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]Are these legal battles the best use of fcps tax dollars? Maybe if they spent more money on other aap programs people wouldn’t need to clamor so hard to get into the scarce resource that’s TJ

Just get rid of all race on apps[/quote]

TJ doesn’t have race on the app. 
[/quote]

[b]Disparate impact[/b] is a recognized legal theory.[/quote]

Interesting. So if certain races have much lower acceptance rates & enrollment #s than others is that a disparate impact?
[/quote]

It basically means something that is race neutral can still be found to be discriminatory if it results in having a disparate impact on a protected class. Something that is race neutral can be a proxy for doing something racist if it has the result of being discriminatory against certain races. It depends on the facts and who and how it impacts. [/quote]

For godsake. destroying a school for equity purposes is absolutely obscene. you guys make me sick.

Right. So the current admissions process has a disparate impact on admissions for URMs — significantly lower rates of admission. 
[/quote]

Is that what the facts show? What if you look at % of applicants of each race who applied that are accepted? [/quote]

Yes. We already did that analysis on another thread. 
[/quote]

Ok thanks. Why do we only care about URMs? There are poor Asians. And we didn’t have Hispanic people as slaves so it’s not reparations for them to be URMs. Sorry if that was already discussed. [/quote]

Friendly reminder that poor Asians were the biggest beneficiaries of the new admissions process per the data that was recently released - far moreso than Black or Hispanic students...[/quote][/quote]

This is not a competition to divide the spoils!! you guys just don't get it...[/quote]

So we should only care about “disparate impact” for certain groups, not all? 
[/quote]

That's literally coalition for TJ's argument. They are claiming the the current system has a disparate impact on Asian applicants even though the prior system had a disparate impact on literally every other group. [/quote]

And thus you have the core of Heytens' concurrence. [b]C4TJ only has a case inasmuch as they are comparing the results of the new process to the previous one[/b]. And as he mentioned, the reasoning that Hilton used and that Rushing essentially parroted would make it impossible to address any policy that actually had a disparate racial impact, whether purposefully or otherwise.

Heytens didn't say this, but Hilton's reasoning could be used to claim that the abolition of slavery had a disparate impact on white people and therefore was unconstitutional. [/quote]

This is false. Disparate impact is merely evidence that the racist policy has had the intended racist effect. The underlying issue is the racist intent, not the disparate impact. Disparate impact could exist without racist intent and would be perfectly acceptable. For example, there is a disparate impact with regard to female predominance in nursing occupations which is not representative of the gender makeup of the general population. This disparate impact is due to much smaller male applicant pool, and not underlying sexist intent. [/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