Timeline for TJ case?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they do a lottery, they really should reopen and allow any 8th grader to apply.

Why?

By the way - no they shouldn't. The system cannot afford any further inputs at this point.

Just take the kids with 4.0's and the the ones who got the science question right. That will probably still be more than can be admitted. So then do lottery. Then spend the remaining time getting admissions right next year, instead of fighting in court. What a waste of time and resources!

Who started this whole mess?

- oh right. Radical leftist progressives.

Ehh, they changed the admissions process. That happens all the time. No one was required to contest it.

That's right. Just sit in the corner like good children and take your punishment for being too successful. We radical leftists know what is good for you and everyone else as we just need to feel self righteous and superior.

I'll be honest... we're not that concerned with what's best for YOU, because there are a lot more people than just YOU to consider.

We are more concerned with what's best for TJ. And we have enough experience to know that pretty well.

Spoken like a true messiah!

All mortals should bow to thee!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they do a lottery, they really should reopen and allow any 8th grader to apply.

Why?

By the way - no they shouldn't. The system cannot afford any further inputs at this point.

Just take the kids with 4.0's and the the ones who got the science question right. That will probably still be more than can be admitted. So then do lottery. Then spend the remaining time getting admissions right next year, instead of fighting in court. What a waste of time and resources!

Who started this whole mess?

- oh right. Radical leftist progressives.

Ehh, they changed the admissions process. That happens all the time. No one was required to contest it.

That's right. Just sit in the corner like good children and take your punishment for being too successful. We radical leftists know what is good for you and everyone else as we just need to feel self righteous and superior.

I'll be honest... we're not that concerned with what's best for YOU, because there are a lot more people than just YOU to consider.

We are more concerned with what's best for TJ. And we have enough experience to know that pretty well.

Spoken like a true messiah!

All mortals should bow to thee!

Kanye West is on this board!

[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:If they do a lottery, they really should reopen and allow any 8th grader to apply.

Why?

By the way - no they shouldn't. The system cannot afford any further inputs at this point.

Just take the kids with 4.0's and the the ones who got the science question right. That will probably still be more than can be admitted. So then do lottery. Then spend the remaining time getting admissions right next year, instead of fighting in court. What a waste of time and resources!

Who started this whole mess?

- oh right. Radical leftist progressives.

Ehh, they changed the admissions process. That happens all the time. No one was required to contest it.

That's right. Just sit in the corner like good children and take your punishment for being too successful. We radical leftists know what is good for you and everyone else as we just need to feel self righteous and superior.

I'll be honest... we're not that concerned with what's best for YOU, because there are a lot more people than just YOU to consider.

We are more concerned with what's best for TJ. And we have enough experience to know that pretty well.

You sound so pompous

Well, they seem to grasp that it isn't just about their needs like privileged jerks spouting off.

Sure about that? They dont seem to lose anything from the new admission plan but everything to gain from it. Why not get behind a policy that gives some spots to black and latino kids if that policy also give their white privileged kids a much better chance at admission?

White kids were admitted at the same rate relative to their application numbers as they were previously. Their offer numbers increased because the class size increased and more of them applied. This has NEVER been about white kids - they don’t care about TJ.

Their representation still increases from 17% to 22%. They benefited from the change. If white kids/parents don't care about TJ, why did their application number increase? Maybe they're thinking that they have a better chance now with a new process that has a ridiculously low bar

They benefit in everything because of white racist privilege.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:20% of the FCPS teachers must be Asian to properly reflect the student population. 20% of the County employees must be Asians to reflect the demographics of the County.

20% of the County contracts and grants must go to Asians and Asian groups. It is not equitable that virtually 0% goes to Asians and Asian groups.

20% of TJ students should also be Asian?

Yes but only if all other key positions are 20%. You have to be consistent.

PP. I think everyone would agree that neither is a good idea. There are no TJ reform advocates who believe that TJ should be 20% Asian, but people choose to incorrectly ascribe that attitude to us because we see it as a positive when doors are opened to populations that have been entirely shut out of the process for generations.

Like for Asians and key County positions. Yes, Asians have been totally shut out of a County that Asians make up 20% for many years now. No member of the school board, no member of the Board of Supervisors, no member of County judges, no House delegates from the County, no representation in the top positions of FCPS, no representation in the leadership positions at TJ, no principals at any County schools, no representation at leadership positions at County police on and on and on. Why so quiet about these egregious complete and total lack of representation?

Are they applying?

But additionally, you're trying to create an equivalency between jobs and spaces at a school. The fact that both are scarce resources does not mean that they should be subject to a similar approach in distribution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:20% of the FCPS teachers must be Asian to properly reflect the student population. 20% of the County employees must be Asians to reflect the demographics of the County.

20% of the County contracts and grants must go to Asians and Asian groups. It is not equitable that virtually 0% goes to Asians and Asian groups.

20% of TJ students should also be Asian?

Yes but only if all other key positions are 20%. You have to be consistent.

PP. I think everyone would agree that neither is a good idea. There are no TJ reform advocates who believe that TJ should be 20% Asian, but people choose to incorrectly ascribe that attitude to us because we see it as a positive when doors are opened to populations that have been entirely shut out of the process for generations.

Like for Asians and key County positions. Yes, Asians have been totally shut out of a County that Asians make up 20% for many years now. No member of the school board, no member of the Board of Supervisors, no member of County judges, no House delegates from the County, no representation in the top positions of FCPS, no representation in the leadership positions at TJ, no principals at any County schools, no representation at leadership positions at County police on and on and on. Why so quiet about these egregious complete and total lack of representation?

Are they applying?

But additionally, you're trying to create an equivalency between jobs and spaces at a school. The fact that both are scarce resources does not mean that they should be subject to a similar approach in distribution.

They are not subject to the same approach in distribution because it would not benefit the white people who are currently in charge. And if Asians are not represented in the top positions because they are not applying, it might be because they are afraid to go into an hostile environment or they might not feel qualified enough. So the county should lower their bar and encourage Asian applications by giving them "experience points"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:20% of the FCPS teachers must be Asian to properly reflect the student population. 20% of the County employees must be Asians to reflect the demographics of the County.

20% of the County contracts and grants must go to Asians and Asian groups. It is not equitable that virtually 0% goes to Asians and Asian groups.

20% of TJ students should also be Asian?

Yes but only if all other key positions are 20%. You have to be consistent.

PP. I think everyone would agree that neither is a good idea. There are no TJ reform advocates who believe that TJ should be 20% Asian, but people choose to incorrectly ascribe that attitude to us because we see it as a positive when doors are opened to populations that have been entirely shut out of the process for generations.

Like for Asians and key County positions. Yes, Asians have been totally shut out of a County that Asians make up 20% for many years now. No member of the school board, no member of the Board of Supervisors, no member of County judges, no House delegates from the County, no representation in the top positions of FCPS, no representation in the leadership positions at TJ, no principals at any County schools, no representation at leadership positions at County police on and on and on. Why so quiet about these egregious complete and total lack of representation?

Are they applying?

But additionally, you're trying to create an equivalency between jobs and spaces at a school. The fact that both are scarce resources does not mean that they should be subject to a similar approach in distribution.

They are not subject to the same approach in distribution because it would not benefit the white people who are currently in charge. And if Asians are not represented in the top positions because they are not applying, it might be because they are afraid to go into an hostile environment or they might not feel qualified enough. So the county should lower their bar and encourage Asian applications by giving them "experience points"

Or hire an Outreach Officer in charge of going to Asian communities to encourage them to apply for these positions and help pay for the application fees and other expenses and provide free prep sessions to get them familiarized. Also, offer free seminars on how to position yourself to be elected or selected etc.

[Anonymous]

All this identity politics just dilutes achievement.
Look at Ariana DeBose who won the Oscar yesterday. She was perfectly deserving as an outstanding actor. Yes, she is a person of color and that is a point of note. But going crazy for the first Latina Black openly queer Oscar winner is just seeking an Identity when none is needed.

That is the world we live in. Either a have or have not in terms of identity. If you are a “have” you have to constantly apologize for your privilege. If you are a “have-not”, you have to sort of agree that your achievements come with the affirmative action asterisk - like someone stepped out of your way to let you make it. What BS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All this identity politics just dilutes achievement.
Look at Ariana DeBose who won the Oscar yesterday. She was perfectly deserving as an outstanding actor. Yes, she is a person of color and that is a point of note. But going crazy for the first Latina Black openly queer Oscar winner is just seeking an Identity when none is needed.

That is the world we live in. Either a have or have not in terms of identity. If you are a “have” you have to constantly apologize for your privilege. If you are a “have-not”, you have to sort of agree that your achievements come with the affirmative action asterisk - like someone stepped out of your way to let you make it. What BS

Neither of those things are true. We celebrate when barriers are broken because it is a positive for society when those barriers are broken.

People with privilege don't have to apologize for their privilege. They simply are asked to acknowledge it - more often than not it isn't the existence of a positive but rather the absence of a negative.

It's a privilege for the overwhelming majority of students historically at TJ to have parents who prioritized TJ as early as they did. The student did nothing to earn that privilege in most cases. That's a privilege that I had that I acknowledge. I don't apologize for it, but I do realize that there's a decent possibility that I got in over someone more deserving because of it - and that's more of an asterisk to me than anything happening because of a lowering of barriers.

And "have-nots" don't have to tacitly agree that they are the beneficiaries of affirmative action. If it's done properly, there is no way to know whether or not affirmative action is or is not at play in any given situation.

And in the case of TJ, the intent is not to lower any standards, but to remove standards (exams and teacher recommendations) that no longer did the job they were intended to do. I do think they went too far - removing the exam was appropriate, but the right thing to do would have been to reimagine rather than remove the teacher recommendations. There was also no need for the "underrepresented schools" experience factor - simply having the 1.5% allocated seats should have been adequate along with the other EFs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All this identity politics just dilutes achievement.
Look at Ariana DeBose who won the Oscar yesterday. She was perfectly deserving as an outstanding actor. Yes, she is a person of color and that is a point of note. But going crazy for the first Latina Black openly queer Oscar winner is just seeking an Identity when none is needed.

That is the world we live in. Either a have or have not in terms of identity. If you are a “have” you have to constantly apologize for your privilege. If you are a “have-not”, you have to sort of agree that your achievements come with the affirmative action asterisk - like someone stepped out of your way to let you make it. What BS

Neither of those things are true. We celebrate when barriers are broken because it is a positive for society when those barriers are broken.

People with privilege don't have to apologize for their privilege. They simply are asked to acknowledge it - more often than not it isn't the existence of a positive but rather the absence of a negative.

It's a privilege for the overwhelming majority of students historically at TJ to have parents who prioritized TJ as early as they did. The student did nothing to earn that privilege in most cases. That's a privilege that I had that I acknowledge. I don't apologize for it, but I do realize that there's a decent possibility that I got in over someone more deserving because of it - and that's more of an asterisk to me than anything happening because of a lowering of barriers.

And "have-nots" don't have to tacitly agree that they are the beneficiaries of affirmative action. If it's done properly, there is no way to know whether or not affirmative action is or is not at play in any given situation.

And in the case of TJ, the intent is not to lower any standards, but to remove standards (exams and teacher recommendations) that no longer did the job they were intended to do. I do think they went too far - removing the exam was appropriate, but the right thing to do would have been to reimagine rather than remove the teacher recommendations. There was also no need for the "underrepresented schools" experience factor - simply having the 1.5% allocated seats should have been adequate along with the other EFs.

Of course we need to celebrate when barriers are broken. The first black President. The first Latina justice. But when you only define the world in terms of identities, you will soon be celebrating the first Black Latina Queer who grew up in a one-person household. Then you will parse it further. Because you cannot see beyond identity. You will champion Will Smith's son over a white Appalachian miner's son because you internal calibration tells scores black over white no matter what.

And that is the problem here. In your thinking, all Asians prep. And there fore you will penalize all Asians. So you come up with a system that prioritizes a kid who preps but lives in South County over a kid in McLean who has never prepped. And you will defend your system as "progress"

That inequity is lost on you equity warriors. You can justify the McLean kid as collateral damage in your war for social justice (like the kids our drones mistakenly bombed and killed in our noble "war on terror"). In your calculus equity is only about racial identity. Shame on you and your ilk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All this identity politics just dilutes achievement.
Look at Ariana DeBose who won the Oscar yesterday. She was perfectly deserving as an outstanding actor. Yes, she is a person of color and that is a point of note. But going crazy for the first Latina Black openly queer Oscar winner is just seeking an Identity when none is needed.

That is the world we live in. Either a have or have not in terms of identity. If you are a “have” you have to constantly apologize for your privilege. If you are a “have-not”, you have to sort of agree that your achievements come with the affirmative action asterisk - like someone stepped out of your way to let you make it. What BS

Neither of those things are true. We celebrate when barriers are broken because it is a positive for society when those barriers are broken.

People with privilege don't have to apologize for their privilege. They simply are asked to acknowledge it - more often than not it isn't the existence of a positive but rather the absence of a negative.

It's a privilege for the overwhelming majority of students historically at TJ to have parents who prioritized TJ as early as they did. The student did nothing to earn that privilege in most cases. That's a privilege that I had that I acknowledge. I don't apologize for it, but I do realize that there's a decent possibility that I got in over someone more deserving because of it - and that's more of an asterisk to me than anything happening because of a lowering of barriers.

And "have-nots" don't have to tacitly agree that they are the beneficiaries of affirmative action. If it's done properly, there is no way to know whether or not affirmative action is or is not at play in any given situation.

And in the case of TJ, the intent is not to lower any standards, but to remove standards (exams and teacher recommendations) that no longer did the job they were intended to do. I do think they went too far - removing the exam was appropriate, but the right thing to do would have been to reimagine rather than remove the teacher recommendations. There was also no need for the "underrepresented schools" experience factor - simply having the 1.5% allocated seats should have been adequate along with the other EFs.

Of course we need to celebrate when barriers are broken. The first black President. The first Latina justice. But when you only define the world in terms of identities, you will soon be celebrating the first Black Latina Queer who grew up in a one-person household. Then you will parse it further. Because you cannot see beyond identity. You will champion Will Smith's son over a white Appalachian miner's son because you internal calibration tells scores black over white no matter what.

And that is the problem here. In your thinking, all Asians prep. And there fore you will penalize all Asians. So you come up with a system that prioritizes a kid who preps but lives in South County over a kid in McLean who has never prepped. And you will defend your system as "progress"

That inequity is lost on you equity warriors. You can justify the McLean kid as collateral damage in your war for social justice (like the kids our drones mistakenly bombed and killed in our noble "war on terror"). In your calculus equity is only about racial identity. Shame on you and your ilk.

Literally nothing that you said is true after the first three sentences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All this identity politics just dilutes achievement.
Look at Ariana DeBose who won the Oscar yesterday. She was perfectly deserving as an outstanding actor. Yes, she is a person of color and that is a point of note. But going crazy for the first Latina Black openly queer Oscar winner is just seeking an Identity when none is needed.

That is the world we live in. Either a have or have not in terms of identity. If you are a “have” you have to constantly apologize for your privilege. If you are a “have-not”, you have to sort of agree that your achievements come with the affirmative action asterisk - like someone stepped out of your way to let you make it. What BS

Neither of those things are true. We celebrate when barriers are broken because it is a positive for society when those barriers are broken.

People with privilege don't have to apologize for their privilege. They simply are asked to acknowledge it - more often than not it isn't the existence of a positive but rather the absence of a negative.

It's a privilege for the overwhelming majority of students historically at TJ to have parents who prioritized TJ as early as they did. The student did nothing to earn that privilege in most cases. That's a privilege that I had that I acknowledge. I don't apologize for it, but I do realize that there's a decent possibility that I got in over someone more deserving because of it - and that's more of an asterisk to me than anything happening because of a lowering of barriers.

And "have-nots" don't have to tacitly agree that they are the beneficiaries of affirmative action. If it's done properly, there is no way to know whether or not affirmative action is or is not at play in any given situation.

And in the case of TJ, the intent is not to lower any standards, but to remove standards (exams and teacher recommendations) that no longer did the job they were intended to do. I do think they went too far - removing the exam was appropriate, but the right thing to do would have been to reimagine rather than remove the teacher recommendations. There was also no need for the "underrepresented schools" experience factor - simply having the 1.5% allocated seats should have been adequate along with the other EFs.

Of course we need to celebrate when barriers are broken. The first black President. The first Latina justice. But when you only define the world in terms of identities, you will soon be celebrating the first Black Latina Queer who grew up in a one-person household. Then you will parse it further. Because you cannot see beyond identity. You will champion Will Smith's son over a white Appalachian miner's son because you internal calibration tells scores black over white no matter what.

And that is the problem here. In your thinking, all Asians prep. And there fore you will penalize all Asians. So you come up with a system that prioritizes a kid who preps but lives in South County over a kid in McLean who has never prepped. And you will defend your system as "progress"

That inequity is lost on you equity warriors. You can justify the McLean kid as collateral damage in your war for social justice (like the kids our drones mistakenly bombed and killed in our noble "war on terror"). In your calculus equity is only about racial identity. Shame on you and your ilk.

Literally nothing that you said is true after the first three sentences.

You need to work on your powers of comprehension. Or you can continue to preach without comprehension. Empty vessels make more noise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All this identity politics just dilutes achievement.
Look at Ariana DeBose who won the Oscar yesterday. She was perfectly deserving as an outstanding actor. Yes, she is a person of color and that is a point of note. But going crazy for the first Latina Black openly queer Oscar winner is just seeking an Identity when none is needed.

That is the world we live in. Either a have or have not in terms of identity. If you are a “have” you have to constantly apologize for your privilege. If you are a “have-not”, you have to sort of agree that your achievements come with the affirmative action asterisk - like someone stepped out of your way to let you make it. What BS

Neither of those things are true. We celebrate when barriers are broken because it is a positive for society when those barriers are broken.

People with privilege don't have to apologize for their privilege. They simply are asked to acknowledge it - more often than not it isn't the existence of a positive but rather the absence of a negative.

It's a privilege for the overwhelming majority of students historically at TJ to have parents who prioritized TJ as early as they did. The student did nothing to earn that privilege in most cases. That's a privilege that I had that I acknowledge. I don't apologize for it, but I do realize that there's a decent possibility that I got in over someone more deserving because of it - and that's more of an asterisk to me than anything happening because of a lowering of barriers.

And "have-nots" don't have to tacitly agree that they are the beneficiaries of affirmative action. If it's done properly, there is no way to know whether or not affirmative action is or is not at play in any given situation.

And in the case of TJ, the intent is not to lower any standards, but to remove standards (exams and teacher recommendations) that no longer did the job they were intended to do. I do think they went too far - removing the exam was appropriate, but the right thing to do would have been to reimagine rather than remove the teacher recommendations. There was also no need for the "underrepresented schools" experience factor - simply having the 1.5% allocated seats should have been adequate along with the other EFs.

Of course we need to celebrate when barriers are broken. The first black President. The first Latina justice. But when you only define the world in terms of identities, you will soon be celebrating the first Black Latina Queer who grew up in a one-person household. Then you will parse it further. Because you cannot see beyond identity. You will champion Will Smith's son over a white Appalachian miner's son because you internal calibration tells scores black over white no matter what.

And that is the problem here. In your thinking, all Asians prep. And there fore you will penalize all Asians. So you come up with a system that prioritizes a kid who preps but lives in South County over a kid in McLean who has never prepped. And you will defend your system as "progress"

That inequity is lost on you equity warriors. You can justify the McLean kid as collateral damage in your war for social justice (like the kids our drones mistakenly bombed and killed in our noble "war on terror"). In your calculus equity is only about racial identity. Shame on you and your ilk.

Literally nothing that you said is true after the first three sentences.

You need to work on your powers of comprehension. Or you can continue to preach without comprehension. Empty vessels make more noise.

So a lottery is the fairest outcome? No penalizing anyone that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All this identity politics just dilutes achievement.
Look at Ariana DeBose who won the Oscar yesterday. She was perfectly deserving as an outstanding actor. Yes, she is a person of color and that is a point of note. But going crazy for the first Latina Black openly queer Oscar winner is just seeking an Identity when none is needed.

That is the world we live in. Either a have or have not in terms of identity. If you are a “have” you have to constantly apologize for your privilege. If you are a “have-not”, you have to sort of agree that your achievements come with the affirmative action asterisk - like someone stepped out of your way to let you make it. What BS

Neither of those things are true. We celebrate when barriers are broken because it is a positive for society when those barriers are broken.

People with privilege don't have to apologize for their privilege. They simply are asked to acknowledge it - more often than not it isn't the existence of a positive but rather the absence of a negative.

It's a privilege for the overwhelming majority of students historically at TJ to have parents who prioritized TJ as early as they did. The student did nothing to earn that privilege in most cases. That's a privilege that I had that I acknowledge. I don't apologize for it, but I do realize that there's a decent possibility that I got in over someone more deserving because of it - and that's more of an asterisk to me than anything happening because of a lowering of barriers.

And "have-nots" don't have to tacitly agree that they are the beneficiaries of affirmative action. If it's done properly, there is no way to know whether or not affirmative action is or is not at play in any given situation.

And in the case of TJ, the intent is not to lower any standards, but to remove standards (exams and teacher recommendations) that no longer did the job they were intended to do. I do think they went too far - removing the exam was appropriate, but the right thing to do would have been to reimagine rather than remove the teacher recommendations. There was also no need for the "underrepresented schools" experience factor - simply having the 1.5% allocated seats should have been adequate along with the other EFs.

Of course we need to celebrate when barriers are broken. The first black President. The first Latina justice. But when you only define the world in terms of identities, you will soon be celebrating the first Black Latina Queer who grew up in a one-person household. Then you will parse it further. Because you cannot see beyond identity. You will champion Will Smith's son over a white Appalachian miner's son because you internal calibration tells scores black over white no matter what.

And that is the problem here. In your thinking, all Asians prep. And there fore you will penalize all Asians. So you come up with a system that prioritizes a kid who preps but lives in South County over a kid in McLean who has never prepped. And you will defend your system as "progress"

That inequity is lost on you equity warriors. You can justify the McLean kid as collateral damage in your war for social justice (like the kids our drones mistakenly bombed and killed in our noble "war on terror"). In your calculus equity is only about racial identity. Shame on you and your ilk.

Literally nothing that you said is true after the first three sentences.

You need to work on your powers of comprehension. Or you can continue to preach without comprehension. Empty vessels make more noise.

So a lottery is the fairest outcome? No penalizing anyone that way.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All this identity politics just dilutes achievement.
Look at Ariana DeBose who won the Oscar yesterday. She was perfectly deserving as an outstanding actor. Yes, she is a person of color and that is a point of note. But going crazy for the first Latina Black openly queer Oscar winner is just seeking an Identity when none is needed.

That is the world we live in. Either a have or have not in terms of identity. If you are a “have” you have to constantly apologize for your privilege. If you are a “have-not”, you have to sort of agree that your achievements come with the affirmative action asterisk - like someone stepped out of your way to let you make it. What BS

Neither of those things are true. We celebrate when barriers are broken because it is a positive for society when those barriers are broken.

People with privilege don't have to apologize for their privilege. They simply are asked to acknowledge it - more often than not it isn't the existence of a positive but rather the absence of a negative.

It's a privilege for the overwhelming majority of students historically at TJ to have parents who prioritized TJ as early as they did. The student did nothing to earn that privilege in most cases. That's a privilege that I had that I acknowledge. I don't apologize for it, but I do realize that there's a decent possibility that I got in over someone more deserving because of it - and that's more of an asterisk to me than anything happening because of a lowering of barriers.

And "have-nots" don't have to tacitly agree that they are the beneficiaries of affirmative action. If it's done properly, there is no way to know whether or not affirmative action is or is not at play in any given situation.

And in the case of TJ, the intent is not to lower any standards, but to remove standards (exams and teacher recommendations) that no longer did the job they were intended to do. I do think they went too far - removing the exam was appropriate, but the right thing to do would have been to reimagine rather than remove the teacher recommendations. There was also no need for the "underrepresented schools" experience factor - simply having the 1.5% allocated seats should have been adequate along with the other EFs.

Of course we need to celebrate when barriers are broken. The first black President. The first Latina justice. But when you only define the world in terms of identities, you will soon be celebrating the first Black Latina Queer who grew up in a one-person household. Then you will parse it further. Because you cannot see beyond identity. You will champion Will Smith's son over a white Appalachian miner's son because you internal calibration tells scores black over white no matter what.

And that is the problem here. In your thinking, all Asians prep. And there fore you will penalize all Asians. So you come up with a system that prioritizes a kid who preps but lives in South County over a kid in McLean who has never prepped. And you will defend your system as "progress"

That inequity is lost on you equity warriors. You can justify the McLean kid as collateral damage in your war for social justice (like the kids our drones mistakenly bombed and killed in our noble "war on terror"). In your calculus equity is only about racial identity. Shame on you and your ilk.

Literally nothing that you said is true after the first three sentences.

It's true they feel grievance and this drives their strange worldview.

[Anonymous]

OK - so:

- no update on the possible timeline of the case here?