Reply to What are the new TJ feeders

Forum Index » Advanced Academic Programs (AAP)

Reply to "What are the new TJ feeders"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The decisions are not race blind, there wouldn’t be a box for race if they were.

As for the comment about playing basketball for 5 hours…  Basketballs are inexpensive and there are free courts all around. You don’t need the internet or transportation. Lots of kids are playing basketball, not many are doing math for fun. A smart kid is not seeing other kids doing math in that neighborhood. Environment matters and we all know it.[/quote]

Race is considered and the most important factor under the current admissions system. [/quote]

Considering race sounds illegal. I'm pretty sure they CAN'T do that and if they did there would be lawsuits.[/quote]

There was a lawsuit filed by parents of Asian students.

They won, initially.

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, reversed.  After that, the parents sought certiori to the S.Ct.

Unlike the misinformation distributed by FCPS, the county DID NOT “WIN” AT THE SUPREME COURT LEVEL.

The court denied certiori, which they can do for myriad reasons.  Those reasons are rarely divulged.

For all we know, the Court agreed with the Asian parents claim FCPS unlawfully discriminated against TJ applicants on the basis of race.

IMO, what FCPS has done is, at best, employ “proxies” for race, meaning FARMS kids are more likely to be URMs (LatinX / Black), and that capping the big 3 at 1.5% would more likely yield kids from MS with fewer Asian / Indian kids.

Using proxies can achieve the same or similar racial outcomes, but  it would allow FCPS to make misleading claims it did not directly consider race (not individually, anyway).

[/quote]

I'm on your side on this but considering the decision in Fisher 1 still stands and Fisher 2 has now been overturned by SFFA.  Aren't we saying that it is OK to create suboptimal admissions methods that might affect racial distributions as long as there is no racial preference even if the intent behind the change was racially drven?  I can imagine a situation like the literacy exams of the jim crow era that would fail this standard but if we apply strict scrutiny to any change that affect racial distributions, we would never be able to change any policies at all.

If motivation alone is enough to overturn a policy change then how do you feel about the changes to the discovery program in NYC?  They deliberately tried to reduce the asian admissions to the science high schools by carving out 20% of the seats for students that attended certain middle schools (with high FARM rates).  The cutoff for these seats was set so it excluded schools with large asian populations.  However the program did not end up selecting fewer asians, instead it selected the asians that attended the selected middle schools and the asian population at the science high schools did not change much.

If we need a combination of racist intent and racial effect, why wasn't Fisher 1 overturned?  [/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