Youngkin and TJ

[Anonymous]

Welp, this thread is officially off the rails.

The moment you start characterizing the removal of an advantage (obsessive parents with resources) as the introduction of a disadvantage (blah blah anti-Asian racism), you've lost the plot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Qarni is fired. That alone makes the vote for Youngkin worth it.

And Lisa Smith is gone. Those would be the two big TJ equity screamers.

What’s wrong with equity?

The term equity has been hijacked and redefined to mean equality of outcome despite disparities in effort and achievement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Qarni is fired. That alone makes the vote for Youngkin worth it.

And Lisa Smith is gone. Those would be the two big TJ equity screamers.

What’s wrong with equity?

I see the resident DCUM “woke” trolls have shown up.

As pointed out, it is not real equity. Rather, it is anti-Asian racism in this case.

Does "woke" mean wanting to provide true equal opportunities?

Woke means to insist on equality of output despite inequality of input.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Qarni is fired. That alone makes the vote for Youngkin worth it.

And Lisa Smith is gone. Those would be the two big TJ equity screamers.

What’s wrong with equity?

The term equity has been hijacked and redefined to mean equality of outcome despite disparities in effort and achievement.

Equality of opportunity has been shown to be a joke because of disparities in resources and opportunities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Opportunity hoarders want all of the good stuff for their own kids and don’t want to share with the poors.

TJ admissios were based on merits. If american kids do well what's the problem?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Qarni is fired. That alone makes the vote for Youngkin worth it.

And Lisa Smith is gone. Those would be the two big TJ equity screamers.

What’s wrong with equity?

The term equity has been hijacked and redefined to mean equality of outcome despite disparities in effort and achievement.

Interesting that THOSE are the only disparities you mention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Opportunity hoarders want all of the good stuff for their own kids and don’t want to share with the poors.

TJ admissios were based on merits. If american kids do well what's the problem?

How do you define "merits"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Qarni is fired. That alone makes the vote for Youngkin worth it.

And Lisa Smith is gone. Those would be the two big TJ equity screamers.

What’s wrong with equity?

I see the resident DCUM “woke” trolls have shown up.

As pointed out, it is not real equity. Rather, it is anti-Asian racism in this case.

Does "woke" mean wanting to provide true equal opportunities?

No. Woke means you want to treat people differently based on race - in other words, not equally.

So how should we address racially disparate outcomes?

By saying that everything is fair and pretending the disparities don't exist. You can also push for some vague higher standards or better teaching in the worst off schools, but that's just lip service. What matters is a system in place that can be gamed by those with the resources to do so.

That is certainly what I'm hearing here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Qarni is fired. That alone makes the vote for Youngkin worth it.

And Lisa Smith is gone. Those would be the two big TJ equity screamers.

What’s wrong with equity?

I see the resident DCUM “woke” trolls have shown up.

As pointed out, it is not real equity. Rather, it is anti-Asian racism in this case.

Does "woke" mean wanting to provide true equal opportunities?

No. Woke means you want to treat people differently based on race - in other words, not equally.

So how should we address racially disparate outcomes?

Determine what is causing the disparity of outcomes before you determine if anything needs to be done at all.

Diversity at TJ never really got any political traction until whites became a minority there. There was a convergence of interests between white supremacists and the anti-racists, they both agreed to a new system that would increase white and URM students at the expense of some asians kids. The white supremacists didn't care which minorities were at TJ as long as there were more whites and the anti-racists didn't care how many whites were at TJ as long as there were more URM.

As a practical matter, this impacts a tiny sliver of the electorate. Most of the people arguing on this board will not be affected by this one way or another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Welp, this thread is officially off the rails.

The moment you start characterizing the removal of an advantage (obsessive parents with resources) as the introduction of a disadvantage (blah blah anti-Asian racism), you've lost the plot.

That's an odd thing to say because TJ was almost 3/4th asian.
Asians are not the wealthiest group in almost any locality in america.
Like most places, whites in fairfax are wealthier than asians in fairfax. There are few places where this is not true.
The only reason asians have higher incomes at the national level is because you are comparing asians in palo alto to whites in cinncinatti.

A similar debate is going on in nyc where asians have the highest poverty rate and account for 80% of the population at their local magnet school (Stuyvesant). They are not concerned with cinome, they are concerned with race.
If you wanted to make this about wealth/income, they could have done that without running afoul of any discrimination laws but that would have resulted in a few more URM but even fewer whites and probably more asians. When you provide income preferences, whites lose and everyone else wins.

If it makes you feel better to think that this is about wealth and privilege instead of race then I can't stop you but all the evidence points to this being about race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Qarni is fired. That alone makes the vote for Youngkin worth it.

And Lisa Smith is gone. Those would be the two big TJ equity screamers.

What’s wrong with equity?

The term equity has been hijacked and redefined to mean equality of outcome despite disparities in effort and achievement.

Equality of opportunity has been shown to be a joke because of disparities in resources and opportunities.

And yet the poorest minority in NYC consistently outperforms the wealthiest race (whites) in NYC.

That's not to say you can every reach perfect equality of opportunity but the deck is not so stacked that the outcome is predetermined as you seem to think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Qarni is fired. That alone makes the vote for Youngkin worth it.

And Lisa Smith is gone. Those would be the two big TJ equity screamers.

What’s wrong with equity?

The term equity has been hijacked and redefined to mean equality of outcome despite disparities in effort and achievement.

Interesting that THOSE are the only disparities you mention.

What other criteria would you want to have determine disparities in outcome?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Opportunity hoarders want all of the good stuff for their own kids and don’t want to share with the poors.

TJ admissios were based on merits. If american kids do well what's the problem?

How do you define "merits"?

The score on an objective test seems like one way of determining academic merit.
It certainly seems like a better determinant than race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Qarni is fired. That alone makes the vote for Youngkin worth it.

And Lisa Smith is gone. Those would be the two big TJ equity screamers.

What’s wrong with equity?

The term equity has been hijacked and redefined to mean equality of outcome despite disparities in effort and achievement.

Equality of opportunity has been shown to be a joke because of disparities in resources and opportunities.

And yet the poorest minority in NYC consistently outperforms the wealthiest race (whites) in NYC.

That's not to say you can every reach perfect equality of opportunity but the deck is not so stacked that the outcome is predetermined as you seem to think.

Somehow in TJ it was though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Qarni is fired. That alone makes the vote for Youngkin worth it.

And Lisa Smith is gone. Those would be the two big TJ equity screamers.

What’s wrong with equity?

The term equity has been hijacked and redefined to mean equality of outcome despite disparities in effort and achievement.

Interesting that THOSE are the only disparities you mention.

What other criteria would you want to have determine disparities in outcome?

You can't think of any others? Really?