Reply to TJ 1.5% accepted?

Forum Index » Advanced Academic Programs (AAP)

Reply to "TJ 1.5% accepted?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][b]THE COURT RULED THERE IS NO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ASIAN STUDENTS 
[/b]https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221280.P.pdf
Pg 7
[i]“we are satisfied that the challenged admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students”[/i]

SCOTUS left ruling in place: 
https://virginiamercury.com/2024/02/20/supreme-court-wont-hear-thomas-jefferson-admissions-case/

[b]THE DATA BACKS THIS UP: 
[/b]There are MORE Asian students at TJ since the admissions change than almost any other year in the school’s history.

Asian students still make up the majority of students.

And [u]Asian students are still accepted at a higher rate[/u] than almost all other groups, aside from Hispanic students (class of 25)
Asian 19%
Black 14%
Hispanic 21%
White 17%
Multiracial/Other* 13%

[b]LOW-INCOME ASIAN STUDENTS BENEFITED THE MOST FROM CHANGES
[/b]https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221280.P.pdf

page 16
[i]"Nevertheless, in the 2021 application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."[/i]
[/quote]

That opinion precedes SFFA and the denial of cert had a dissent.[/quote]

The question comes down to whether a racially discriminatory intent invalidates otherwise facially neutral government action if there is some other legitimate rationale for the government action.

For example, if a state implemented voter id laws and the party promoting the voter id law indicates that they want the law to reduce black voter participation, does the rationale that vote I'd laws promote faith in elections provide override the otherwise racially discriminatory intent behind the facially neutral law?

Another example is literacy tests and poll taxes that are facially neutral but racially motivated.

Both poll taxes and literacy tests were racially motivated and racially neutral.  And while poll taxes were eventually ruled to violate the 14th amendment, literacy tests required the voting rights act to outlaw.

The Supreme Court is probably not eager to use TJ as the test case for new law.  [/quote]

Fixed typos[/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