Court: TJ's New Admission Policy Does Not Discriminate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

So then *that group* can claim discrimination. You can never change any admissions process without someone claiming "discrimination".

p.s. the process does not discriminate against certain groups if those groups have higher than average admissions rate and highest % of representation at the school.

Does it not seem racist to say one group is over represented?

I have an Asian kid who loves to play basketball. He is average height, will probably end up 5’10”. He really wants to play basketball and I know his chances are low. What if the team was told that blacks are overrepresented and that the team should take some Asian kids? If most of the team is 6’4” and my kid shows up and is not as tall and not as good, he should not get on the team.

It's always basketball with these people.

Repeating this for the thousandth time... School admissions processes ARE NOT analogs for athletic team tryouts.

Athletic teams exist for the purpose of competing against other schools to win games. TJ does not exist to win competitions or to be highly ranked. The fact that it is and it does are tangential to its purpose. TJ's governing documents mandate that FCPS selects students who are advanced in STEM, but not necessarily the most advanced, to attend the school.

We can argue ad nauseam about whether or not TJ should be striving to be the #1 public school in America through its admissions process, but the bottom line is that they're in no way, shape, or form required to do so.[b]

So, the supporters of TJ's new admission process know that this will make TJ decline.

Yes. But I have no problem with each middle school being provided some seats as everyone's tax dollars go to funding the school. That part shouldn't be controversial.

Some areas are providing a lot more tax revenues than others. Are you suggesting seats should be allocated based on the source of tax dollars?

No, that is not how it works. We pay taxes as a community to support the entire community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

For example, an effect of discriminating against Asians in favor of Whites.

The new admissions process does not discriminate against any race.

Neither did literacy tests and poll taxes to vote.

Same with voter ID to vote. No mention of race anywhere in those laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

For example, an effect of discriminating against Asians in favor of Whites.

The new admissions process does not discriminate against any race.

Neither did literacy tests and poll taxes to vote.

Yikes.

It appears that this requires explanation again, as a persistent lack of comprehension in this forum, whether out of convenience or ignorance, causes this thread to stagnate.

The previous admissions process was manifestly discriminatory against students of economic disadvantage. This point is not up for debate among serious people. It deeply favored students and families who were possessed of both the economic means and the parental motivation to leverage those means in the direction of optimizing the student's TJ application. For many reasons, in Northern Virginia that largely results in an advantage for students of Asian (and especially South Asian) descent. And the admissions statistics from prior classes bear that out very, very clearly - and combined with the Curie matter, provide a clear explanation for the dramatic overrepresentation of South Asians at TJ, who comprise about 5-7% of Northern Virginia's population but were hovering near 50% of incoming TJ classes between 2018-2024.

The new admissions process eliminated many of those advantages and indeed made it much more difficult for parents to leverage their resources to optimize TJ admissions outcomes. A staggering amount of mental gymnastics are required to observe a situation where a group that had a clear advantage in a process loses that advantage and refer to that loss as "racial discrimination".

The old process was discriminatory. Fixing it is the opposite of discrimination.

The new process sought to minimize that advantage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

For example, an effect of discriminating against Asians in favor of Whites.

The new admissions process does not discriminate against any race.

Neither did literacy tests and poll taxes to vote.

Yikes.

It appears that this requires explanation again, as a persistent lack of comprehension in this forum, whether out of convenience or ignorance, causes this thread to stagnate.

The previous admissions process was manifestly discriminatory against students of economic disadvantage. This point is not up for debate among serious people. It deeply favored students and families who were possessed of both the economic means and the parental motivation to leverage those means in the direction of optimizing the student's TJ application. For many reasons, in Northern Virginia that largely results in an advantage for students of Asian (and especially South Asian) descent. And the admissions statistics from prior classes bear that out very, very clearly - and combined with the Curie matter, provide a clear explanation for the dramatic overrepresentation of South Asians at TJ, who comprise about 5-7% of Northern Virginia's population but were hovering near 50% of incoming TJ classes between 2018-2024.

The new admissions process eliminated many of those advantages and indeed made it much more difficult for parents to leverage their resources to optimize TJ admissions outcomes. A staggering amount of mental gymnastics are required to observe a situation where a group that had a clear advantage in a process loses that advantage and refer to that loss as "racial discrimination".

The old process was discriminatory. Fixing it is the opposite of discrimination.

The new process sought to minimize that advantage.

The School Board set out to decrease the number of Asian students at TJ and that is unconstitutional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

For example, an effect of discriminating against Asians in favor of Whites.

The new admissions process does not discriminate against any race.

Neither did literacy tests and poll taxes to vote.

Yikes.

It appears that this requires explanation again, as a persistent lack of comprehension in this forum, whether out of convenience or ignorance, causes this thread to stagnate.

The previous admissions process was manifestly discriminatory against students of economic disadvantage. This point is not up for debate among serious people. It deeply favored students and families who were possessed of both the economic means and the parental motivation to leverage those means in the direction of optimizing the student's TJ application. For many reasons, in Northern Virginia that largely results in an advantage for students of Asian (and especially South Asian) descent. And the admissions statistics from prior classes bear that out very, very clearly - and combined with the Curie matter, provide a clear explanation for the dramatic overrepresentation of South Asians at TJ, who comprise about 5-7% of Northern Virginia's population but were hovering near 50% of incoming TJ classes between 2018-2024.

The new admissions process eliminated many of those advantages and indeed made it much more difficult for parents to leverage their resources to optimize TJ admissions outcomes. A staggering amount of mental gymnastics are required to observe a situation where a group that had a clear advantage in a process loses that advantage and refer to that loss as "racial discrimination".

The old process was discriminatory. Fixing it is the opposite of discrimination.

The new process sought to minimize that advantage.

The School Board set out to decrease the number of Asian students at TJ and that is unconstitutional.

That's false. What they sought to do was to increase the percentage of students from underrepresented schools and from families of economic disadvantage.

It bears repeating, for the umpteenth time, that the constituent group that benefited the most from the admissions changes was low-income Asian families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

For example, an effect of discriminating against Asians in favor of Whites.

The new admissions process does not discriminate against any race.

Neither did literacy tests and poll taxes to vote.

Yikes.

It appears that this requires explanation again, as a persistent lack of comprehension in this forum, whether out of convenience or ignorance, causes this thread to stagnate.

The previous admissions process was manifestly discriminatory against students of economic disadvantage. This point is not up for debate among serious people. It deeply favored students and families who were possessed of both the economic means and the parental motivation to leverage those means in the direction of optimizing the student's TJ application. For many reasons, in Northern Virginia that largely results in an advantage for students of Asian (and especially South Asian) descent. And the admissions statistics from prior classes bear that out very, very clearly - and combined with the Curie matter, provide a clear explanation for the dramatic overrepresentation of South Asians at TJ, who comprise about 5-7% of Northern Virginia's population but were hovering near 50% of incoming TJ classes between 2018-2024.

The new admissions process eliminated many of those advantages and indeed made it much more difficult for parents to leverage their resources to optimize TJ admissions outcomes. A staggering amount of mental gymnastics are required to observe a situation where a group that had a clear advantage in a process loses that advantage and refer to that loss as "racial discrimination".

The old process was discriminatory. Fixing it is the opposite of discrimination.

The new process sought to minimize that advantage.

The School Board set out to decrease the number of Asian students at TJ and that is unconstitutional.

That's false. What they sought to do was to increase the percentage of students from underrepresented schools and from families of economic disadvantage.

It bears repeating, for the umpteenth time, that the constituent group that benefited the most from the admissions changes was low-income Asian families.

And the School Board then achieved their goal of reducing Asian student number at TJ by having about 24-27% fewer Asian students admitted in the following respective years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

For example, an effect of discriminating against Asians in favor of Whites.

The new admissions process does not discriminate against any race.

Neither did literacy tests and poll taxes to vote.

Yikes.

It appears that this requires explanation again, as a persistent lack of comprehension in this forum, whether out of convenience or ignorance, causes this thread to stagnate.

The previous admissions process was manifestly discriminatory against students of economic disadvantage. This point is not up for debate among serious people. It deeply favored students and families who were possessed of both the economic means and the parental motivation to leverage those means in the direction of optimizing the student's TJ application. For many reasons, in Northern Virginia that largely results in an advantage for students of Asian (and especially South Asian) descent. And the admissions statistics from prior classes bear that out very, very clearly - and combined with the Curie matter, provide a clear explanation for the dramatic overrepresentation of South Asians at TJ, who comprise about 5-7% of Northern Virginia's population but were hovering near 50% of incoming TJ classes between 2018-2024.

The new admissions process eliminated many of those advantages and indeed made it much more difficult for parents to leverage their resources to optimize TJ admissions outcomes. A staggering amount of mental gymnastics are required to observe a situation where a group that had a clear advantage in a process loses that advantage and refer to that loss as "racial discrimination".

The old process was discriminatory. Fixing it is the opposite of discrimination.

The new process sought to minimize that advantage.

The School Board set out to decrease the number of Asian students at TJ and that is unconstitutional.

That's false. What they sought to do was to increase the percentage of students from underrepresented schools and from families of economic disadvantage.

It bears repeating, for the umpteenth time, that the constituent group that benefited the most from the admissions changes was low-income Asian families.

And the School Board then achieved their goal of reducing Asian student number at TJ by having about 24-27% fewer Asian students admitted in the following respective years.

Still false, no matter how many times you repeat it.

The fact that it impacts you doesn't make it about you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

For example, an effect of discriminating against Asians in favor of Whites.

The new admissions process does not discriminate against any race.

Neither did literacy tests and poll taxes to vote.

Yikes.

It appears that this requires explanation again, as a persistent lack of comprehension in this forum, whether out of convenience or ignorance, causes this thread to stagnate.

The previous admissions process was manifestly discriminatory against students of economic disadvantage. This point is not up for debate among serious people. It deeply favored students and families who were possessed of both the economic means and the parental motivation to leverage those means in the direction of optimizing the student's TJ application. For many reasons, in Northern Virginia that largely results in an advantage for students of Asian (and especially South Asian) descent. And the admissions statistics from prior classes bear that out very, very clearly - and combined with the Curie matter, provide a clear explanation for the dramatic overrepresentation of South Asians at TJ, who comprise about 5-7% of Northern Virginia's population but were hovering near 50% of incoming TJ classes between 2018-2024.

The new admissions process eliminated many of those advantages and indeed made it much more difficult for parents to leverage their resources to optimize TJ admissions outcomes. A staggering amount of mental gymnastics are required to observe a situation where a group that had a clear advantage in a process loses that advantage and refer to that loss as "racial discrimination".

The old process was discriminatory. Fixing it is the opposite of discrimination.

The new process sought to minimize that advantage.

The School Board set out to decrease the number of Asian students at TJ and that is unconstitutional.

That's false. What they sought to do was to increase the percentage of students from underrepresented schools and from families of economic disadvantage.

It bears repeating, for the umpteenth time, that the constituent group that benefited the most from the admissions changes was low-income Asian families.

And the School Board then achieved their goal of reducing Asian student number at TJ by having about 24-27% fewer Asian students admitted in the following respective years.

Still false, no matter how many times you repeat it.

The fact that it impacts you doesn't make it about you.

So, the SB said they wanted to reduce the Asian students at TJ and they did lower the Asian numbers at TJ. Mission accomplished as the "W" would say.

[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: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.

For example, an effect of discriminating against Asians in favor of Whites.

The new admissions process does not discriminate against any race.

Neither did literacy tests and poll taxes to vote.

Yikes.

It appears that this requires explanation again, as a persistent lack of comprehension in this forum, whether out of convenience or ignorance, causes this thread to stagnate.

The previous admissions process was manifestly discriminatory against students of economic disadvantage. This point is not up for debate among serious people. It deeply favored students and families who were possessed of both the economic means and the parental motivation to leverage those means in the direction of optimizing the student's TJ application. For many reasons, in Northern Virginia that largely results in an advantage for students of Asian (and especially South Asian) descent. And the admissions statistics from prior classes bear that out very, very clearly - and combined with the Curie matter, provide a clear explanation for the dramatic overrepresentation of South Asians at TJ, who comprise about 5-7% of Northern Virginia's population but were hovering near 50% of incoming TJ classes between 2018-2024.

The new admissions process eliminated many of those advantages and indeed made it much more difficult for parents to leverage their resources to optimize TJ admissions outcomes. A staggering amount of mental gymnastics are required to observe a situation where a group that had a clear advantage in a process loses that advantage and refer to that loss as "racial discrimination".

The old process was discriminatory. Fixing it is the opposite of discrimination.

The new process sought to minimize that advantage.

The School Board set out to decrease the number of Asian students at TJ and that is unconstitutional.

That's false. What they sought to do was to increase the percentage of students from underrepresented schools and from families of economic disadvantage.

It bears repeating, for the umpteenth time, that the constituent group that benefited the most from the admissions changes was low-income Asian families.

And the School Board then achieved their goal of reducing Asian student number at TJ by having about 24-27% fewer Asian students admitted in the following respective years.

Still false, no matter how many times you repeat it.

The fact that it impacts you doesn't make it about you.

So, the SB said they wanted to reduce the Asian students at TJ and they did lower the Asian numbers at TJ. Mission accomplished as the "W" would say.

Nowhere did they say this. Literally nowhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

For example, an effect of discriminating against Asians in favor of Whites.

The new admissions process does not discriminate against any race.

Neither did literacy tests and poll taxes to vote.

Yikes.

It appears that this requires explanation again, as a persistent lack of comprehension in this forum, whether out of convenience or ignorance, causes this thread to stagnate.

The previous admissions process was manifestly discriminatory against students of economic disadvantage. This point is not up for debate among serious people. It deeply favored students and families who were possessed of both the economic means and the parental motivation to leverage those means in the direction of optimizing the student's TJ application. For many reasons, in Northern Virginia that largely results in an advantage for students of Asian (and especially South Asian) descent. And the admissions statistics from prior classes bear that out very, very clearly - and combined with the Curie matter, provide a clear explanation for the dramatic overrepresentation of South Asians at TJ, who comprise about 5-7% of Northern Virginia's population but were hovering near 50% of incoming TJ classes between 2018-2024.

The new admissions process eliminated many of those advantages and indeed made it much more difficult for parents to leverage their resources to optimize TJ admissions outcomes. A staggering amount of mental gymnastics are required to observe a situation where a group that had a clear advantage in a process loses that advantage and refer to that loss as "racial discrimination".

The old process was discriminatory. Fixing it is the opposite of discrimination.

The new process sought to minimize that advantage.

The School Board set out to decrease the number of Asian students at TJ and that is unconstitutional.

That's false. What they sought to do was to increase the percentage of students from underrepresented schools and from families of economic disadvantage.

It bears repeating, for the umpteenth time, that the constituent group that benefited the most from the admissions changes was low-income Asian families.

And the School Board then achieved their goal of reducing Asian student number at TJ by having about 24-27% fewer Asian students admitted in the following respective years.

Still false, no matter how many times you repeat it.

The fact that it impacts you doesn't make it about you.

DP. However, the new supreme court ruling indicates that INTENT is not relevant. If the outcome of a policy change disproportionately affected one race, then there is now standing to sue on legal grounds.

[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: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.

For example, an effect of discriminating against Asians in favor of Whites.

The new admissions process does not discriminate against any race.

Neither did literacy tests and poll taxes to vote.

Yikes.

It appears that this requires explanation again, as a persistent lack of comprehension in this forum, whether out of convenience or ignorance, causes this thread to stagnate.

The previous admissions process was manifestly discriminatory against students of economic disadvantage. This point is not up for debate among serious people. It deeply favored students and families who were possessed of both the economic means and the parental motivation to leverage those means in the direction of optimizing the student's TJ application. For many reasons, in Northern Virginia that largely results in an advantage for students of Asian (and especially South Asian) descent. And the admissions statistics from prior classes bear that out very, very clearly - and combined with the Curie matter, provide a clear explanation for the dramatic overrepresentation of South Asians at TJ, who comprise about 5-7% of Northern Virginia's population but were hovering near 50% of incoming TJ classes between 2018-2024.

The new admissions process eliminated many of those advantages and indeed made it much more difficult for parents to leverage their resources to optimize TJ admissions outcomes. A staggering amount of mental gymnastics are required to observe a situation where a group that had a clear advantage in a process loses that advantage and refer to that loss as "racial discrimination".

The old process was discriminatory. Fixing it is the opposite of discrimination.

The new process sought to minimize that advantage.

The School Board set out to decrease the number of Asian students at TJ and that is unconstitutional.

That's false. What they sought to do was to increase the percentage of students from underrepresented schools and from families of economic disadvantage.

It bears repeating, for the umpteenth time, that the constituent group that benefited the most from the admissions changes was low-income Asian families.

And the School Board then achieved their goal of reducing Asian student number at TJ by having about 24-27% fewer Asian students admitted in the following respective years.

Still false, no matter how many times you repeat it.

The fact that it impacts you doesn't make it about you.

DP. However, the new supreme court ruling indicates that INTENT is not relevant. If the outcome of a policy change disproportionately affected one race, then there is now standing to sue on legal grounds.

You have both with TJ case - intent to discriminate and disproportionately affected one race.

[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: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.

For example, an effect of discriminating against Asians in favor of Whites.

The new admissions process does not discriminate against any race.

Neither did literacy tests and poll taxes to vote.

Yikes.

It appears that this requires explanation again, as a persistent lack of comprehension in this forum, whether out of convenience or ignorance, causes this thread to stagnate.

The previous admissions process was manifestly discriminatory against students of economic disadvantage. This point is not up for debate among serious people. It deeply favored students and families who were possessed of both the economic means and the parental motivation to leverage those means in the direction of optimizing the student's TJ application. For many reasons, in Northern Virginia that largely results in an advantage for students of Asian (and especially South Asian) descent. And the admissions statistics from prior classes bear that out very, very clearly - and combined with the Curie matter, provide a clear explanation for the dramatic overrepresentation of South Asians at TJ, who comprise about 5-7% of Northern Virginia's population but were hovering near 50% of incoming TJ classes between 2018-2024.

The new admissions process eliminated many of those advantages and indeed made it much more difficult for parents to leverage their resources to optimize TJ admissions outcomes. A staggering amount of mental gymnastics are required to observe a situation where a group that had a clear advantage in a process loses that advantage and refer to that loss as "racial discrimination".

The old process was discriminatory. Fixing it is the opposite of discrimination.

The new process sought to minimize that advantage.

The School Board set out to decrease the number of Asian students at TJ and that is unconstitutional.

That's false. What they sought to do was to increase the percentage of students from underrepresented schools and from families of economic disadvantage.

It bears repeating, for the umpteenth time, that the constituent group that benefited the most from the admissions changes was low-income Asian families.

And the School Board then achieved their goal of reducing Asian student number at TJ by having about 24-27% fewer Asian students admitted in the following respective years.

Still false, no matter how many times you repeat it.

The fact that it impacts you doesn't make it about you.

DP. However, the new supreme court ruling indicates that INTENT is not relevant. If the outcome of a policy change disproportionately affected one race, then there is now standing to sue on legal grounds.

You have both with TJ case - intent to discriminate and disproportionately affected one race.

You have neither.

"Intent to discriminate" - still waiting on any proof of that from a School Board member - feel free to provide any of it. There's none of it in the TJ Papers.

"Disproportionately affected one race" - Nope. The new admissions process did not disproportionately affect any race when you compare offer rates to applicant rates.

The change in admissions processes disproportionately affected Asians, because the previous admissions process disproportionately favored Asians.

[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:

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.

For example, an effect of discriminating against Asians in favor of Whites.

The new admissions process does not discriminate against any race.

Neither did literacy tests and poll taxes to vote.

Yikes.

It appears that this requires explanation again, as a persistent lack of comprehension in this forum, whether out of convenience or ignorance, causes this thread to stagnate.

The previous admissions process was manifestly discriminatory against students of economic disadvantage. This point is not up for debate among serious people. It deeply favored students and families who were possessed of both the economic means and the parental motivation to leverage those means in the direction of optimizing the student's TJ application. For many reasons, in Northern Virginia that largely results in an advantage for students of Asian (and especially South Asian) descent. And the admissions statistics from prior classes bear that out very, very clearly - and combined with the Curie matter, provide a clear explanation for the dramatic overrepresentation of South Asians at TJ, who comprise about 5-7% of Northern Virginia's population but were hovering near 50% of incoming TJ classes between 2018-2024.

The new admissions process eliminated many of those advantages and indeed made it much more difficult for parents to leverage their resources to optimize TJ admissions outcomes. A staggering amount of mental gymnastics are required to observe a situation where a group that had a clear advantage in a process loses that advantage and refer to that loss as "racial discrimination".

The old process was discriminatory. Fixing it is the opposite of discrimination.

The new process sought to minimize that advantage.

The School Board set out to decrease the number of Asian students at TJ and that is unconstitutional.

That's false. What they sought to do was to increase the percentage of students from underrepresented schools and from families of economic disadvantage.

It bears repeating, for the umpteenth time, that the constituent group that benefited the most from the admissions changes was low-income Asian families.

And the School Board then achieved their goal of reducing Asian student number at TJ by having about 24-27% fewer Asian students admitted in the following respective years.

Still false, no matter how many times you repeat it.

The fact that it impacts you doesn't make it about you.

DP. However, the new supreme court ruling indicates that INTENT is not relevant. If the outcome of a policy change disproportionately affected one race, then there is now standing to sue on legal grounds.

You have both with TJ case - intent to discriminate and disproportionately affected one race.

You have neither.

"Intent to discriminate" - still waiting on any proof of that from a School Board member - feel free to provide any of it. There's none of it in the TJ Papers.

"Disproportionately affected one race" - Nope. The new admissions process did not disproportionately affect any race when you compare offer rates to applicant rates.

The change in admissions processes disproportionately affected Asians, because the previous admissions process disproportionately favored Asians.

No, it disproportionately favored white applicants prior to the change.

[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:

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.

For example, an effect of discriminating against Asians in favor of Whites.

The new admissions process does not discriminate against any race.

Neither did literacy tests and poll taxes to vote.

Yikes.

It appears that this requires explanation again, as a persistent lack of comprehension in this forum, whether out of convenience or ignorance, causes this thread to stagnate.

The previous admissions process was manifestly discriminatory against students of economic disadvantage. This point is not up for debate among serious people. It deeply favored students and families who were possessed of both the economic means and the parental motivation to leverage those means in the direction of optimizing the student's TJ application. For many reasons, in Northern Virginia that largely results in an advantage for students of Asian (and especially South Asian) descent. And the admissions statistics from prior classes bear that out very, very clearly - and combined with the Curie matter, provide a clear explanation for the dramatic overrepresentation of South Asians at TJ, who comprise about 5-7% of Northern Virginia's population but were hovering near 50% of incoming TJ classes between 2018-2024.

The new admissions process eliminated many of those advantages and indeed made it much more difficult for parents to leverage their resources to optimize TJ admissions outcomes. A staggering amount of mental gymnastics are required to observe a situation where a group that had a clear advantage in a process loses that advantage and refer to that loss as "racial discrimination".

The old process was discriminatory. Fixing it is the opposite of discrimination.

The new process sought to minimize that advantage.

The School Board set out to decrease the number of Asian students at TJ and that is unconstitutional.

That's false. What they sought to do was to increase the percentage of students from underrepresented schools and from families of economic disadvantage.

It bears repeating, for the umpteenth time, that the constituent group that benefited the most from the admissions changes was low-income Asian families.

And the School Board then achieved their goal of reducing Asian student number at TJ by having about 24-27% fewer Asian students admitted in the following respective years.

Still false, no matter how many times you repeat it.

The fact that it impacts you doesn't make it about you.

DP. However, the new supreme court ruling indicates that INTENT is not relevant. If the outcome of a policy change disproportionately affected one race, then there is now standing to sue on legal grounds.

You have both with TJ case - intent to discriminate and disproportionately affected one race.

You have neither.

"Intent to discriminate" - still waiting on any proof of that from a School Board member - feel free to provide any of it. There's none of it in the TJ Papers.

"Disproportionately affected one race" - Nope. The new admissions process did not disproportionately affect any race when you compare offer rates to applicant rates.

The change in admissions processes disproportionately affected Asians, because the previous admissions process disproportionately favored Asians.

No, it disproportionately favored white applicants prior to the change.

You're definitely going to have to show your work on that one.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

For example, an effect of discriminating against Asians in favor of Whites.

The new admissions process does not discriminate against any race.

Neither did literacy tests and poll taxes to vote.

Yikes.

It appears that this requires explanation again, as a persistent lack of comprehension in this forum, whether out of convenience or ignorance, causes this thread to stagnate.

The previous admissions process was manifestly discriminatory against students of economic disadvantage. This point is not up for debate among serious people. It deeply favored students and families who were possessed of both the economic means and the parental motivation to leverage those means in the direction of optimizing the student's TJ application. For many reasons, in Northern Virginia that largely results in an advantage for students of Asian (and especially South Asian) descent. And the admissions statistics from prior classes bear that out very, very clearly - and combined with the Curie matter, provide a clear explanation for the dramatic overrepresentation of South Asians at TJ, who comprise about 5-7% of Northern Virginia's population but were hovering near 50% of incoming TJ classes between 2018-2024.

The new admissions process eliminated many of those advantages and indeed made it much more difficult for parents to leverage their resources to optimize TJ admissions outcomes. A staggering amount of mental gymnastics are required to observe a situation where a group that had a clear advantage in a process loses that advantage and refer to that loss as "racial discrimination".

The old process was discriminatory. Fixing it is the opposite of discrimination.

The new process sought to minimize that advantage.

The School Board set out to decrease the number of Asian students at TJ and that is unconstitutional.

That's false. What they sought to do was to increase the percentage of students from underrepresented schools and from families of economic disadvantage.

It bears repeating, for the umpteenth time, that the constituent group that benefited the most from the admissions changes was low-income Asian families.

And the School Board then achieved their goal of reducing Asian student number at TJ by having about 24-27% fewer Asian students admitted in the following respective years.

Still false, no matter how many times you repeat it.

The fact that it impacts you doesn't make it about you.

DP. However, the new supreme court ruling indicates that INTENT is not relevant. If the outcome of a policy change disproportionately affected one race, then there is now standing to sue on legal grounds.

You have both with TJ case - intent to discriminate and disproportionately affected one race.

You have neither.

"Intent to discriminate" - still waiting on any proof of that from a School Board member - feel free to provide any of it. There's none of it in the TJ Papers.

"Disproportionately affected one race" - Nope. The new admissions process did not disproportionately affect any race when you compare offer rates to applicant rates.

The change in admissions processes disproportionately affected Asians, because the previous admissions process disproportionately favored Asians.

No, it disproportionately favored white applicants prior to the change.

You're definitely going to have to show your work on that one.

You show yours first.