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

[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:Are these legal battles the best use of fcps tax dollars? Maybe if they spent more money on other aap programs people wouldn’t need to clamor so hard to get into the scarce resource that’s TJ

Just get rid of all race on apps

TJ doesn’t have race on the app.

Disparate impact is a recognized legal theory.

Interesting. So if certain races have much lower acceptance rates & enrollment #s than others is that a disparate impact?

It basically means something that is race neutral can still be found to be discriminatory if it results in having a disparate impact on a protected class. Something that is race neutral can be a proxy for doing something racist if it has the result of being discriminatory against certain races. It depends on the facts and who and how it impacts.

For godsake. destroying a school for equity purposes is absolutely obscene. you guys make me sick.

Right. So the current admissions process has a disparate impact on admissions for URMs — significantly lower rates of admission.

Is that what the facts show? What if you look at % of applicants of each race who applied that are accepted?

Yes. We already did that analysis on another thread.

Ok thanks. Why do we only care about URMs? There are poor Asians. And we didn’t have Hispanic people as slaves so it’s not reparations for them to be URMs. Sorry if that was already discussed.

Friendly reminder that poor Asians were the biggest beneficiaries of the new admissions process per the data that was recently released - far moreso than Black or Hispanic students...

This is not a competition to divide the spoils!! you guys just don't get it...

So we should only care about “disparate impact” for certain groups, not all?

[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:Are these legal battles the best use of fcps tax dollars? Maybe if they spent more money on other aap programs people wouldn’t need to clamor so hard to get into the scarce resource that’s TJ

Just get rid of all race on apps

TJ doesn’t have race on the app.

Disparate impact is a recognized legal theory.

Interesting. So if certain races have much lower acceptance rates & enrollment #s than others is that a disparate impact?

It basically means something that is race neutral can still be found to be discriminatory if it results in having a disparate impact on a protected class. Something that is race neutral can be a proxy for doing something racist if it has the result of being discriminatory against certain races. It depends on the facts and who and how it impacts.

For godsake. destroying a school for equity purposes is absolutely obscene. you guys make me sick.

Right. So the current admissions process has a disparate impact on admissions for URMs — significantly lower rates of admission.

Is that what the facts show? What if you look at % of applicants of each race who applied that are accepted?

Yes. We already did that analysis on another thread.

Ok thanks. Why do we only care about URMs? There are poor Asians. And we didn’t have Hispanic people as slaves so it’s not reparations for them to be URMs. Sorry if that was already discussed.

Friendly reminder that poor Asians were the biggest beneficiaries of the new admissions process per the data that was recently released - far moreso than Black or Hispanic students...

This is not a competition to divide the spoils!! you guys just don't get it...

So we should only care about “disparate impact” for certain groups, not all?

That's literally coalition for TJ's argument. They are claiming the the current system has a disparate impact on Asian applicants even though the prior system had a disparate impact on literally every other group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are these legal battles the best use of fcps tax dollars? Maybe if they spent more money on other aap programs people wouldn’t need to clamor so hard to get into the scarce resource that’s TJ

Just get rid of all race on apps

TJ doesn’t have race on the app.

Disparate impact is a recognized legal theory.

Interesting. So if certain races have much lower acceptance rates & enrollment #s than others is that a disparate impact?

It basically means something that is race neutral can still be found to be discriminatory if it results in having a disparate impact on a protected class. Something that is race neutral can be a proxy for doing something racist if it has the result of being discriminatory against certain races. It depends on the facts and who and how it impacts.

Right. So the current admissions process has a disparate impact on admissions for URMs — significantly lower rates of admission.

Is that what the facts show? What if you look at % of applicants of each race who applied that are accepted?

Yes. We already did that analysis on another thread.

Ok thanks. Why do we only care about URMs? There are poor Asians. And we didn’t have Hispanic people as slaves so it’s not reparations for them to be URMs. Sorry if that was already discussed.

Because the Asians in this region are overrepresented and stereotyped as being wealthy and privileged. Some would even call them white adjacent. People don't think they deserve to have 70% representation in the school when they are only 20% of the population.

URMs are stereotyped as being less wealthy and privileged, and their numbers at TJ are abysmal. People don't think that's fair and perpetuates a cycle. They believe URMs deserve extra help, even if that means discrimination against white or Asian kids. To many, the ends justify the means. To others, they should be discriminated against.

It's not stereotyping, prior to last year TJ and Langley vied for the fewest FARMs students in FCPS with TJ usually winning.

+1

The old admissions process only admitted 0.6% (<1%!!) economically-disadvantaged students in 2020.
https://www.fcps.edu/news/tjhsst-offers-admission-486-students

[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:Are these legal battles the best use of fcps tax dollars? Maybe if they spent more money on other aap programs people wouldn’t need to clamor so hard to get into the scarce resource that’s TJ

Just get rid of all race on apps

TJ doesn’t have race on the app.

Disparate impact is a recognized legal theory.

Interesting. So if certain races have much lower acceptance rates & enrollment #s than others is that a disparate impact?

It basically means something that is race neutral can still be found to be discriminatory if it results in having a disparate impact on a protected class. Something that is race neutral can be a proxy for doing something racist if it has the result of being discriminatory against certain races. It depends on the facts and who and how it impacts.

For godsake. destroying a school for equity purposes is absolutely obscene. you guys make me sick.

Right. So the current admissions process has a disparate impact on admissions for URMs — significantly lower rates of admission.

Is that what the facts show? What if you look at % of applicants of each race who applied that are accepted?

Yes. We already did that analysis on another thread.

Ok thanks. Why do we only care about URMs? There are poor Asians. And we didn’t have Hispanic people as slaves so it’s not reparations for them to be URMs. Sorry if that was already discussed.

Friendly reminder that poor Asians were the biggest beneficiaries of the new admissions process per the data that was recently released - far moreso than Black or Hispanic students...

This is not a competition to divide the spoils!! you guys just don't get it...

So we should only care about “disparate impact” for certain groups, not all?

That's literally coalition for TJ's argument. They are claiming the the current system has a disparate impact on Asian applicants even though the prior system had a disparate impact on literally every other group.

And I’d say that the new process STILL has a “disparate impact” on URMs given that admission rates are still disparate.

[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:Are these legal battles the best use of fcps tax dollars? Maybe if they spent more money on other aap programs people wouldn’t need to clamor so hard to get into the scarce resource that’s TJ

Just get rid of all race on apps

TJ doesn’t have race on the app.

Disparate impact is a recognized legal theory.

Interesting. So if certain races have much lower acceptance rates & enrollment #s than others is that a disparate impact?

It basically means something that is race neutral can still be found to be discriminatory if it results in having a disparate impact on a protected class. Something that is race neutral can be a proxy for doing something racist if it has the result of being discriminatory against certain races. It depends on the facts and who and how it impacts.

For godsake. destroying a school for equity purposes is absolutely obscene. you guys make me sick.

Right. So the current admissions process has a disparate impact on admissions for URMs — significantly lower rates of admission.

Is that what the facts show? What if you look at % of applicants of each race who applied that are accepted?

Yes. We already did that analysis on another thread.

Ok thanks. Why do we only care about URMs? There are poor Asians. And we didn’t have Hispanic people as slaves so it’s not reparations for them to be URMs. Sorry if that was already discussed.

Friendly reminder that poor Asians were the biggest beneficiaries of the new admissions process per the data that was recently released - far moreso than Black or Hispanic students...

This is not a competition to divide the spoils!! you guys just don't get it...

So we should only care about “disparate impact” for certain groups, not all?

That's literally coalition for TJ's argument. They are claiming the the current system has a disparate impact on Asian applicants even though the prior system had a disparate impact on literally every other group.

And I’d say that the new process STILL has a “disparate impact” on URMs given that admission rates are still disparate.

At the moment, one thing you can say as a positive for the new process is that the demographic of the admitted student pool roughly mirrors the demographic of the applicant pool. Which is a positive.

[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:Are these legal battles the best use of fcps tax dollars? Maybe if they spent more money on other aap programs people wouldn’t need to clamor so hard to get into the scarce resource that’s TJ

Just get rid of all race on apps

TJ doesn’t have race on the app.

Disparate impact is a recognized legal theory.

Interesting. So if certain races have much lower acceptance rates & enrollment #s than others is that a disparate impact?

It basically means something that is race neutral can still be found to be discriminatory if it results in having a disparate impact on a protected class. Something that is race neutral can be a proxy for doing something racist if it has the result of being discriminatory against certain races. It depends on the facts and who and how it impacts.

For godsake. destroying a school for equity purposes is absolutely obscene. you guys make me sick.

Right. So the current admissions process has a disparate impact on admissions for URMs — significantly lower rates of admission.

Is that what the facts show? What if you look at % of applicants of each race who applied that are accepted?

Yes. We already did that analysis on another thread.

Ok thanks. Why do we only care about URMs? There are poor Asians. And we didn’t have Hispanic people as slaves so it’s not reparations for them to be URMs. Sorry if that was already discussed.

Friendly reminder that poor Asians were the biggest beneficiaries of the new admissions process per the data that was recently released - far moreso than Black or Hispanic students...

This is not a competition to divide the spoils!! you guys just don't get it...

So we should only care about “disparate impact” for certain groups, not all?

That's literally coalition for TJ's argument. They are claiming the the current system has a disparate impact on Asian applicants even though the prior system had a disparate impact on literally every other group.

And thus you have the core of Heytens' concurrence. C4TJ only has a case inasmuch as they are comparing the results of the new process to the previous one. And as he mentioned, the reasoning that Hilton used and that Rushing essentially parroted would make it impossible to address any policy that actually had a disparate racial impact, whether purposefully or otherwise.

Heytens didn't say this, but Hilton's reasoning could be used to claim that the abolition of slavery had a disparate impact on white people and therefore was unconstitutional.

[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:Are these legal battles the best use of fcps tax dollars? Maybe if they spent more money on other aap programs people wouldn’t need to clamor so hard to get into the scarce resource that’s TJ

Just get rid of all race on apps

TJ doesn’t have race on the app.

Disparate impact is a recognized legal theory.

Interesting. So if certain races have much lower acceptance rates & enrollment #s than others is that a disparate impact?

It basically means something that is race neutral can still be found to be discriminatory if it results in having a disparate impact on a protected class. Something that is race neutral can be a proxy for doing something racist if it has the result of being discriminatory against certain races. It depends on the facts and who and how it impacts.

For godsake. destroying a school for equity purposes is absolutely obscene. you guys make me sick.

Right. So the current admissions process has a disparate impact on admissions for URMs — significantly lower rates of admission.

Is that what the facts show? What if you look at % of applicants of each race who applied that are accepted?

Yes. We already did that analysis on another thread.

Ok thanks. Why do we only care about URMs? There are poor Asians. And we didn’t have Hispanic people as slaves so it’s not reparations for them to be URMs. Sorry if that was already discussed.

Friendly reminder that poor Asians were the biggest beneficiaries of the new admissions process per the data that was recently released - far moreso than Black or Hispanic students...

This is not a competition to divide the spoils!! you guys just don't get it...

So we should only care about “disparate impact” for certain groups, not all?

That's literally coalition for TJ's argument. They are claiming the the current system has a disparate impact on Asian applicants even though the prior system had a disparate impact on literally every other group.

And I’d say that the new process STILL has a “disparate impact” on URMs given that admission rates are still disparate.

At the moment, one thing you can say as a positive for the new process is that the demographic of the admitted student pool roughly mirrors the demographic of the applicant pool. Which is a positive.

Not roughly. There were *still* disparities. This was covered on an old thread. I can’t look up at the moment but can try later.

[Anonymous]

Hilton's reasoning makes any desegregation unconstitutional

[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:Are these legal battles the best use of fcps tax dollars? Maybe if they spent more money on other aap programs people wouldn’t need to clamor so hard to get into the scarce resource that’s TJ

Just get rid of all race on apps

TJ doesn’t have race on the app.

Disparate impact is a recognized legal theory.

Interesting. So if certain races have much lower acceptance rates & enrollment #s than others is that a disparate impact?

It basically means something that is race neutral can still be found to be discriminatory if it results in having a disparate impact on a protected class. Something that is race neutral can be a proxy for doing something racist if it has the result of being discriminatory against certain races. It depends on the facts and who and how it impacts.

For godsake. destroying a school for equity purposes is absolutely obscene. you guys make me sick.

Right. So the current admissions process has a disparate impact on admissions for URMs — significantly lower rates of admission.

Is that what the facts show? What if you look at % of applicants of each race who applied that are accepted?

Yes. We already did that analysis on another thread.

Ok thanks. Why do we only care about URMs? There are poor Asians. And we didn’t have Hispanic people as slaves so it’s not reparations for them to be URMs. Sorry if that was already discussed.

Friendly reminder that poor Asians were the biggest beneficiaries of the new admissions process per the data that was recently released - far moreso than Black or Hispanic students...

This is not a competition to divide the spoils!! you guys just don't get it...

So we should only care about “disparate impact” for certain groups, not all?

That's literally coalition for TJ's argument. They are claiming the the current system has a disparate impact on Asian applicants even though the prior system had a disparate impact on literally every other group.

And I’d say that the new process STILL has a “disparate impact” on URMs given that admission rates are still disparate.

At the moment, one thing you can say as a positive for the new process is that the demographic of the admitted student pool roughly mirrors the demographic of the applicant pool. Which is a positive.

Not roughly. There were *still* disparities. This was covered on an old thread. I can’t look up at the moment but can try later.

You want disparate impact? Here are some egregious disparate impact:

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?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:Are these legal battles the best use of fcps tax dollars? Maybe if they spent more money on other aap programs people wouldn’t need to clamor so hard to get into the scarce resource that’s TJ

Just get rid of all race on apps

TJ doesn’t have race on the app.

Disparate impact is a recognized legal theory.

Interesting. So if certain races have much lower acceptance rates & enrollment #s than others is that a disparate impact?

It basically means something that is race neutral can still be found to be discriminatory if it results in having a disparate impact on a protected class. Something that is race neutral can be a proxy for doing something racist if it has the result of being discriminatory against certain races. It depends on the facts and who and how it impacts.

For godsake. destroying a school for equity purposes is absolutely obscene. you guys make me sick.

Right. So the current admissions process has a disparate impact on admissions for URMs — significantly lower rates of admission.

Is that what the facts show? What if you look at % of applicants of each race who applied that are accepted?

Yes. We already did that analysis on another thread.

Ok thanks. Why do we only care about URMs? There are poor Asians. And we didn’t have Hispanic people as slaves so it’s not reparations for them to be URMs. Sorry if that was already discussed.

Friendly reminder that poor Asians were the biggest beneficiaries of the new admissions process per the data that was recently released - far moreso than Black or Hispanic students...

This is not a competition to divide the spoils!! you guys just don't get it...

So we should only care about “disparate impact” for certain groups, not all?

That's literally coalition for TJ's argument. They are claiming the the current system has a disparate impact on Asian applicants even though the prior system had a disparate impact on literally every other group.

And I’d say that the new process STILL has a “disparate impact” on URMs given that admission rates are still disparate.

At the moment, one thing you can say as a positive for the new process is that the demographic of the admitted student pool roughly mirrors the demographic of the applicant pool. Which is a positive.

Not roughly. There were *still* disparities. This was covered on an old thread. I can’t look up at the moment but can try later.

You want disparate impact? Here are some egregious disparate impact:

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?

You must have a very particular definition of Asian

[Anonymous]

Also, https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/judges at least do some basic research before claiming that there are no Asian American Judges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are these legal battles the best use of fcps tax dollars? Maybe if they spent more money on other aap programs people wouldn’t need to clamor so hard to get into the scarce resource that’s TJ

Just get rid of all race on apps

TJ doesn’t have race on the app.

Disparate impact is a recognized legal theory.

Interesting. So if certain races have much lower acceptance rates & enrollment #s than others is that a disparate impact?

It basically means something that is race neutral can still be found to be discriminatory if it results in having a disparate impact on a protected class. Something that is race neutral can be a proxy for doing something racist if it has the result of being discriminatory against certain races. It depends on the facts and who and how it impacts.

Right. So the current admissions process has a disparate impact on admissions for URMs — significantly lower rates of admission.

Is that what the facts show? What if you look at % of applicants of each race who applied that are accepted?

Yes. We already did that analysis on another thread.

Ok thanks. Why do we only care about URMs? There are poor Asians. And we didn’t have Hispanic people as slaves so it’s not reparations for them to be URMs. Sorry if that was already discussed.

Friendly reminder that poor Asians were the biggest beneficiaries of the new admissions process per the data that was recently released - far moreso than Black or Hispanic students...

Thanks for clarifying. I do appreciate it. Sorry that I just decided to start paying attention. I don't want my kids to apply to TJ (neither do they) so I hadn't been following to much. Well it's real interesting - I'll be interested to see where the Supreme Court comes out.

[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:Are these legal battles the best use of fcps tax dollars? Maybe if they spent more money on other aap programs people wouldn’t need to clamor so hard to get into the scarce resource that’s TJ

Just get rid of all race on apps

TJ doesn’t have race on the app.

Disparate impact is a recognized legal theory.

Interesting. So if certain races have much lower acceptance rates & enrollment #s than others is that a disparate impact?

It basically means something that is race neutral can still be found to be discriminatory if it results in having a disparate impact on a protected class. Something that is race neutral can be a proxy for doing something racist if it has the result of being discriminatory against certain races. It depends on the facts and who and how it impacts.

For godsake. destroying a school for equity purposes is absolutely obscene. you guys make me sick.

Right. So the current admissions process has a disparate impact on admissions for URMs — significantly lower rates of admission.

Is that what the facts show? What if you look at % of applicants of each race who applied that are accepted?

Yes. We already did that analysis on another thread.

Ok thanks. Why do we only care about URMs? There are poor Asians. And we didn’t have Hispanic people as slaves so it’s not reparations for them to be URMs. Sorry if that was already discussed.

Friendly reminder that poor Asians were the biggest beneficiaries of the new admissions process per the data that was recently released - far moreso than Black or Hispanic students...

This is not a competition to divide the spoils!! you guys just don't get it...

So we should only care about “disparate impact” for certain groups, not all?

That's literally coalition for TJ's argument. They are claiming the the current system has a disparate impact on Asian applicants even though the prior system had a disparate impact on literally every other group.

This is not how disparate impact works. The existence of disparate impact alone can't be the basis for a claim. In other words, just because the outcomes are different, doesn't mean there is underlying racial discrimination. Disparate impact is only meaningful as evidence that a racist policy is actually discriminatory in effect. The chain is that there is underlying racist intent, which leads to the implementation of superficially race-neutral admissions policies, which in turn lead to demonstrated disparate impact. Without racist intent or existence of actual racist policies in the original TJ admissions policy, disparate impact is a non-issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/judges at least do some basic research before claiming that there are no Asian American Judges.

It ain't 20%. Only 6%. We want at least 20%! Disparate impact!

[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:Are these legal battles the best use of fcps tax dollars? Maybe if they spent more money on other aap programs people wouldn’t need to clamor so hard to get into the scarce resource that’s TJ

Just get rid of all race on apps

TJ doesn’t have race on the app.

Disparate impact is a recognized legal theory.

Interesting. So if certain races have much lower acceptance rates & enrollment #s than others is that a disparate impact?

It basically means something that is race neutral can still be found to be discriminatory if it results in having a disparate impact on a protected class. Something that is race neutral can be a proxy for doing something racist if it has the result of being discriminatory against certain races. It depends on the facts and who and how it impacts.

For godsake. destroying a school for equity purposes is absolutely obscene. you guys make me sick.

Right. So the current admissions process has a disparate impact on admissions for URMs — significantly lower rates of admission.

Is that what the facts show? What if you look at % of applicants of each race who applied that are accepted?

Yes. We already did that analysis on another thread.

Ok thanks. Why do we only care about URMs? There are poor Asians. And we didn’t have Hispanic people as slaves so it’s not reparations for them to be URMs. Sorry if that was already discussed.

Friendly reminder that poor Asians were the biggest beneficiaries of the new admissions process per the data that was recently released - far moreso than Black or Hispanic students...

This is not a competition to divide the spoils!! you guys just don't get it...

So we should only care about “disparate impact” for certain groups, not all?

That's literally coalition for TJ's argument. They are claiming the the current system has a disparate impact on Asian applicants even though the prior system had a disparate impact on literally every other group.

On the other hand - that Omeish text is a really bad fact for FCPS here. I really think that text is having an impact.