Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone knows FCPS response to Roberts' request that was due on Wednesday?

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.

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

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

If you're complaint is geographical allocation, that's legal

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone knows FCPS response to Roberts' request that was due on Wednesday?

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.

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

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

If you're complaint is geographical allocation, that's legal

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

Even if what you're saying were true (it isn't), the Coalition simply has not proven racist intent on the part of the School Board. They have highlighted a couple of sloppy communications and taken them out of context to try to weave a narrative that Judge Hilton bought into because of his need to justify a decision that had no basis in the Constitution or controlling precedent.

At best, you can say that the Coalition has proven disparate impact on a very small group of individuals that are characterized more by geography, income, and approach to education than race. And at best, you can say that the Coalition has shown that there were individuals within the School Board who were concerned about the perception of the new policy in private communications.

It is an enormous logical leap to jump from those two items to "disparate impact motivated by racist intent".

LOL, then you did not read Hilton's opinion. There's a lot more to it than that. I'm not going to spoon feed you the information, you can go read the decision yourself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone knows FCPS response to Roberts' request that was due on Wednesday?

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.

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

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

If you're complaint is geographical allocation, that's legal

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone knows FCPS response to Roberts' request that was due on Wednesday?

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.

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

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

If you're complaint is geographical allocation, that's legal

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

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

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.

Dissatisfaction with the demography of a student body does not constitute racist intent. As I've said repeatedly, a process resulting in 70% Asians, 10% White, 10% Black, and 10% Hispanic would have been characterized as a great victory by this school board.

A policy that was racist against Asian students would not have resulted in an offer pool that was significantly MORE Asian than the applicant pool.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone knows FCPS response to Roberts' request that was due on Wednesday?

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.

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

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

That's completely false. The allocation rule doesn't block anyone at all from applying. What makes you think that it does? The only thing that the allocation rule does is it makes students from previous "feeder" schools - which are still very much "feeder" schools, by the way - slightly less likely to gain admission than they were previously. But in no way are they enjoined from being a part of the application process.

Asian students from other non-feeder schools now have a significantly higher chance to get in than they did previously, and only two of the schools impacted - Carson and Rocky Run - are plurality (not even majority) Asian.

The new process vastly improved access to TJ for thousands of Asian students across FCPS.

Previously, the entire number of seats was open to all eligible applicants. The board removed the majority of seats from previously eligible Asian applicants. By your rationale, the board could have given 549 seats to everyone else, leaving only 1 seat for Asian applicants and that would have been okay because those Asians were not "enjoyed from being a part of the application process".

The board based it on geography not race. Try to find a way to carve FCPS in such a way that 549 seats will go to non asians and I'll give you a nickel

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone knows FCPS response to Roberts' request that was due on Wednesday?

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.

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

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

If you're complaint is geographical allocation, that's legal

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

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

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.

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

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.

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:And the Republicans are sweeping in to leverage Asian American discontent. 15 states’ AGs supporting Miyares.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/virginia-attorney-general-supreme-court-race-based-high-school-admissions

Self inflicted D wound.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like Republicans are only going to chip away at the traditional Asian-American support for Democrats among certain segments - primarily some (not all) of the higher-income Indian, Chinese, and Korean-American voters. If anything, it seems like more middle and low-income Vietnamese, Filipino, and Pakistani kids will probably get into TJ under the new policy, especially given that the size of the TJ classes were expanded to 550 students.

Keep hoping. TJ is just one issue. Asians have been subject to increased street crimes in the Pandemic years and graphic images of grandmothers being beaten up are etched in people’ minds. The law and order message will resonate with Asians of all ethnicities as well.

“Law and order” messages are nearly always crafted with the intent of weaponizing racial animus against Black and Hispanic people.

So yes, it would not surprise me if those resonate with a certain segment of Asian-Americans given what you hear from parent groups at TJ.

Hispanic people are keeping the Rs in power in FL. I don’t think the Ds are a great judge of what Hispanics want anymore.

False. White people and Cubans are keeping Rs in power in Florida. Cubans are uniquely vulnerable to anti-socialism messaging because of their experiences with the Castro regime.

Lol, what a word choice.

It was intentional. Much of conservative messaging has the heavy lift of convincing people to act against their self-interest at the voting booth.

This is a real elitist response - that they’re dumb and you know better than them about what good for them. Or maybe you should consider you don’t understand blue collar workers and maybe the Ds aren’t offering them anything they want.

PP. The Ds are focusing on the wrong aspects of their platform in messaging and are getting pounded by Rs who understand that fear is the greatest motivator and will cause people to overestimate threats against their safety - or in this case, their education preferences - in order to vote against their total self-interest.

Case in point: one of the two complainants identified by the Coalition as being irreparably harmed by the new admissions process has two other daughters - one of whom was admitted by the old admissions process, the other of whom was admitted by the new admissions process. You can't make this stuff up.

Uh... it's not my self interest to have my kids discriminated against based on the color of their skin.

They're not. If anything, they're discriminated against based on the school they attend and the neighborhood where they live - which happens everywhere and is legal.

Yet again, discrimination against race by proxy is illegal if there is underlying racist intent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone knows FCPS response to Roberts' request that was due on Wednesday?

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.

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

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

That's completely false. The allocation rule doesn't block anyone at all from applying. What makes you think that it does? The only thing that the allocation rule does is it makes students from previous "feeder" schools - which are still very much "feeder" schools, by the way - slightly less likely to gain admission than they were previously. But in no way are they enjoined from being a part of the application process.

Asian students from other non-feeder schools now have a significantly higher chance to get in than they did previously, and only two of the schools impacted - Carson and Rocky Run - are plurality (not even majority) Asian.

The new process vastly improved access to TJ for thousands of Asian students across FCPS.

Previously, the entire number of seats was open to all eligible applicants. The board removed the majority of seats from previously eligible Asian applicants. By your rationale, the board could have given 549 seats to everyone else, leaving only 1 seat for Asian applicants and that would have been okay because those Asians were not "enjoyed from being a part of the application process".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And the Republicans are sweeping in to leverage Asian American discontent. 15 states’ AGs supporting Miyares.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/virginia-attorney-general-supreme-court-race-based-high-school-admissions

Self inflicted D wound.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like Republicans are only going to chip away at the traditional Asian-American support for Democrats among certain segments - primarily some (not all) of the higher-income Indian, Chinese, and Korean-American voters. If anything, it seems like more middle and low-income Vietnamese, Filipino, and Pakistani kids will probably get into TJ under the new policy, especially given that the size of the TJ classes were expanded to 550 students.

Keep hoping. TJ is just one issue. Asians have been subject to increased street crimes in the Pandemic years and graphic images of grandmothers being beaten up are etched in people’ minds. The law and order message will resonate with Asians of all ethnicities as well.

“Law and order” messages are nearly always crafted with the intent of weaponizing racial animus against Black and Hispanic people.

So yes, it would not surprise me if those resonate with a certain segment of Asian-Americans given what you hear from parent groups at TJ.

Hispanic people are keeping the Rs in power in FL. I don’t think the Ds are a great judge of what Hispanics want anymore.

False. White people and Cubans are keeping Rs in power in Florida. Cubans are uniquely vulnerable to anti-socialism messaging because of their experiences with the Castro regime.

Lol, what a word choice.

It was intentional. Much of conservative messaging has the heavy lift of convincing people to act against their self-interest at the voting booth.

This is a real elitist response - that they’re dumb and you know better than them about what good for them. Or maybe you should consider you don’t understand blue collar workers and maybe the Ds aren’t offering them anything they want.

PP. The Ds are focusing on the wrong aspects of their platform in messaging and are getting pounded by Rs who understand that fear is the greatest motivator and will cause people to overestimate threats against their safety - or in this case, their education preferences - in order to vote against their total self-interest.

Case in point: one of the two complainants identified by the Coalition as being irreparably harmed by the new admissions process has two other daughters - one of whom was admitted by the old admissions process, the other of whom was admitted by the new admissions process. You can't make this stuff up.

Uh... it's not my self interest to have my kids discriminated against based on the color of their skin.

They're not. If anything, they're discriminated against based on the school they attend and the neighborhood where they live - which happens everywhere and is legal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone knows FCPS response to Roberts' request that was due on Wednesday?

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.

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

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

If you're complaint is geographical allocation, that's legal

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

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

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.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone knows FCPS response to Roberts' request that was due on Wednesday?

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.

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

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

If you're complaint is geographical allocation, that's legal

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

Even if what you're saying were true (it isn't), the Coalition simply has not proven racist intent on the part of the School Board. They have highlighted a couple of sloppy communications and taken them out of context to try to weave a narrative that Judge Hilton bought into because of his need to justify a decision that had no basis in the Constitution or controlling precedent.

At best, you can say that the Coalition has proven disparate impact on a very small group of individuals that are characterized more by geography, income, and approach to education than race. And at best, you can say that the Coalition has shown that there were individuals within the School Board who were concerned about the perception of the new policy in private communications.

It is an enormous logical leap to jump from those two items to "disparate impact motivated by racist intent".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone knows FCPS response to Roberts' request that was due on Wednesday?

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.

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

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

If you're complaint is geographical allocation, that's legal

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

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

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does this not portend that, one way or the other, the racially motivated change in the TJ admission policy is eventually going to be invalidated by the Supreme Court? It’s a conservative court and, while Roberts sometimes sides with the liberals, the fact that he got the matter on the “shadow docket” seems to suggest he has some sympathy for the plaintiffs.

While it is tough to know for sure, my thought is that the Court is looking for support from the school to deny any relief, not the other way around.

Eh? How did you come to this conclusion? Roberts is well known to be very hostile to affirmative action and similar practices.

He's also well know to be very hostile to disparate impact claims

Only if they do not have established discriminatory intent, which is clearly demonstrated in this case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And the Republicans are sweeping in to leverage Asian American discontent. 15 states’ AGs supporting Miyares.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/virginia-attorney-general-supreme-court-race-based-high-school-admissions

Self inflicted D wound.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like Republicans are only going to chip away at the traditional Asian-American support for Democrats among certain segments - primarily some (not all) of the higher-income Indian, Chinese, and Korean-American voters. If anything, it seems like more middle and low-income Vietnamese, Filipino, and Pakistani kids will probably get into TJ under the new policy, especially given that the size of the TJ classes were expanded to 550 students.

Keep hoping. TJ is just one issue. Asians have been subject to increased street crimes in the Pandemic years and graphic images of grandmothers being beaten up are etched in people’ minds. The law and order message will resonate with Asians of all ethnicities as well.

“Law and order” messages are nearly always crafted with the intent of weaponizing racial animus against Black and Hispanic people.

So yes, it would not surprise me if those resonate with a certain segment of Asian-Americans given what you hear from parent groups at TJ.

Hispanic people are keeping the Rs in power in FL. I don’t think the Ds are a great judge of what Hispanics want anymore.

False. White people and Cubans are keeping Rs in power in Florida. Cubans are uniquely vulnerable to anti-socialism messaging because of their experiences with the Castro regime.

Lol, what a word choice.

It was intentional. Much of conservative messaging has the heavy lift of convincing people to act against their self-interest at the voting booth.

This is a real elitist response - that they’re dumb and you know better than them about what good for them. Or maybe you should consider you don’t understand blue collar workers and maybe the Ds aren’t offering them anything they want.

PP. The Ds are focusing on the wrong aspects of their platform in messaging and are getting pounded by Rs who understand that fear is the greatest motivator and will cause people to overestimate threats against their safety - or in this case, their education preferences - in order to vote against their total self-interest.

Case in point: one of the two complainants identified by the Coalition as being irreparably harmed by the new admissions process has two other daughters - one of whom was admitted by the old admissions process, the other of whom was admitted by the new admissions process. You can't make this stuff up.

Uh... it's not my self interest to have my kids discriminated against based on the color of their skin.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does this not portend that, one way or the other, the racially motivated change in the TJ admission policy is eventually going to be invalidated by the Supreme Court? It’s a conservative court and, while Roberts sometimes sides with the liberals, the fact that he got the matter on the “shadow docket” seems to suggest he has some sympathy for the plaintiffs.

While it is tough to know for sure, my thought is that the Court is looking for support from the school to deny any relief, not the other way around.

Eh? How did you come to this conclusion? Roberts is well known to be very hostile to affirmative action and similar practices.

He's also well know to be very hostile to disparate impact claims