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.

"Systematically" Please explain. Are you saying that the admissions officers are not fairly evaluating a candidate if the are Black or Hispanic? I believe the law suit in the 1990s from Professor of Llyod Cohen proved just the opposite.

So for pretty much the balance of the history of TJ's admissions process, students have not even been able to qualify for evaluation without recording a certain score - historically a raw score, but more recently a percentile on the curve - on a standardized exam. There is no end of peer-reviewed and validated research that the entire practice of standardized testing favors some communities over others - most specifically those of lesser means. While white and Asian families have great diversity in terms of socioeconomic status, Black and Hispanic families historically do not - they are poor on a much more consistent basis than white or Asian families. Thus it is possible, when it comes to a discussion of exclusion, to use SES as a proxy for race for purposes of evaluation. If you look at TJ's FARMS rate for generations, you see that the process has systematically excluded SOME communities of white and Asian families, while also systematically excluding NEARLY ALL Black and Hispanic families.

Their applications don't even get to the Admissions Commitee's desks because of these exams, which people with resources to burn can teach their kids how to excel on.

I see, so when a system is set up in a manner some people argue is race-neutral but systematically targets a group for exclusion that is discrimination. Hmmmmm. . . . I believe that is what the Coalition for TJ is arguing is happening to Asians. I guess you would oppose that then?

If Asians someday comprise 1% of the school’s population, you’ll have a point. Until then, kindly take a seat.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

"Systematically" Please explain. Are you saying that the admissions officers are not fairly evaluating a candidate if the are Black or Hispanic? I believe the law suit in the 1990s from Professor of Llyod Cohen proved just the opposite.

So for pretty much the balance of the history of TJ's admissions process, students have not even been able to qualify for evaluation without recording a certain score - historically a raw score, but more recently a percentile on the curve - on a standardized exam. There is no end of peer-reviewed and validated research that the entire practice of standardized testing favors some communities over others - most specifically those of lesser means. While white and Asian families have great diversity in terms of socioeconomic status, Black and Hispanic families historically do not - they are poor on a much more consistent basis than white or Asian families. Thus it is possible, when it comes to a discussion of exclusion, to use SES as a proxy for race for purposes of evaluation. If you look at TJ's FARMS rate for generations, you see that the process has systematically excluded SOME communities of white and Asian families, while also systematically excluding NEARLY ALL Black and Hispanic families.

Their applications don't even get to the Admissions Commitee's desks because of these exams, which people with resources to burn can teach their kids how to excel on.

I see, so when a system is set up in a manner some people argue is race-neutral but systematically targets a group for exclusion that is discrimination. Hmmmmm. . . . I believe that is what the Coalition for TJ is arguing is happening to Asians. I guess you would oppose that then?

If Asians someday comprise 1% of the school’s population, you’ll have a point. Until then, kindly take a seat.

Demographics and race should not be determining factors that exclude students who have demonstrated academic excellence and high level of intellect.

When those demonstrations are buffeted by wealth and parental effort, they’re far less relevant.

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.

"Systematically" Please explain. Are you saying that the admissions officers are not fairly evaluating a candidate if the are Black or Hispanic? I believe the law suit in the 1990s from Professor of Llyod Cohen proved just the opposite.

So for pretty much the balance of the history of TJ's admissions process, students have not even been able to qualify for evaluation without recording a certain score - historically a raw score, but more recently a percentile on the curve - on a standardized exam. There is no end of peer-reviewed and validated research that the entire practice of standardized testing favors some communities over others - most specifically those of lesser means. While white and Asian families have great diversity in terms of socioeconomic status, Black and Hispanic families historically do not - they are poor on a much more consistent basis than white or Asian families. Thus it is possible, when it comes to a discussion of exclusion, to use SES as a proxy for race for purposes of evaluation. If you look at TJ's FARMS rate for generations, you see that the process has systematically excluded SOME communities of white and Asian families, while also systematically excluding NEARLY ALL Black and Hispanic families.

Their applications don't even get to the Admissions Commitee's desks because of these exams, which people with resources to burn can teach their kids how to excel on.

As always' the retort is "why don't you care about these impediments when it comes to the chances of making a sports team, etc."

Because TJ is not a sports team and does not exist to compete with anyone else.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:if they had a good argument, they would have gotten an injunction. The judge proceeding means that there is a case, just not necessarily a good one

Here we go again with some SJW legal eagle that doesn't know what they are talking about. You were probably the fool that told everyone the case would be dismissed for lack of standing.

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.

"Systematically" Please explain. Are you saying that the admissions officers are not fairly evaluating a candidate if the are Black or Hispanic? I believe the law suit in the 1990s from Professor of Llyod Cohen proved just the opposite.

So for pretty much the balance of the history of TJ's admissions process, students have not even been able to qualify for evaluation without recording a certain score - historically a raw score, but more recently a percentile on the curve - on a standardized exam. There is no end of peer-reviewed and validated research that the entire practice of standardized testing favors some communities over others - most specifically those of lesser means. While white and Asian families have great diversity in terms of socioeconomic status, Black and Hispanic families historically do not - they are poor on a much more consistent basis than white or Asian families. Thus it is possible, when it comes to a discussion of exclusion, to use SES as a proxy for race for purposes of evaluation. If you look at TJ's FARMS rate for generations, you see that the process has systematically excluded SOME communities of white and Asian families, while also systematically excluding NEARLY ALL Black and Hispanic families.

Their applications don't even get to the Admissions Commitee's desks because of these exams, which people with resources to burn can teach their kids how to excel on.

I see, so when a system is set up in a manner some people argue is race-neutral but systematically targets a group for exclusion that is discrimination. Hmmmmm. . . . I believe that is what the Coalition for TJ is arguing is happening to Asians. I guess you would oppose that then?

If Asians someday comprise 1% of the school’s population, you’ll have a point. Until then, kindly take a seat.

Demographics and race should not be determining factors that exclude students who have demonstrated academic excellence and high level of intellect.

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.

"Systematically" Please explain. Are you saying that the admissions officers are not fairly evaluating a candidate if the are Black or Hispanic? I believe the law suit in the 1990s from Professor of Llyod Cohen proved just the opposite.

So for pretty much the balance of the history of TJ's admissions process, students have not even been able to qualify for evaluation without recording a certain score - historically a raw score, but more recently a percentile on the curve - on a standardized exam. There is no end of peer-reviewed and validated research that the entire practice of standardized testing favors some communities over others - most specifically those of lesser means. While white and Asian families have great diversity in terms of socioeconomic status, Black and Hispanic families historically do not - they are poor on a much more consistent basis than white or Asian families. Thus it is possible, when it comes to a discussion of exclusion, to use SES as a proxy for race for purposes of evaluation. If you look at TJ's FARMS rate for generations, you see that the process has systematically excluded SOME communities of white and Asian families, while also systematically excluding NEARLY ALL Black and Hispanic families.

Their applications don't even get to the Admissions Commitee's desks because of these exams, which people with resources to burn can teach their kids how to excel on.

I see, so when a system is set up in a manner some people argue is race-neutral but systematically targets a group for exclusion that is discrimination. Hmmmmm. . . . I believe that is what the Coalition for TJ is arguing is happening to Asians. I guess you would oppose that then?

If Asians someday comprise 1% of the school’s population, you’ll have a point. Until then, kindly take a seat.

Demographics and race should not be determining factors that exclude students who have demonstrated academic excellence and high level of intellect.

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.

"Systematically" Please explain. Are you saying that the admissions officers are not fairly evaluating a candidate if the are Black or Hispanic? I believe the law suit in the 1990s from Professor of Llyod Cohen proved just the opposite.

So for pretty much the balance of the history of TJ's admissions process, students have not even been able to qualify for evaluation without recording a certain score - historically a raw score, but more recently a percentile on the curve - on a standardized exam. There is no end of peer-reviewed and validated research that the entire practice of standardized testing favors some communities over others - most specifically those of lesser means. While white and Asian families have great diversity in terms of socioeconomic status, Black and Hispanic families historically do not - they are poor on a much more consistent basis than white or Asian families. Thus it is possible, when it comes to a discussion of exclusion, to use SES as a proxy for race for purposes of evaluation. If you look at TJ's FARMS rate for generations, you see that the process has systematically excluded SOME communities of white and Asian families, while also systematically excluding NEARLY ALL Black and Hispanic families.

Their applications don't even get to the Admissions Commitee's desks because of these exams, which people with resources to burn can teach their kids how to excel on.

I see, so when a system is set up in a manner some people argue is race-neutral but systematically targets a group for exclusion that is discrimination. Hmmmmm. . . . I believe that is what the Coalition for TJ is arguing is happening to Asians. I guess you would oppose that then?

If Asians someday comprise 1% of the school’s population, you’ll have a point. Until then, kindly take a seat.

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.

"Systematically" Please explain. Are you saying that the admissions officers are not fairly evaluating a candidate if the are Black or Hispanic? I believe the law suit in the 1990s from Professor of Llyod Cohen proved just the opposite.

So for pretty much the balance of the history of TJ's admissions process, students have not even been able to qualify for evaluation without recording a certain score - historically a raw score, but more recently a percentile on the curve - on a standardized exam. There is no end of peer-reviewed and validated research that the entire practice of standardized testing favors some communities over others - most specifically those of lesser means. While white and Asian families have great diversity in terms of socioeconomic status, Black and Hispanic families historically do not - they are poor on a much more consistent basis than white or Asian families. Thus it is possible, when it comes to a discussion of exclusion, to use SES as a proxy for race for purposes of evaluation. If you look at TJ's FARMS rate for generations, you see that the process has systematically excluded SOME communities of white and Asian families, while also systematically excluding NEARLY ALL Black and Hispanic families.

Their applications don't even get to the Admissions Commitee's desks because of these exams, which people with resources to burn can teach their kids how to excel on.

As always' the retort is "why don't you care about these impediments when it comes to the chances of making a sports team, etc."

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.

"Systematically" Please explain. Are you saying that the admissions officers are not fairly evaluating a candidate if the are Black or Hispanic? I believe the law suit in the 1990s from Professor of Llyod Cohen proved just the opposite.

So for pretty much the balance of the history of TJ's admissions process, students have not even been able to qualify for evaluation without recording a certain score - historically a raw score, but more recently a percentile on the curve - on a standardized exam. There is no end of peer-reviewed and validated research that the entire practice of standardized testing favors some communities over others - most specifically those of lesser means. While white and Asian families have great diversity in terms of socioeconomic status, Black and Hispanic families historically do not - they are poor on a much more consistent basis than white or Asian families. Thus it is possible, when it comes to a discussion of exclusion, to use SES as a proxy for race for purposes of evaluation. If you look at TJ's FARMS rate for generations, you see that the process has systematically excluded SOME communities of white and Asian families, while also systematically excluding NEARLY ALL Black and Hispanic families.

Their applications don't even get to the Admissions Commitee's desks because of these exams, which people with resources to burn can teach their kids how to excel on.

I see, so when a system is set up in a manner some people argue is race-neutral but systematically targets a group for exclusion that is discrimination. Hmmmmm. . . . I believe that is what the Coalition for TJ is arguing is happening to Asians. I guess you would oppose that then?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Heard the judge today denied FCPS’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation challenging the TJ admissions change.

No injunction?

Nope. The process for the Class of 2025 will move forward and likely either next Friday or the following (I would bet May 28 with Memorial Day approaching) the initial 550 offers will be extended.

Something like half of the complainants in the case will become irrelevant once those offers are extended.

Admissions said they’re not putting decisions out until mid to late June! Such a mess.

They always set their arbitrary deadline at April 30 and decisions are out by late March. They will be motivated to release early this year.

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.

"Systematically" Please explain. Are you saying that the admissions officers are not fairly evaluating a candidate if the are Black or Hispanic? I believe the law suit in the 1990s from Professor of Llyod Cohen proved just the opposite.

So for pretty much the balance of the history of TJ's admissions process, students have not even been able to qualify for evaluation without recording a certain score - historically a raw score, but more recently a percentile on the curve - on a standardized exam. There is no end of peer-reviewed and validated research that the entire practice of standardized testing favors some communities over others - most specifically those of lesser means. While white and Asian families have great diversity in terms of socioeconomic status, Black and Hispanic families historically do not - they are poor on a much more consistent basis than white or Asian families. Thus it is possible, when it comes to a discussion of exclusion, to use SES as a proxy for race for purposes of evaluation. If you look at TJ's FARMS rate for generations, you see that the process has systematically excluded SOME communities of white and Asian families, while also systematically excluding NEARLY ALL Black and Hispanic families.

Their applications don't even get to the Admissions Commitee's desks because of these exams, which people with resources to burn can teach their kids how to excel on.

Anonymous wrote:if they had a good argument, they would have gotten an injunction. The judge proceeding means that there is a case, just not necessarily a good one

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.

"Systematically" Please explain. Are you saying that the admissions officers are not fairly evaluating a candidate if the are Black or Hispanic? I believe the law suit in the 1990s from Professor of Llyod Cohen proved just the opposite.

So for pretty much the balance of the history of TJ's admissions process, students have not even been able to qualify for evaluation without recording a certain score - historically a raw score, but more recently a percentile on the curve - on a standardized exam. There is no end of peer-reviewed and validated research that the entire practice of standardized testing favors some communities over others - most specifically those of lesser means. While white and Asian families have great diversity in terms of socioeconomic status, Black and Hispanic families historically do not - they are poor on a much more consistent basis than white or Asian families. Thus it is possible, when it comes to a discussion of exclusion, to use SES as a proxy for race for purposes of evaluation. If you look at TJ's FARMS rate for generations, you see that the process has systematically excluded SOME communities of white and Asian families, while also systematically excluding NEARLY ALL Black and Hispanic families.

Their applications don't even get to the Admissions Commitee's desks because of these exams, which people with resources to burn can teach their kids how to excel on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Heard the judge today denied FCPS’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation challenging the TJ admissions change.

No injunction?

Nope. The process for the Class of 2025 will move forward and likely either next Friday or the following (I would bet May 28 with Memorial Day approaching) the initial 550 offers will be extended.

Something like half of the complainants in the case will become irrelevant once those offers are extended.

Admissions said they’re not putting decisions out until mid to late June! Such a mess.