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]Four things:

1.  Where is the data for this year?  My kid (white) went to TJ. Math is sequenced by semester, not by year. What is the math placement for this class vs prior classes?  How many are Math 1, 2 or 2.5 vs 3+?  And how did the grade distribution compare to prior years?  That data exists.  How many kids are on academic probation for being below 3.5 vs past years?  How many kids have dropped back to base school vs prior years?  English and Stats grade distributions should also be shared.  That’s how you know if TJ is getting kids who can manage the work. Not rocket science.

2.  This is disparate impact because Omeish and other SB members said they were using geography, SES and other soft factors as a proxy for race.  You can get to DI without someone saying “the goal is to be racist”. But Omeish texted the quiet part out loud.  P She really made this a [b]disparate treatment case.[/b]

What a moron.

[b]Also, if  aren’t a lawyer, please stop talking about DI. It’s complicated and you are doing it wrong. [/b]

3.  The existence of this litigation is not a shock.  If the SB and TJ Admissions don’t have a Plan B in case they cannot use the current system, that is inexcusable negligence. It should not suddenly dawn on them on 4/20 that they have a problem and need a new system. They should have had a contingency for months.

Now, they’re incompetent, so they don’t. But, they should.

4.  The stay will remain in place. FCPS should try again and this time STOP TEXTING. They won’t. And they will lose. I think there is a good chance that the full case is ultimately heard by SCOTUS. [/quote]

Oh the irony. I'm not a lawyer but my understanding of disparate treatment is that the action is not facially neutral, so the TJ admissions policy does not meet this standard. Facially neutral but discriminatory policies/practices fall under disparate impact. Disparate impact can be justified based on "business necessity", or "compelling public interest" in the case of government action. However, we know that racial preference can never be the basis for compelling public interest so the racist intent eliminates this defense under strict scrutiny standards. 
[/quote]

And given that Brabrand and Omeish outright stated they were evaluating different plans based on how much they would decrease Asian student enrollment, they tip toed up to the edge of DT.  Realize that not all DI violations are intentional.  The classic being an unnecessary lifting requirement that ends up weeding out women, but wasn’t out there for that reason. It’s a DI claim. But it’s unusual to have such solid proof of racial animus in DI. In a classic case you’d get there much more indirectly.

[b]And I don’t know how you avoid strict scrutiny on the basis of race and ethnicity[/b].  [/quote]

As I understand it, applicants are anonymous.  Including demographic information.  I don't really see how you get to strict scrutiny, in that light.[/quote]

Disparate impact cases are evaluated at strict scrutiny. [/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