Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The appeals hasn’t even ruled yet. No way the Supreme Court takes this stupid case.

This!

Well I think the SC is taking the question of whether they can do the admissions policy for this year while they sort out the whole thing through the courts, right?

Wednesday is April 13. It's way too late already, despite what the dissent said. Maybe they are on to next year's incoming class?

They can do a lottery very quickly. If they really want to tweak coalition for TJ, they can automatically enter every rising freshman in the county and create a waitlist for those who decline.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The appeals hasn’t even ruled yet. No way the Supreme Court takes this stupid case.

This!

Well I think the SC is taking the question of whether they can do the admissions policy for this year while they sort out the whole thing through the courts, right?

Wednesday is April 13. It's way too late already, despite what the dissent said. Maybe they are on to next year's incoming class?

Read the brief. They are asking for a stay for the class of 2026.

https://pacificlegal.org/press-release/coalition-for-tj-files-an-emergency-request-to-vacate-the-fourth-circuits-stay/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SB members better get ready to get spanked publicly once more.

They'd wear a 6-3 rolling from the Court as a badge of pride.

Ironic that in this day and age, some people are proud to be racists.

Ironic that people fighting to keep black kids out of TJ are also the ones screaming racism.

Nobody is keeping blacks out of TJ. Asians are excluded from the policy making (SB) and Asians are excluded from the implementation of the policy (Admissions office/Admissions Panels). They are dominated by whites with some blacks/Hispanics here and there.

The old process was keeping low-income kids out of TJ.

Non-sequitur. Disparate impact does not indicate explicit discrimination or intent. Regardless, income level is not a protected class and there is nothing in the charter of TJ regarding favoring low-income kids in consideration of merit.

lol

Arguing against yourself, there, aren't you? SMH

What are you babbling about? The FCPS board made their racist intent well known through their communications and planning documents.

So the new policy is facially neutral? I thought the argument was that it had disparate impact.

Again, what are you babbling about? Facially neutral and disparate impact are two different concepts. A racist school board can have racist intent while implementing facially neutral policies that have a disparate impact.

You are so ignorant of the relevant concepts that I implore you to do some research before engaging further.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The appeals hasn’t even ruled yet. No way the Supreme Court takes this stupid case.

This!

Well I think the SC is taking the question of whether they can do the admissions policy for this year while they sort out the whole thing through the courts, right?

Wednesday is April 13. It's way too late already, despite what the dissent said. Maybe they are on to next year's incoming class?

Arguably it's not too late:

https://www.fcps.edu/registration/thomas-jefferson-high-school-science-and-technology-admissions/tjhsst-freshman

Mid-May Final Notifications Released on or Before

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The appeals hasn’t even ruled yet. No way the Supreme Court takes this stupid case.

This!

The court is getting far more activist. They just did the same with an EPA regulation before a circuit court could opine

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The appeals hasn’t even ruled yet. No way the Supreme Court takes this stupid case.

This!

Well I think the SC is taking the question of whether they can do the admissions policy for this year while they sort out the whole thing through the courts, right?

Wednesday is April 13. It's way too late already, despite what the dissent said. Maybe they are on to next year's incoming class?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The appeals hasn’t even ruled yet. No way the Supreme Court takes this stupid case.

This!

Well I think the SC is taking the question of whether they can do the admissions policy for this year while they sort out the whole thing through the courts, right?

But yes I do think it's an interesting legal question to watch. Idk how I think it should turn out. I'll be interested to see.

Anonymous wrote:The appeals hasn’t even ruled yet. No way the Supreme Court takes this stupid case.

This!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SB members better get ready to get spanked publicly once more.

They'd wear a 6-3 rolling from the Court as a badge of pride.

Ironic that in this day and age, some people are proud to be racists.

Ironic that people fighting to keep black kids out of TJ are also the ones screaming racism.

Nobody is keeping blacks out of TJ. Asians are excluded from the policy making (SB) and Asians are excluded from the implementation of the policy (Admissions office/Admissions Panels). They are dominated by whites with some blacks/Hispanics here and there.

The old process was keeping low-income kids out of TJ.

Non-sequitur. Disparate impact does not indicate explicit discrimination or intent. Regardless, income level is not a protected class and there is nothing in the charter of TJ regarding favoring low-income kids in consideration of merit.

lol

Arguing against yourself, there, aren't you? SMH

What are you babbling about? The FCPS board made their racist intent well known through their communications and planning documents.

So the new policy is facially neutral? I thought the argument was that it had disparate impact.

Yes - the new policy is facially neutral. It has a disparate impact on Asians. And the discriminatory intent behind this racially neutral policy was shown in the documents - like the Omeish text. That's the argument.

The disparate impact on Asians is that 56% of the incoming class under the new policy are Asian.

... Hmm. Where is the disparate impact again?

It was 70+% before - that's the argument. Those are the facts. That is an actual disparate impact on Asians - whether it's actionable or not is another question.

No, that's the argument. The argument is that the correct determination of disparate impact is comparing the old policy admissions numbers to the new policy admissions numbers. But why? Why not to the population? Or to another metric?

I don't think you want to compare it to the population - then you'd have to have a lot more white people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SB members better get ready to get spanked publicly once more.

They'd wear a 6-3 rolling from the Court as a badge of pride.

Ironic that in this day and age, some people are proud to be racists.

Ironic that people fighting to keep black kids out of TJ are also the ones screaming racism.

Nobody is keeping blacks out of TJ. Asians are excluded from the policy making (SB) and Asians are excluded from the implementation of the policy (Admissions office/Admissions Panels). They are dominated by whites with some blacks/Hispanics here and there.

The old process was keeping low-income kids out of TJ.

Non-sequitur. Disparate impact does not indicate explicit discrimination or intent. Regardless, income level is not a protected class and there is nothing in the charter of TJ regarding favoring low-income kids in consideration of merit.

lol

Arguing against yourself, there, aren't you? SMH

What are you babbling about? The FCPS board made their racist intent well known through their communications and planning documents.

So the new policy is facially neutral? I thought the argument was that it had disparate impact.

Yes - the new policy is facially neutral. It has a disparate impact on Asians. And the discriminatory intent behind this racially neutral policy was shown in the documents - like the Omeish text. That's the argument.

The disparate impact on Asians is that 56% of the incoming class under the new policy are Asian.

... Hmm. Where is the disparate impact again?

It was 70+% before - that's the argument. Those are the facts. That is an actual disparate impact on Asians - whether it's actionable or not is another question.

No, that's the argument. The argument is that the correct determination of disparate impact is comparing the old policy admissions numbers to the new policy admissions numbers. But why? Why not to the population? Or to another metric?

Do you a link to the court filings? I would read them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SB members better get ready to get spanked publicly once more.

They'd wear a 6-3 rolling from the Court as a badge of pride.

Ironic that in this day and age, some people are proud to be racists.

Ironic that people fighting to keep black kids out of TJ are also the ones screaming racism.

Nobody is keeping blacks out of TJ. Asians are excluded from the policy making (SB) and Asians are excluded from the implementation of the policy (Admissions office/Admissions Panels). They are dominated by whites with some blacks/Hispanics here and there.

The old process was keeping low-income kids out of TJ.

Non-sequitur. Disparate impact does not indicate explicit discrimination or intent. Regardless, income level is not a protected class and there is nothing in the charter of TJ regarding favoring low-income kids in consideration of merit.

lol

Arguing against yourself, there, aren't you? SMH

What are you babbling about? The FCPS board made their racist intent well known through their communications and planning documents.

So the new policy is facially neutral? I thought the argument was that it had disparate impact.

Yes - the new policy is facially neutral. It has a disparate impact on Asians. And the discriminatory intent behind this racially neutral policy was shown in the documents - like the Omeish text. That's the argument.

The disparate impact on Asians is that 56% of the incoming class under the new policy are Asian.

... Hmm. Where is the disparate impact again?

It was 70+% before - that's the argument. Those are the facts. That is an actual disparate impact on Asians - whether it's actionable or not is another question.

No, that's the argument. The argument is that the correct determination of disparate impact is comparing the old policy admissions numbers to the new policy admissions numbers. But why? Why not to the population? Or to another metric?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SB members better get ready to get spanked publicly once more.

They'd wear a 6-3 rolling from the Court as a badge of pride.

Ironic that in this day and age, some people are proud to be racists.

Ironic that people fighting to keep black kids out of TJ are also the ones screaming racism.

Nobody is keeping blacks out of TJ. Asians are excluded from the policy making (SB) and Asians are excluded from the implementation of the policy (Admissions office/Admissions Panels). They are dominated by whites with some blacks/Hispanics here and there.

The old process was keeping low-income kids out of TJ.

Non-sequitur. Disparate impact does not indicate explicit discrimination or intent. Regardless, income level is not a protected class and there is nothing in the charter of TJ regarding favoring low-income kids in consideration of merit.

lol

Arguing against yourself, there, aren't you? SMH

What are you babbling about? The FCPS board made their racist intent well known through their communications and planning documents.

So the new policy is facially neutral? I thought the argument was that it had disparate impact.

Yes - the new policy is facially neutral. It has a disparate impact on Asians. And the discriminatory intent behind this racially neutral policy was shown in the documents - like the Omeish text. That's the argument.

The disparate impact on Asians is that 56% of the incoming class under the new policy are Asian.

... Hmm. Where is the disparate impact again?

It was 70+% before - that's the argument. Those are the facts. That is an actual disparate impact on Asians - whether it's actionable or not is another question.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SB members better get ready to get spanked publicly once more.

They'd wear a 6-3 rolling from the Court as a badge of pride.

Ironic that in this day and age, some people are proud to be racists.

Ironic that people fighting to keep black kids out of TJ are also the ones screaming racism.

Nobody is keeping blacks out of TJ. Asians are excluded from the policy making (SB) and Asians are excluded from the implementation of the policy (Admissions office/Admissions Panels). They are dominated by whites with some blacks/Hispanics here and there.

The old process was keeping low-income kids out of TJ.

Non-sequitur. Disparate impact does not indicate explicit discrimination or intent. Regardless, income level is not a protected class and there is nothing in the charter of TJ regarding favoring low-income kids in consideration of merit.

lol

Arguing against yourself, there, aren't you? SMH

What are you babbling about? The FCPS board made their racist intent well known through their communications and planning documents.

So the new policy is facially neutral? I thought the argument was that it had disparate impact.

Yes - the new policy is facially neutral. It has a disparate impact on Asians. And the discriminatory intent behind this racially neutral policy was shown in the documents - like the Omeish text. That's the argument.

The disparate impact on Asians is that 56% of the incoming class under the new policy are Asian.

... Hmm. Where is the disparate impact again?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SB members better get ready to get spanked publicly once more.

They'd wear a 6-3 rolling from the Court as a badge of pride.

Ironic that in this day and age, some people are proud to be racists.

Ironic that people fighting to keep black kids out of TJ are also the ones screaming racism.

Nobody is keeping blacks out of TJ. Asians are excluded from the policy making (SB) and Asians are excluded from the implementation of the policy (Admissions office/Admissions Panels). They are dominated by whites with some blacks/Hispanics here and there.

The old process was keeping low-income kids out of TJ.

Non-sequitur. Disparate impact does not indicate explicit discrimination or intent. Regardless, income level is not a protected class and there is nothing in the charter of TJ regarding favoring low-income kids in consideration of merit.

lol

Arguing against yourself, there, aren't you? SMH

What are you babbling about? The FCPS board made their racist intent well known through their communications and planning documents.

So the new policy is facially neutral? I thought the argument was that it had disparate impact.

Yes - the new policy is facially neutral. It has a disparate impact on Asians. And the discriminatory intent behind this racially neutral policy was shown in the documents - like the Omeish text. That's the argument.