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.

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.

That's not my contention at all. I was merely pointing out the fact that the majority of available seats became unavailable to previously qualified candidates, which has naturally higher representation among Asians. You are again falling into the trap of trying to explain why the allocation process is okay. Absent racist intent, I would agree with you that it may be a fine method to select students to attend TJ. However, the board chose this method based on their racist intent, knowing that this process will reduce the number of Asian applications by preventing them from being eligible to compete for allocated spaces. PLF did not make this point because it is covered in the disprate impact analysis they advanced, showing a reduced number of Asians admitted as a portion of the incoming class. The same data pattern shows in the application numbers, showing a reduction of Asians as a percentage of total applications.

You're again falling back on a simple before-and-after comparison to make your case. It doesn't hold up.

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.

If the stay is lifted, there are two likely scenarios:

1) Lottery of the remaining 2,540 spaces

2) The new process is tweaked very slightly to comply with Hilton's order, which only mandated that the Fall 2020 admissions process could not be used. Eliminating the least impactful of the Experience Factors (probably the English Language Learners item) would be adequate to satisfy an order that was written surprisingly broadly. This would allow a reasonably expeditious release of results while maintaining the socioeconomic diversity goals and technically complying with the order.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is why I do not believe he will refer the matter to the court. I would expect the vacatur request to be declined and the matter to remain with the Fourth Circuit until it is decided in September. This is not the case that the Supreme Court wants to use to deal with affirmative action.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is why I do not believe he will refer the matter to the court. I would expect the vacatur request to be declined and the matter to remain with the Fourth Circuit until it is decided in September. This is not the case that the Supreme Court wants to use to deal with affirmative action.

Do you think they already have the case they want in the Harvard/UNC case? Not sure why it is necessary for SCOTUS to embrace Hilton's opinion - they can arrive at a similar result using a different rationale.

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.

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.

That's not my contention at all. I was merely pointing out the fact that the majority of available seats became unavailable to previously qualified candidates, which has naturally higher representation among Asians. You are again falling into the trap of trying to explain why the allocation process is okay. Absent racist intent, I would agree with you that it may be a fine method to select students to attend TJ. However, the board chose this method based on their racist intent, knowing that this process will reduce the number of Asian applications by preventing them from being eligible to compete for allocated spaces. PLF did not make this point because it is covered in the disprate impact analysis they advanced, showing a reduced number of Asians admitted as a portion of the incoming class. The same data pattern shows in the application numbers, showing a reduction of Asians as a percentage of total applications.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a genuine legal question and I would ask only those who actually know the answer to reply:

Can a public school change its admissions process after its applications are submitted? It seems reasonable that FCPS would have to start all over again beginning with the application process for 2026 if they are enjoined from using the process that the initial applicants signed up for.

That seems to be up to local policy, which cannot violate federal protections of fundamental rights. So, regardless of what FCPS/VA rules on this matter is, if federal courts do not allow the current admission process and order a new process to be implemented, then this will have to be done.

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: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.

This is why I do not believe he will refer the matter to the court. I would expect the vacatur request to be declined and the matter to remain with the Fourth Circuit until it is decided in September. This is not the case that the Supreme Court wants to use to deal with affirmative action.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If the stay is lifted, there are two likely scenarios:

1) Lottery of the remaining 2,540 spaces

2) The new process is tweaked very slightly to comply with Hilton's order, which only mandated that the Fall 2020 admissions process could not be used. Eliminating the least impactful of the Experience Factors (probably the English Language Learners item) would be adequate to satisfy an order that was written surprisingly broadly. This would allow a reasonably expeditious release of results while maintaining the socioeconomic diversity goals and technically complying with the order.

2540 spaces? WTF are you talking about?

Anonymous wrote:This is a genuine legal question and I would ask only those who actually know the answer to reply:

Can a public school change its admissions process after its applications are submitted? It seems reasonable that FCPS would have to start all over again beginning with the application process for 2026 if they are enjoined from using the process that the initial applicants signed up for.

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.

If the stay is lifted, there are two likely scenarios:

1) Lottery of the remaining 2,540 spaces

2) The new process is tweaked very slightly to comply with Hilton's order, which only mandated that the Fall 2020 admissions process could not be used. Eliminating the least impactful of the Experience Factors (probably the English Language Learners item) would be adequate to satisfy an order that was written surprisingly broadly. This would allow a reasonably expeditious release of results while maintaining the socioeconomic diversity goals and technically complying with the order.

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.