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

[Anonymous]

If geography is used as a proxy for race, then it is discriminatory.
Ivy leagues introduced geographic distribution in admissions a century ago to reduce the number of Jews.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If geography is used as a proxy for race, then it is discriminatory.
Ivy leagues introduced geographic distribution in admissions a century ago to reduce the number of Jews.

Darn right they did.

[Anonymous]

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

In certain circles. Most people could care less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

In certain circles. Most people could care less.

Or, more accurately, could not care less.

[Anonymous]

NP

Is there a way to see how much FCPS has spent on legal fees for this case?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If geography is used as a proxy for race, then it is discriminatory.
Ivy leagues introduced geographic distribution in admissions a century ago to reduce the number of Jews.

Today, geographic diversity is valued as part of the holistic process universities use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

In certain circles. Most people could care less.

I’ll take your word for it.

[Anonymous]

I hope they just shut it down. So tired of hearing people gripe about this. Esp. you OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope they just shut it down. So tired of hearing people gripe about this. Esp. you OP.

How bout you mosy on over to other sections then? Any problem with that?

[Anonymous]

Radio silence from FCPS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Radio silence from FCPS?

I think they had a closed meeting yesterday. Probably trying to figure out how to stay out of prison and avoid mob of angry people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP

Is there a way to see how much FCPS has spent on legal fees for this case?

They have in house attorneys and every now and then they may hire the top attorneys around for something small so there is a conflict of interest and they can’t be used against them, but they don’t spend that much. However, if they need to the sky is the limit.

[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.

Removing an advantage is simply dis-advantaging someone, which is by definition discrimination.

Your comment on slavery shows just how little you know about slavery. There were also black slave owners during slavery, and in fact, the most numerous amount of black slaves was in Africa owned by black slave owners, a fact which continues to this day, with millions of blacks in Africa living in modern slavery. So yes, the analogy is perfectly apt. You are just ignorant.

[Anonymous]

I am not sure what is the point of arguing with each other or trying to convince the other, seems like most folks have already made their mind if they support the admission changes or not. Given the overwhelming recall of 3 SF school board members and defeat of proposition 16 in 2020 in a liberal California state, we can safely assume that majority is not in favour of these changes. While most folks do want increased representatives from URMs in our top schools, and top professions, it should we done in a thoughtful way to not sacrifice meritorious students regardless of their race or gender. If we shutdown TJ or reduce the academic rigour then it will be mostly loss for middle and lower middle and poor families because companies or employers will continue to import foreign workers since they will not have access to skilled labor. Point is we need to raise everyone’s standard, not bring them down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really, the best solutions are to:

1) Build a second TJ, and

2) Actively guide young URM students so they get interested in STEM and TJ

Of course, that’s difficult and unsexy, so go with the easier solution of dumbing down the admissions policy

1 - This is not really the point of TJ to educate as many kids as possible, but rather to educate the top X number of kids based on their qualifications. Building additional schools to admit more students necessarily means you'll be lowering the entrance standards, which is counter to the goal of the school.

2 - The key driver for this is not the schools, not charities, or mentors. It falls to the parents, the families, and the culture they live in. Without strong parental support, external efforts will have very limited success because most children, regardless of race, are not self sufficient enough to succeed without parental/family support. That's just the nature of being children.

1 - weak sauce response. The population and level of parental education in Fairfax County has grown quite a bit. I don’t doubt that more kids qualify now vs. 10 or 20 years ago. They could have TJ 1 educate the top X kids and TJ 2 educate the next best X kids. Why cultivate a scarcity mindset in one of the wealthiest school districts in the country?

2 - so there’s no hope for bright URMs if they are not in a supportive, education-focused family? That’s quite sad if true!