Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

And it doesn’t matter. This is fully briefed now and will come out of the shadow docket. And there are 5 justices to the right of Roberts. He doesn’t need to agree to list the stay. The Court could do so on a 5-4 vote.

The justices to the right of him have been even more hostile to those claims.

So you are telling me with a straight face Thomas or Alito will uphold the say? Really? I’ll. Meet you back here next week. The stay will be lifted.

Personally I hope they lift it just for the precedent. I'm sure they are furious with Roberts for even entertaining briefing because he's backed them into a corner; either they can embrace Hilton's opinion and open pandora's box or they can stay silent when presented with a chance to overturn what they probably view as affirmative action.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

And it doesn’t matter. This is fully briefed now and will come out of the shadow docket. And there are 5 justices to the right of Roberts. He doesn’t need to agree to list the stay. The Court could do so on a 5-4 vote.

The justices to the right of him have been even more hostile to those claims.

So you are telling me with a straight face Thomas or Alito will uphold the say? Really? I’ll. Meet you back here next week. The stay will be lifted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

And it doesn’t matter. This is fully briefed now and will come out of the shadow docket. And there are 5 justices to the right of Roberts. He doesn’t need to agree to list the stay. The Court could do so on a 5-4 vote.

The justices to the right of him have been even more hostile to those claims.

Anonymous wrote:

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

And it doesn’t matter. This is fully briefed now and will come out of the shadow docket. And there are 5 justices to the right of Roberts. He doesn’t need to agree to list the stay. The Court could do so on a 5-4 vote.

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

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.

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".

Is it your contention that only Asian students apply for and are eligible for the spaces at the traditional feeder schools? That doesn't hold up either.

There are thousands more Asian students in FCPS attending non-feeder schools than there are attending feeder schools.

If your question is about raw access to spaces, then every student in FCPS was impacted equally by the new rule because every one of them now was only able to compete for the allocated spaces within their school and whatever was left in the unallocated pool.

That point was not made by the lawyers at PLF because even they knew that it would be specious.

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: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.

Fisher v Texas, the Supreme Court has already ruled it constitutional so your opinion doesn't matter. There is just as much demonstrable racist intent in California ballot fight as from FCPS (and that's absent discover into communications from the proponents) and there is demonstrable disparate impact. There is a reason that most court watchers though Hilton walked out onto a ledge with his opinion.

Yea, but with a lengthy dissent by non other than Roberts. Enjoy supporting racism in public education while it lasts.

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: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.

Fisher v Texas, the Supreme Court has already ruled it constitutional so your opinion doesn't matter. There is just as much demonstrable racist intent in California ballot fight as from FCPS (and that's absent discover into communications from the proponents) and there is demonstrable disparate impact. There is a reason that most court watchers though Hilton walked out onto a ledge with his opinion.

Yea, but with a lengthy dissent by non other than Roberts. Enjoy supporting racism in public education while it lasts.

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: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.

Fisher v Texas, the Supreme Court has already ruled it constitutional so your opinion doesn't matter. There is just as much demonstrable racist intent in California ballot fight as from FCPS (and that's absent discover into communications from the proponents) and there is demonstrable disparate impact. There is a reason that most court watchers though Hilton walked out onto a ledge with his opinion.

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.

This is justification put forth for poll taxes. It was equitably applied to all just a minor issue of disparate impact.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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:

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: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".