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

Forum Index » Advanced Academic Programs (AAP)

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]SB members better get ready to get spanked publicly once more.[/quote]

They'd wear a 6-3 rolling from the Court as a badge of pride. [/quote]

Ironic that in this day and age, some people are proud to be racists. [/quote]

Ironic that people fighting to keep black kids out of TJ are also the ones screaming racism. [/quote]

Nobody is keeping blacks out of TJ. Asians are excluded from the policy making (SB) and Asians are excluded from the implementation of the policy (Admissions office/Admissions Panels). They are dominated by whites with some blacks/Hispanics here and there. [/quote]

The old process was keeping low-income kids out of TJ. 
[/quote]

Non-sequitur.[b] Disparate impact does not indicate explicit discrimination or intent.[/b] Regardless, income level is not a protected class and there is nothing in the charter of TJ regarding favoring low-income kids in consideration of merit. [/quote]

lol

Arguing against yourself, there, aren't you?  SMH[/quote]

What are you babbling about? The FCPS board made their racist intent well known through their communications and planning documents. [/quote]

So the new policy is facially neutral?  I thought the argument was that it had disparate impact.  [/quote]

Yes - the new policy is facially neutral.  It has a disparate impact on Asians.  And the discriminatory intent behind this racially neutral policy was shown in the documents - like the Omeish text.  That's the argument.[/quote]

The disparate impact on Asians is that 56% of the incoming class under the new policy are Asian.

... Hmm.  Where is the disparate impact again?  [/quote]

It was 70+% before - that's the argument.  Those are the facts.  That is an actual disparate impact on Asians - whether it's actionable or not is another question.[/quote]

No, that's the argument.  The argument is that the correct determination of disparate impact is comparing the old policy admissions numbers to the new policy admissions numbers.  But why?  Why not to the population?  Or to another metric?[/quote]

Because we are assessing the effect of the new policy, which was implemented with the racist intent of reducing Asian student percentage. Therefore, the natural metric for disparate impact analysis is the percentage of Asian students admitted. [/quote]

The new policy was implemented with the intention of increasing the numbers of URMs.  And it did.  [/quote]

*shrug*, that might have been one of the other intents, but the racist intent against Asians is well established. [/quote]

+1. If only Montgomery Alabama had the same legal theory, they could have avoided all of that awful integration [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics