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:

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.

Did you believe the Supreme Court to be right when they decided in Korematsu vs US that internment of Japanese-Americans was constitutional?

Sometimes judges are wrong. That's why we have an appeals process and the overturning of precedent.

[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.

Did you believe the Supreme Court to be right when they decided in Korematsu vs US that internment of Japanese-Americans was constitutional?

Sometimes judges are wrong. That's why we have an appeals process and the overturning of precedent.

yada yada

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Still waiting on this evidence of how kids can take algebra I honors, geometry honors, etc. without scoring a certain level on IAAT test and the SOL?

[Anonymous]

Still haven't seen anyone make a coherent argument as to how the current admissions process ON ITS OWN discriminates against Asians. Haven't really seen anyone make an attempt, either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Still haven't seen anyone make a coherent argument as to how the current admissions process ON ITS OWN discriminates against Asians. Haven't really seen anyone make an attempt, either.

Probably because it doesn't...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Still haven't seen anyone make a coherent argument as to how the current admissions process ON ITS OWN discriminates against Asians. Haven't really seen anyone make an attempt, either.

You haven't seen or you're playing dumb and choose not to see? It's been said many times on this forum. We're not falling in your trap of trolling for repeated information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Still haven't seen anyone make a coherent argument as to how the current admissions process ON ITS OWN discriminates against Asians. Haven't really seen anyone make an attempt, either.

Are you high or something? Isn't what this lawsuit is all about? It was coherent enough to a federal judge, but maybe not to you liberals who have had this malicious intent of oppressing Asian Americans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still haven't seen anyone make a coherent argument as to how the current admissions process ON ITS OWN discriminates against Asians. Haven't really seen anyone make an attempt, either.

Are you high or something? Isn't what this lawsuit is all about? It was coherent enough to a federal judge, but maybe not to you liberals who have had this malicious intent of oppressing Asian Americans.

Nope. The judge's opinion provided no specifics at all about the process itself being discriminatory. He discussed the intent and the comparison with the previous process in significant detail, but did not point to any aspect of the new process on its own that was discriminatory.

And that's the reality of this situation. If you built a brand new school that was identical to TJ in its offerings and had this admissions process to select students for each class, it wouldn't be problematic from a legal perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still haven't seen anyone make a coherent argument as to how the current admissions process ON ITS OWN discriminates against Asians. Haven't really seen anyone make an attempt, either.

Are you high or something? Isn't what this lawsuit is all about? It was coherent enough to a federal judge, but maybe not to you liberals who have had this malicious intent of oppressing Asian Americans.

Nope. The judge's opinion provided no specifics at all about the process itself being discriminatory. He discussed the intent and the comparison with the previous process in significant detail, but did not point to any aspect of the new process on its own that was discriminatory.

And that's the reality of this situation. If you built a brand new school that was identical to TJ in its offerings and had this admissions process to select students for each class, it wouldn't be problematic from a legal perspective.

You clearly did not read the judge's opinion. He highlighted how the process was discriminatory as it weighed applicants from non-majority Asian school greater.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still haven't seen anyone make a coherent argument as to how the current admissions process ON ITS OWN discriminates against Asians. Haven't really seen anyone make an attempt, either.

Are you high or something? Isn't what this lawsuit is all about? It was coherent enough to a federal judge, but maybe not to you liberals who have had this malicious intent of oppressing Asian Americans.

Nope. The judge's opinion provided no specifics at all about the process itself being discriminatory. He discussed the intent and the comparison with the previous process in significant detail, but did not point to any aspect of the new process on its own that was discriminatory.

And that's the reality of this situation. If you built a brand new school that was identical to TJ in its offerings and had this admissions process to select students for each class, it wouldn't be problematic from a legal perspective.

You clearly did not read the judge's opinion. He highlighted how the process was discriminatory as it weighed applicants from non-majority Asian school greater.

As I said, the liberals are now trying to play dumb and divert people's attention to their malicious intent and racism during the TJ reform.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still haven't seen anyone make a coherent argument as to how the current admissions process ON ITS OWN discriminates against Asians. Haven't really seen anyone make an attempt, either.

Are you high or something? Isn't what this lawsuit is all about? It was coherent enough to a federal judge, but maybe not to you liberals who have had this malicious intent of oppressing Asian Americans.

Nope. The judge's opinion provided no specifics at all about the process itself being discriminatory. He discussed the intent and the comparison with the previous process in significant detail, but did not point to any aspect of the new process on its own that was discriminatory.

And that's the reality of this situation. If you built a brand new school that was identical to TJ in its offerings and had this admissions process to select students for each class, it wouldn't be problematic from a legal perspective.

You clearly did not read the judge's opinion. He highlighted how the process was discriminatory as it weighed applicants from non-majority Asian school greater.

Then it is that judge's fault for not being careful enough to understand the distinction of statistically confounding variables involving school demographics and socio-economic level. Students were weighed with consideration of the poverty and achievement level of their local school. It just so happens that most Asians accepted at TJ are coming from wealthy schools. That doesn't mean that Asian students are targeted. If the same Asians were enrolled at the poorer school, then they could have a better chance to get in.

[Anonymous]

If applicants are given a bump for attending an underrepresented school, and the underrepresented schools are generally the ones with the lowest percentage of Asians, then the policy is blatantly racist. Likewise, the experience factors may be racist, depending on which races are the most likely to get a boost from them.

Diversity is a fine goal. So is acknowledging the extra challenges of low income students. They should have essays in which the kids explain a hardship they’ve overcome or a diverse perspective they can contribute, rather than directly giving points via experience factors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still haven't seen anyone make a coherent argument as to how the current admissions process ON ITS OWN discriminates against Asians. Haven't really seen anyone make an attempt, either.

Are you high or something? Isn't what this lawsuit is all about? It was coherent enough to a federal judge, but maybe not to you liberals who have had this malicious intent of oppressing Asian Americans.

Nope. The judge's opinion provided no specifics at all about the process itself being discriminatory. He discussed the intent and the comparison with the previous process in significant detail, but did not point to any aspect of the new process on its own that was discriminatory.

And that's the reality of this situation. If you built a brand new school that was identical to TJ in its offerings and had this admissions process to select students for each class, it wouldn't be problematic from a legal perspective.

You clearly did not read the judge's opinion. He highlighted how the process was discriminatory as it weighed applicants from non-majority Asian school greater.

As I said, the liberals are now trying to play dumb and divert people's attention to their malicious intent and racism during the TJ reform.

DP. The vast majority of people who support don't have malicious intent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still haven't seen anyone make a coherent argument as to how the current admissions process ON ITS OWN discriminates against Asians. Haven't really seen anyone make an attempt, either.

You haven't seen or you're playing dumb and choose not to see? It's been said many times on this forum. We're not falling in your trap of trolling for repeated information.

Timestamp?

[Anonymous]

There is no greater prize in nova than a TJ car decal.