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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Heard the judge today denied FCPS’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation challenging the TJ admissions change.

No injunction?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Heard the judge today denied FCPS’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation challenging the TJ admissions change.

No injunction?

Nope. The process for the Class of 2025 will move forward and likely either next Friday or the following (I would bet May 28 with Memorial Day approaching) the initial 550 offers will be extended.

Something like half of the complainants in the case will become irrelevant once those offers are extended.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Heard the judge today denied FCPS’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation challenging the TJ admissions change.

No injunction?

Nope. The process for the Class of 2025 will move forward and likely either next Friday or the following (I would bet May 28 with Memorial Day approaching) the initial 550 offers will be extended.

Something like half of the complainants in the case will become irrelevant once those offers are extended.

I am betting pretty strongly on two things:

1) The admissions process for the Class of 2026 will look significantly different than this year's

2) There still will be no exam involved

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Heard the judge today denied FCPS’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation challenging the TJ admissions change.

How is this possible. I've been told by the legal eagles here that there is no case, the best argument is super weak, and PLF supporters don't understand what constitutional means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Heard the judge today denied FCPS’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation challenging the TJ admissions change.

No injunction?

Nope. The process for the Class of 2025 will move forward and likely either next Friday or the following (I would bet May 28 with Memorial Day approaching) the initial 550 offers will be extended.

Something like half of the complainants in the case will become irrelevant once those offers are extended.

Coalition for Status Quo will probably have to find some other funding sources to carry the suit forward once that happens. These folks are not known for spending money that doesn't benefit their children directly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Heard the judge today denied FCPS’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation challenging the TJ admissions change.

How is this possible. I've been told by the legal eagles here that there is no case, the best argument is super weak, and PLF supporters don't understand what constitutional means.

All the SJWs that half-assed law school displayed their cognitive dissonance yet again.

[Anonymous]

if they had a good argument, they would have gotten an injunction. The judge proceeding means that there is a case, just not necessarily a good one

[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.

"Systematically" Please explain. Are you saying that the admissions officers are not fairly evaluating a candidate if the are Black or Hispanic? I believe the law suit in the 1990s from Professor of Llyod Cohen proved just the opposite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Heard the judge today denied FCPS’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation challenging the TJ admissions change.

How is this possible. I've been told by the legal eagles here that there is no case, the best argument is super weak, and PLF supporters don't understand what constitutional means.

+1. Those people need to do some sole searching if they don't see the discrimination at play. Congratulations to PLF for advancing the rights of all of us under the Equal Protection Clause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:if they had a good argument, they would have gotten an injunction. The judge proceeding means that there is a case, just not necessarily a good one

They weren't seeking a TRO or preliminary injunction in this case. They are seeking a permanent injunction, but that would be considered later and, if successful, bar FCPS from using its new admissions criteria on a prospective basis.

You know how to snipe, but not how to read a complaint. Apparently the judge did, which is why he refused to dismiss the complaint at the pleading stage, as FCPS unsuccessfully requested.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

OK, what rights are not allowed to be asserted?

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

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

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

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

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

2) That whole second paragraph is a casserole of nonsense

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

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

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

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

I believe the Judge today proved to all of us that you are a clown that doesn't know what he/she is talking about.

[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.

"Systematically" Please explain. Are you saying that the admissions officers are not fairly evaluating a candidate if the are Black or Hispanic? I believe the law suit in the 1990s from Professor of Llyod Cohen proved just the opposite.

So for pretty much the balance of the history of TJ's admissions process, students have not even been able to qualify for evaluation without recording a certain score - historically a raw score, but more recently a percentile on the curve - on a standardized exam. There is no end of peer-reviewed and validated research that the entire practice of standardized testing favors some communities over others - most specifically those of lesser means. While white and Asian families have great diversity in terms of socioeconomic status, Black and Hispanic families historically do not - they are poor on a much more consistent basis than white or Asian families. Thus it is possible, when it comes to a discussion of exclusion, to use SES as a proxy for race for purposes of evaluation. If you look at TJ's FARMS rate for generations, you see that the process has systematically excluded SOME communities of white and Asian families, while also systematically excluding NEARLY ALL Black and Hispanic families.

Their applications don't even get to the Admissions Commitee's desks because of these exams, which people with resources to burn can teach their kids how to excel on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:if they had a good argument, they would have gotten an injunction. The judge proceeding means that there is a case, just not necessarily a good one

They weren't seeking a TRO or preliminary injunction in this case. They are seeking a permanent injunction, but that would be considered later and, if successful, bar FCPS from using its new admissions criteria on a prospective basis.

You know how to snipe, but not how to read a complaint. Apparently the judge did, which is why he refused to dismiss the complaint at the pleading stage, as FCPS unsuccessfully requested.

he refused to dismiss. The standard for dismissal is high. The standard for summary judgment isn't and that's where this case is headed

[Anonymous]

also, the did file for a preliminary injunction

https://pacificlegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Coalition-for-TJ-v.-Fairfax-County-School-Board-PLF-Reply-ISO-MPI-5.12.21.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Heard the judge today denied FCPS’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation challenging the TJ admissions change.

No injunction?

Nope. The process for the Class of 2025 will move forward and likely either next Friday or the following (I would bet May 28 with Memorial Day approaching) the initial 550 offers will be extended.

Something like half of the complainants in the case will become irrelevant once those offers are extended.

Admissions said they’re not putting decisions out until mid to late June! Such a mess.