Federal judge rules that admissions changes at nation’s top public school discriminate against Asian

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If white parents don’t care about TJ, why did we need to increase the number of white students at TJ? Because that’s exactly what we did

There could be more white students at TJ if more white students were applying. But they aren’t. Only 14% of white 8th graders even applied.

You think the white parents wanted to reduce the # of seats from well-represented middle schools and private schools? How would that benefit them?

The Merit Lottery originally proposed in September 2020 that limits the number of admitted students from schools grouped into Regional pathways, would have given the whites a plurality at TJ. That shows the intent.

If white families were so interested in TJ then more would be applying. Sorry that doesn't fit with your false narrative.

What happened was that people looked at the demographics with the old TJ admissions process and saw how few black/hispanic/ED kids were admitted.

For the class of 2021...
Out of the 179 who black kids applied, only 9 got it.
Out of the 220 hispanic kids, only 8 got it.
Out of the 289 ED kids, only 8 got it.

In the entire class of 490 students. Respectively, they were 1.8%, 1.6%, and 1.6% of the class. They make up 10%, 27%, and 27% of FCPS students.

https://www.fcps.edu/news/fcps-offers-admission-tjhsst-490-students


How can you look at those numbers and NOT think that is a problem?

Obviously there is a problem. Solution is not Asian bashing/demonizing - they are not the cause. It is very clearly a pipeline problem which can be solved by a collaborative approach - maybe even including the TJ students. Having them mentor middle school kids etc. Destroying the school standards and introducing criteria with an express intent to decrease Asians in not the solution. Root cause analysis, people. Not lazy, wrong solutions.

Lazy? You're under-estimating the degree of malicious intent of the liberal people. The very purpose of the TJ reform was to reduce the Asian population. They're NOT interested in the root causes, PERIOD!

Let's back up for a second.

The School Board is a mess and the communications around this process were horrible. So stipulated and agreed to. If you want to call them evil or racist or whatever, fine - there's plenty of evidence to suggest some level of malicious intent, though I disagree that the mechanics of the new process are inherently racist.

The advocates on the ground for TJ admissions reform do not care about the population of Asian students at the school, except inasmuch as we'd love to see more of them come from disadvantaged backgrounds. The lack of students from historically underrepresented communities is what we are trying to solve, NOT the disproportionately high percentage of Asian students.

However, it is a function of the reality on the ground that those numbers have to come from somewhere - and as such, the most likely outcome of increasing the representation of underserved communities in the school was going to be a decrease in the number of Asian students.

You of course have the right to advocate for your group as much as you feel is appropriate. But the reality is this - and I've said it here many times before:

The fact that it IMPACTS you doesn't mean it's ABOUT you. I understand the need to leverage every angle you can to try and advocate for yourselves, and the School Board and Brabrand gave you a huge window in which to do it because of their sloppiness.

But intellectually, if you can't wrap your head around the fact that desiring any increase in underrepresented communities does not indicate animus toward Asians, even though a decrease in Asian students is the most likely result, you can't be a part of any productive conversation in this area.

I find the distinction you draw between "underrepresented communities" and "percentage of Asian students" completely arbitrary. If you are focused on the composition of the student body and believe that underrepresentation of certain student groups is a problem to be solved, then the solution necessarily involves reducing the percentage of overrepresented students, which in this case is by reducing the percentage of Asian students.

I also find it incredibly demeaning for you to claim that Asians being discriminated against isn't about Asians, implying that Asians have no grounds to complain. How would this line of logic go over for white slave owners to tell their black slaves that slavery isn't about blacks but about whites being the superior race to all other races, and therefore blacks shouldn't feel that there is actually any animus by whites towards blacks.

I'm going to assume that you simply haven't considered your position very well rather than conclude that you are morally bankrupt. I pray that you don't post a followup and prove me wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If white parents don’t care about TJ, why did we need to increase the number of white students at TJ? Because that’s exactly what we did

There could be more white students at TJ if more white students were applying. But they aren’t. Only 14% of white 8th graders even applied.

You think the white parents wanted to reduce the # of seats from well-represented middle schools and private schools? How would that benefit them?

The Merit Lottery originally proposed in September 2020 that limits the number of admitted students from schools grouped into Regional pathways, would have given the whites a plurality at TJ. That shows the intent.

If white families were so interested in TJ then more would be applying. Sorry that doesn't fit with your false narrative.

What happened was that people looked at the demographics with the old TJ admissions process and saw how few black/hispanic/ED kids were admitted.

For the class of 2021...
Out of the 179 who black kids applied, only 9 got it.
Out of the 220 hispanic kids, only 8 got it.
Out of the 289 ED kids, only 8 got it.

In the entire class of 490 students. Respectively, they were 1.8%, 1.6%, and 1.6% of the class. They make up 10%, 27%, and 27% of FCPS students.

https://www.fcps.edu/news/fcps-offers-admission-tjhsst-490-students


How can you look at those numbers and NOT think that is a problem?

Clearly there is a problem. But just because there is a problem, doesn't mean the problem is with the admission process itself. Are the admission standards racist by discriminating against blacks and hispanics even when two applicants are equally qualified? If not, then the problem isn't with the admission process. Why are so few blacks and hispanics admitted? How do their qualifications compare to other applicants?

The argument that most pro-reform people have been making is that we've done a poor job historically of measuring who is more or less qualified to go to TJ, and perhaps more importantly whether or not there should be multiple avenues to be qualified to go to TJ.

By creating a pathway for the most qualified students from each middle school to attend (and perhaps 1.5% is too much! Maybe it should be 1%...) and by seeking qualified students from different educational backgrounds, you are by definition finding the students who have made the most of their unique circumstances. In my experience with TJ, those are the students most likely to get the most out of their experience - moreso than the 60th, 70th, or 80th most qualified student at a Carson or a Longfellow.

We do need to add more non-exam elements to the application process in order to paint a better picture of the student, but we have a strong starting point here to build off of. Students from the class of 2026 will actually have kids from underrepresented schools to look up to within their environment next year - assuming the current process remains in place at least for another year.

It is upon the proponents of reform people to demonstrate that existing admissions practices do a poor job of identifying qualified students, per the stated education goal of TJ. Making the most of unique circumstances is a meaningless standard. If we believe that some students are artificially held back due to lack of resources, the answer is to increase resources for the student, rather than pretending that this student is just as qualified as another student despite objectively lower academic performance.

Underrepresentation in and of itself is not a problem. To claim otherwise is to ignore the fact that people who share a common identity sometimes makes choices that are different from other groups who share a different common identity, and that these *different choices* lead to different outcomes and thus different access to future opportunities. You cannot eliminate underrepresentation unless you eliminate free choice.

Decades of peer-reviewed research into the value of diversity in educational spaces disagrees with you.

But besides the point, there is a gigantic amount of space between "underrepresentation" and what has historically gone on at TJ. In ONE typical TJ freshman class prior to the admissions changes, there are significantly more Asian students than the entire number of Black students that have been admitted to TJ in its 35+ year history. A randomly drawn student at TJ in recent years was over FIFTY TIMES more likely to be Asian than Black, in a catchment area where a randomly drawn 8th grader would be perhaps twice as likely to be Asian.

A Black student at TJ as recently as pre-Covid could have easily gone through an entire day at TJ without seeing another Black student, and an entire four-year CAREER at TJ without ever being in a classroom with another Black student. Given that reality, it should come as no surprise that you have folks on these boards who can say the sorts of things they say and not realize that they are deeply, foundationally racist.

You'll have to show your work on these research studies, and make sure that the diversity being discussed is racial diversity, which is what "underrepresented communities" is referring to.

I don't see the problem with Asians students being admitted in higher number than Black students unless you can point to the admissions standards being racist - again, the burden of proof is on you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Department of Justice should investigate for violations of civil rights and criminally charge appropriate individuals to rot in prison for decades.

+1

Are you referring to the old discriminatory admissions process?

No. The old (pre covid) admissions process wasn't discriminatory. The current one is.

The PP was trying to be sarcastic/funny.

If we believe the old admissions process was discriminatory, there's a very simple solution for that: file a lawsuit and win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But for black students the # admitted was only 1/3rd of expected.

2011 admission results (class of 2015)
754 black kids in FCPS
244 were eligible to apply (32% of FCPS black students)
(ignoring other counties)
224 applied (30% of FCPS black students; 92% of eligible)
6 were admitted (1% of FCPS black students; 3% admit rate)

looking deeper in the the courses/pipeline
admit rates for A1H=4%, GH=26%, G+=67%
look at # of black kids in those classes (205,37,2) & apply rate (92%)
the # of admits should be ~18 kids

But there were only 6 admitted. 1/3rd compared to others in same course level.

So there still is the pipeline question - why are only 32% eligible?

BUT even when looking at eligible students & similar course levels, why is admit rate so low relative to other groups?

It's simple math. The qualification distribution is likely a normal curve of some sort, and the selection of candidates from the upper/lower end of a normal curve will be drastically different depending on how the candidate groups are shifted relative to each other, much more so than the overall difference between the two populations.

If you imagine two cooks making hamburger patties by hand, one cook tends to be a little more generous than the other one although both cooks make patties that are close to 1/4 pound in weight on average, then if you select 10 heaviest patties, they are likely mostly going to be made by the cook that is a little more generous.

These kids all qualified to get into the same advanced classes. The distribution shouldn't be that disparate.

The fact that the percent eligible figure differed between different populations is clear statistical evidence that the distributions are disparate enough to cause a bias in favor of the population that is more within the "qualified" region. I feel the need to point out that "bias" in the previous sentence is used to point out a mathematical reality, and not some discriminatory behavior by a person, because some of the posters here don't seem to understand math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Department of Justice should investigate for violations of civil rights and criminally charge appropriate individuals to rot in prison for decades.

+1

Are you referring to the old discriminatory admissions process?

No. The old (pre covid) admissions process wasn't discriminatory. The current one is.

The PP was trying to be sarcastic/funny.

If we believe the old admissions process was discriminatory, there's a very simple solution for that: file a lawsuit and win.

The NCAA - along with Asian Americans Advancing Justice and LatinoJustice - did file a amicus brief in support of the new process:
https://www.naacpldf.org/press-release/civil-rights-groups-file-to-submit-amicus-brief-that-supports-admissions-policies-that-address-structural-barriers-to-education/
“We continue to be committed to expanding educational opportunities for all. The Asian American community is an incredibly diverse group, and the revised admissions process benefits all students, including Asian American students who are low-income or English language learners, a fact that the Coalition for TJ ignores,” said Niyati Shah, Advancing Justice – AAJC’s Director of Litigation. “All students deserve a high quality education where they can also learn and benefit from the diversity of their peers. We support measures that promote equal educational opportunities for all students, and reject attempts to obscure the rich diversity of our communities.”


https://www.advancingjustice-aajc.org/sites/default/files/2021-09/DE%2065-1%20TJHSST%20Amici%20Brief%20FILED.pdf
As Amici explained in their previous amicus brief, TJHSST’s prior admissions policy
failed to adequately address structural barriers to equal educational opportunity, resulting in the
near exclusion of students across a broad range of demographic and socioeconomic groups. See
ECF 27-1 at Section I (detailing, for example, the unequal access to Level IV Advanced Academic
Program Centers; the unequal access to Algebra I classes; and unequal access to test preparation
services and extracurricular activities).12 TJHSST’s revised admissions policy begins to address
these barriers, and TJHSST’s class of 2025 reflects demonstrable progress: FCSB’s changes in its
admissions policy encouraged 500 more students to apply to TJHSST than in 2020—a 17%
increase—and after five consecutive years in which TJHSST did not admit more than ten Black
students or more than 23 Latinx students, TJHSST admitted 39 Black students and 62 Latinx
students this past admissions cycle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But for black students the # admitted was only 1/3rd of expected.

2011 admission results (class of 2015)
754 black kids in FCPS
244 were eligible to apply (32% of FCPS black students)
(ignoring other counties)
224 applied (30% of FCPS black students; 92% of eligible)
6 were admitted (1% of FCPS black students; 3% admit rate)

looking deeper in the the courses/pipeline
admit rates for A1H=4%, GH=26%, G+=67%
look at # of black kids in those classes (205,37,2) & apply rate (92%)
the # of admits should be ~18 kids

But there were only 6 admitted. 1/3rd compared to others in same course level.

So there still is the pipeline question - why are only 32% eligible?

BUT even when looking at eligible students & similar course levels, why is admit rate so low relative to other groups?

It's simple math. The qualification distribution is likely a normal curve of some sort, and the selection of candidates from the upper/lower end of a normal curve will be drastically different depending on how the candidate groups are shifted relative to each other, much more so than the overall difference between the two populations.

If you imagine two cooks making hamburger patties by hand, one cook tends to be a little more generous than the other one although both cooks make patties that are close to 1/4 pound in weight on average, then if you select 10 heaviest patties, they are likely mostly going to be made by the cook that is a little more generous.

These kids all qualified to get into the same advanced classes. The distribution shouldn't be that disparate.

The fact that the percent eligible figure differed between different populations is clear statistical evidence that the distributions are disparate enough to cause a bias in favor of the population that is more within the "qualified" region. I feel the need to point out that "bias" in the previous sentence is used to point out a mathematical reality, and not some discriminatory behavior by a person, because some of the posters here don't seem to understand math.

That just indicates an increased # of eligible kids, not a disparate distribution. These kids all qualified for their respective advanced math classes. There isn't different criteria for different groups.

[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 white parents don’t care about TJ, why did we need to increase the number of white students at TJ? Because that’s exactly what we did

There could be more white students at TJ if more white students were applying. But they aren’t. Only 14% of white 8th graders even applied.

You think the white parents wanted to reduce the # of seats from well-represented middle schools and private schools? How would that benefit them?

The Merit Lottery originally proposed in September 2020 that limits the number of admitted students from schools grouped into Regional pathways, would have given the whites a plurality at TJ. That shows the intent.

If white families were so interested in TJ then more would be applying. Sorry that doesn't fit with your false narrative.

What happened was that people looked at the demographics with the old TJ admissions process and saw how few black/hispanic/ED kids were admitted.

For the class of 2021...
Out of the 179 who black kids applied, only 9 got it.
Out of the 220 hispanic kids, only 8 got it.
Out of the 289 ED kids, only 8 got it.

In the entire class of 490 students. Respectively, they were 1.8%, 1.6%, and 1.6% of the class. They make up 10%, 27%, and 27% of FCPS students.

https://www.fcps.edu/news/fcps-offers-admission-tjhsst-490-students


How can you look at those numbers and NOT think that is a problem?

Clearly there is a problem. But just because there is a problem, doesn't mean the problem is with the admission process itself. Are the admission standards racist by discriminating against blacks and hispanics even when two applicants are equally qualified? If not, then the problem isn't with the admission process. Why are so few blacks and hispanics admitted? How do their qualifications compare to other applicants?

The argument that most pro-reform people have been making is that we've done a poor job historically of measuring who is more or less qualified to go to TJ, and perhaps more importantly whether or not there should be multiple avenues to be qualified to go to TJ.

By creating a pathway for the most qualified students from each middle school to attend (and perhaps 1.5% is too much! Maybe it should be 1%...) and by seeking qualified students from different educational backgrounds, you are by definition finding the students who have made the most of their unique circumstances. In my experience with TJ, those are the students most likely to get the most out of their experience - moreso than the 60th, 70th, or 80th most qualified student at a Carson or a Longfellow.

We do need to add more non-exam elements to the application process in order to paint a better picture of the student, but we have a strong starting point here to build off of. Students from the class of 2026 will actually have kids from underrepresented schools to look up to within their environment next year - assuming the current process remains in place at least for another year.

It is upon the proponents of reform people to demonstrate that existing admissions practices do a poor job of identifying qualified students, per the stated education goal of TJ. Making the most of unique circumstances is a meaningless standard. If we believe that some students are artificially held back due to lack of resources, the answer is to increase resources for the student, rather than pretending that this student is just as qualified as another student despite objectively lower academic performance.

Underrepresentation in and of itself is not a problem. To claim otherwise is to ignore the fact that people who share a common identity sometimes makes choices that are different from other groups who share a different common identity, and that these *different choices* lead to different outcomes and thus different access to future opportunities. You cannot eliminate underrepresentation unless you eliminate free choice.

Decades of peer-reviewed research into the value of diversity in educational spaces disagrees with you.

But besides the point, there is a gigantic amount of space between "underrepresentation" and what has historically gone on at TJ. In ONE typical TJ freshman class prior to the admissions changes, there are significantly more Asian students than the entire number of Black students that have been admitted to TJ in its 35+ year history. A randomly drawn student at TJ in recent years was over FIFTY TIMES more likely to be Asian than Black, in a catchment area where a randomly drawn 8th grader would be perhaps twice as likely to be Asian.

A Black student at TJ as recently as pre-Covid could have easily gone through an entire day at TJ without seeing another Black student, and an entire four-year CAREER at TJ without ever being in a classroom with another Black student. Given that reality, it should come as no surprise that you have folks on these boards who can say the sorts of things they say and not realize that they are deeply, foundationally racist.

Why is that a problem if everything is merit based? That's a weak argument for the racist TJ reform.

Because merit is not limited to the group that the previous admissions process benefited. And believing it is amounts to Asian supremacy. Different choices are one thing. This is quite another.

Are you still in elementary school? Merit is a objective measure. What you liberals are practicing now, the identity politics, is anti-merit and racist. It was what Nazi Germany used to practice.

Last I checked, the Nazis were into homogeneity and an increase in dominance of the dominant population.

Just ignore the Nazi troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But for black students the # admitted was only 1/3rd of expected.

2011 admission results (class of 2015)
754 black kids in FCPS
244 were eligible to apply (32% of FCPS black students)
(ignoring other counties)
224 applied (30% of FCPS black students; 92% of eligible)
6 were admitted (1% of FCPS black students; 3% admit rate)

looking deeper in the the courses/pipeline
admit rates for A1H=4%, GH=26%, G+=67%
look at # of black kids in those classes (205,37,2) & apply rate (92%)
the # of admits should be ~18 kids

But there were only 6 admitted. 1/3rd compared to others in same course level.

So there still is the pipeline question - why are only 32% eligible?

BUT even when looking at eligible students & similar course levels, why is admit rate so low relative to other groups?

It's simple math. The qualification distribution is likely a normal curve of some sort, and the selection of candidates from the upper/lower end of a normal curve will be drastically different depending on how the candidate groups are shifted relative to each other, much more so than the overall difference between the two populations.

If you imagine two cooks making hamburger patties by hand, one cook tends to be a little more generous than the other one although both cooks make patties that are close to 1/4 pound in weight on average, then if you select 10 heaviest patties, they are likely mostly going to be made by the cook that is a little more generous.

These kids all qualified to get into the same advanced classes. The distribution shouldn't be that disparate.

No they're not.

DP. They DID.

Evidence showed otherwise.

What evidence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But for black students the # admitted was only 1/3rd of expected.

2011 admission results (class of 2015)
754 black kids in FCPS
244 were eligible to apply (32% of FCPS black students)
(ignoring other counties)
224 applied (30% of FCPS black students; 92% of eligible)
6 were admitted (1% of FCPS black students; 3% admit rate)

looking deeper in the the courses/pipeline
admit rates for A1H=4%, GH=26%, G+=67%
look at # of black kids in those classes (205,37,2) & apply rate (92%)
the # of admits should be ~18 kids

But there were only 6 admitted. 1/3rd compared to others in same course level.

So there still is the pipeline question - why are only 32% eligible?

BUT even when looking at eligible students & similar course levels, why is admit rate so low relative to other groups?

It's simple math. The qualification distribution is likely a normal curve of some sort, and the selection of candidates from the upper/lower end of a normal curve will be drastically different depending on how the candidate groups are shifted relative to each other, much more so than the overall difference between the two populations.

If you imagine two cooks making hamburger patties by hand, one cook tends to be a little more generous than the other one although both cooks make patties that are close to 1/4 pound in weight on average, then if you select 10 heaviest patties, they are likely mostly going to be made by the cook that is a little more generous.

These kids all qualified to get into the same advanced classes. The distribution shouldn't be that disparate.

The fact that the percent eligible figure differed between different populations is clear statistical evidence that the distributions are disparate enough to cause a bias in favor of the population that is more within the "qualified" region. I feel the need to point out that "bias" in the previous sentence is used to point out a mathematical reality, and not some discriminatory behavior by a person, because some of the posters here don't seem to understand math.

That is stating the obvious. Where are all the AAP centers?

[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:If white parents don’t care about TJ, why did we need to increase the number of white students at TJ? Because that’s exactly what we did

There could be more white students at TJ if more white students were applying. But they aren’t. Only 14% of white 8th graders even applied.

You think the white parents wanted to reduce the # of seats from well-represented middle schools and private schools? How would that benefit them?

The Merit Lottery originally proposed in September 2020 that limits the number of admitted students from schools grouped into Regional pathways, would have given the whites a plurality at TJ. That shows the intent.

If white families were so interested in TJ then more would be applying. Sorry that doesn't fit with your false narrative.

What happened was that people looked at the demographics with the old TJ admissions process and saw how few black/hispanic/ED kids were admitted.

For the class of 2021...
Out of the 179 who black kids applied, only 9 got it.
Out of the 220 hispanic kids, only 8 got it.
Out of the 289 ED kids, only 8 got it.

In the entire class of 490 students. Respectively, they were 1.8%, 1.6%, and 1.6% of the class. They make up 10%, 27%, and 27% of FCPS students.

https://www.fcps.edu/news/fcps-offers-admission-tjhsst-490-students


How can you look at those numbers and NOT think that is a problem?

Clearly there is a problem. But just because there is a problem, doesn't mean the problem is with the admission process itself. Are the admission standards racist by discriminating against blacks and hispanics even when two applicants are equally qualified? If not, then the problem isn't with the admission process. Why are so few blacks and hispanics admitted? How do their qualifications compare to other applicants?

The argument that most pro-reform people have been making is that we've done a poor job historically of measuring who is more or less qualified to go to TJ, and perhaps more importantly whether or not there should be multiple avenues to be qualified to go to TJ.

By creating a pathway for the most qualified students from each middle school to attend (and perhaps 1.5% is too much! Maybe it should be 1%...) and by seeking qualified students from different educational backgrounds, you are by definition finding the students who have made the most of their unique circumstances. In my experience with TJ, those are the students most likely to get the most out of their experience - moreso than the 60th, 70th, or 80th most qualified student at a Carson or a Longfellow.

We do need to add more non-exam elements to the application process in order to paint a better picture of the student, but we have a strong starting point here to build off of. Students from the class of 2026 will actually have kids from underrepresented schools to look up to within their environment next year - assuming the current process remains in place at least for another year.

It is upon the proponents of reform people to demonstrate that existing admissions practices do a poor job of identifying qualified students, per the stated education goal of TJ. Making the most of unique circumstances is a meaningless standard. If we believe that some students are artificially held back due to lack of resources, the answer is to increase resources for the student, rather than pretending that this student is just as qualified as another student despite objectively lower academic performance.

Underrepresentation in and of itself is not a problem. To claim otherwise is to ignore the fact that people who share a common identity sometimes makes choices that are different from other groups who share a different common identity, and that these *different choices* lead to different outcomes and thus different access to future opportunities. You cannot eliminate underrepresentation unless you eliminate free choice.

Decades of peer-reviewed research into the value of diversity in educational spaces disagrees with you.

But besides the point, there is a gigantic amount of space between "underrepresentation" and what has historically gone on at TJ. In ONE typical TJ freshman class prior to the admissions changes, there are significantly more Asian students than the entire number of Black students that have been admitted to TJ in its 35+ year history. A randomly drawn student at TJ in recent years was over FIFTY TIMES more likely to be Asian than Black, in a catchment area where a randomly drawn 8th grader would be perhaps twice as likely to be Asian.

A Black student at TJ as recently as pre-Covid could have easily gone through an entire day at TJ without seeing another Black student, and an entire four-year CAREER at TJ without ever being in a classroom with another Black student. Given that reality, it should come as no surprise that you have folks on these boards who can say the sorts of things they say and not realize that they are deeply, foundationally racist.

Why is that a problem if everything is merit based? That's a weak argument for the racist TJ reform.

Because merit is not limited to the group that the previous admissions process benefited. And believing it is amounts to Asian supremacy. Different choices are one thing. This is quite another.

Are you still in elementary school? Merit is a objective measure. What you liberals are practicing now, the identity politics, is anti-merit and racist. It was what Nazi Germany used to practice.

Are you an adult? 99+% of skilled jobs in America are filled on a subjective basis. You can have all of the skills and certifications and achievements in the world, but if you're a jackass and you create a negative work environment in the eyes of your evaluator you don't get hired.

You're shifting the goal post again. You just claimed the new TJ admissions process was based on merit. I think you're just talking out of your arse. Stop wasting my time, jackass.

1) "Merit" and "subjective" are not mutually exclusive - that's the thesis

2) Nothing requires you to respond when I say things. You make choices to do things that you feel are a waste of time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If white parents don’t care about TJ, why did we need to increase the number of white students at TJ? Because that’s exactly what we did

There could be more white students at TJ if more white students were applying. But they aren’t. Only 14% of white 8th graders even applied.

You think the white parents wanted to reduce the # of seats from well-represented middle schools and private schools? How would that benefit them?

The Merit Lottery originally proposed in September 2020 that limits the number of admitted students from schools grouped into Regional pathways, would have given the whites a plurality at TJ. That shows the intent.

If white families were so interested in TJ then more would be applying. Sorry that doesn't fit with your false narrative.

What happened was that people looked at the demographics with the old TJ admissions process and saw how few black/hispanic/ED kids were admitted.

For the class of 2021...
Out of the 179 who black kids applied, only 9 got it.
Out of the 220 hispanic kids, only 8 got it.
Out of the 289 ED kids, only 8 got it.

In the entire class of 490 students. Respectively, they were 1.8%, 1.6%, and 1.6% of the class. They make up 10%, 27%, and 27% of FCPS students.

https://www.fcps.edu/news/fcps-offers-admission-tjhsst-490-students


How can you look at those numbers and NOT think that is a problem?

Obviously there is a problem. Solution is not Asian bashing/demonizing - they are not the cause. It is very clearly a pipeline problem which can be solved by a collaborative approach - maybe even including the TJ students. Having them mentor middle school kids etc. Destroying the school standards and introducing criteria with an express intent to decrease Asians in not the solution. Root cause analysis, people. Not lazy, wrong solutions.

Lazy? You're under-estimating the degree of malicious intent of the liberal people. The very purpose of the TJ reform was to reduce the Asian population. They're NOT interested in the root causes, PERIOD!

Let's back up for a second.

The School Board is a mess and the communications around this process were horrible. So stipulated and agreed to. If you want to call them evil or racist or whatever, fine - there's plenty of evidence to suggest some level of malicious intent, though I disagree that the mechanics of the new process are inherently racist.

The advocates on the ground for TJ admissions reform do not care about the population of Asian students at the school, except inasmuch as we'd love to see more of them come from disadvantaged backgrounds. The lack of students from historically underrepresented communities is what we are trying to solve, NOT the disproportionately high percentage of Asian students.

However, it is a function of the reality on the ground that those numbers have to come from somewhere - and as such, the most likely outcome of increasing the representation of underserved communities in the school was going to be a decrease in the number of Asian students.

You of course have the right to advocate for your group as much as you feel is appropriate. But the reality is this - and I've said it here many times before:

The fact that it IMPACTS you doesn't mean it's ABOUT you. I understand the need to leverage every angle you can to try and advocate for yourselves, and the School Board and Brabrand gave you a huge window in which to do it because of their sloppiness.

But intellectually, if you can't wrap your head around the fact that desiring any increase in underrepresented communities does not indicate animus toward Asians, even though a decrease in Asian students is the most likely result, you can't be a part of any productive conversation in this area.

I find the distinction you draw between "underrepresented communities" and "percentage of Asian students" completely arbitrary. If you are focused on the composition of the student body and believe that underrepresentation of certain student groups is a problem to be solved, then the solution necessarily involves reducing the percentage of overrepresented students, which in this case is by reducing the percentage of Asian students.

I also find it incredibly demeaning for you to claim that Asians being discriminated against isn't about Asians, implying that Asians have no grounds to complain. How would this line of logic go over for white slave owners to tell their black slaves that slavery isn't about blacks but about whites being the superior race to all other races, and therefore blacks shouldn't feel that there is actually any animus by whites towards blacks.

I'm going to assume that you simply haven't considered your position very well rather than conclude that you are morally bankrupt. I pray that you don't post a followup and prove me wrong.

It is not discrimination to remove an advantage. If you insist on using the slaveholder analogy (which is deeply flawed), wealthy Asians would occupy the position of the slaveholder rather than the slave. The question at hand is, instead, whether or not we should eliminate the practice of slavery because doing so would be considered discriminatory to white people.

The analogy is BS, but if that's the one you want to use, at least get it right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Department of Justice should investigate for violations of civil rights and criminally charge appropriate individuals to rot in prison for decades.

+1

+10

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If white parents don’t care about TJ, why did we need to increase the number of white students at TJ? Because that’s exactly what we did

There could be more white students at TJ if more white students were applying. But they aren’t. Only 14% of white 8th graders even applied.

You think the white parents wanted to reduce the # of seats from well-represented middle schools and private schools? How would that benefit them?

The Merit Lottery originally proposed in September 2020 that limits the number of admitted students from schools grouped into Regional pathways, would have given the whites a plurality at TJ. That shows the intent.

If white families were so interested in TJ then more would be applying. Sorry that doesn't fit with your false narrative.

What happened was that people looked at the demographics with the old TJ admissions process and saw how few black/hispanic/ED kids were admitted.

For the class of 2021...
Out of the 179 who black kids applied, only 9 got it.
Out of the 220 hispanic kids, only 8 got it.
Out of the 289 ED kids, only 8 got it.

In the entire class of 490 students. Respectively, they were 1.8%, 1.6%, and 1.6% of the class. They make up 10%, 27%, and 27% of FCPS students.

https://www.fcps.edu/news/fcps-offers-admission-tjhsst-490-students


How can you look at those numbers and NOT think that is a problem?

Obviously there is a problem. Solution is not Asian bashing/demonizing - they are not the cause. It is very clearly a pipeline problem which can be solved by a collaborative approach - maybe even including the TJ students. Having them mentor middle school kids etc. Destroying the school standards and introducing criteria with an express intent to decrease Asians in not the solution. Root cause analysis, people. Not lazy, wrong solutions.

Lazy? You're under-estimating the degree of malicious intent of the liberal people. The very purpose of the TJ reform was to reduce the Asian population. They're NOT interested in the root causes, PERIOD!

Let's back up for a second.

The School Board is a mess and the communications around this process were horrible. So stipulated and agreed to. If you want to call them evil or racist or whatever, fine - there's plenty of evidence to suggest some level of malicious intent, though I disagree that the mechanics of the new process are inherently racist.

The advocates on the ground for TJ admissions reform do not care about the population of Asian students at the school, except inasmuch as we'd love to see more of them come from disadvantaged backgrounds. The lack of students from historically underrepresented communities is what we are trying to solve, NOT the disproportionately high percentage of Asian students.

However, it is a function of the reality on the ground that those numbers have to come from somewhere - and as such, the most likely outcome of increasing the representation of underserved communities in the school was going to be a decrease in the number of Asian students.

You of course have the right to advocate for your group as much as you feel is appropriate. But the reality is this - and I've said it here many times before:

The fact that it IMPACTS you doesn't mean it's ABOUT you. I understand the need to leverage every angle you can to try and advocate for yourselves, and the School Board and Brabrand gave you a huge window in which to do it because of their sloppiness.

But intellectually, if you can't wrap your head around the fact that desiring any increase in underrepresented communities does not indicate animus toward Asians, even though a decrease in Asian students is the most likely result, you can't be a part of any productive conversation in this area.

I find the distinction you draw between "underrepresented communities" and "percentage of Asian students" completely arbitrary. If you are focused on the composition of the student body and believe that underrepresentation of certain student groups is a problem to be solved, then the solution necessarily involves reducing the percentage of overrepresented students, which in this case is by reducing the percentage of Asian students.

I also find it incredibly demeaning for you to claim that Asians being discriminated against isn't about Asians, implying that Asians have no grounds to complain. How would this line of logic go over for white slave owners to tell their black slaves that slavery isn't about blacks but about whites being the superior race to all other races, and therefore blacks shouldn't feel that there is actually any animus by whites towards blacks.

I'm going to assume that you simply haven't considered your position very well rather than conclude that you are morally bankrupt. I pray that you don't post a followup and prove me wrong.

It is not discrimination to remove an advantage. If you insist on using the slaveholder analogy (which is deeply flawed), wealthy Asians would occupy the position of the slaveholder rather than the slave. The question at hand is, instead, whether or not we should eliminate the practice of slavery because doing so would be considered discriminatory to white people.

The analogy is BS, but if that's the one you want to use, at least get it right.

The federal court just decided it was discriminatory. So you're wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If white parents don’t care about TJ, why did we need to increase the number of white students at TJ? Because that’s exactly what we did

There could be more white students at TJ if more white students were applying. But they aren’t. Only 14% of white 8th graders even applied.

You think the white parents wanted to reduce the # of seats from well-represented middle schools and private schools? How would that benefit them?

The Merit Lottery originally proposed in September 2020 that limits the number of admitted students from schools grouped into Regional pathways, would have given the whites a plurality at TJ. That shows the intent.

If white families were so interested in TJ then more would be applying. Sorry that doesn't fit with your false narrative.

What happened was that people looked at the demographics with the old TJ admissions process and saw how few black/hispanic/ED kids were admitted.

For the class of 2021...
Out of the 179 who black kids applied, only 9 got it.
Out of the 220 hispanic kids, only 8 got it.
Out of the 289 ED kids, only 8 got it.

In the entire class of 490 students. Respectively, they were 1.8%, 1.6%, and 1.6% of the class. They make up 10%, 27%, and 27% of FCPS students.

https://www.fcps.edu/news/fcps-offers-admission-tjhsst-490-students


How can you look at those numbers and NOT think that is a problem?

Obviously there is a problem. Solution is not Asian bashing/demonizing - they are not the cause. It is very clearly a pipeline problem which can be solved by a collaborative approach - maybe even including the TJ students. Having them mentor middle school kids etc. Destroying the school standards and introducing criteria with an express intent to decrease Asians in not the solution. Root cause analysis, people. Not lazy, wrong solutions.

Lazy? You're under-estimating the degree of malicious intent of the liberal people. The very purpose of the TJ reform was to reduce the Asian population. They're NOT interested in the root causes, PERIOD!

Let's back up for a second.

The School Board is a mess and the communications around this process were horrible. So stipulated and agreed to. If you want to call them evil or racist or whatever, fine - there's plenty of evidence to suggest some level of malicious intent, though I disagree that the mechanics of the new process are inherently racist.

The advocates on the ground for TJ admissions reform do not care about the population of Asian students at the school, except inasmuch as we'd love to see more of them come from disadvantaged backgrounds. The lack of students from historically underrepresented communities is what we are trying to solve, NOT the disproportionately high percentage of Asian students.

However, it is a function of the reality on the ground that those numbers have to come from somewhere - and as such, the most likely outcome of increasing the representation of underserved communities in the school was going to be a decrease in the number of Asian students.

You of course have the right to advocate for your group as much as you feel is appropriate. But the reality is this - and I've said it here many times before:

The fact that it IMPACTS you doesn't mean it's ABOUT you. I understand the need to leverage every angle you can to try and advocate for yourselves, and the School Board and Brabrand gave you a huge window in which to do it because of their sloppiness.

But intellectually, if you can't wrap your head around the fact that desiring any increase in underrepresented communities does not indicate animus toward Asians, even though a decrease in Asian students is the most likely result, you can't be a part of any productive conversation in this area.

I find the distinction you draw between "underrepresented communities" and "percentage of Asian students" completely arbitrary. If you are focused on the composition of the student body and believe that underrepresentation of certain student groups is a problem to be solved, then the solution necessarily involves reducing the percentage of overrepresented students, which in this case is by reducing the percentage of Asian students.

I also find it incredibly demeaning for you to claim that Asians being discriminated against isn't about Asians, implying that Asians have no grounds to complain. How would this line of logic go over for white slave owners to tell their black slaves that slavery isn't about blacks but about whites being the superior race to all other races, and therefore blacks shouldn't feel that there is actually any animus by whites towards blacks.

I'm going to assume that you simply haven't considered your position very well rather than conclude that you are morally bankrupt. I pray that you don't post a followup and prove me wrong.

It is not discrimination to remove an advantage. If you insist on using the slaveholder analogy (which is deeply flawed), wealthy Asians would occupy the position of the slaveholder rather than the slave. The question at hand is, instead, whether or not we should eliminate the practice of slavery because doing so would be considered discriminatory to white people.

The analogy is BS, but if that's the one you want to use, at least get it right.

The federal court just decided it was discriminatory. So you're wrong.

And in two years when its black students suing under the same standards, they will also win under the same standard. The easiest solution is to just turn the school into an academy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If white parents don’t care about TJ, why did we need to increase the number of white students at TJ? Because that’s exactly what we did

There could be more white students at TJ if more white students were applying. But they aren’t. Only 14% of white 8th graders even applied.

You think the white parents wanted to reduce the # of seats from well-represented middle schools and private schools? How would that benefit them?

The Merit Lottery originally proposed in September 2020 that limits the number of admitted students from schools grouped into Regional pathways, would have given the whites a plurality at TJ. That shows the intent.

If white families were so interested in TJ then more would be applying. Sorry that doesn't fit with your false narrative.

What happened was that people looked at the demographics with the old TJ admissions process and saw how few black/hispanic/ED kids were admitted.

For the class of 2021...
Out of the 179 who black kids applied, only 9 got it.
Out of the 220 hispanic kids, only 8 got it.
Out of the 289 ED kids, only 8 got it.

In the entire class of 490 students. Respectively, they were 1.8%, 1.6%, and 1.6% of the class. They make up 10%, 27%, and 27% of FCPS students.

https://www.fcps.edu/news/fcps-offers-admission-tjhsst-490-students


How can you look at those numbers and NOT think that is a problem?

Obviously there is a problem. Solution is not Asian bashing/demonizing - they are not the cause. It is very clearly a pipeline problem which can be solved by a collaborative approach - maybe even including the TJ students. Having them mentor middle school kids etc. Destroying the school standards and introducing criteria with an express intent to decrease Asians in not the solution. Root cause analysis, people. Not lazy, wrong solutions.

Lazy? You're under-estimating the degree of malicious intent of the liberal people. The very purpose of the TJ reform was to reduce the Asian population. They're NOT interested in the root causes, PERIOD!

Let's back up for a second.

The School Board is a mess and the communications around this process were horrible. So stipulated and agreed to. If you want to call them evil or racist or whatever, fine - there's plenty of evidence to suggest some level of malicious intent, though I disagree that the mechanics of the new process are inherently racist.

The advocates on the ground for TJ admissions reform do not care about the population of Asian students at the school, except inasmuch as we'd love to see more of them come from disadvantaged backgrounds. The lack of students from historically underrepresented communities is what we are trying to solve, NOT the disproportionately high percentage of Asian students.

However, it is a function of the reality on the ground that those numbers have to come from somewhere - and as such, the most likely outcome of increasing the representation of underserved communities in the school was going to be a decrease in the number of Asian students.

You of course have the right to advocate for your group as much as you feel is appropriate. But the reality is this - and I've said it here many times before:

The fact that it IMPACTS you doesn't mean it's ABOUT you. I understand the need to leverage every angle you can to try and advocate for yourselves, and the School Board and Brabrand gave you a huge window in which to do it because of their sloppiness.

But intellectually, if you can't wrap your head around the fact that desiring any increase in underrepresented communities does not indicate animus toward Asians, even though a decrease in Asian students is the most likely result, you can't be a part of any productive conversation in this area.

I find the distinction you draw between "underrepresented communities" and "percentage of Asian students" completely arbitrary. If you are focused on the composition of the student body and believe that underrepresentation of certain student groups is a problem to be solved, then the solution necessarily involves reducing the percentage of overrepresented students, which in this case is by reducing the percentage of Asian students.

I also find it incredibly demeaning for you to claim that Asians being discriminated against isn't about Asians, implying that Asians have no grounds to complain. How would this line of logic go over for white slave owners to tell their black slaves that slavery isn't about blacks but about whites being the superior race to all other races, and therefore blacks shouldn't feel that there is actually any animus by whites towards blacks.

I'm going to assume that you simply haven't considered your position very well rather than conclude that you are morally bankrupt. I pray that you don't post a followup and prove me wrong.

It is not discrimination to remove an advantage. If you insist on using the slaveholder analogy (which is deeply flawed), wealthy Asians would occupy the position of the slaveholder rather than the slave. The question at hand is, instead, whether or not we should eliminate the practice of slavery because doing so would be considered discriminatory to white people.

The analogy is BS, but if that's the one you want to use, at least get it right.

The federal court just decided it was discriminatory. So you're wrong.

And in two years when its black students suing under the same standards, they will also win under the same standard. The easiest solution is to just turn the school into an academy.

Wait until they sue and win. Stop making projections based on your biased view.