Court: TJ's New Admission Policy Does Not Discriminate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Establishing an admissions system which indirectly discriminates against asians (see page 39, paragraph 3 of the SCOTUS AA ruling). There is now a new basis for more lawsuits.

Asians are not discriminated against in TJ admissions. They have the highest acceptance rate and highest representation.

So you do not understand how the current Supreme Court thinks about equal protection? If they believe there was a deliberate, racially motivated effort to reduce the percentage of Asian kids at a school, they may well declare the system contrary to the Constitution, regardless of whether Asians are still statistically “over-represented.”

I suspect you do know this, but believe that you’ll convince people otherwise if you just copy and paste often enough.

No, they were trying to boost numbers of kids who were underrepresented - kids from low income families, language learners, URMs, kids from underrepresented middle schools, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Establishing an admissions system which indirectly discriminates against asians (see page 39, paragraph 3 of the SCOTUS AA ruling). There is now a new basis for more lawsuits.

Asians are not discriminated against in TJ admissions. They have the highest acceptance rate and highest representation.

That must be why Omeish and Pekarsky acknowledged the “anti-Asian” animus behind the admissions changes.

You can spin all you want. I am not sure your efforts will prevail as the litigation continues.

So you do not understand how the current Supreme Court thinks about equal protection? If they believe there was a deliberate, racially motivated effort to reduce the percentage of Asian kids at a school, they may well declare the system contrary to the Constitution, regardless of whether Asians are still statistically “over-represented.”

I suspect you do know this, but believe that you’ll convince people otherwise if you just copy and paste often enough.

No, they were trying to boost numbers of kids who were underrepresented - kids from low income families, language learners, URMs, kids from underrepresented middle schools, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Establishing an admissions system which indirectly discriminates against asians (see page 39, paragraph 3 of the SCOTUS AA ruling). There is now a new basis for more lawsuits.

Asians are not discriminated against in TJ admissions. They have the highest acceptance rate and highest representation.

So you do not understand how the current Supreme Court thinks about equal protection? If they believe there was a deliberate, racially motivated effort to reduce the percentage of Asian kids at a school, they may well declare the system contrary to the Constitution, regardless of whether Asians are still statistically “over-represented.”

I suspect you do know this, but believe that you’ll convince people otherwise if you just copy and paste often enough.

No, they were trying to boost numbers of kids who were underrepresented - kids from low income families, language learners, URMs, kids from underrepresented middle schools, etc.

That must be why Omeish and Pekarsky acknowledged the “anti-Asian” animus behind the admissions change in their text messages.

You can spin all you want but I am not sure you’ll prevail as the litigation continues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Establishing an admissions system which indirectly discriminates against asians (see page 39, paragraph 3 of the SCOTUS AA ruling). There is now a new basis for more lawsuits.

Asians are not discriminated against in TJ admissions. They have the highest acceptance rate and highest representation.

So you do not understand how the current Supreme Court thinks about equal protection? If they believe there was a deliberate, racially motivated effort to reduce the percentage of Asian kids at a school, they may well declare the system contrary to the Constitution, regardless of whether Asians are still statistically “over-represented.”

I suspect you do know this, but believe that you’ll convince people otherwise if you just copy and paste often enough.

If that is the justification for striking the new process down, all that would need to happen is for a new School Board to design either the exact same process or one that is relatively similar in order to pass muster.

The Court cannot mandate that a school system adopt a specific admissions system or any element of one.

[Anonymous]

The Super Court can strike down any admission system that is considered unconstitutional.

Ask Harvard how they feel now. Harvard can still use the same admission system next year if it spares enough money for potential punitive damanges.

Apparently, FCPS does not have deep pockets like Harvard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Establishing an admissions system which indirectly discriminates against asians (see page 39, paragraph 3 of the SCOTUS AA ruling). There is now a new basis for more lawsuits.

Asians are not discriminated against in TJ admissions. They have the highest acceptance rate and highest representation.

So you do not understand how the current Supreme Court thinks about equal protection? If they believe there was a deliberate, racially motivated effort to reduce the percentage of Asian kids at a school, they may well declare the system contrary to the Constitution, regardless of whether Asians are still statistically “over-represented.”

I suspect you do know this, but believe that you’ll convince people otherwise if you just copy and paste often enough.

If that is the justification for striking the new process down, all that would need to happen is for a new School Board to design either the exact same process or one that is relatively similar in order to pass muster.

The Court cannot mandate that a school system adopt a specific admissions system or any element of one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Super Court can strike down any admission system that is considered unconstitutional.

Ask Harvard how they feel now. Harvard can still use the same admission system next year if it spares enough money for potential punitive damanges.

Apparently, FCPS does not have deep pockets like Harvard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Establishing an admissions system which indirectly discriminates against asians (see page 39, paragraph 3 of the SCOTUS AA ruling). There is now a new basis for more lawsuits.

Asians are not discriminated against in TJ admissions. They have the highest acceptance rate and highest representation.

So you do not understand how the current Supreme Court thinks about equal protection? If they believe there was a deliberate, racially motivated effort to reduce the percentage of Asian kids at a school, they may well declare the system contrary to the Constitution, regardless of whether Asians are still statistically “over-represented.”

I suspect you do know this, but believe that you’ll convince people otherwise if you just copy and paste often enough.

If that is the justification for striking the new process down, all that would need to happen is for a new School Board to design either the exact same process or one that is relatively similar in order to pass muster.

The Court cannot mandate that a school system adopt a specific admissions system or any element of one.

Not sure it matters since FPCS system is race-blind so the Harvard case that used race as a factor in admissions isn't relevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Establishing an admissions system which indirectly discriminates against asians (see page 39, paragraph 3 of the SCOTUS AA ruling). There is now a new basis for more lawsuits.

Asians are not discriminated against in TJ admissions. They have the highest acceptance rate and highest representation.

That must be why Omeish and Pekarsky acknowledged the “anti-Asian” animus behind the admissions changes.

You can spin all you want. I am not sure your efforts will prevail as the litigation continues.

So you do not understand how the current Supreme Court thinks about equal protection? If they believe there was a deliberate, racially motivated effort to reduce the percentage of Asian kids at a school, they may well declare the system contrary to the Constitution, regardless of whether Asians are still statistically “over-represented.”

I suspect you do know this, but believe that you’ll convince people otherwise if you just copy and paste often enough.

No, they were trying to boost numbers of kids who were underrepresented - kids from low income families, language learners, URMs, kids from underrepresented middle schools, etc.

Yes, any change to the status quo will disproportionally impact the most overrepresented groups.

[Anonymous]

Then, do not even try.

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, any change to the status quo will disproportionally impact the most overrepresented groups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Then, do not even try.

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, any change to the status quo will disproportionally impact the most overrepresented groups.

No. We should try.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Establishing an admissions system which indirectly discriminates against asians (see page 39, paragraph 3 of the SCOTUS AA ruling). There is now a new basis for more lawsuits.

Asians are not discriminated against in TJ admissions. They have the highest acceptance rate and highest representation.

So you do not understand how the current Supreme Court thinks about equal protection? If they believe there was a deliberate, racially motivated effort to reduce the percentage of Asian kids at a school, they may well declare the system contrary to the Constitution, regardless of whether Asians are still statistically “over-represented.”

I suspect you do know this, but believe that you’ll convince people otherwise if you just copy and paste often enough.

If that is the justification for striking the new process down, all that would need to happen is for a new School Board to design either the exact same process or one that is relatively similar in order to pass muster.

The Court cannot mandate that a school system adopt a specific admissions system or any element of one.

Why do you say that? There is a history of judges dictating policies, including for magnet schools, to deal with racial disparities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Establishing an admissions system which indirectly discriminates against asians (see page 39, paragraph 3 of the SCOTUS AA ruling). There is now a new basis for more lawsuits.

Asians are not discriminated against in TJ admissions. They have the highest acceptance rate and highest representation.

So you do not understand how the current Supreme Court thinks about equal protection? If they believe there was a deliberate, racially motivated effort to reduce the percentage of Asian kids at a school, they may well declare the system contrary to the Constitution, regardless of whether Asians are still statistically “over-represented.”

I suspect you do know this, but believe that you’ll convince people otherwise if you just copy and paste often enough.

If that is the justification for striking the new process down, all that would need to happen is for a new School Board to design either the exact same process or one that is relatively similar in order to pass muster.

The Court cannot mandate that a school system adopt a specific admissions system or any element of one.

I think the first paragraph is about right, but the question is whether FCPS officials have enough discipline to design a truly race-neutral process without satisfying themselves that it's going to produce the racial distribution they are actually keen to achieve. Recall how Brabrand had Sloan Presidio modeling the expected outcomes of different options under consideration several years ago, including by race.

As to your second paragraph, the Court (or, more likely, a lower court) absolutely could mandate that a school system adopt a particular admissions system or prescribe its elements. Courts have the power to fashion what they believe to be appropriate remedies for violations of the Constitution. In general, however, they'd prefer to set forth the relevant principles and then leave it up to the local system to comply with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Establishing an admissions system which indirectly discriminates against asians (see page 39, paragraph 3 of the SCOTUS AA ruling). There is now a new basis for more lawsuits.

Asians are not discriminated against in TJ admissions. They have the highest acceptance rate and highest representation.

So you do not understand how the current Supreme Court thinks about equal protection? If they believe there was a deliberate, racially motivated effort to reduce the percentage of Asian kids at a school, they may well declare the system contrary to the Constitution, regardless of whether Asians are still statistically “over-represented.”

I suspect you do know this, but believe that you’ll convince people otherwise if you just copy and paste often enough.

If that is the justification for striking the new process down, all that would need to happen is for a new School Board to design either the exact same process or one that is relatively similar in order to pass muster.

The Court cannot mandate that a school system adopt a specific admissions system or any element of one.

I think the first paragraph is about right, but the question is whether FCPS officials have enough discipline to design a truly race-neutral process without satisfying themselves that it's going to produce the racial distribution they are actually keen to achieve. Recall how Brabrand had Sloan Presidio modeling the expected outcomes of different options under consideration several years ago, including by race.

As to your second paragraph, the Court (or, more likely, a lower court) absolutely could mandate that a school system adopt a particular admissions system or prescribe its elements. Courts have the power to fashion what they believe to be appropriate remedies for violations of the Constitution. In general, however, they'd prefer to set forth the relevant principles and then leave it up to the local system to comply with them.

You mean a lottery where all 8th graders are automatically entered?

p.s. The current process is race-neutral.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Establishing an admissions system which indirectly discriminates against asians (see page 39, paragraph 3 of the SCOTUS AA ruling). There is now a new basis for more lawsuits.

Asians are not discriminated against in TJ admissions. They have the highest acceptance rate and highest representation.

So you do not understand how the current Supreme Court thinks about equal protection? If they believe there was a deliberate, racially motivated effort to reduce the percentage of Asian kids at a school, they may well declare the system contrary to the Constitution, regardless of whether Asians are still statistically “over-represented.”

I suspect you do know this, but believe that you’ll convince people otherwise if you just copy and paste often enough.

If that is the justification for striking the new process down, all that would need to happen is for a new School Board to design either the exact same process or one that is relatively similar in order to pass muster.

The Court cannot mandate that a school system adopt a specific admissions system or any element of one.

I think the first paragraph is about right, but the question is whether FCPS officials have enough discipline to design a truly race-neutral process without satisfying themselves that it's going to produce the racial distribution they are actually keen to achieve. Recall how Brabrand had Sloan Presidio modeling the expected outcomes of different options under consideration several years ago, including by race.

As to your second paragraph, the Court (or, more likely, a lower court) absolutely could mandate that a school system adopt a particular admissions system or prescribe its elements. Courts have the power to fashion what they believe to be appropriate remedies for violations of the Constitution. In general, however, they'd prefer to set forth the relevant principles and then leave it up to the local system to comply with them.

You mean a lottery where all 8th graders are automatically entered?

p.s. The current process is race-neutral.

I’m from NYC and have lots of friends there. They got rid of testing for the G&T program and it is lottery. There are children who can’t even read getting into the program while the smartest kids who are grades ahead in math are being left in gen ed. Testing is racist so basically the gifted program is now a lottery. Thank you, De Blasio. He wanted to get rid of G&T altogether.

[Anonymous]

Same as TJ where many "equity" kids have to take TJ Math 1 while others are learning calculus in their freshman year.

I’m from NYC and have lots of friends there. They got rid of testing for the G&T program and it is lottery. There are children who can’t even read getting into the program while the smartest kids who are grades ahead in math are being left in gen ed. Testing is racist so basically the gifted program is now a lottery. Thank you, De Blasio. He wanted to get rid of G&T altogether.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Super Court can strike down any admission system that is considered unconstitutional.

Ask Harvard how they feel now. Harvard can still use the same admission system next year if it spares enough money for potential punitive damanges.

Apparently, FCPS does not have deep pockets like Harvard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Establishing an admissions system which indirectly discriminates against asians (see page 39, paragraph 3 of the SCOTUS AA ruling). There is now a new basis for more lawsuits.

Asians are not discriminated against in TJ admissions. They have the highest acceptance rate and highest representation.

So you do not understand how the current Supreme Court thinks about equal protection? If they believe there was a deliberate, racially motivated effort to reduce the percentage of Asian kids at a school, they may well declare the system contrary to the Constitution, regardless of whether Asians are still statistically “over-represented.”

I suspect you do know this, but believe that you’ll convince people otherwise if you just copy and paste often enough.

If that is the justification for striking the new process down, all that would need to happen is for a new School Board to design either the exact same process or one that is relatively similar in order to pass muster.

The Court cannot mandate that a school system adopt a specific admissions system or any element of one.

Not sure it matters since FPCS system is race-blind so the Harvard case that used race as a factor in admissions isn't relevant.

The whole alleged purpose of the changes was racial. Just because a rule or law as written doesn't mention race or a discriminatory purpose doesn't necessarily mean that's not the actual purpose. It can still have a discriminatory effect.