foreclose immediate relief is a small part of the battle against this discrimination.

this has got to be a troll, I don't millions of Asians have any idea what TJ is let alone care about it. I'm sorry if your kid would have otherwise been the last one in from Cooper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the case where the Supreme Court struck down using race as the basis to admit or deny students. Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007) It's pretty famous so clearly none of you clowns did well in Con. Law in law school. The argument FCSB is trying to make is that racial balancing is NOT what is motivating the admissions change which THEY will have to show passes STRICT SCRUTINY. Below is the most famous quote from the case by Chief Justice Roberts:

As counsel who appeared before this Court for the plaintiffs in Brown put it: “We have one fundamental contention which we will seek to develop in the course of this argument, and that contention is that no State has any authority under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to use race as a factor in affording educational opportunities among its citizens.” Tr. of Oral Arg. in Brown I, p. 7 (Robert L. Carter, Dec. 9, 1952). There is no ambiguity in that statement. And it was that position that prevailed in this Court, which emphasized in its remedial opinion that what was “[a]t stake is the personal interest of the plaintiffs in admission to public schools as soon as practicable on a nondiscriminatory basis,” and what was required was “determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis.” Brown II, supra, at 300–301 (emphasis added). What do the racial classifications do in these cases, if not determine admission to a public school on a racial basis? Before Brown, schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school based on the color of their skin. The school districts in these cases have not carried the heavy burden of demonstrating that we should allow this once again—even for very different reasons. For schools that never segregated on the basis of race, such as Seattle, or that have removed the vestiges of past segregation, such as Jefferson County, the way “to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis,” Brown II, 349 U. S., at 300–301, is to stop assigning students on a racial basis. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

A fabulous piece of legal writing by the Chief Justice. But what is at issue in this case is the removal of a process that demonstrably has discriminated on the basis of race for entirely too long.

If you have been connected with TJ for any length of time during the entirety of its existence, and fail to comprehend that the previous admissions processes systematically excluded Black and Hispanic students, your ignorance is either willful or pitiable.

A race-blind test is not racist. Far from it. It's actually racist for you to think that Black and Hispanic students aren't capable of performing well on a standardized test. Your better argument is income inequality as opposed to race. But all of you SJWs are racists.

The "race-blind" test that you're referencing ended up being fairly easily preppable, allowing folks who were willing to invest thousands of hours and hundreds of dollars into those courses to have a leg up in an exam that was measured not by raw performance, but rather by percentile. It is no accident that a single test prep company went from about 50 TJ admits in the first year of said exam, to over 90 the following year, to over 130 in the final year of the exam's existence within the admissions process.

It is unhelpful to the complainant's case (or PP's argument of "race-blind") that this company posted a list of the first and last names of said admits in each of these three years, and that literally 100% of those students had names that clearly indicated South Asian descent. It is even more unhelpful that TJ students admitted in a public forum that they had seen questions on the supposedly secured exam during their prep sessions with this company.

"Merit", indeed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's also irrelevant as an element in this discussion because FCPS is not using race as a factor in their upcoming admissions process.

They're using demographics.

Geography, to be precise, along with "experience factors" - a phrase chosen specifically because it survives legal scrutiny.

This class of 2025 is going to be selected and seated within the next few weeks and attempts at injunctive relief have failed. It's time for the status-quo adherents to stop tilting at these windmills and focus their energy on unseating the School Board in November of 2023.

Hopefully the ones whose children are no longer impacted (including several of the complainants in the legal filings) still care about the matter, because by that point the Classes of 2025, 26, and 27 will have been seated and a majority of the school will have been selected under new admissions guidelines.

Wrong. This fight needs to be fought to the end. We deserve to know once and for all if this country will allow students to be excluded from admissions based on their race. Millions of Asians and generations to come want this resolved. The fact that a school board can drag out the process to foreclose immediate relief is a small part of the battle against this discrimination.

this has got to be a troll, I don't millions of Asians have any idea what TJ is let alone care about it. I'm sorry if your kid would have otherwise been the last one in from Cooper.

I don't think it's a troll - I think it's someone who had the game changed on them at the last minute.