Reply to Coalition4TJ’s request to block TJ admissions process DENIED 6-3 by Supreme Court

Forum Index » Advanced Academic Programs (AAP)

Reply to "Coalition4TJ’s request to block TJ admissions process DENIED 6-3 by Supreme Court"

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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]PP. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I just want to take a 50,000 ft view of the issues being debated here. [b]The fact that the current Supreme Court, as conservative as they are. still let the new admissions policy stand should be a signal that the war is lost.[/b] Even if there will still be changes to the new admissions system, it seems highly unlikely to ever go back to the way it was.

I sympathize with the old admissions system, but I also don't think it was ever appropriate to set up a public school in this way. This is what private schools should be for. A private school can offer financial aid to those who can't afford it.

I also think all TJ parents need to take a step back and consider whether TJ is really the best thing for their kids. Having so many high-achieving kids clumped together in that school actually makes it harder for them to be accepted to a top school. MIT isn't going to admit 50 TJ kids in any given year. It is very much harder to stand out there. I get that iron sharpens iron, but it also comes with a significant risk of having nothing to show for all the effort than if they had just gone to their local high school.

I married into an Asian family, and I know that many times the drive to go TJ is from the parents who demand the kids to go to the "best" school or the "prestigious" school without considering that it is more than likely not going to be the big stepping stone they think it will be. Even the guy who wrote the op-ed in the Washington Post, while I respect his accomplishments, he could gotten into the Naval Academy and had all his success coming from any of the other excellent public schools in the area, because kids do it all the time. It's not like he invented the iPhone or made the next major scientific discovery, which is what the intense nature of TJ would lead one to believe is going to happen.

[/quote]

You must be high. I also don't have a dog in this fight but it's not clear at all that this racist admissions policy will be allowed to stand in the long term. Roberts has been very vocal about his negative view on affirmative action and any other racially motificated government policies that discriminate on the basis of race, even if it is done through proxies of facially neutral measures. Note that the Supreme Court's decision on the application to vacate is not a ruling on the merits of the case, but consideration of procedural/administrative issues. In this case, I suspect that Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh considered the potential impact on the current batch of students if the stay was vacated, because FCPS did not prepare for an alternative admission process. Despite concerns of students having their constitutional rights violated by the new admissions policy, the courts, including SCOTUS, tend to let existing procedures stand unless there was some serious procedural error made in the appeals court.

Now, onto the rest of your points. I don't understand why you find selectivity to be an issue for publicly funded educational institutions. Are you saying there should be no public colleges, and that if we do have public colleges, every single one of them should admit every student that applies? Aside from admissions, there are a lot of achievement-based opportunities and privileges even inside any given public high school. A student doesn't go into the next level of higher math until they've achieved a sufficient grade in a prerequisite class. Just because the bar is often set fairly low doesn't change the fact that there is a bar, and that failing students do not advance. Being able to take the next level class is not automatic, but an earned privilege that is the outcome of some prior achievement. Being able to get into TJ based on demonstrated merit is the same concept in this sense.

The rest of your rationalizing about whether TJ is healthy or unhealthy, and the existence of alternatives is relevant to exactly one person: you. These are subjective opinions and are no more valid than any one else's, including those of parents who find that the rigor of TJ is a great fit for their kids, and that it is the place where their kids can obtain a superior education and be exceptionally well prepared for future studies and professional work in STEM fields.

Lastly, none of what you wrote, regardless of the underlying logic and passion, excuses the fact that the new admissions policy was implemented with racist intent and effect. Shame on you for making excuses for its continued existence. [/quote]

Well said! [/quote]

[b]It's not racist to want to include a broader cross section of Fairfax County[/b]. Basically anything that reduced Asian representation would be called racist. That people think there can't be a change in policy the might change the racial composition of TJ so Asians aren't 60-70 percent of the school indefinitely seems crazy. It's a public school and its admissions should not be skewed toward people who can afford $4,000 test prep centers. Then those who pay for those prep centers claim their kids are just inherently more intelligent and so more deserving than other kids who don't score as high on the test without equivalent prep. If your kid is so inherently bright, they'll succeed anywhere. Why all the angst?[/quote]

If that "broader cross section" is done on the basis of race, it is racist and illegal per our laws. Go ask black people "why all the angst" when they were raging against the racist laws during the civil rights movement. [/quote]

The new policy does not mention race. It's based on allocation slots to various middle schools and a lottery.[/quote]

For the n-th time for the benefit of the ignorant - [b]facially neutral policies implemented with racist intent are still illegal.[/b] [/quote]

You'll lose on this.[b] The intent was to reduce overrepresentation which is not racist.[/b] If whites were overrepresented it wouldn't be "racist" to make more opportunities available to members of other groups. I'm reallyt tired of listening to your allegation of "racism"  Again, plaintiffs are going to lose on this one. [/quote]

LOL, racial balancing is unconstitutional and illegal. There is no argument here. [b]Do some research before you post again. [/b]

[/quote]

I practice law in this area.  I stand by what I said.  And your comment above that "facially neutral policies implemented with racist intent are still illegal" mixes two legal theories, and misstates one of them.  Facially neutral policies may discriminate if they have a disparate impact, no 'Intent" is required to find discrimination.  And if there is intent, well that's called intentional discrimination - and facially neutral never comes into it. [/quote]

You can claim to be an astrophysicist and stand by that the sun rises in the west, doesn't make it true. Under strict scrutiny standards, the intent is crucial for determining whether a facially neutral policy is legal even if it has a disparate impact. Finding discrimination is not enough for an action to be illegal/unconstitutional. For this reason, many policies that have demonstrable disparate impact are perfectly legal. Having underlying intent is not the same as intentional discrimination, which is commonly used to reference disparate treatment (as opposed to disparate impact). The "intentional" part of intentional discrimination is in the mechanism of the policy, not the underlying intent. For example, a policy that excludes blacks from entering a room is disparate treatment and is intentional discrimination. I can't believe I have to explain this to a lawyer who claims to practice law in this area, unless by "area" you mean geographical area instead of subject matter. [/quote]

Pretty sure I've argued more of these cases as a civil rights lawyer than you have.  I found that paragraph so incoherent I can't really comment on it, but it doesn't reflect the state of the law.  We'll see; the matter isn't going to be litigated here.[/quote]

Then what's the point of your response? Just to wave your credentials around a bit? I am not a lawyer. You win? [/quote]

I apologize if it sounded that way.  Are you the pp who said you were surprised that you had to explain the basics of discrimination/4th amendment equal protection law to me? [/quote]

Yes, I am the PP and no that's not what I said. You claimed that racist intent made it intentional discrimination, but this is not true based on my research and laid out my understanding of what intentional discrimination means. If you disagree you can reference any third party definition to support your use of "intentional discrimination." I am open to learning if I have made mistakes but I give very little deference to people's credentials.  When I talk to people about subject matter that I am an expert in, I never have to resort to telling people what my credentials are. The facts and logic speak for themselves.[/quote]

Racial intent, if shown, is direct evidence of discrimination.  I really don't know what you're talking about.[/quote]

A lot of folks on the Coalition side talk as though “racist intent” has been proven in this particular case because of the language in one judge’s opinion - which has been widely panned by dispassionate legal scholars across the political spectrum. It has also been thoroughly destroyed by a higher court judge, who showed pretty concretely in his concurrence why Judge Hilton has been stuck at the District Court level despite a 40-year career, with 20 of those under Republican presidencies.

In no way is it a fact in evidence that the School Board acted with racist intent.[/quote]

True. The concurring opinion in the 4th Circuit makes clear that Judge anyway saw FCPS's selection methods to be race neutral.  And that's the way I read the facts as well.  As such, "strict scrutiny" never comes into the picture.  The Google U lawyer is just confused.  [/quote]

You are yet another clown and clearly never read the original opinion on summary judgment.  [b]The Judge said that while facially neutral, it was enacted for a discriminatory purpose, and therefor strict scrutiny applies. [/b] It was literally 2 pages of his opinion.  Please read the opinion before you post your nonsense.[/quote]

But it doesn't and he's wrong. And the stay was issued obviously because of no likelihood of success on the merits.
Can you cite a case (other than Hilton's dubious opinion) where race neutral methods were subject to strict scrutiny because the court found there was racial "intent."
Think about it -- you're saying FCPS intended to discriminate but used lawful means to do it?   Courts only look at the means used.  Strict scrutiny doesn't even come into play when race neutral measures are used.[/quote]

Google U JD poster here. I am not the PP you are replying to. My readings led me to Rogers v. Lodge, which references Washington v Davis and Arlington Heights v Metropolitan Housing Corp for its use of strict scrutiny when there is racist intent. 
[/quote]

but there isn’t.[/quote]

That's not the salient point being argued in this specific sub-thread. The point here is that racist intent results in strict scrutiny even with facially neutral policies. [/quote]

The premise that racist intent exists here or has been somehow “proven” is incorrect.[/quote]

Whether or not racist intent was proven is beside the point. Learn to read. [/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