Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asked in another thread.... What exactly is the legal rationale for challenging the lottery system?

there isn't one. No group has an intrinsic right to a certain number of seats at a school. A suit against tj going to a lottery would fare about as well as white parents calling desegregation race based discrimination

In your wet dream. Just wait a year or two.

the sense of entitlement is hilarious. No one in public school is guaranteed a TJ level education, if you want to ensure you kids gets it, pay for a comparable private

This sentiment swings both ways.

which leaves the elected board to make the decision as long as they do so within legal confines- a race blind lottery fits that description

And when you find that the new process increases white enrollment i'm sure some will be back to DCUM complaining.

What is the difference between a race blind (all students) lottery and merit ( 3.5 GPA is merit or average ) lottery ? 70 to 80% of students will have 3.5 GPA. 14,000 to 17,000 students will apply for lottery admission (below 5% acceptance rate).. How will parents ever explain to a child why they were not chosen and another child with lower GPA was? This proposal is outrageous and unfair. The loser can be from any race , teased for having higher GPA .. but he thinks bad in his entire life. Do you think the another kid who won lotter would be happy and self respect ?

Please think .. come up with better solution ..

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asked in another thread.... What exactly is the legal rationale for challenging the lottery system?

there isn't one. No group has an intrinsic right to a certain number of seats at a school. A suit against tj going to a lottery would fare about as well as white parents calling desegregation race based discrimination

In your wet dream. Just wait a year or two.

the sense of entitlement is hilarious. No one in public school is guaranteed a TJ level education, if you want to ensure you kids gets it, pay for a comparable private

This sentiment swings both ways.

which leaves the elected board to make the decision as long as they do so within legal confines- a race blind lottery fits that description

What is the difference between a race blind (all students) lottery and merit ( 3.5 GPA is merit or average ) lottery ? 70 to 80% of students will have 3.5 GPA. 14,000 to 17,000 students will apply for lottery admission (below 5% acceptance rate).. How will parents ever explain to a child why they were not chosen and another child with lower GPA? This proposal is outrageous and unfair. The loser can be from any race , teased for having higher GPA .. but he thinks bad in his entire life. Do you think the another kid who won lotter would be happy and self respect ?

Please think .. come up with better solution ..

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asked in another thread.... What exactly is the legal rationale for challenging the lottery system?

there isn't one. No group has an intrinsic right to a certain number of seats at a school. A suit against tj going to a lottery would fare about as well as white parents calling desegregation race based discrimination

In your wet dream. Just wait a year or two.

the sense of entitlement is hilarious. No one in public school is guaranteed a TJ level education, if you want to ensure you kids gets it, pay for a comparable private

This sentiment swings both ways.

which leaves the elected board to make the decision as long as they do so within legal confines- a race blind lottery fits that description

And when you find that the new process increases white enrollment i'm sure some will be back to DCUM complaining.

I really don't think a disparate impact approach is going to work here, because the only way to argue "disparate impact" is to uphold the status quo.

Yes, a lottery will have a disparate impact on Asian and white students, but only insofar as NOT having a lottery upholds the current status quo, which is really not how that legal argument has traditionally been interpreted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asked in another thread.... What exactly is the legal rationale for challenging the lottery system?

there isn't one. No group has an intrinsic right to a certain number of seats at a school. A suit against tj going to a lottery would fare about as well as white parents calling desegregation race based discrimination

In your wet dream. Just wait a year or two.

the sense of entitlement is hilarious. No one in public school is guaranteed a TJ level education, if you want to ensure you kids gets it, pay for a comparable private

This sentiment swings both ways.

which leaves the elected board to make the decision as long as they do so within legal confines- a race blind lottery fits that description

Except, it is not legal at least for conservative judges.

can you cite a single case that is on point?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still no one has actually posted a legal rationale for contesting the lottery system.

Disparate impact.

That's a nice catch phrase, but on its own it is not a legal rationale. Apply it.

legal education via TV dramas- you know the phrases, but not how to construct the argument. The OP cited a 20 year old WAPO paper not the actual decision in the case nor any other actual case law, just legal phrases that they think supports their view.

Yep. There is a far greater argument that testing has a disparate impact on URM than that a lottery has a disparate impact on, I presume, Asians.

People on this board have NO idea how the law works. But FCPS does.

You are delusional but keep dreaming.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asked in another thread.... What exactly is the legal rationale for challenging the lottery system?

there isn't one. No group has an intrinsic right to a certain number of seats at a school. A suit against tj going to a lottery would fare about as well as white parents calling desegregation race based discrimination

In your wet dream. Just wait a year or two.

the sense of entitlement is hilarious. No one in public school is guaranteed a TJ level education, if you want to ensure you kids gets it, pay for a comparable private

This sentiment swings both ways.

which leaves the elected board to make the decision as long as they do so within legal confines- a race blind lottery fits that description

Except, it is not legal at least for conservative judges.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still no one has actually posted a legal rationale for contesting the lottery system.

Disparate impact.

That's a nice catch phrase, but on its own it is not a legal rationale. Apply it.

legal education via TV dramas- you know the phrases, but not how to construct the argument. The OP cited a 20 year old WAPO paper not the actual decision in the case nor any other actual case law, just legal phrases that they think supports their view.

Yep. There is a far greater argument that testing has a disparate impact on URM than that a lottery has a disparate impact on, I presume, Asians.

People on this board have NO idea how the law works. But FCPS does.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still no one has actually posted a legal rationale for contesting the lottery system.

Disparate impact.

That's a nice catch phrase, but on its own it is not a legal rationale. Apply it.

legal education via TV dramas- you know the phrases, but not how to construct the argument. The OP cited a 20 year old WAPO paper not the actual decision in the case nor any other actual case law, just legal phrases that they think supports their view.

Look it up. You might learn something before making yourself look ignorant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asked in another thread.... What exactly is the legal rationale for challenging the lottery system?

there isn't one. No group has an intrinsic right to a certain number of seats at a school. A suit against tj going to a lottery would fare about as well as white parents calling desegregation race based discrimination

In your wet dream. Just wait a year or two.

the sense of entitlement is hilarious. No one in public school is guaranteed a TJ level education, if you want to ensure you kids gets it, pay for a comparable private

This sentiment swings both ways.

which leaves the elected board to make the decision as long as they do so within legal confines- a race blind lottery fits that description

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still no one has actually posted a legal rationale for contesting the lottery system.

Disparate impact.

That's a nice catch phrase, but on its own it is not a legal rationale. Apply it.

legal education via TV dramas- you know the phrases, but not how to construct the argument. The OP cited a 20 year old WAPO paper not the actual decision in the case nor any other actual case law, just legal phrases that they think supports their view.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asked in another thread.... What exactly is the legal rationale for challenging the lottery system?

there isn't one. No group has an intrinsic right to a certain number of seats at a school. A suit against tj going to a lottery would fare about as well as white parents calling desegregation race based discrimination

In your wet dream. Just wait a year or two.

the sense of entitlement is hilarious. No one in public school is guaranteed a TJ level education, if you want to ensure you kids gets it, pay for a comparable private

This sentiment swings both ways.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still no one has actually posted a legal rationale for contesting the lottery system.

Disparate impact.

That's a nice catch phrase, but on its own it is not a legal rationale. Apply it.

The attorney will apply it in the court.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still no one has actually posted a legal rationale for contesting the lottery system.

Disparate impact.

That's a nice catch phrase, but on its own it is not a legal rationale. Apply it.

The court will apply it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still no one has actually posted a legal rationale for contesting the lottery system.

Disparate impact.

That's a nice catch phrase, but on its own it is not a legal rationale. Apply it.