Anonymous wrote: I don't think there is anything innate in asians than other races. I think these are priorities for them.

Anonymous wrote:
Geography, to be precise, along with "experience factors" - a phrase chosen specifically because it survives legal scrutiny.

Anonymous wrote:
Also, memo to Asians: conservatives are not your friends except inasmuch as they can use you to hurt Black people.....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the case where the Supreme Court struck down using race as the basis to admit or deny students. Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007) It's pretty famous so clearly none of you clowns did well in Con. Law in law school. The argument FCSB is trying to make is that racial balancing is NOT what is motivating the admissions change which THEY will have to show passes STRICT SCRUTINY. Below is the most famous quote from the case by Chief Justice Roberts:

As counsel who appeared before this Court for the plaintiffs in Brown put it: “We have one fundamental contention which we will seek to develop in the course of this argument, and that contention is that no State has any authority under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to use race as a factor in affording educational opportunities among its citizens.” Tr. of Oral Arg. in Brown I, p. 7 (Robert L. Carter, Dec. 9, 1952). There is no ambiguity in that statement. And it was that position that prevailed in this Court, which emphasized in its remedial opinion that what was “[a]t stake is the personal interest of the plaintiffs in admission to public schools as soon as practicable on a nondiscriminatory basis,” and what was required was “determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis.” Brown II, supra, at 300–301 (emphasis added). What do the racial classifications do in these cases, if not determine admission to a public school on a racial basis? Before Brown, schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school based on the color of their skin. The school districts in these cases have not carried the heavy burden of demonstrating that we should allow this once again—even for very different reasons. For schools that never segregated on the basis of race, such as Seattle, or that have removed the vestiges of past segregation, such as Jefferson County, the way “to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis,” Brown II, 349 U. S., at 300–301, is to stop assigning students on a racial basis. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

A fabulous piece of legal writing by the Chief Justice. But what is at issue in this case is the removal of a process that demonstrably has discriminated on the basis of race for entirely too long.

If you have been connected with TJ for any length of time during the entirety of its existence, and fail to comprehend that the previous admissions processes systematically excluded Black and Hispanic students, your ignorance is either willful or pitiable.

A race-blind test is not racist. Far from it. It's actually racist for you to think that Black and Hispanic students aren't capable of performing well on a standardized test. Your better argument is income inequality as opposed to race. But all of you SJWs are racists.

The "race-blind" test that you're referencing ended up being fairly easily preppable, allowing folks who were willing to invest thousands of hours and hundreds of dollars into those courses to have a leg up in an exam that was measured not by raw performance, but rather by percentile. It is no accident that a single test prep company went from about 50 TJ admits in the first year of said exam, to over 90 the following year, to over 130 in the final year of the exam's existence within the admissions process.

It is unhelpful to the complainant's case (or PP's argument of "race-blind") that this company posted a list of the first and last names of said admits in each of these three years, and that literally 100% of those students had names that clearly indicated South Asian descent. It is even more unhelpful that TJ students admitted in a public forum that they had seen questions on the supposedly secured exam during their prep sessions with this company.

"Merit", indeed.

Its hard for some people to admit that Asians tend to be really smart, regardless of test prep.

In some ways, yes. In other ways, no.

One thing that seems consistent among that population is an insistence on a narrow definition of “smart” that includes only that which is in books. There’s a general lack of recognition that anything else can fall into the category of “smart”.

I disagree. Yes, they perform well with "books", as you say. They also run successful businesses in a variety of fields and excel in a variety of career areas. They also have strong family units. They're "not insisting on a narrow definition of smart."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the case where the Supreme Court struck down using race as the basis to admit or deny students. Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007) It's pretty famous so clearly none of you clowns did well in Con. Law in law school. The argument FCSB is trying to make is that racial balancing is NOT what is motivating the admissions change which THEY will have to show passes STRICT SCRUTINY. Below is the most famous quote from the case by Chief Justice Roberts:

As counsel who appeared before this Court for the plaintiffs in Brown put it: “We have one fundamental contention which we will seek to develop in the course of this argument, and that contention is that no State has any authority under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to use race as a factor in affording educational opportunities among its citizens.” Tr. of Oral Arg. in Brown I, p. 7 (Robert L. Carter, Dec. 9, 1952). There is no ambiguity in that statement. And it was that position that prevailed in this Court, which emphasized in its remedial opinion that what was “[a]t stake is the personal interest of the plaintiffs in admission to public schools as soon as practicable on a nondiscriminatory basis,” and what was required was “determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis.” Brown II, supra, at 300–301 (emphasis added). What do the racial classifications do in these cases, if not determine admission to a public school on a racial basis? Before Brown, schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school based on the color of their skin. The school districts in these cases have not carried the heavy burden of demonstrating that we should allow this once again—even for very different reasons. For schools that never segregated on the basis of race, such as Seattle, or that have removed the vestiges of past segregation, such as Jefferson County, the way “to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis,” Brown II, 349 U. S., at 300–301, is to stop assigning students on a racial basis. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

A fabulous piece of legal writing by the Chief Justice. But what is at issue in this case is the removal of a process that demonstrably has discriminated on the basis of race for entirely too long.

If you have been connected with TJ for any length of time during the entirety of its existence, and fail to comprehend that the previous admissions processes systematically excluded Black and Hispanic students, your ignorance is either willful or pitiable.

A race-blind test is not racist. Far from it. It's actually racist for you to think that Black and Hispanic students aren't capable of performing well on a standardized test. Your better argument is income inequality as opposed to race. But all of you SJWs are racists.

The "race-blind" test that you're referencing ended up being fairly easily preppable, allowing folks who were willing to invest thousands of hours and hundreds of dollars into those courses to have a leg up in an exam that was measured not by raw performance, but rather by percentile. It is no accident that a single test prep company went from about 50 TJ admits in the first year of said exam, to over 90 the following year, to over 130 in the final year of the exam's existence within the admissions process.

It is unhelpful to the complainant's case (or PP's argument of "race-blind") that this company posted a list of the first and last names of said admits in each of these three years, and that literally 100% of those students had names that clearly indicated South Asian descent. It is even more unhelpful that TJ students admitted in a public forum that they had seen questions on the supposedly secured exam during their prep sessions with this company.

"Merit", indeed.

Its hard for some people to admit that Asians tend to be really smart, regardless of test prep.

In some ways, yes. In other ways, no.

One thing that seems consistent among that population is an insistence on a narrow definition of “smart” that includes only that which is in books. There’s a general lack of recognition that anything else can fall into the category of “smart”.

I gotta hear this. Please define "smart" for us.
And tell us how everyone is "special" in their own way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the case where the Supreme Court struck down using race as the basis to admit or deny students. Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007) It's pretty famous so clearly none of you clowns did well in Con. Law in law school. The argument FCSB is trying to make is that racial balancing is NOT what is motivating the admissions change which THEY will have to show passes STRICT SCRUTINY. Below is the most famous quote from the case by Chief Justice Roberts:

As counsel who appeared before this Court for the plaintiffs in Brown put it: “We have one fundamental contention which we will seek to develop in the course of this argument, and that contention is that no State has any authority under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to use race as a factor in affording educational opportunities among its citizens.” Tr. of Oral Arg. in Brown I, p. 7 (Robert L. Carter, Dec. 9, 1952). There is no ambiguity in that statement. And it was that position that prevailed in this Court, which emphasized in its remedial opinion that what was “[a]t stake is the personal interest of the plaintiffs in admission to public schools as soon as practicable on a nondiscriminatory basis,” and what was required was “determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis.” Brown II, supra, at 300–301 (emphasis added). What do the racial classifications do in these cases, if not determine admission to a public school on a racial basis? Before Brown, schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school based on the color of their skin. The school districts in these cases have not carried the heavy burden of demonstrating that we should allow this once again—even for very different reasons. For schools that never segregated on the basis of race, such as Seattle, or that have removed the vestiges of past segregation, such as Jefferson County, the way “to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis,” Brown II, 349 U. S., at 300–301, is to stop assigning students on a racial basis. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

A fabulous piece of legal writing by the Chief Justice. But what is at issue in this case is the removal of a process that demonstrably has discriminated on the basis of race for entirely too long.

If you have been connected with TJ for any length of time during the entirety of its existence, and fail to comprehend that the previous admissions processes systematically excluded Black and Hispanic students, your ignorance is either willful or pitiable.

A race-blind test is not racist. Far from it. It's actually racist for you to think that Black and Hispanic students aren't capable of performing well on a standardized test. Your better argument is income inequality as opposed to race. But all of you SJWs are racists.

The "race-blind" test that you're referencing ended up being fairly easily preppable, allowing folks who were willing to invest thousands of hours and hundreds of dollars into those courses to have a leg up in an exam that was measured not by raw performance, but rather by percentile. It is no accident that a single test prep company went from about 50 TJ admits in the first year of said exam, to over 90 the following year, to over 130 in the final year of the exam's existence within the admissions process.

It is unhelpful to the complainant's case (or PP's argument of "race-blind") that this company posted a list of the first and last names of said admits in each of these three years, and that literally 100% of those students had names that clearly indicated South Asian descent. It is even more unhelpful that TJ students admitted in a public forum that they had seen questions on the supposedly secured exam during their prep sessions with this company.

"Merit", indeed.

Its hard for some people to admit that Asians tend to be really smart, regardless of test prep.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the case where the Supreme Court struck down using race as the basis to admit or deny students. Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007) It's pretty famous so clearly none of you clowns did well in Con. Law in law school. The argument FCSB is trying to make is that racial balancing is NOT what is motivating the admissions change which THEY will have to show passes STRICT SCRUTINY. Below is the most famous quote from the case by Chief Justice Roberts:

As counsel who appeared before this Court for the plaintiffs in Brown put it: “We have one fundamental contention which we will seek to develop in the course of this argument, and that contention is that no State has any authority under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to use race as a factor in affording educational opportunities among its citizens.” Tr. of Oral Arg. in Brown I, p. 7 (Robert L. Carter, Dec. 9, 1952). There is no ambiguity in that statement. And it was that position that prevailed in this Court, which emphasized in its remedial opinion that what was “[a]t stake is the personal interest of the plaintiffs in admission to public schools as soon as practicable on a nondiscriminatory basis,” and what was required was “determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis.” Brown II, supra, at 300–301 (emphasis added). What do the racial classifications do in these cases, if not determine admission to a public school on a racial basis? Before Brown, schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school based on the color of their skin. The school districts in these cases have not carried the heavy burden of demonstrating that we should allow this once again—even for very different reasons. For schools that never segregated on the basis of race, such as Seattle, or that have removed the vestiges of past segregation, such as Jefferson County, the way “to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis,” Brown II, 349 U. S., at 300–301, is to stop assigning students on a racial basis. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

A fabulous piece of legal writing by the Chief Justice. But what is at issue in this case is the removal of a process that demonstrably has discriminated on the basis of race for entirely too long.

If you have been connected with TJ for any length of time during the entirety of its existence, and fail to comprehend that the previous admissions processes systematically excluded Black and Hispanic students, your ignorance is either willful or pitiable.

A race-blind test is not racist. Far from it. It's actually racist for you to think that Black and Hispanic students aren't capable of performing well on a standardized test. Your better argument is income inequality as opposed to race. But all of you SJWs are racists.

The "race-blind" test that you're referencing ended up being fairly easily preppable, allowing folks who were willing to invest thousands of hours and hundreds of dollars into those courses to have a leg up in an exam that was measured not by raw performance, but rather by percentile. It is no accident that a single test prep company went from about 50 TJ admits in the first year of said exam, to over 90 the following year, to over 130 in the final year of the exam's existence within the admissions process.

It is unhelpful to the complainant's case (or PP's argument of "race-blind") that this company posted a list of the first and last names of said admits in each of these three years, and that literally 100% of those students had names that clearly indicated South Asian descent. It is even more unhelpful that TJ students admitted in a public forum that they had seen questions on the supposedly secured exam during their prep sessions with this company.

"Merit", indeed.

Its hard for some people to admit that Asians tend to be really smart, regardless of test prep.

In some ways, yes. In other ways, no.

One thing that seems consistent among that population is an insistence on a narrow definition of “smart” that includes only that which is in books. There’s a general lack of recognition that anything else can fall into the category of “smart”.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the case where the Supreme Court struck down using race as the basis to admit or deny students. Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007) It's pretty famous so clearly none of you clowns did well in Con. Law in law school. The argument FCSB is trying to make is that racial balancing is NOT what is motivating the admissions change which THEY will have to show passes STRICT SCRUTINY. Below is the most famous quote from the case by Chief Justice Roberts:

As counsel who appeared before this Court for the plaintiffs in Brown put it: “We have one fundamental contention which we will seek to develop in the course of this argument, and that contention is that no State has any authority under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to use race as a factor in affording educational opportunities among its citizens.” Tr. of Oral Arg. in Brown I, p. 7 (Robert L. Carter, Dec. 9, 1952). There is no ambiguity in that statement. And it was that position that prevailed in this Court, which emphasized in its remedial opinion that what was “[a]t stake is the personal interest of the plaintiffs in admission to public schools as soon as practicable on a nondiscriminatory basis,” and what was required was “determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis.” Brown II, supra, at 300–301 (emphasis added). What do the racial classifications do in these cases, if not determine admission to a public school on a racial basis? Before Brown, schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school based on the color of their skin. The school districts in these cases have not carried the heavy burden of demonstrating that we should allow this once again—even for very different reasons. For schools that never segregated on the basis of race, such as Seattle, or that have removed the vestiges of past segregation, such as Jefferson County, the way “to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis,” Brown II, 349 U. S., at 300–301, is to stop assigning students on a racial basis. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

A fabulous piece of legal writing by the Chief Justice. But what is at issue in this case is the removal of a process that demonstrably has discriminated on the basis of race for entirely too long.

If you have been connected with TJ for any length of time during the entirety of its existence, and fail to comprehend that the previous admissions processes systematically excluded Black and Hispanic students, your ignorance is either willful or pitiable.

A race-blind test is not racist. Far from it. It's actually racist for you to think that Black and Hispanic students aren't capable of performing well on a standardized test. Your better argument is income inequality as opposed to race. But all of you SJWs are racists.

The "race-blind" test that you're referencing ended up being fairly easily preppable, allowing folks who were willing to invest thousands of hours and hundreds of dollars into those courses to have a leg up in an exam that was measured not by raw performance, but rather by percentile. It is no accident that a single test prep company went from about 50 TJ admits in the first year of said exam, to over 90 the following year, to over 130 in the final year of the exam's existence within the admissions process.

It is unhelpful to the complainant's case (or PP's argument of "race-blind") that this company posted a list of the first and last names of said admits in each of these three years, and that literally 100% of those students had names that clearly indicated South Asian descent. It is even more unhelpful that TJ students admitted in a public forum that they had seen questions on the supposedly secured exam during their prep sessions with this company.

"Merit", indeed.

Its hard for some people to admit that Asians tend to be really smart, regardless of test prep.

In some ways, yes. In other ways, no.

One thing that seems consistent among that population is an insistence on a narrow definition of “smart” that includes only that which is in books. There’s a general lack of recognition that anything else can fall into the category of “smart”.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the case where the Supreme Court struck down using race as the basis to admit or deny students. Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007) It's pretty famous so clearly none of you clowns did well in Con. Law in law school. The argument FCSB is trying to make is that racial balancing is NOT what is motivating the admissions change which THEY will have to show passes STRICT SCRUTINY. Below is the most famous quote from the case by Chief Justice Roberts:

As counsel who appeared before this Court for the plaintiffs in Brown put it: “We have one fundamental contention which we will seek to develop in the course of this argument, and that contention is that no State has any authority under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to use race as a factor in affording educational opportunities among its citizens.” Tr. of Oral Arg. in Brown I, p. 7 (Robert L. Carter, Dec. 9, 1952). There is no ambiguity in that statement. And it was that position that prevailed in this Court, which emphasized in its remedial opinion that what was “[a]t stake is the personal interest of the plaintiffs in admission to public schools as soon as practicable on a nondiscriminatory basis,” and what was required was “determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis.” Brown II, supra, at 300–301 (emphasis added). What do the racial classifications do in these cases, if not determine admission to a public school on a racial basis? Before Brown, schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school based on the color of their skin. The school districts in these cases have not carried the heavy burden of demonstrating that we should allow this once again—even for very different reasons. For schools that never segregated on the basis of race, such as Seattle, or that have removed the vestiges of past segregation, such as Jefferson County, the way “to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis,” Brown II, 349 U. S., at 300–301, is to stop assigning students on a racial basis. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

A fabulous piece of legal writing by the Chief Justice. But what is at issue in this case is the removal of a process that demonstrably has discriminated on the basis of race for entirely too long.

If you have been connected with TJ for any length of time during the entirety of its existence, and fail to comprehend that the previous admissions processes systematically excluded Black and Hispanic students, your ignorance is either willful or pitiable.

A race-blind test is not racist. Far from it. It's actually racist for you to think that Black and Hispanic students aren't capable of performing well on a standardized test. Your better argument is income inequality as opposed to race. But all of you SJWs are racists.

The "race-blind" test that you're referencing ended up being fairly easily preppable, allowing folks who were willing to invest thousands of hours and hundreds of dollars into those courses to have a leg up in an exam that was measured not by raw performance, but rather by percentile. It is no accident that a single test prep company went from about 50 TJ admits in the first year of said exam, to over 90 the following year, to over 130 in the final year of the exam's existence within the admissions process.

It is unhelpful to the complainant's case (or PP's argument of "race-blind") that this company posted a list of the first and last names of said admits in each of these three years, and that literally 100% of those students had names that clearly indicated South Asian descent. It is even more unhelpful that TJ students admitted in a public forum that they had seen questions on the supposedly secured exam during their prep sessions with this company.

"Merit", indeed.

Its hard for some people to admit that Asians tend to be really smart, regardless of test prep.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the case where the Supreme Court struck down using race as the basis to admit or deny students. Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007) It's pretty famous so clearly none of you clowns did well in Con. Law in law school. The argument FCSB is trying to make is that racial balancing is NOT what is motivating the admissions change which THEY will have to show passes STRICT SCRUTINY. Below is the most famous quote from the case by Chief Justice Roberts:

As counsel who appeared before this Court for the plaintiffs in Brown put it: “We have one fundamental contention which we will seek to develop in the course of this argument, and that contention is that no State has any authority under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to use race as a factor in affording educational opportunities among its citizens.” Tr. of Oral Arg. in Brown I, p. 7 (Robert L. Carter, Dec. 9, 1952). There is no ambiguity in that statement. And it was that position that prevailed in this Court, which emphasized in its remedial opinion that what was “[a]t stake is the personal interest of the plaintiffs in admission to public schools as soon as practicable on a nondiscriminatory basis,” and what was required was “determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis.” Brown II, supra, at 300–301 (emphasis added). What do the racial classifications do in these cases, if not determine admission to a public school on a racial basis? Before Brown, schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school based on the color of their skin. The school districts in these cases have not carried the heavy burden of demonstrating that we should allow this once again—even for very different reasons. For schools that never segregated on the basis of race, such as Seattle, or that have removed the vestiges of past segregation, such as Jefferson County, the way “to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis,” Brown II, 349 U. S., at 300–301, is to stop assigning students on a racial basis. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

A fabulous piece of legal writing by the Chief Justice. But what is at issue in this case is the removal of a process that demonstrably has discriminated on the basis of race for entirely too long.

If you have been connected with TJ for any length of time during the entirety of its existence, and fail to comprehend that the previous admissions processes systematically excluded Black and Hispanic students, your ignorance is either willful or pitiable.

A race-blind test is not racist. Far from it. It's actually racist for you to think that Black and Hispanic students aren't capable of performing well on a standardized test. Your better argument is income inequality as opposed to race. But all of you SJWs are racists.

The "race-blind" test that you're referencing ended up being fairly easily preppable, allowing folks who were willing to invest thousands of hours and hundreds of dollars into those courses to have a leg up in an exam that was measured not by raw performance, but rather by percentile. It is no accident that a single test prep company went from about 50 TJ admits in the first year of said exam, to over 90 the following year, to over 130 in the final year of the exam's existence within the admissions process.

It is unhelpful to the complainant's case (or PP's argument of "race-blind") that this company posted a list of the first and last names of said admits in each of these three years, and that literally 100% of those students had names that clearly indicated South Asian descent. It is even more unhelpful that TJ students admitted in a public forum that they had seen questions on the supposedly secured exam during their prep sessions with this company.

"Merit", indeed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the case where the Supreme Court struck down using race as the basis to admit or deny students. Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007) It's pretty famous so clearly none of you clowns did well in Con. Law in law school. The argument FCSB is trying to make is that racial balancing is NOT what is motivating the admissions change which THEY will have to show passes STRICT SCRUTINY. Below is the most famous quote from the case by Chief Justice Roberts:

As counsel who appeared before this Court for the plaintiffs in Brown put it: “We have one fundamental contention which we will seek to develop in the course of this argument, and that contention is that no State has any authority under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to use race as a factor in affording educational opportunities among its citizens.” Tr. of Oral Arg. in Brown I, p. 7 (Robert L. Carter, Dec. 9, 1952). There is no ambiguity in that statement. And it was that position that prevailed in this Court, which emphasized in its remedial opinion that what was “[a]t stake is the personal interest of the plaintiffs in admission to public schools as soon as practicable on a nondiscriminatory basis,” and what was required was “determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis.” Brown II, supra, at 300–301 (emphasis added). What do the racial classifications do in these cases, if not determine admission to a public school on a racial basis? Before Brown, schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school based on the color of their skin. The school districts in these cases have not carried the heavy burden of demonstrating that we should allow this once again—even for very different reasons. For schools that never segregated on the basis of race, such as Seattle, or that have removed the vestiges of past segregation, such as Jefferson County, the way “to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis,” Brown II, 349 U. S., at 300–301, is to stop assigning students on a racial basis. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

A fabulous piece of legal writing by the Chief Justice. But what is at issue in this case is the removal of a process that demonstrably has discriminated on the basis of race for entirely too lo

If you have been connected with TJ for any length of time during the entirety of its existence, and fail to comprehend that the previous admissions processes systematically excluded Black and Hispanic students, your ignorance is either willful or pitiable.

A race-blind test is not racist. Far from it. It's actually racist for you to think that Black and Hispanic students aren't capable of performing well on a standardized test. Your better argument is income inequality as opposed to race. But all of you SJWs are racists.

The "race-blind" test that you're referencing ended up being fairly easily preppable, allowing folks who were willing to invest thousands of hours and hundreds of dollars into those courses to have a leg up in an exam that was measured not by raw performance, but rather by percentile. It is no accident that a single test prep company went from about 50 TJ admits in the first year of said exam, to over 90 the following year, to over 130 in the final year of the exam's existence within the admissions process.

It is unhelpful to the complainant's case (or PP's argument of "race-blind") that this company posted a list of the first and last names of said admits in each of these three years, and that literally 100% of those students had names that clearly indicated South Asian descent. It is even more unhelpful that TJ students admitted in a public forum that they had seen questions on the supposedly secured exam during their prep sessions with this company.

"Merit", indeed.

How exactly is prepping "discriminating" based on race? Again, these arguments are arguing affluence can make a difference. It is not skin color that is making a difference. It is still ra ace-blind test and you are insulting Black and Hispanic students assuming they can't perform as well as Asians students.

cool, FCPS is correcting for affluence. They have realized that the test is a proxy for the parent's ability to to fund prepping and that the rest of the resume is a proxy for parental wealth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the case where the Supreme Court struck down using race as the basis to admit or deny students. Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007) It's pretty famous so clearly none of you clowns did well in Con. Law in law school. The argument FCSB is trying to make is that racial balancing is NOT what is motivating the admissions change which THEY will have to show passes STRICT SCRUTINY. Below is the most famous quote from the case by Chief Justice Roberts:

As counsel who appeared before this Court for the plaintiffs in Brown put it: “We have one fundamental contention which we will seek to develop in the course of this argument, and that contention is that no State has any authority under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to use race as a factor in affording educational opportunities among its citizens.” Tr. of Oral Arg. in Brown I, p. 7 (Robert L. Carter, Dec. 9, 1952). There is no ambiguity in that statement. And it was that position that prevailed in this Court, which emphasized in its remedial opinion that what was “[a]t stake is the personal interest of the plaintiffs in admission to public schools as soon as practicable on a nondiscriminatory basis,” and what was required was “determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis.” Brown II, supra, at 300–301 (emphasis added). What do the racial classifications do in these cases, if not determine admission to a public school on a racial basis? Before Brown, schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school based on the color of their skin. The school districts in these cases have not carried the heavy burden of demonstrating that we should allow this once again—even for very different reasons. For schools that never segregated on the basis of race, such as Seattle, or that have removed the vestiges of past segregation, such as Jefferson County, the way “to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis,” Brown II, 349 U. S., at 300–301, is to stop assigning students on a racial basis. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

A fabulous piece of legal writing by the Chief Justice. But what is at issue in this case is the removal of a process that demonstrably has discriminated on the basis of race for entirely too long.

If you have been connected with TJ for any length of time during the entirety of its existence, and fail to comprehend that the previous admissions processes systematically excluded Black and Hispanic students, your ignorance is either willful or pitiable.

A race-blind test is not racist. Far from it. It's actually racist for you to think that Black and Hispanic students aren't capable of performing well on a standardized test. Your better argument is income inequality as opposed to race. But all of you SJWs are racists.

The "race-blind" test that you're referencing ended up being fairly easily preppable, allowing folks who were willing to invest thousands of hours and hundreds of dollars into those courses to have a leg up in an exam that was measured not by raw performance, but rather by percentile. It is no accident that a single test prep company went from about 50 TJ admits in the first year of said exam, to over 90 the following year, to over 130 in the final year of the exam's existence within the admissions process.

It is unhelpful to the complainant's case (or PP's argument of "race-blind") that this company posted a list of the first and last names of said admits in each of these three years, and that literally 100% of those students had names that clearly indicated South Asian descent. It is even more unhelpful that TJ students admitted in a public forum that they had seen questions on the supposedly secured exam during their prep sessions with this company.

"Merit", indeed.

How exactly is prepping "discriminating" based on race? Again, these arguments are arguing affluence can make a difference. It is not skin color that is making a difference. It is still ra ace-blind test and you are insulting Black and Hispanic students assuming they can't perform as well as Asians students.

cool, FCPS is correcting for affluence. They have realized that the test is a proxy for the parent's ability to to fund prepping and that the rest of the resume is a proxy for parental wealth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the case where the Supreme Court struck down using race as the basis to admit or deny students. Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007) It's pretty famous so clearly none of you clowns did well in Con. Law in law school. The argument FCSB is trying to make is that racial balancing is NOT what is motivating the admissions change which THEY will have to show passes STRICT SCRUTINY. Below is the most famous quote from the case by Chief Justice Roberts:

As counsel who appeared before this Court for the plaintiffs in Brown put it: “We have one fundamental contention which we will seek to develop in the course of this argument, and that contention is that no State has any authority under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to use race as a factor in affording educational opportunities among its citizens.” Tr. of Oral Arg. in Brown I, p. 7 (Robert L. Carter, Dec. 9, 1952). There is no ambiguity in that statement. And it was that position that prevailed in this Court, which emphasized in its remedial opinion that what was “[a]t stake is the personal interest of the plaintiffs in admission to public schools as soon as practicable on a nondiscriminatory basis,” and what was required was “determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis.” Brown II, supra, at 300–301 (emphasis added). What do the racial classifications do in these cases, if not determine admission to a public school on a racial basis? Before Brown, schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school based on the color of their skin. The school districts in these cases have not carried the heavy burden of demonstrating that we should allow this once again—even for very different reasons. For schools that never segregated on the basis of race, such as Seattle, or that have removed the vestiges of past segregation, such as Jefferson County, the way “to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis,” Brown II, 349 U. S., at 300–301, is to stop assigning students on a racial basis. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

A fabulous piece of legal writing by the Chief Justice. But what is at issue in this case is the removal of a process that demonstrably has discriminated on the basis of race for entirely too long.

If you have been connected with TJ for any length of time during the entirety of its existence, and fail to comprehend that the previous admissions processes systematically excluded Black and Hispanic students, your ignorance is either willful or pitiable.

A race-blind test is not racist. Far from it. It's actually racist for you to think that Black and Hispanic students aren't capable of performing well on a standardized test. Your better argument is income inequality as opposed to race. But all of you SJWs are racists.

The "race-blind" test that you're referencing ended up being fairly easily preppable, allowing folks who were willing to invest thousands of hours and hundreds of dollars into those courses to have a leg up in an exam that was measured not by raw performance, but rather by percentile. It is no accident that a single test prep company went from about 50 TJ admits in the first year of said exam, to over 90 the following year, to over 130 in the final year of the exam's existence within the admissions process.

It is unhelpful to the complainant's case (or PP's argument of "race-blind") that this company posted a list of the first and last names of said admits in each of these three years, and that literally 100% of those students had names that clearly indicated South Asian descent. It is even more unhelpful that TJ students admitted in a public forum that they had seen questions on the supposedly secured exam during their prep sessions with this company.

"Merit", indeed.

How exactly is prepping "discriminating" based on race? Again, these arguments are arguing affluence can make a difference. It is not skin color that is making a difference. It is still ra ace-blind test and you are insulting Black and Hispanic students assuming they can't perform as well as Asians students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the case where the Supreme Court struck down using race as the basis to admit or deny students. Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007) It's pretty famous so clearly none of you clowns did well in Con. Law in law school. The argument FCSB is trying to make is that racial balancing is NOT what is motivating the admissions change which THEY will have to show passes STRICT SCRUTINY. Below is the most famous quote from the case by Chief Justice Roberts:

As counsel who appeared before this Court for the plaintiffs in Brown put it: “We have one fundamental contention which we will seek to develop in the course of this argument, and that contention is that no State has any authority under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to use race as a factor in affording educational opportunities among its citizens.” Tr. of Oral Arg. in Brown I, p. 7 (Robert L. Carter, Dec. 9, 1952). There is no ambiguity in that statement. And it was that position that prevailed in this Court, which emphasized in its remedial opinion that what was “[a]t stake is the personal interest of the plaintiffs in admission to public schools as soon as practicable on a nondiscriminatory basis,” and what was required was “determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis.” Brown II, supra, at 300–301 (emphasis added). What do the racial classifications do in these cases, if not determine admission to a public school on a racial basis? Before Brown, schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school based on the color of their skin. The school districts in these cases have not carried the heavy burden of demonstrating that we should allow this once again—even for very different reasons. For schools that never segregated on the basis of race, such as Seattle, or that have removed the vestiges of past segregation, such as Jefferson County, the way “to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis,” Brown II, 349 U. S., at 300–301, is to stop assigning students on a racial basis. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

A fabulous piece of legal writing by the Chief Justice. But what is at issue in this case is the removal of a process that demonstrably has discriminated on the basis of race for entirely too long.

If you have been connected with TJ for any length of time during the entirety of its existence, and fail to comprehend that the previous admissions processes systematically excluded Black and Hispanic students, your ignorance is either willful or pitiable.

A race-blind test is not racist. Far from it. It's actually racist for you to think that Black and Hispanic students aren't capable of performing well on a standardized test. Your better argument is income inequality as opposed to race. But all of you SJWs are racists.

The "race-blind" test that you're referencing ended up being fairly easily preppable, allowing folks who were willing to invest thousands of hours and hundreds of dollars into those courses to have a leg up in an exam that was measured not by raw performance, but rather by percentile. It is no accident that a single test prep company went from about 50 TJ admits in the first year of said exam, to over 90 the following year, to over 130 in the final year of the exam's existence within the admissions process.

It is unhelpful to the complainant's case (or PP's argument of "race-blind") that this company posted a list of the first and last names of said admits in each of these three years, and that literally 100% of those students had names that clearly indicated South Asian descent. It is even more unhelpful that TJ students admitted in a public forum that they had seen questions on the supposedly secured exam during their prep sessions with this company.

"Merit", indeed.