An Elite Public High School Changed Its Admissions Standards To Reduce the Asian-American Student Population

Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Fairfax County, Virginia, is one of the most elite public schools in the country. In 2019, U.S. News and World Report ranked it as America's best overall high school.

It also educates a substantial racial minority population: 70 percent of TJ's students are Asian-Americans—many of them children of immigrants.

You might think progressive education officials would celebrate this. Instead, they have decided to jettison the school's famously tough admissions test in favor of a "holistic" (i.e., subjective and arbitrary) system that will permit officials to reject Asian-American students in favor of less-deserving students who belong to other racial categories.

The new admissions policy has drawn a lawsuit from the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), which represents a coalition of parents. These plaintiffs include Harry Jackson, father of one of the six black students who was admitted to TJ in the previous cycle. Jackson understands that under the new policy, additional black and Hispanic students would likely be admitted, but doesn't see how this is fair to the more qualified Asian-American students.

"As an African American father of a TJ student, I would also like to see more Black and Hispanic students at the school," he told the Post. "But if those students are not making the grade, the problem isn't the standards. It's more likely that the elementary school pipeline is failing to prepare them for the rigors of an environment like TJ."

In his own op-ed for The Washington Post, Jackson accused the school of treating Asian students as if they were "the wrong kind" of racial minority.

https://reason.com/2021/04/02/thomas-jefferson-asian-admissions-plf-lawsuit/?fbclid=IwAR0XHWG12jYK0SAoCBlhXnT0xLthOmy4aswYWHJ_llf0pAd0rgEGbndb-Z4


Progress eh?

Maddog wrote:You might think progressive education officials would celebrate this. Instead, they have decided to jettison the school's famously tough admissions test in favor of a "holistic" (i.e., subjective and arbitrary) system that will permit officials to reject Asian-American students in favor of less-deserving students who belong to other racial categories.

Once again, we confront the differences between intentional discrimination, on the one hand, and adverse impact discrimination, on the other. Recall, we confronted this in the City of Oakland thread. Ultimately, because the case lacked state action, there was no discrimination.

Intentional discrimination is self-explanatory. However, the law also prohibits discrimination that is simply the effect of a policy or program, as well. It’s not intentional, it only has the impact of discrimination. This sounds like a case of the latter, hence the lawsuit.

"As an African American father of a TJ student, I would also like to see more Black and Hispanic students at the school," he told the Post. "But if those students are not making the grade, the problem isn't the standards. It's more likely that the elementary school pipeline is failing to prepare them for the rigors of an environment like TJ."

Adverse impact.

PLF's lawsuit argues that the new admission plan was clearly adopted for the explicit purpose of curbing Asian enrollment, and is thus unconstitutional.

"The government cannot choose who receives the opportunity to attend public schools based on race or ethnicity," said PLF attorney Erin Wilcox. "Such actions clearly violate the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection."

Those are just the pleadings. Most lawsuits do that.  They allege what is called: 'in the alternative'.  They allege intentional discrimination, or in the alternative, adverse impact.

You won't know until the defense frames it's case. The facts are in discovery.

"In the name of helping racial minorities, officials are adopting a plan that would boost whites at the expense of Asian Americans."

Simple pleadings. Wait for the discovery.

"One of the most fascinating aspects of the new admissions plan is that the largest beneficiaries would not be racial minorities, but white students. According to PLF, the school district's own projections showed that white enrollment would increase more substantially than Black or Hispanic enrollment."

Maddog wrote:"One of the most fascinating aspects of the new admissions plan is that the largest beneficiaries would not be racial minorities, but white students. According to PLF, the school district's own projections showed that white enrollment would increase more substantially than Black or Hispanic enrollment."

Interesting. Talking about de facto effects. Sounds even more like an adverse impact case.

But we've got to see the evidence.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:"One of the most fascinating aspects of the new admissions plan is that the largest beneficiaries would not be racial minorities, but white students. According to PLF, the school district's own projections showed that white enrollment would increase more substantially than Black or Hispanic enrollment."

Interesting.  Talking about de facto effects.  Sounds even more like an adverse impact case.

But we've got to see the evidence.

Who is we?

Who in the fuck are you talking about?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Interesting.  Talking about de facto effects.  Sounds even more like an adverse impact case.

But we've got to see the evidence.

Who is we?

Who in the fuck are you talking about?

Unless you want to leave your head up your own ass permanently, your mouth has to come out and speak to the world...or, perhaps, anyone who will listen.  Hence, the use of the plural personal pronoun.

But it’s a negligible point.  The real point is to you: where is the fookin’ evidence, asshole?  

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Who is we?

Who in the fuck are you talking about?

Unless you want to leave your head up your own ass permanently, your mouth has to come out and speak to the world...or, perhaps, anyone who will listen.  Hence, the use of the plural personal pronoun.

But it’s a negligible point.  The real point is to you: where is the fookin’ evidence, asshole?  

The evidence is in the article.

I hold out little hope of you actually reading it.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Unless you want to leave your head up your own ass permanently, your mouth has to come out and speak to the world...or, perhaps, anyone who will listen.  Hence, the use of the plural personal pronoun.

But it’s a negligible point.  The real point is to you: where is the fookin’ evidence, asshole?  

The evidence is in the article.  

I hold out little hope of you actually reading it.

The article is about the filing of pleadings.  Don't you know the difference between allegation and proof?  Don't you know how the courts work in your own country?  

Aside: Jesus...we need to exile these dumbass crackers before they infect the place with a severe case of non compos mentis.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The evidence is in the article.  

I hold out little hope of you actually reading it.

The article is about the filing of pleadings.  Don't you know the difference between allegation and proof?  Don't you know how the courts work in your own country?  

Aside: Jesus...we need to exile these dumbass crackers before they infect the place with a severe case of non compos mentis.

One doesn't need a court ruling for proof of something being wrong.

The article is about treating one minority differently than another minority. I don't need a court case to determine that is wrong.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The article is about the filing of pleadings.  Don't you know the difference between allegation and proof?  Don't you know how the courts work in your own country?  

Aside: Jesus...we need to exile these dumbass crackers before they infect the place with a severe case of non compos mentis.

One doesn't need a court ruling for proof of something being wrong.  

The article is about treating one minority differently than another minority.  I don't need a court case to determine that is wrong.  

Yes, but how do you mean "treating a minority differently"?  Is it intentional discrimination or adverse impact?  Right away you are dismissing the most crucial distinction.  You see...you don't even want possible answers that are inconvenient for you!

Procedure-wise, the court is the most honest participant.  You are a RW gossip; and presumably there are some LW gossips...but gossips don't make good judges.

An Anglo-American court of law has rules of procedure, rules of evidence, and most of all, the evidence itself...proof for a jury or a court to hear.  By the very fact that you want to by-pass all of that as ‘needless’, means that you are the most frivolous, and thus the least reliable voice in our ears.

Maybe as 70% of students are already Asian - Black or whatever the designation, perhaps they want to redress the balance for other ethnicities. It's already done the other way around. The father seems to not want to a balance but for the school to have more Asian- Black, maybe exclusively?

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

One doesn't need a court ruling for proof of something being wrong.  

The article is about treating one minority differently than another minority.  I don't need a court case to determine that is wrong.  

Yes, but how do you mean "treating a minority differently"?  Is it intentional discrimination or adverse impact?  Right away you are dismissing the most crucial distinction.  You see...you don't even want possible answers that are inconvenient for you!

Procedure-wise, the court is the most honest participant.  You are a RW gossip; and presumably there are some LW gossips...but gossips don't make good judges.

An Anglo-American court of law has rules of procedure, rules of evidence, and most of all, the evidence itself...proof for a jury or a court to hear.  By the very fact that you want to by-pass all of that as ‘needless’, means that you are the most frivolous, and thus the least reliable voice in our ears.

Treating minorities differently by requiring different scores for admission.

Vintage wrote:Maybe as 70% of students are already Asian - Black or whatever the designation, perhaps they want to redress the balance for other ethnicities. It's already done the other way around. The father seems to not want to a balance but for the school to have more Asian- Black, maybe exclusively?

They are not black, just Asian. Asian here means what used to be called Oriental.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes, but how do you mean "treating a minority differently"? Is it intentional discrimination or adverse impact? Right away you are dismissing the most crucial distinction. You see...you don't even want possible answers that are inconvenient for you!

Procedure-wise, the court is the most honest participant. You are a RW gossip; and presumably there are some LW gossips...but gossips don't make good judges.

An Anglo-American court of law has rules of procedure, rules of evidence, and most of all, the evidence itself...proof for a jury or a court to hear. By the very fact that you want to by-pass all of that as ‘needless’, means that you are the most frivolous, and thus the least reliable voice in our ears.

Treating minorities differently by requiring different scores for admission.

That presumes a zero-some game, which is generally not the case with affirmative action. Special attention is being paid to minorities, which wouldn't be necessary had there not been a lag in treatment in the past.

But again, you are putting the cart before the horse. This is a lawsuit over a specific case. Where do you get your facts? There has been no discovery, and the pleadings are just one kid making an accusation to mommy about a sibling. Mommy has to look at the facts before deciding who is right. And so do you. Pleadings are not facts.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Treating minorities differently by requiring different scores for admission.  

That presumes a zero-some game, which is generally not the case with affirmative action.  Special attention is being paid to minorities, which wouldn't be necessary had there not been a lag in treatment in the past.

But again, you are putting the cart before the horse.  This is a lawsuit over a specific case.  Where do you get your facts?  There has been no discovery, and the pleadings are just one kid making an accusation to mommy about a sibling.  Mommy has to look at the facts before deciding who is right.  And so do you.  Pleadings are not facts.

Special attention is being paid to some minorities.

Not all.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That presumes a zero-some game, which is generally not the case with affirmative action.  Special attention is being paid to minorities, which wouldn't be necessary had there not been a lag in treatment in the past.

But again, you are putting the cart before the horse.  This is a lawsuit over a specific case.  Where do you get your facts?  There has been no discovery, and the pleadings are just one kid making an accusation to mommy about a sibling.  Mommy has to look at the facts before deciding who is right.  And so do you.  Pleadings are not facts.

Special attention is being paid to some minorities.

Not all.

Well, of course. Special attention is paid to those, due to arbitrary deprivation in the past, who deserve and are owed it.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Special attention is being paid to some minorities.

Not all.

Well, of course.  Special attention is paid to those, due to arbitrary deprivation in the past, who deserve and are owed it.

In the past. Agreed.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Well, of course.  Special attention is paid to those, due to arbitrary deprivation in the past, who deserve and are owed it.

In the past. Agreed.

Well of course, there is a time sequence to everything.  Take my analogy of a horse race: you start the race forcing one contestant to start a furlong back.  If you are going to correct that—if you have a conscience about it—at some point you have to reach down and pluck him up, to place him where he should have been were the race to have started fairly.  It is remedial action.

Nor is that a detraction from the other horses in the race.  You may say, speaking hypothetically for one of the other horses...hey, he's getting a boost, and that's discrimination!  But what of the original lag he was forced to undergo in the first place?  It's remedial: he is only being put in the place where he would have been had he not been held back.

Nor is it a zero-sum game; nothing is being done to hold others back, only that he is returned to his original starting place.  He is being compensated for what was taken away from him.

Of course, it is with a mind for the past.  Do you want a past inequity to go unrequited?  Do you want the damage then done, to be perpetuated and eternalized into forever?  How would you feel were it done to you?  Fairness dictates that the adjustment take place.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

In the past. Agreed.

Well of course, there is a time sequence to everything.  Take my analogy of a horse race: you start the race forcing one contestant to start a furlong back.  If you are going to correct that—if you have a conscience about it—at some point you have to reach down and pluck him up, to place him where he should have been were the race to have started fairly.  It is remedial action.

Nor is that a detraction from the other horses in the race.  You may say, speaking hypothetically for one of the other horses...hey, he's getting a boost, and that's discrimination!  But what of the original lag he was forced to undergo in the first place?  It's remedial: he is only being put in the place where he would have been had he not been held back.

Nor is it a zero-sum game; nothing is being done to hold others back, only that he is returned to his original starting place.  He is being compensated for what was taken away from him.

Of course, it is with a mind for the past.  Do you want a past inequity to go unrequited?  Do you want the damage then done, to be perpetuated and eternalized into forever?  How would you feel were it done to you?  Fairness dictates that the adjustment take place.

Why should people who did no wrong pay for the mistakes of others?

It's even more agregious to make Asians, many of which are the children of immigrants, to suffer because of the sins of a white man in Alabama 100 years ago.

Maddog wrote:Why should people who did no wrong pay for the mistakes of others?

They are not. The reparations for the disenfranchised are not detractions from others. It is additive.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:Why should people who did no wrong pay for the mistakes of others?

They are not.  The reparations for the disenfranchised are not detractions from others.  It is additive.

Asians will be excluded.

Did you read the article?

What is it called when someone is excluded because of race?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

They are not. The reparations for the disenfranchised are not detractions from others. It is additive.

Asians will be excluded.

Did you read the article?

What is it called when someone is excluded because of race?

I am disagreeing with the article. It’s one of the many pieces that frame the issue to reach a false sum. It’s all in the framing. The article explains:

Reason.com wrote:There are three middle schools with predominantly Asian-American student populations that typically account for a sizable proportion of TJ's admissions. Limiting the number of admissions letters available to the students at these schools will in effect artificially limit the Asian-American applicant pool.

So, the article doesn’t even mention reparations, but sets up the same total-students model that the false conclusion promotes: “Limiting the number of admissions letters available to the students at these schools will in effect artificially limit the Asian-American applicant pool.”

In other words, it assumes the denominator is the total of applicants, rather recognizing an acceptance pool set aside for disenfranchised. Notice, the article uses “550 middle-schoolers” as the denominator, rather than, say, X/530 + Y/20=550. By grouping all of the 550 students as one, you affect the proportions, and miss the special set-aside for affirmative action.

The article centers on Asian-Americans because, arguably, they are also disenfranchised students, and they are swept into the ‘other’ category. Maybe the answer is to set up an additional pool by which to treat Asian-Americans.

But the article, and the lawsuit, don’t mention that…and that is a major flaw. They seem to whine about the effect, without even suggesting improvements. However, we don’t really know until we see the tangible numbers in the evidence, and that comes out in discovery.

What is it called when someone is excluded because of race?

Maddog wrote:What is it called when someone is excluded because of race?

"Framing the issue to reach your foreordained conclusion."  

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:What is it called when someone is excluded because of race?

"Framing the issue to reach your conclusion."  

What is it called when someone is excluded because of race?

It's called: "Framing the issue to reach your foreordained conclusion."

You have no answer? Out of ideas? Move on.

When anything is decided on race or religion it can backfire, though sometimes it can backfire anyway.

My son went to a local Protestant Church primary school, it turned out the highest grades in the area when the kids were ready to move on to secondary school at 11 years old. Obviously there were more applications than spaces.
In the early 80's we had an influx of Asian families move into the area, the school, though protestant, welcomed Muslim children to attend, though why some of the parents chose a church school when they refused to allow their children to attend certain lessons, events, eat standard school dinners etc, was a mystery.

This school gave priority to siblings....Asian culture is to have larger families than whites (in general) before too long many local white families were not able to get their kids into this well respected church school.
The grades have plummeted over the last decades, it's now considered one of the lowest performing schools in the area.

Syl wrote:When anything is decided on race or religion it can backfire, though sometimes it can backfire anyway.

My son went to a local Protestant Church primary school, it turned out the highest grades in the area when the kids were ready to move on to secondary school at 11 years old. Obviously there were more applications than spaces.
In the early 80's we had an influx of Asian families move into the area, the school, though protestant,  welcomed Muslim children to attend, though why some of the parents chose a church school when they refused to allow their children to attend certain lessons, events, eat standard school dinners etc, was a mystery.

This school gave priority to siblings....Asian culture is to have larger families than whites (in general) before too long many local white families were not able to get their kids into this well respected church school.
The grades have plummeted over the last decades, it's now considered one of the lowest performing schools in the area.

And that was based on a form of nepotism, not merit.

Original Quill wrote:It's called:  "Framing the issue to reach your foreordained conclusion."

You have no answer?  Out of ideas?  Move on.

What is it called when someone is excluded because of race?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:It's called:  "Framing the issue to reach your foreordained conclusion."

You have no answer?  Out of ideas?  Move on.

What is it called when someone is excluded because of race?

Racism.

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:


What is it called when someone is excluded because of race?

Racism.

Thank you.

Though I disagree with this school's new policy, you obviously can't expect the average kid from a shit school system to perform as well as the average kid from a good school system. There's a reason parents try to get their kids into good schools, after all.

The black dude is right -- the problem is not this high school, but the system the kids are having to go through in order to get to high school.

And that is the biggest problem about America that nobody pays atention to -- the fact that poor kids go to shit schools and rich kids go to great schools. You can't expect people to get themselves out of poverty without a quality education.

When you do both -- when you keep poor, mainly black and Hispanic kids trapped in shit schools, and also oppose any form of affirmative action for them at the university or employment level -- you're essentially supporting black and Hispanic people being stuck in a cycle of poverty.

It's a crime that every American child isn't entitled to the same quality level of education.

If we were to serve rich kids the healthiest meals and poor kids fast-food garbage, there would be an outrage, but not nearly enough people realize that that's what we do when it comes to their education.

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:


What is it called when someone is excluded because of race?

Racism.

Thank you.  

No problem. You rarely get a straight answer on here.

Ben Reilly wrote:Though I disagree with this school's new policy, you obviously can't expect the average kid from a shit school system to perform as well as the average kid from a good school system. There's a reason parents try to get their kids into good schools, after all.

The black dude is right -- the problem is not this high school, but the system the kids are having to go through in order to get to high school.

And that is the biggest problem about America that nobody pays atention to -- the fact that poor kids go to shit schools and rich kids go to great schools. You can't expect people to get themselves out of poverty without a quality education.

When you do both -- when you keep poor, mainly black and Hispanic kids trapped in shit schools, and also oppose any form of affirmative action for them at the university or employment level -- you're essentially supporting black and Hispanic people being stuck in a cycle of poverty.

It's a crime that every American child isn't entitled to the same quality level of education.

If we were to serve rich kids the healthiest meals and poor kids fast-food garbage, there would be an outrage, but not nearly enough people realize that that's what we do when it comes to their education.

Are the Asians going to the wealthy schools?

In this case, they are going to he same schools as everyone else, kicking ass and taking names.

Then they are being punished for being the Chuck Norris of academics.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Though I disagree with this school's new policy, you obviously can't expect the average kid from a shit school system to perform as well as the average kid from a good school system. There's a reason parents try to get their kids into good schools, after all.

The black dude is right -- the problem is not this high school, but the system the kids are having to go through in order to get to high school.

And that is the biggest problem about America that nobody pays atention to -- the fact that poor kids go to shit schools and rich kids go to great schools. You can't expect people to get themselves out of poverty without a quality education.

When you do both -- when you keep poor, mainly black and Hispanic kids trapped in shit schools, and also oppose any form of affirmative action for them at the university or employment level -- you're essentially supporting black and Hispanic people being stuck in a cycle of poverty.

It's a crime that every American child isn't entitled to the same quality level of education.

If we were to serve rich kids the healthiest meals and poor kids fast-food garbage, there would be an outrage, but not nearly enough people realize that that's what we do when it comes to their education.

Are the Asians going to the wealthy schools?

In this case, they are going to he same schools as everyone else, kicking ass and taking names.

Then they are being punished for being the Chuck Norris of academics.  

Some are, some aren't. Not all Asian students are cracker jack; I don't know which high school you went to in Fort Worth, but at mine, there were plenty of Asian dumbasses.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:When anything is decided on race or religion it can backfire, though sometimes it can backfire anyway.

My son went to a local Protestant Church primary school, it turned out the highest grades in the area when the kids were ready to move on to secondary school at 11 years old. Obviously there were more applications than spaces.
In the early 80's we had an influx of Asian families move into the area, the school, though protestant,  welcomed Muslim children to attend, though why some of the parents chose a church school when they refused to allow their children to attend certain lessons, events, eat standard school dinners etc, was a mystery.

This school gave priority to siblings....Asian culture is to have larger families than whites (in general) before too long many local white families were not able to get their kids into this well respected church school.
The grades have plummeted over the last decades, it's now considered one of the lowest performing schools in the area.

And that was based on a form of nepotism, not merit.

Yeah, it had nothing to do with this thread really, it just reminded me of what happened here.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Are the Asians going to the wealthy schools?

In this case, they are going to he same schools as everyone else, kicking ass and taking names.

Then they are being punished for being the Chuck Norris of academics.  

Some are, some aren't. Not all Asian students are cracker jack; I don't know which high school you went to in Fort Worth, but at mine, there were plenty of Asian dumbasses.

Enough are, that they are being punished for being Asian.

What do you think this thread is about?

The student body at TJ is currently 73% Asian-American, 1% black, 3.3% Hispanic or Latino, 6% other, and 17.7% white. If, as County school officials indicated, the goal of the new policy is to get a student body that is "proportional" to Fairfax's population demographics, the biggest change would be an increase in the percentage of non-Hispanic whites from the current 17.7% to somewhere between 50 and 60%, though the percentage of blacks and Latinos would also increase. The plaintiffs' analysis estimates that the new admission system would, in fact, result in a student body that is roughly 31% Asian-American, 5% black, 8% Hispanic or Latino, 48% white, and 8% other.

Asian enrollment will drop 42% for no other reason than they outperform others in the district.

In fact, because Asian enrollment is so high because of their success, whites will take classroom seats from Asian kids, because they outperform white kids so much in that district.


All of this social engineering is a fucking mess. I'm sure it makes some people feel good. But it's at the expense of people who have fucking earned something through some damn hard work.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:It's called: "Framing the issue to reach your foreordained conclusion."

You have no answer? Out of ideas? Move on.

What is it called when someone is excluded because of race?

In this case, it's called 'you have no answer'. The south of the US performed a 400-year atrocity, and now they are wiggling and squirming to avoid the proper reckoning. What do you suggest? Once again...no answer?

Silence is not reckoning. We are heading into a violent civil war, which will leave the south with nothing but a burn scar. Do you see an endgame? Of course not. Nor do I...it's fantasy. It's only gonna get worse.

I have suggested the only peaceful solution for the south...Amexit. Accept it and you won't get hurt.