U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Friday called for a response from a Virginia school

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are these legal battles the best use of fcps tax dollars? Maybe if they spent more money on other aap programs people wouldn’t need to clamor so hard to get into the scarce resource that’s TJ

Just get rid of all race on apps

TJ doesn’t have race on the app.

Disparate impact is a recognized legal theory.

Interesting. So if certain races have much lower acceptance rates & enrollment #s than others is that a disparate impact?

It basically means something that is race neutral can still be found to be discriminatory if it results in having a disparate impact on a protected class. Something that is race neutral can be a proxy for doing something racist if it has the result of being discriminatory against certain races. It depends on the facts and who and how it impacts.

For godsake. destroying a school for equity purposes is absolutely obscene. you guys make me sick.

Right. So the current admissions process has a disparate impact on admissions for URMs — significantly lower rates of admission.

Is that what the facts show? What if you look at % of applicants of each race who applied that are accepted?

Yes. We already did that analysis on another thread.

Ok thanks. Why do we only care about URMs? There are poor Asians. And we didn’t have Hispanic people as slaves so it’s not reparations for them to be URMs. Sorry if that was already discussed.

Friendly reminder that poor Asians were the biggest beneficiaries of the new admissions process per the data that was recently released - far moreso than Black or Hispanic students...

This is not a competition to divide the spoils!! you guys just don't get it...

So we should only care about “disparate impact” for certain groups, not all?

That's literally coalition for TJ's argument. They are claiming the the current system has a disparate impact on Asian applicants even though the prior system had a disparate impact on literally every other group.

And I’d say that the new process STILL has a “disparate impact” on URMs given that admission rates are still disparate.

At the moment, one thing you can say as a positive for the new process is that the demographic of the admitted student pool roughly mirrors the demographic of the applicant pool. Which is a positive.

Not roughly. There were *still* disparities. This was covered on an old thread. I can’t look up at the moment but can try later.

You want disparate impact? Here are some egregious disparate impact:

Asians have been totally shut out of a County that Asians make up 20% for many years now.

No member of the school board, no member of the Board of Supervisors, no member of County judges, no House delegates from the County, no representation in the top positions of FCPS, no representation in the leadership positions at TJ, no principals at any County schools, no representation at leadership positions at County police on and on and on. Why so quiet about these egregious complete and total lack of representation?

Did you forget Moon? He was the chair of the school board for a long time. And last time I checked - Tran is a house delegate from this county. Maybe they should have more representation but at least get the facts straight.

Moon ain't there no mo and I am not sure about Tran.

Asians have been the victim of disparate impact for decades:

Fairfax Board of Supervisors must represent ALL the citizens of the county. Asians must make up 20% of the Board of Supervisors. Board of Supervisors must be exposed to the benefits of working in a "diverse" environment where they will be exposed to different ethnicities and cultures that is Fairfax County and that will make them a better human being and better government officials.

We need Asian Diversity & Inclusion Officer for the Fairfax County appointed immediately to promote Asians in ALL aspects of the County government. We need 20% Asians on the school board. We need 20% of Asian judges in the county. We need 20% Asian prosecutors in the county. We need 20% of top positions in the FCPS. We need Asian principal for TJ etc.

Election results not do not equal disparate impact. That should not be in the conversation at all.

Due to candidate suppression and voter suppression. Asians demand 20%.

Well maybe someone SHOULD look into how Moon didn't get on to the D sample ballot with FCDC.

Tweet Asra. See if she does anything.

[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:Are these legal battles the best use of fcps tax dollars? Maybe if they spent more money on other aap programs people wouldn’t need to clamor so hard to get into the scarce resource that’s TJ

Just get rid of all race on apps

TJ doesn’t have race on the app.

Disparate impact is a recognized legal theory.

Interesting. So if certain races have much lower acceptance rates & enrollment #s than others is that a disparate impact?

It basically means something that is race neutral can still be found to be discriminatory if it results in having a disparate impact on a protected class. Something that is race neutral can be a proxy for doing something racist if it has the result of being discriminatory against certain races. It depends on the facts and who and how it impacts.

Right. So the current admissions process has a disparate impact on admissions for URMs — significantly lower rates of admission.

Is that what the facts show? What if you look at % of applicants of each race who applied that are accepted?

Yes. We already did that analysis on another thread.

Ok thanks. Why do we only care about URMs? There are poor Asians. And we didn’t have Hispanic people as slaves so it’s not reparations for them to be URMs. Sorry if that was already discussed.

Because the Asians in this region are overrepresented and stereotyped as being wealthy and privileged. Some would even call them white adjacent. People don't think they deserve to have 70% representation in the school when they are only 20% of the population.

URMs are stereotyped as being less wealthy and privileged, and their numbers at TJ are abysmal. People don't think that's fair and perpetuates a cycle. They believe URMs deserve extra help, even if that means discrimination against white or Asian kids. To many, the ends justify the means. To others, they should be discriminated against.

It's not stereotyping, prior to last year TJ and Langley vied for the fewest FARMs students in FCPS with TJ usually winning.

+1

The old admissions process only admitted 0.6% (<1%!!) economically-disadvantaged students in 2020.
https://www.fcps.edu/news/tjhsst-offers-admission-486-students

The 25% economically disadvantaged might be a fairy tale. Since any family could check yes to the meals questions and there was no verification whatsoever, it’s not clear at all how many members of the class of 2025 are low income.

Only amoral people would have said yes. Probably not a large #.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/judges at least do some basic research before claiming that there are no Asian American Judges.

It ain't 20%. Only 6%. We want at least 20%! Disparate impact!

Where is C4TJ on this issue? Seems like they should get right on this.

Nah, because increasing from 6% would mean that some other group would have to decrease from their current percentage, and C4TJ is opposed to a group relinquishing ANY of "their share", even if that group is currently massively overrepresented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/judges at least do some basic research before claiming that there are no Asian American Judges.

It ain't 20%. Only 6%. We want at least 20%! Disparate impact!

Where is C4TJ on this issue? Seems like they should get right on this.

Nah, because increasing from 6% would mean that some other group would have to decrease from their current percentage, and C4TJ is opposed to a group relinquishing ANY of "their share", even if that group is currently massively overrepresented.

Asians demand:

- 20% of the school board;
- 20% of the top 100 administrative positions at FCPS;
- 20% of the county teachers;
- 20% of the county employees including the top 100 administrative positions;
- 20% of the County Board of Supervisors;
- 20% of the County Judges;
- 20% of County prosecutors;
- 20% of the County police officers;
- 70% of TJ teachers;
- Principal of TJ be Asian;
- 20% of County Contracts and Grants;
- 20% of county public schools' sport teams
- 20% of county schools' clubs and organization (including SGAs) members and officers etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/judges at least do some basic research before claiming that there are no Asian American Judges.

It ain't 20%. Only 6%. We want at least 20%! Disparate impact!

Where is C4TJ on this issue? Seems like they should get right on this.

Nah, because increasing from 6% would mean that some other group would have to decrease from their current percentage, and C4TJ is opposed to a group relinquishing ANY of "their share", even if that group is currently massively overrepresented.

Asians demand:

- 20% of the school board;
- 20% of the top 100 administrative positions at FCPS;
- 20% of the county teachers;
- 20% of the county employees including the top 100 administrative positions;
- 20% of the County Board of Supervisors;
- 20% of the County Judges;
- 20% of County prosecutors;
- 20% of the County police officers;
- 70% of TJ teachers;
- Principal of TJ be Asian;
- 20% of County Contracts and Grants;
- 20% of county public schools' sport teams
- 20% of county schools' clubs and organization (including SGAs) members and officers etc.

That certainly looks like disparate impact.

[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:Are these legal battles the best use of fcps tax dollars? Maybe if they spent more money on other aap programs people wouldn’t need to clamor so hard to get into the scarce resource that’s TJ

Just get rid of all race on apps

TJ doesn’t have race on the app.

Disparate impact is a recognized legal theory.

Interesting. So if certain races have much lower acceptance rates & enrollment #s than others is that a disparate impact?

It basically means something that is race neutral can still be found to be discriminatory if it results in having a disparate impact on a protected class. Something that is race neutral can be a proxy for doing something racist if it has the result of being discriminatory against certain races. It depends on the facts and who and how it impacts.

Right. So the current admissions process has a disparate impact on admissions for URMs — significantly lower rates of admission.

Is that what the facts show? What if you look at % of applicants of each race who applied that are accepted?

Yes. We already did that analysis on another thread.

Ok thanks. Why do we only care about URMs? There are poor Asians. And we didn’t have Hispanic people as slaves so it’s not reparations for them to be URMs. Sorry if that was already discussed.

Because the Asians in this region are overrepresented and stereotyped as being wealthy and privileged. Some would even call them white adjacent. People don't think they deserve to have 70% representation in the school when they are only 20% of the population.

URMs are stereotyped as being less wealthy and privileged, and their numbers at TJ are abysmal. People don't think that's fair and perpetuates a cycle. They believe URMs deserve extra help, even if that means discrimination against white or Asian kids. To many, the ends justify the means. To others, they should be discriminated against.

It's not stereotyping, prior to last year TJ and Langley vied for the fewest FARMs students in FCPS with TJ usually winning.

+1

The old admissions process only admitted 0.6% (<1%!!) economically-disadvantaged students in 2020.
https://www.fcps.edu/news/tjhsst-offers-admission-486-students

The 25% economically disadvantaged might be a fairy tale. Since any family could check yes to the meals questions and there was no verification whatsoever, it’s not clear at all how many members of the class of 2025 are low income.

Only amoral people would have said yes. Probably not a large #.

I disagree. The admissions office staff should have either worded the questions differently or required verification of income.

I’ve seen how the meals questions were worded. If a parent was reading and responding to the literal questions, every parent should have said yes. There was no additional information or context given. Multiple people have reported on here that the admissions office, when asked, responded that yes anyone could respond yes to these questions.

Its mind boggling how incompetent this simple thing was handled. It’s a huge mess-up by the TJ Admissions office staff. Or possibly it was intentionally vague so that they could have a dramatic press release.

(For what it’s worth, I’m an advocate for expanding access to TJHSST. I’m livid about how terribly the admissions office administered the meals questions and therefore diluted the preference given to low income students.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/judges at least do some basic research before claiming that there are no Asian American Judges.

It ain't 20%. Only 6%. We want at least 20%! Disparate impact!

Where is C4TJ on this issue? Seems like they should get right on this.

Nah, because increasing from 6% would mean that some other group would have to decrease from their current percentage, and C4TJ is opposed to a group relinquishing ANY of "their share", even if that group is currently massively overrepresented.

Asians demand:

- 20% of the school board;
- 20% of the top 100 administrative positions at FCPS;
- 20% of the county teachers;
- 20% of the county employees including the top 100 administrative positions;
- 20% of the County Board of Supervisors;
- 20% of the County Judges;
- 20% of County prosecutors;
- 20% of the County police officers;
- 70% of TJ teachers;
- Principal of TJ be Asian;
- 20% of County Contracts and Grants;
- 20% of county public schools' sport teams
- 20% of county schools' clubs and organization (including SGAs) members and officers etc.

That certainly looks like disparate impact.

https://mobile.twitter.com/AsraNomani

[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:Are these legal battles the best use of fcps tax dollars? Maybe if they spent more money on other aap programs people wouldn’t need to clamor so hard to get into the scarce resource that’s TJ

Just get rid of all race on apps

TJ doesn’t have race on the app.

Disparate impact is a recognized legal theory.

Interesting. So if certain races have much lower acceptance rates & enrollment #s than others is that a disparate impact?

It basically means something that is race neutral can still be found to be discriminatory if it results in having a disparate impact on a protected class. Something that is race neutral can be a proxy for doing something racist if it has the result of being discriminatory against certain races. It depends on the facts and who and how it impacts.

Right. So the current admissions process has a disparate impact on admissions for URMs — significantly lower rates of admission.

Is that what the facts show? What if you look at % of applicants of each race who applied that are accepted?

Yes. We already did that analysis on another thread.

Ok thanks. Why do we only care about URMs? There are poor Asians. And we didn’t have Hispanic people as slaves so it’s not reparations for them to be URMs. Sorry if that was already discussed.

Because the Asians in this region are overrepresented and stereotyped as being wealthy and privileged. Some would even call them white adjacent. People don't think they deserve to have 70% representation in the school when they are only 20% of the population.

URMs are stereotyped as being less wealthy and privileged, and their numbers at TJ are abysmal. People don't think that's fair and perpetuates a cycle. They believe URMs deserve extra help, even if that means discrimination against white or Asian kids. To many, the ends justify the means. To others, they should be discriminated against.

It's not stereotyping, prior to last year TJ and Langley vied for the fewest FARMs students in FCPS with TJ usually winning.

+1

The old admissions process only admitted 0.6% (<1%!!) economically-disadvantaged students in 2020.
https://www.fcps.edu/news/tjhsst-offers-admission-486-students

The 25% economically disadvantaged might be a fairy tale. Since any family could check yes to the meals questions and there was no verification whatsoever, it’s not clear at all how many members of the class of 2025 are low income.

Only amoral people would have said yes. Probably not a large #.

Turns out you need to verify everything. There are a lot of amoral people.

It’s Way Too Easy for Privileged Kids to Fake Being Working Class
Being a first-generation, low-income student has been an eye-opening experience—not least in finding out how many of my FGLI peers are actually children of privilege.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/enough-with-other-college-students-fraudulently-claiming-my-identity

[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:Are these legal battles the best use of fcps tax dollars? Maybe if they spent more money on other aap programs people wouldn’t need to clamor so hard to get into the scarce resource that’s TJ

Just get rid of all race on apps

TJ doesn’t have race on the app.

Disparate impact is a recognized legal theory.

Interesting. So if certain races have much lower acceptance rates & enrollment #s than others is that a disparate impact?

It basically means something that is race neutral can still be found to be discriminatory if it results in having a disparate impact on a protected class. Something that is race neutral can be a proxy for doing something racist if it has the result of being discriminatory against certain races. It depends on the facts and who and how it impacts.

Right. So the current admissions process has a disparate impact on admissions for URMs — significantly lower rates of admission.

Is that what the facts show? What if you look at % of applicants of each race who applied that are accepted?

Yes. We already did that analysis on another thread.

Ok thanks. Why do we only care about URMs? There are poor Asians. And we didn’t have Hispanic people as slaves so it’s not reparations for them to be URMs. Sorry if that was already discussed.

Because the Asians in this region are overrepresented and stereotyped as being wealthy and privileged. Some would even call them white adjacent. People don't think they deserve to have 70% representation in the school when they are only 20% of the population.

URMs are stereotyped as being less wealthy and privileged, and their numbers at TJ are abysmal. People don't think that's fair and perpetuates a cycle. They believe URMs deserve extra help, even if that means discrimination against white or Asian kids. To many, the ends justify the means. To others, they should be discriminated against.

It's not stereotyping, prior to last year TJ and Langley vied for the fewest FARMs students in FCPS with TJ usually winning.

+1

The old admissions process only admitted 0.6% (<1%!!) economically-disadvantaged students in 2020.
https://www.fcps.edu/news/tjhsst-offers-admission-486-students

The 25% economically disadvantaged might be a fairy tale. Since any family could check yes to the meals questions and there was no verification whatsoever, it’s not clear at all how many members of the class of 2025 are low income.

Only amoral people would have said yes. Probably not a large #.

I disagree. The admissions office staff should have either worded the questions differently or required verification of income.

I’ve seen how the meals questions were worded. If a parent was reading and responding to the literal questions, every parent should have said yes. There was no additional information or context given. Multiple people have reported on here that the admissions office, when asked, responded that yes anyone could respond yes to these questions.

Its mind boggling how incompetent this simple thing was handled. It’s a huge mess-up by the TJ Admissions office staff. Or possibly it was intentionally vague so that they could have a dramatic press release.

(For what it’s worth, I’m an advocate for expanding access to TJHSST. I’m livid about how terribly the admissions office administered the meals questions and therefore diluted the preference given to low income students.)

+1

This is something parents on both sides should be upset about.

[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:Are these legal battles the best use of fcps tax dollars? Maybe if they spent more money on other aap programs people wouldn’t need to clamor so hard to get into the scarce resource that’s TJ

Just get rid of all race on apps

TJ doesn’t have race on the app.

Disparate impact is a recognized legal theory.

Interesting. So if certain races have much lower acceptance rates & enrollment #s than others is that a disparate impact?

It basically means something that is race neutral can still be found to be discriminatory if it results in having a disparate impact on a protected class. Something that is race neutral can be a proxy for doing something racist if it has the result of being discriminatory against certain races. It depends on the facts and who and how it impacts.

Right. So the current admissions process has a disparate impact on admissions for URMs — significantly lower rates of admission.

Is that what the facts show? What if you look at % of applicants of each race who applied that are accepted?

Yes. We already did that analysis on another thread.

Ok thanks. Why do we only care about URMs? There are poor Asians. And we didn’t have Hispanic people as slaves so it’s not reparations for them to be URMs. Sorry if that was already discussed.

Because the Asians in this region are overrepresented and stereotyped as being wealthy and privileged. Some would even call them white adjacent. People don't think they deserve to have 70% representation in the school when they are only 20% of the population.

URMs are stereotyped as being less wealthy and privileged, and their numbers at TJ are abysmal. People don't think that's fair and perpetuates a cycle. They believe URMs deserve extra help, even if that means discrimination against white or Asian kids. To many, the ends justify the means. To others, they should be discriminated against.

It's not stereotyping, prior to last year TJ and Langley vied for the fewest FARMs students in FCPS with TJ usually winning.

+1

The old admissions process only admitted 0.6% (<1%!!) economically-disadvantaged students in 2020.
https://www.fcps.edu/news/tjhsst-offers-admission-486-students

The 25% economically disadvantaged might be a fairy tale. Since any family could check yes to the meals questions and there was no verification whatsoever, it’s not clear at all how many members of the class of 2025 are low income.

Only amoral people would have said yes. Probably not a large #.

I disagree. The admissions office staff should have either worded the questions differently or required verification of income.

I’ve seen how the meals questions were worded. If a parent was reading and responding to the literal questions, every parent should have said yes. There was no additional information or context given. Multiple people have reported on here that the admissions office, when asked, responded that yes anyone could respond yes to these questions.

Its mind boggling how incompetent this simple thing was handled. It’s a huge mess-up by the TJ Admissions office staff. Or possibly it was intentionally vague so that they could have a dramatic press release.

(For what it’s worth, I’m an advocate for expanding access to TJHSST. I’m livid about how terribly the admissions office administered the meals questions and therefore diluted the preference given to low income students.)

It was a poorly worded question.

But, as a parent whose child applied this last round, it was very clear that it was amoral to select yes unless you were truly low income.

[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:Are these legal battles the best use of fcps tax dollars? Maybe if they spent more money on other aap programs people wouldn’t need to clamor so hard to get into the scarce resource that’s TJ

Just get rid of all race on apps

TJ doesn’t have race on the app.

Disparate impact is a recognized legal theory.

Interesting. So if certain races have much lower acceptance rates & enrollment #s than others is that a disparate impact?

It basically means something that is race neutral can still be found to be discriminatory if it results in having a disparate impact on a protected class. Something that is race neutral can be a proxy for doing something racist if it has the result of being discriminatory against certain races. It depends on the facts and who and how it impacts.

Right. So the current admissions process has a disparate impact on admissions for URMs — significantly lower rates of admission.

Is that what the facts show? What if you look at % of applicants of each race who applied that are accepted?

Yes. We already did that analysis on another thread.

Ok thanks. Why do we only care about URMs? There are poor Asians. And we didn’t have Hispanic people as slaves so it’s not reparations for them to be URMs. Sorry if that was already discussed.

Because the Asians in this region are overrepresented and stereotyped as being wealthy and privileged. Some would even call them white adjacent. People don't think they deserve to have 70% representation in the school when they are only 20% of the population.

URMs are stereotyped as being less wealthy and privileged, and their numbers at TJ are abysmal. People don't think that's fair and perpetuates a cycle. They believe URMs deserve extra help, even if that means discrimination against white or Asian kids. To many, the ends justify the means. To others, they should be discriminated against.

It's not stereotyping, prior to last year TJ and Langley vied for the fewest FARMs students in FCPS with TJ usually winning.

+1

The old admissions process only admitted 0.6% (<1%!!) economically-disadvantaged students in 2020.
https://www.fcps.edu/news/tjhsst-offers-admission-486-students

The 25% economically disadvantaged might be a fairy tale. Since any family could check yes to the meals questions and there was no verification whatsoever, it’s not clear at all how many members of the class of 2025 are low income.

Only amoral people would have said yes. Probably not a large #.

I disagree. The admissions office staff should have either worded the questions differently or required verification of income.

I’ve seen how the meals questions were worded. If a parent was reading and responding to the literal questions, every parent should have said yes. There was no additional information or context given. Multiple people have reported on here that the admissions office, when asked, responded that yes anyone could respond yes to these questions.

Its mind boggling how incompetent this simple thing was handled. It’s a huge mess-up by the TJ Admissions office staff. Or possibly it was intentionally vague so that they could have a dramatic press release.

(For what it’s worth, I’m an advocate for expanding access to TJHSST. I’m livid about how terribly the admissions office administered the meals questions and therefore diluted the preference given to low income students.)

It was a poorly worded question.

But, as a parent whose child applied this last round, it was very clear that it was amoral to select yes unless you were truly low income.

Relying on morality is not a good enough safeguard.

[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:Are these legal battles the best use of fcps tax dollars? Maybe if they spent more money on other aap programs people wouldn’t need to clamor so hard to get into the scarce resource that’s TJ

Just get rid of all race on apps

TJ doesn’t have race on the app.

Disparate impact is a recognized legal theory.

Interesting. So if certain races have much lower acceptance rates & enrollment #s than others is that a disparate impact?

It basically means something that is race neutral can still be found to be discriminatory if it results in having a disparate impact on a protected class. Something that is race neutral can be a proxy for doing something racist if it has the result of being discriminatory against certain races. It depends on the facts and who and how it impacts.

Right. So the current admissions process has a disparate impact on admissions for URMs — significantly lower rates of admission.

Is that what the facts show? What if you look at % of applicants of each race who applied that are accepted?

Yes. We already did that analysis on another thread.

Ok thanks. Why do we only care about URMs? There are poor Asians. And we didn’t have Hispanic people as slaves so it’s not reparations for them to be URMs. Sorry if that was already discussed.

Because the Asians in this region are overrepresented and stereotyped as being wealthy and privileged. Some would even call them white adjacent. People don't think they deserve to have 70% representation in the school when they are only 20% of the population.

URMs are stereotyped as being less wealthy and privileged, and their numbers at TJ are abysmal. People don't think that's fair and perpetuates a cycle. They believe URMs deserve extra help, even if that means discrimination against white or Asian kids. To many, the ends justify the means. To others, they should be discriminated against.

It's not stereotyping, prior to last year TJ and Langley vied for the fewest FARMs students in FCPS with TJ usually winning.

+1

The old admissions process only admitted 0.6% (<1%!!) economically-disadvantaged students in 2020.
https://www.fcps.edu/news/tjhsst-offers-admission-486-students

The 25% economically disadvantaged might be a fairy tale. Since any family could check yes to the meals questions and there was no verification whatsoever, it’s not clear at all how many members of the class of 2025 are low income.

Only amoral people would have said yes. Probably not a large #.

I disagree. The admissions office staff should have either worded the questions differently or required verification of income.

I’ve seen how the meals questions were worded. If a parent was reading and responding to the literal questions, every parent should have said yes. There was no additional information or context given. Multiple people have reported on here that the admissions office, when asked, responded that yes anyone could respond yes to these questions.

Its mind boggling how incompetent this simple thing was handled. It’s a huge mess-up by the TJ Admissions office staff. Or possibly it was intentionally vague so that they could have a dramatic press release.

(For what it’s worth, I’m an advocate for expanding access to TJHSST. I’m livid about how terribly the admissions office administered the meals questions and therefore diluted the preference given to low income students.)

It was a poorly worded question.

But, as a parent whose child applied this last round, it was very clear that it was amoral to select yes unless you were truly low income.

Interesting.

What part of the application makes it “very clear”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/judges at least do some basic research before claiming that there are no Asian American Judges.

It ain't 20%. Only 6%. We want at least 20%! Disparate impact!

Where is C4TJ on this issue? Seems like they should get right on this.

Nah, because increasing from 6% would mean that some other group would have to decrease from their current percentage, and C4TJ is opposed to a group relinquishing ANY of "their share", even if that group is currently massively overrepresented.

Asians demand:

- 20% of the school board;
- 20% of the top 100 administrative positions at FCPS;
- 20% of the county teachers;
- 20% of the county employees including the top 100 administrative positions;
- 20% of the County Board of Supervisors;
- 20% of the County Judges;
- 20% of County prosecutors;
- 20% of the County police officers;
- 70% of TJ teachers;
- Principal of TJ be Asian;
- 20% of County Contracts and Grants;
- 20% of county public schools' sport teams
- 20% of county schools' clubs and organization (including SGAs) members and officers etc.

Don't forget 20% of the TJ admissions panes/readers. Asians probably make up 0 or close to 0 of those panel members.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/judges at least do some basic research before claiming that there are no Asian American Judges.

It ain't 20%. Only 6%. We want at least 20%! Disparate impact!

Where is C4TJ on this issue? Seems like they should get right on this.

Nah, because increasing from 6% would mean that some other group would have to decrease from their current percentage, and C4TJ is opposed to a group relinquishing ANY of "their share", even if that group is currently massively overrepresented.

Asians demand:

- 20% of the school board;
- 20% of the top 100 administrative positions at FCPS;
- 20% of the county teachers;
- 20% of the county employees including the top 100 administrative positions;
- 20% of the County Board of Supervisors;
- 20% of the County Judges;
- 20% of County prosecutors;
- 20% of the County police officers;
- 70% of TJ teachers;
- Principal of TJ be Asian;
- 20% of County Contracts and Grants;
- 20% of county public schools' sport teams
- 20% of county schools' clubs and organization (including SGAs) members and officers etc.

Don't forget 20% of the TJ admissions panes/readers. Asians probably make up 0 or close to 0 of those panel members.

It seems like taking those spots away to award them to an under represented group would be racist and have a disparate impact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/judges at least do some basic research before claiming that there are no Asian American Judges.

It ain't 20%. Only 6%. We want at least 20%! Disparate impact!

Where is C4TJ on this issue? Seems like they should get right on this.

Nah, because increasing from 6% would mean that some other group would have to decrease from their current percentage, and C4TJ is opposed to a group relinquishing ANY of "their share", even if that group is currently massively overrepresented.

Asians demand:

- 20% of the school board;
- 20% of the top 100 administrative positions at FCPS;
- 20% of the county teachers;
- 20% of the county employees including the top 100 administrative positions;
- 20% of the County Board of Supervisors;
- 20% of the County Judges;
- 20% of County prosecutors;
- 20% of the County police officers;
- 70% of TJ teachers;
- Principal of TJ be Asian;
- 20% of County Contracts and Grants;
- 20% of county public schools' sport teams
- 20% of county schools' clubs and organization (including SGAs) members and officers etc.

Don't forget 20% of the TJ admissions panes/readers. Asians probably make up 0 or close to 0 of those panel members.

It seems like taking those spots away to award them to an under represented group would be racist and have a disparate impact.

Nah. They are not disparate since 20% equals 20% population so the impact is proportional!