Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Coalition for TJ and TJ Alumni Action Group folks have no clue how much the rest of us despise all of you for collectively sucking so much of the air out of the room and constantly demanding to be the center of attention. You’re much more alike than you realize.

I hear you. I have been prolific the last couple of days and it’s time to back off. I have no affiliation to C4TJ but I want to expose the duplicity of the “reformers”. They are are as racists as the people they oppose. Despite their protestations they represent what is worst about this County. Not that C4TJ is any better.

The reformers are just wolves in sheep’s clothing. Claiming to speak for URMs they only represent prejudice against Asian-Americans. We cannot make progress in any agenda with these people in power.

The next school board election cycle, the members will be asked what they did to stand up to Anti-Asian racism. And that will be the moment of reckoning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TJ's racist policy that your tax dollars is defending cut the Asian entry by half

https://wtop.com/fairfax-county/2022/04/fairfax-co-schools-defends-admissions-policy-at-thomas-jefferson-hs/

“By half”? Guess you’re not so good with numbers?

Recap of admission #s from 2024 to 2025:
+64 overall

+50 female
+14 male

+46 hispanic +242%
+37 white +26%
+29 black +245%
+8 other/mixed +26%
-56 asian -26%

+142 from underrepresented MSs
-36 private school

And despite that TJ is still over 50% Asian right?

Yup. Headline: Group That Is Over-Represented Threefold Thinks It’s Racist That They’re No Longer Over-Represented Four-Fold

+1 And something must be done about this!

Keep going. This "racial balancing" motivation is what is being questioned by the court. You can have a great outcome but if the process to get there is not constitutional then it does not matter. But keep going. You guys dont care how unfair/unconstitutional a process is as long as it gets your goals.

People have *repeatedly* pointed out that the approach sucked but the outcome is a step in the right direction.

People have *repeatedly* pointed out that ends do not justify the means in any modern democracy. If that does not sink in from a constitutional perspective, let me give you something you can relate to.

Even if you catch a murderer red-handed and dont follow due process like reading the Miranda rights, you will not get the conviction.

There are many on this forum who are on board with increasing diversity at TJ but you have to do it the right way.

What is the right way to increase diversity at TJ?

Define diversity - if you do it by skin color, you've already lost the argument. Prove that TJ is not diverse; again if you come up with a race chart, you've already lost.

And attituteds like that are why the school is going to end up closed or as an academy

In other words, you are either unable to or unwilling to even define diversity except in a racist way, and would rather that a school close down than have it not be involved in implementing your desired racist policies.

You've solved the problems. No black kids at a school isn't an issue if mentioning that there are no black kids at the school is racist. Congratulations.

That's not what I said. If you can tie the lack of black kids at a school to explicitly racist policies, such as affirmative action, or facially neutral policies implemented with racist intent, like the new TJ admission policies, then we can absolutely work together to remove those barriers to black kids. Absent such evidence, it's improper to identify racial disparity as a "problem" that needs solving.

Cool, now get the Board and, more importantly, local voters to agree. Your solution really is genius, I think you should start publicizing it widely- no racism because pointing out racism is in itself racist

Again, that's not what I said. Your lack of reading comprehension is at an impressive level.

Or maybe views like "That's not what I said. If you can tie the lack of black kids at a school to explicitly racist policies, such as affirmative action, or facially neutral policies implemented with racist intent, like the new TJ admission policies, then we can absolutely work together to remove those barriers to black kids. Absent such evidence, it's improper to identify racial disparity as a "problem" that needs solving." will go over better in Alabama.

So first you mischaracterize what I said, and when challenged, you try to assail what I said by inferring that it is somehow unwholesome through a worthless innuendo. Your thoughts are shallow and your character bankrupt.

What you said amounts to racist garbage

+1000. Do you think the Coalition-aligned folks simply don't understand their racism or that they understand it and therefore are using the Russian "accusation as confession" tactic?

One side here is defending a policy that's been found to be racist in federal court.

and the other is defending a system that has historically excluded black, hispanic, and poor students

Could it be possible that not many blacks applied and those who did apply were not as qualified as other applicants?

We’ve looked at the numbers on earlier threads. A high % of black students who were eligible to apply, did apply. And the admission rate was disproportionately low.

And who made those past admission decisions for decades? Wasn't the admissions office employees all white, black or Hispanic with obligatory 1 or 2 Asians? Isn't it same for the actual admissions panels - 90% white, 5% black, 4% Hispanic and 1% Asian? Why is the blame with Asians when Asians had nothing to do with TJ admissions? This is crazy. The school board has no Asian as well. I can't think of any Assist Supert. either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Coalition for TJ and TJ Alumni Action Group folks have no clue how much the rest of us despise all of you for collectively sucking so much of the air out of the room and constantly demanding to be the center of attention. You’re much more alike than you realize.

I hear you. I have been prolific the last couple of days and it’s time to back off. I have no affiliation to C4TJ but I want to expose the duplicity of the “reformers”. They are are as racists as the people they oppose. Despite their protestations they represent what is worst about this County. Not that C4TJ is any better.

The reformers are just wolves in sheep’s clothing. Claiming to speak for URMs they only represent prejudice against Asian-Americans. We cannot make progress in any agenda with these people in power.

The next school board election cycle, the members will be asked what they did to stand up to Anti-Asian racism. And that will be the moment of reckoning.

Anonymous wrote:The Coalition for TJ and TJ Alumni Action Group folks have no clue how much the rest of us despise all of you for collectively sucking so much of the air out of the room and constantly demanding to be the center of attention. You’re much more alike than you realize.

Anonymous wrote:The Coalition for TJ and TJ Alumni Action Group folks have no clue how much the rest of us despise all of you for collectively sucking so much of the air out of the room and constantly demanding to be the center of attention. You’re much more alike than you realize.

Anonymous wrote:The Coalition for TJ and TJ Alumni Action Group folks have no clue how much the rest of us despise all of you for collectively sucking so much of the air out of the room and constantly demanding to be the center of attention. You’re much more alike than you realize.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TJ's racist policy that your tax dollars is defending cut the Asian entry by half

https://wtop.com/fairfax-county/2022/04/fairfax-co-schools-defends-admissions-policy-at-thomas-jefferson-hs/

“By half”? Guess you’re not so good with numbers?

Recap of admission #s from 2024 to 2025:
+64 overall

+50 female
+14 male

+46 hispanic +242%
+37 white +26%
+29 black +245%
+8 other/mixed +26%
-56 asian -26%

+142 from underrepresented MSs
-36 private school

And despite that TJ is still over 50% Asian right?

Yup. Headline: Group That Is Over-Represented Threefold Thinks It’s Racist That They’re No Longer Over-Represented Four-Fold

+1 And something must be done about this!

Keep going. This "racial balancing" motivation is what is being questioned by the court. You can have a great outcome but if the process to get there is not constitutional then it does not matter. But keep going. You guys dont care how unfair/unconstitutional a process is as long as it gets your goals.

People have *repeatedly* pointed out that the approach sucked but the outcome is a step in the right direction.

People have *repeatedly* pointed out that ends do not justify the means in any modern democracy. If that does not sink in from a constitutional perspective, let me give you something you can relate to.

Even if you catch a murderer red-handed and dont follow due process like reading the Miranda rights, you will not get the conviction.

There are many on this forum who are on board with increasing diversity at TJ but you have to do it the right way.

What is the right way to increase diversity at TJ?

Define diversity - if you do it by skin color, you've already lost the argument. Prove that TJ is not diverse; again if you come up with a race chart, you've already lost.

And attituteds like that are why the school is going to end up closed or as an academy

In other words, you are either unable to or unwilling to even define diversity except in a racist way, and would rather that a school close down than have it not be involved in implementing your desired racist policies.

You've solved the problems. No black kids at a school isn't an issue if mentioning that there are no black kids at the school is racist. Congratulations.

That's not what I said. If you can tie the lack of black kids at a school to explicitly racist policies, such as affirmative action, or facially neutral policies implemented with racist intent, like the new TJ admission policies, then we can absolutely work together to remove those barriers to black kids. Absent such evidence, it's improper to identify racial disparity as a "problem" that needs solving.

Cool, now get the Board and, more importantly, local voters to agree. Your solution really is genius, I think you should start publicizing it widely- no racism because pointing out racism is in itself racist

Again, that's not what I said. Your lack of reading comprehension is at an impressive level.

Or maybe views like "That's not what I said. If you can tie the lack of black kids at a school to explicitly racist policies, such as affirmative action, or facially neutral policies implemented with racist intent, like the new TJ admission policies, then we can absolutely work together to remove those barriers to black kids. Absent such evidence, it's improper to identify racial disparity as a "problem" that needs solving." will go over better in Alabama.

So first you mischaracterize what I said, and when challenged, you try to assail what I said by inferring that it is somehow unwholesome through a worthless innuendo. Your thoughts are shallow and your character bankrupt.

What you said amounts to racist garbage

+1000. Do you think the Coalition-aligned folks simply don't understand their racism or that they understand it and therefore are using the Russian "accusation as confession" tactic?

One side here is defending a policy that's been found to be racist in federal court.

and the other is defending a system that has historically excluded black, hispanic, and poor students

Could it be possible that not many blacks applied and those who did apply were not as qualified as other applicants?

We’ve looked at the numbers on earlier threads. A high % of black students who were eligible to apply, did apply. And the admission rate was disproportionately low.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.commentary.org/articles/stephen-steinberg/how-jewish-quotas-began/

A fascinating story on how the success of Jews was resented and how they were “put in place” by the dominant establishment.

In the early years of last century, Jews were recent immigrants and prioritized education of their children over everything else.

They were subject to among others things geographical quotas, allegations that their children were peculiar and not “well rounded” and that they were resource hoarders. Laws and policies were implemented at the best of schools to keep Jews out of elite colleges.

It is the same set of forces at play with Asian-Americans. Resentment of the Asian American success is pushing so called “reform” with the express purpose of containing their success. The Jewish community is one of the most successful ones today because they never gave up and never gave in. And so will the Asian Americans.

Not the same set of forces at all.

Jewish people faced real bigotry and were broadly disdained.

For TJ, people think the near non-existence of URMs/low income students is unacceptable. It’s nothing against wealthy Asians (sense of entitlement aside).

Trust me, it is the same forces. In this age of social media, you cannot afford to be blunt so the moves are couched in talk of helping URMs and using innuendo like “pay to play” to suggest Asian Americans don’t believe in fair play. But the methods are the same. Elite colleges put in geographical quotas in high Jewish density areas to have fewer Jewish folks admitted.

The Jewish people were successful in spite of the disdain they faced. They were shut out by geographical quotas and not the bigotry they faced.

They used quotas back then because they were anti-Semitic. No one here is anti-Asian (though those people certainly exists in general).

Today, we think that the TJ should attainable for more people in the county. Having only a handful of wealthy middle schools scoop up all of the seats is way too inequitable.

Just like the anti-Semitic did not wear a label saying anti-Semitic, the anti-Asians don’t wear a label that says Anti-Asian. Action speak louder than words. History will not be forgiving.

“The actions”?

Increasing diversity - economic, racial, special needs, English learners.

And going from 73% to 54% Asian students.

GMAFB.

You are not alone in wanting fewer Asians. Here is Amy Wax, renowned professor of the UPenn Law School.

“[We] have to distinguish mass-immigration, which we’re getting from the Hispanics, south of the border, which I think poses different questions and challenges from the Asian elites that we’re getting,” she said. “It doesn’t mean that the influx of Asian elites is unproblematic. I actually think it’s problematic. …I think it’s because there’s this…danger of the dominance of an Asian elite in this country, and what does that mean? What is that going to mean to change the culture?

“Does the spirit of liberty beat in their breast?” she continued.

Read the article and you will try and understand how this TJ episode resonates with what Asians are feeling in general when it comes to discrimination. Throw-in the increased street crime against Asian Americans and you will understand why your beating the URM drum sounds tone deaf to Asian Americans.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/racist-penn-law-prof-amy-wax-makes-disturbing-claim-us-is-better-off-with-fewer-asians

Wanting more diversity is not anti-Asian.

I guess playing victim (with 54% of the class) makes you feel better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.commentary.org/articles/stephen-steinberg/how-jewish-quotas-began/

A fascinating story on how the success of Jews was resented and how they were “put in place” by the dominant establishment.

In the early years of last century, Jews were recent immigrants and prioritized education of their children over everything else.

They were subject to among others things geographical quotas, allegations that their children were peculiar and not “well rounded” and that they were resource hoarders. Laws and policies were implemented at the best of schools to keep Jews out of elite colleges.

It is the same set of forces at play with Asian-Americans. Resentment of the Asian American success is pushing so called “reform” with the express purpose of containing their success. The Jewish community is one of the most successful ones today because they never gave up and never gave in. And so will the Asian Americans.

Not the same set of forces at all.

Jewish people faced real bigotry and were broadly disdained.

For TJ, people think the near non-existence of URMs/low income students is unacceptable. It’s nothing against wealthy Asians (sense of entitlement aside).

Trust me, it is the same forces. In this age of social media, you cannot afford to be blunt so the moves are couched in talk of helping URMs and using innuendo like “pay to play” to suggest Asian Americans don’t believe in fair play. But the methods are the same. Elite colleges put in geographical quotas in high Jewish density areas to have fewer Jewish folks admitted.

The Jewish people were successful in spite of the disdain they faced. They were shut out by geographical quotas and not the bigotry they faced.

They used quotas back then because they were anti-Semitic. No one here is anti-Asian (though those people certainly exists in general).

Today, we think that the TJ should attainable for more people in the county. Having only a handful of wealthy middle schools scoop up all of the seats is way too inequitable.

Just like the anti-Semitic did not wear a label saying anti-Semitic, the anti-Asians don’t wear a label that says Anti-Asian. Action speak louder than words. History will not be forgiving.

“The actions”?

Increasing diversity - economic, racial, special needs, English learners.

And going from 73% to 54% Asian students.

GMAFB.

You are not alone in wanting fewer Asians. Here is Amy Wax, renowned professor of the UPenn Law School.

“[We] have to distinguish mass-immigration, which we’re getting from the Hispanics, south of the border, which I think poses different questions and challenges from the Asian elites that we’re getting,” she said. “It doesn’t mean that the influx of Asian elites is unproblematic. I actually think it’s problematic. …I think it’s because there’s this…danger of the dominance of an Asian elite in this country, and what does that mean? What is that going to mean to change the culture?

“Does the spirit of liberty beat in their breast?” she continued.

Read the article and you will try and understand how this TJ episode resonates with what Asians are feeling in general when it comes to discrimination. Throw-in the increased street crime against Asian Americans and you will understand why your beating the URM drum sounds tone deaf to Asian Americans.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/racist-penn-law-prof-amy-wax-makes-disturbing-claim-us-is-better-off-with-fewer-asians

Wanting more diversity is not anti-Asian.

I guess playing victim (with 54% of the class) makes you feel better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TJ's racist policy that your tax dollars is defending cut the Asian entry by half

https://wtop.com/fairfax-county/2022/04/fairfax-co-schools-defends-admissions-policy-at-thomas-jefferson-hs/

“By half”? Guess you’re not so good with numbers?

Recap of admission #s from 2024 to 2025:
+64 overall

+50 female
+14 male

+46 hispanic +242%
+37 white +26%
+29 black +245%
+8 other/mixed +26%
-56 asian -26%

+142 from underrepresented MSs
-36 private school

And despite that TJ is still over 50% Asian right?

Yup. Headline: Group That Is Over-Represented Threefold Thinks It’s Racist That They’re No Longer Over-Represented Four-Fold

+1 And something must be done about this!

Keep going. This "racial balancing" motivation is what is being questioned by the court. You can have a great outcome but if the process to get there is not constitutional then it does not matter. But keep going. You guys dont care how unfair/unconstitutional a process is as long as it gets your goals.

People have *repeatedly* pointed out that the approach sucked but the outcome is a step in the right direction.

People have *repeatedly* pointed out that ends do not justify the means in any modern democracy. If that does not sink in from a constitutional perspective, let me give you something you can relate to.

Even if you catch a murderer red-handed and dont follow due process like reading the Miranda rights, you will not get the conviction.

There are many on this forum who are on board with increasing diversity at TJ but you have to do it the right way.

What is the right way to increase diversity at TJ?

Define diversity - if you do it by skin color, you've already lost the argument. Prove that TJ is not diverse; again if you come up with a race chart, you've already lost.

And attituteds like that are why the school is going to end up closed or as an academy

In other words, you are either unable to or unwilling to even define diversity except in a racist way, and would rather that a school close down than have it not be involved in implementing your desired racist policies.

You've solved the problems. No black kids at a school isn't an issue if mentioning that there are no black kids at the school is racist. Congratulations.

That's not what I said. If you can tie the lack of black kids at a school to explicitly racist policies, such as affirmative action, or facially neutral policies implemented with racist intent, like the new TJ admission policies, then we can absolutely work together to remove those barriers to black kids. Absent such evidence, it's improper to identify racial disparity as a "problem" that needs solving.

Cool, now get the Board and, more importantly, local voters to agree. Your solution really is genius, I think you should start publicizing it widely- no racism because pointing out racism is in itself racist

Again, that's not what I said. Your lack of reading comprehension is at an impressive level.

Or maybe views like "That's not what I said. If you can tie the lack of black kids at a school to explicitly racist policies, such as affirmative action, or facially neutral policies implemented with racist intent, like the new TJ admission policies, then we can absolutely work together to remove those barriers to black kids. Absent such evidence, it's improper to identify racial disparity as a "problem" that needs solving." will go over better in Alabama.

So first you mischaracterize what I said, and when challenged, you try to assail what I said by inferring that it is somehow unwholesome through a worthless innuendo. Your thoughts are shallow and your character bankrupt.

What you said amounts to racist garbage

+1000. Do you think the Coalition-aligned folks simply don't understand their racism or that they understand it and therefore are using the Russian "accusation as confession" tactic?

One side here is defending a policy that's been found to be racist in federal court.

and the other is defending a system that has historically excluded black, hispanic, and poor students

Could it be possible that not many blacks applied and those who did apply were not as qualified as other applicants?

We’ve looked at the numbers on earlier threads. A high % of black students who were eligible to apply, did apply. And the admission rate was disproportionately low.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.commentary.org/articles/stephen-steinberg/how-jewish-quotas-began/

A fascinating story on how the success of Jews was resented and how they were “put in place” by the dominant establishment.

In the early years of last century, Jews were recent immigrants and prioritized education of their children over everything else.

They were subject to among others things geographical quotas, allegations that their children were peculiar and not “well rounded” and that they were resource hoarders. Laws and policies were implemented at the best of schools to keep Jews out of elite colleges.

It is the same set of forces at play with Asian-Americans. Resentment of the Asian American success is pushing so called “reform” with the express purpose of containing their success. The Jewish community is one of the most successful ones today because they never gave up and never gave in. And so will the Asian Americans.

Not the same set of forces at all.

Jewish people faced real bigotry and were broadly disdained.

For TJ, people think the near non-existence of URMs/low income students is unacceptable. It’s nothing against wealthy Asians (sense of entitlement aside).

Trust me, it is the same forces. In this age of social media, you cannot afford to be blunt so the moves are couched in talk of helping URMs and using innuendo like “pay to play” to suggest Asian Americans don’t believe in fair play. But the methods are the same. Elite colleges put in geographical quotas in high Jewish density areas to have fewer Jewish folks admitted.

The Jewish people were successful in spite of the disdain they faced. They were shut out by geographical quotas and not the bigotry they faced.

They used quotas back then because they were anti-Semitic. No one here is anti-Asian (though those people certainly exists in general).

Today, we think that the TJ should attainable for more people in the county. Having only a handful of wealthy middle schools scoop up all of the seats is way too inequitable.

Just like the anti-Semitic did not wear a label saying anti-Semitic, the anti-Asians don’t wear a label that says Anti-Asian. Action speak louder than words. History will not be forgiving.

“The actions”?

Increasing diversity - economic, racial, special needs, English learners.

And going from 73% to 54% Asian students.

GMAFB.

You are not alone in wanting fewer Asians. Here is Amy Wax, renowned professor of the UPenn Law School.

“[We] have to distinguish mass-immigration, which we’re getting from the Hispanics, south of the border, which I think poses different questions and challenges from the Asian elites that we’re getting,” she said. “It doesn’t mean that the influx of Asian elites is unproblematic. I actually think it’s problematic. …I think it’s because there’s this…danger of the dominance of an Asian elite in this country, and what does that mean? What is that going to mean to change the culture?

“Does the spirit of liberty beat in their breast?” she continued.

Read the article and you will try and understand how this TJ episode resonates with what Asians are feeling in general when it comes to discrimination. Throw-in the increased street crime against Asian Americans and you will understand why your beating the URM drum sounds tone deaf to Asian Americans.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/racist-penn-law-prof-amy-wax-makes-disturbing-claim-us-is-better-off-with-fewer-asians

Wanting more diversity is not anti-Asian.

I guess playing victim (with 54% of the class) makes you feel better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.commentary.org/articles/stephen-steinberg/how-jewish-quotas-began/

A fascinating story on how the success of Jews was resented and how they were “put in place” by the dominant establishment.

In the early years of last century, Jews were recent immigrants and prioritized education of their children over everything else.

They were subject to among others things geographical quotas, allegations that their children were peculiar and not “well rounded” and that they were resource hoarders. Laws and policies were implemented at the best of schools to keep Jews out of elite colleges.

It is the same set of forces at play with Asian-Americans. Resentment of the Asian American success is pushing so called “reform” with the express purpose of containing their success. The Jewish community is one of the most successful ones today because they never gave up and never gave in. And so will the Asian Americans.

Not the same set of forces at all.

Jewish people faced real bigotry and were broadly disdained.

For TJ, people think the near non-existence of URMs/low income students is unacceptable. It’s nothing against wealthy Asians (sense of entitlement aside).

Trust me, it is the same forces. In this age of social media, you cannot afford to be blunt so the moves are couched in talk of helping URMs and using innuendo like “pay to play” to suggest Asian Americans don’t believe in fair play. But the methods are the same. Elite colleges put in geographical quotas in high Jewish density areas to have fewer Jewish folks admitted.

The Jewish people were successful in spite of the disdain they faced. They were shut out by geographical quotas and not the bigotry they faced.

They used quotas back then because they were anti-Semitic. No one here is anti-Asian (though those people certainly exists in general).

Today, we think that the TJ should attainable for more people in the county. Having only a handful of wealthy middle schools scoop up all of the seats is way too inequitable.

Just like the anti-Semitic did not wear a label saying anti-Semitic, the anti-Asians don’t wear a label that says Anti-Asian. Action speak louder than words. History will not be forgiving.

“The actions”?

Increasing diversity - economic, racial, special needs, English learners.

And going from 73% to 54% Asian students.

GMAFB.

You are not alone in wanting fewer Asians. Here is Amy Wax, renowned professor of the UPenn Law School.

“[We] have to distinguish mass-immigration, which we’re getting from the Hispanics, south of the border, which I think poses different questions and challenges from the Asian elites that we’re getting,” she said. “It doesn’t mean that the influx of Asian elites is unproblematic. I actually think it’s problematic. …I think it’s because there’s this…danger of the dominance of an Asian elite in this country, and what does that mean? What is that going to mean to change the culture?

“Does the spirit of liberty beat in their breast?” she continued.

Read the article and you will try and understand how this TJ episode resonates with what Asians are feeling in general when it comes to discrimination. Throw-in the increased street crime against Asian Americans and you will understand why your beating the URM drum sounds tone deaf to Asian Americans.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/racist-penn-law-prof-amy-wax-makes-disturbing-claim-us-is-better-off-with-fewer-asians

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.commentary.org/articles/stephen-steinberg/how-jewish-quotas-began/

A fascinating story on how the success of Jews was resented and how they were “put in place” by the dominant establishment.

In the early years of last century, Jews were recent immigrants and prioritized education of their children over everything else.

They were subject to among others things geographical quotas, allegations that their children were peculiar and not “well rounded” and that they were resource hoarders. Laws and policies were implemented at the best of schools to keep Jews out of elite colleges.

It is the same set of forces at play with Asian-Americans. Resentment of the Asian American success is pushing so called “reform” with the express purpose of containing their success. The Jewish community is one of the most successful ones today because they never gave up and never gave in. And so will the Asian Americans.

Not the same set of forces at all.

Jewish people faced real bigotry and were broadly disdained.

For TJ, people think the near non-existence of URMs/low income students is unacceptable. It’s nothing against wealthy Asians (sense of entitlement aside).

Trust me, it is the same forces. In this age of social media, you cannot afford to be blunt so the moves are couched in talk of helping URMs and using innuendo like “pay to play” to suggest Asian Americans don’t believe in fair play. But the methods are the same. Elite colleges put in geographical quotas in high Jewish density areas to have fewer Jewish folks admitted.

The Jewish people were successful in spite of the disdain they faced. They were shut out by geographical quotas and not the bigotry they faced.

They used quotas back then because they were anti-Semitic. No one here is anti-Asian (though those people certainly exists in general).

Today, we think that the TJ should attainable for more people in the county. Having only a handful of wealthy middle schools scoop up all of the seats is way too inequitable.

Just like the anti-Semitic did not wear a label saying anti-Semitic, the anti-Asians don’t wear a label that says Anti-Asian. Action speak louder than words. History will not be forgiving.

“The actions”?

Increasing diversity - economic, racial, special needs, English learners.

And going from 73% to 54% Asian students.

GMAFB.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.commentary.org/articles/stephen-steinberg/how-jewish-quotas-began/

A fascinating story on how the success of Jews was resented and how they were “put in place” by the dominant establishment.

In the early years of last century, Jews were recent immigrants and prioritized education of their children over everything else.

They were subject to among others things geographical quotas, allegations that their children were peculiar and not “well rounded” and that they were resource hoarders. Laws and policies were implemented at the best of schools to keep Jews out of elite colleges.

It is the same set of forces at play with Asian-Americans. Resentment of the Asian American success is pushing so called “reform” with the express purpose of containing their success. The Jewish community is one of the most successful ones today because they never gave up and never gave in. And so will the Asian Americans.

Not the same set of forces at all.

Jewish people faced real bigotry and were broadly disdained.

For TJ, people think the near non-existence of URMs/low income students is unacceptable. It’s nothing against wealthy Asians (sense of entitlement aside).

Trust me, it is the same forces. In this age of social media, you cannot afford to be blunt so the moves are couched in talk of helping URMs and using innuendo like “pay to play” to suggest Asian Americans don’t believe in fair play. But the methods are the same. Elite colleges put in geographical quotas in high Jewish density areas to have fewer Jewish folks admitted.

The Jewish people were successful in spite of the disdain they faced. They were shut out by geographical quotas and not the bigotry they faced.

They used quotas back then because they were anti-Semitic. No one here is anti-Asian (though those people certainly exists in general).

Today, we think that the TJ should attainable for more people in the county. Having only a handful of wealthy middle schools scoop up all of the seats is way too inequitable.

Just like the anti-Semitic did not wear a label saying anti-Semitic, the anti-Asians don’t wear a label that says Anti-Asian. Action speak louder than words. History will not be forgiving.

“The actions”?

Increasing diversity - economic, racial, special needs, English learners.

And going from 73% to 54% Asian students.

GMAFB.

That is your goal and you are proud of it.

Some more parallels

Jewish students, writes Levine, were considered conscientious about their studies but ill-equipped at mixing socially. According to him, they had no leadership skills, athletic prowess, and alumni parentage. And they were "lacking the physical strength," Karabel chronicles, "and straightforwardness of the 'manly' American."

https://www.bestcolleges.com/news/analysis/2021/08/09/historical-parallel-between-asian-american-and-jewish-students/

Drop the pretense that you are doing good for anyone - this is all driven by animus towards Asians.