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]Anyone knows FCPS response to Roberts' request that was due on Wednesday?[/quote]

Link shared on page 34. As expected, the argument runs along the line of showing the applicant-vs-offered ratio, completely ignoring the fact that the new policy disqualifies previously eligible Asians from applying in the first place. [/quote]

Who precisely is disqualified from even applying as a result of the new admissions process? That's a new take.[/quote]

The previously qualified Asians are not eligible to apply for one of the allocated seats because the allocation rule blocks them from applying. [/quote]

If you're complaint is geographical allocation, that's legal [/quote]

Sigh, here we go again. A facially neutral policy is illegal if it has a disparate impact and is motivated by racist intent. [/quote]

If the standard for racist intent is a knowledge that a group will fare worse under a policy, previously regimes that the Supreme Court has signed off on become unconstitutional [/quote]

No, the standard for racist intent in this case is to voice dissatisfaction for the racial demography of a student body and publish plans showing how they intend to change the racial demography. [/quote]

Again, the Texas and California regimes that have previously been affirmed both fall under that standard. [/quote]

Yet again, removing racial preference is different from establishing racial preference. I don't know about Texas, but California's prop 209 eliminates racial preference. [/quote]

California eliminated racial preference, but there was a disparate impact on latino applicants and there was language on the part of proponents stating that they were pushing the amendment to help qualified asian and white applicants. Texas allocates seats geographically because it is a legal way to increase black and latino representation at top campuses. [/quote]

Again, I don't know if the Texas program is constitutional. If racist discrimination was an intent, then it would not be constitutional in my opinion. For California, yet again, disparate impact alone is not enough if there is no underlying racist discrimination intent. The disparate impact is justified by the compelling public interest that there be no racist discrimination at public institutions. [/quote]

Fisher v Texas, the Supreme Court has already ruled it constitutional so your opinion doesn't matter. There is just as much demonstrable racist intent in California ballot fight as from FCPS (and that's absent discover into communications from the proponents) and there is demonstrable disparate impact. There is a reason that most court watchers though Hilton walked out onto a ledge with his opinion.  [/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