Everyone is given the same test for TJ and the admission policy to this point has been based on the test. Perfectly equal and race-blind.
What the race warriors want is to remove equal opportunity and replace it with a system of guaranteed outcomes in which their preferred numbers of each race make up the student body irrespective of intellectual merit. The biggest change between the current, fairly constructed student body and the numbers the CRT fanatics are imposing will be the replacement of hundreds of Asians who could pass the test cutoff with hundreds of whites who could not.
This race-driven, forcible redistribution of benefits from those who earned them to those who have the right skin color is known as “diversity.”
Oh well, more arguments from ignorance. As pointed before there is a lot of history being ignored to make your sorry arguments fly (not to mention that we are still waiting on what CRT academics are doing here, as pointed before, Affirmative action was a thing before CRT appeared)
It would be irrational to argue that targeted groups of historical and present discrimination should not be given an equal playing field. At this point, contenders should know that it’s not about fixing history or accommodating for a crutch: It’s about adjusting present injustices. But what’s difficult to grasp here is that Asian Americans ourselves have in fact gained advantages from affirmative action.
Today, you don’t hear about how affirmative action programs kickstarted the careers of Asian Americans forty years ago, when they were the underrepresented minority. You also don’t hear of the studies that attest to affirmative action’s abilities to lessen the harsh income gap between Asian-American ethnic communities. At the end of the day, contrary to my initial instincts, eliminating affirmative action won’t give a leg-up to Asian-American applicants. We stand to lose more from Edward Blum’s win.
Race-conscious admissions policies have been and are still necessary for all students of color, including Asian Americans, to combat long-ingrained inequities in higher education. Regardless of how the legal battle over affirmative action unfolds, institutions must be held accountable to ensure equitable access for all students of color.
The heterogeneity of the Asian American community and disparities in college access
The plaintiffs in the Harvard case invoke the “model minority myth,” which portrays all Asian Americans as highly successful, both academically and professionally, to advance and support their argument that Asian American students are hurt by race-conscious admissions. They argue that Asian Americans have stronger overall academic performances but are being rejected to maintain what they call “racial balancing”—artificially capping the number of Asian American students admitted, while admitting less qualified white, black and Latinx applicants. However, presenting the Asian American community as one homogenous group harms all Asian Americans—especially those who do not fit the model minority stereotype. High national attainment rates for Asian Americans as a single collective obscure very low college graduation rates and inequitable college access among certain Asian American ethnic subgroups. A 2014 report from the Center for American Progress and AAPI Data, for example, found that about half of Asian Americans hold a bachelor’s degree or higher. However, only 27 percent of Vietnamese Americans and 17 percent of Hmong and Cambodian Americans hold at least a bachelor’s degree.
These gaps emphasize the need to disaggregate data when considering this large, diverse group. More recent data also show that college attendance rates vary drastically among Asian ethnicities. While Asian Indian Americans, Mongolian Americans, and Taiwanese Americans attend college at a rate of approximately 85 percent each, Bhutanese Americans and Burmese Americans attend college at the lowest rates—15 percent and 34 percent, respectively. In California, which has banned race-conscious admissions policies, top public colleges show similar disparities in attendance among Asian American ethnic subgroups in the University of California system. A study from CARE found that at UCLA, Hmong and Bangladeshi student applicants were admitted at a rate of 13 percentage points and 10 percentage points, respectively, less than the overall average rate for all Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, while Taiwanese applicants were admitted at a rate of 8 percentage points higher than the combined average rate for Asian American and Pacific Islanders.*
These discrepancies are nothing new. A 2004 study found that Filipino Americans and Southeast Asian Americans represented only 19 percent and about 25 percent, respectively, of Asian Americans enrolled at highly selective institutions.** Chinese Americans and Korean Americans, on the other hand, enrolled at higher rates of 35 percent and 38 percent, respectively.
The truth about Asian Americans and affirmative action
Contrary to the model minority myth, many Asian Americans stand to benefit from affirmative action.
So who is “disaggregating data” or building the time machine to send the current Asians who are getting screwed by the race warriors back to this time 40 years ago when they “benefitted from affirmative aciton” in some never-specified way? The Virginia plan is simple - we’re going to take away what Asians have earned and give it to whites who didn’t earn it instead. I don’t see what’s being “disaggregated” under the plan or what the relevance of something that happened in 1975 is.
Is your argument really that because you can label a vast spectrum of practices in different times and places, some of which may never have actually existed, “affirmative action,” that therefore no one who belongs to the same race as another person who may have benefitted from “affirmative action” in other circumstances is permitted to object to racism now?
For example, the first 20 years of the existence of TJ, when it was majority-white and magically no one cared about how “non-diverse” it was and that the admissions test was not “holistic.” Once it became majority-Asian, suddenly “diversity” and how to achieve “diversity” (guaranteeing a return to majority-white status even if that means destroying the school) became a big concern.
Is that the kind of “history” you mean, or are you referring to the same totally unrelated editorials about Harvard that you keep spamming into this thread under the belief that they are factual information or relevant to the high school admissions test being discussed?
The point is not contradicted by you at all, it is clear that you ignored history to continue to make ignorant arguments.
As for your also sorry claim that I’m spamming irrelevant arguments from Harvard alumni, that is really a very asinine item from you when you ignore what was the race of the student making that cited argument.
A policy that (maybe) benefits a population at a university can also be detrimental to that population elsewhere. So what Harvard does or doesn’t do is irrelevant to a high school’s admission policies.
Early on that was clear, but there are some who are talking about that and what takes place in the school as a “cancer” **. Clearly they do see the issues as closely related. Even when one can make the case that the universities cases are not specifically related, (there were posters that opposed to what is going on in the school in Virginia the ones that obsessed on that item about the universities early on) it is clear that what the educated opinion of Asians, that belong to the educational institution in both cases, is being ignored.
Because that ignorance, and ignorance of history too, is crucial so as to allow them to continue to make very ridiculous arguments against diversity or AA.
.
.
** Just there one could had dropped out of the discussion as it clear that arguments like that are not good faith ones.
So long as “diversity” means racial balancing, outcome-engineering, quotas, the destruction of merit, antipathy to excellence, anti-immigrant tropes, and the nauseating alliance between white entitlement and critical race theory horseshit to negotiate huge unearned benefits for mediocre whites and small favors for blacks on the backs of the exploitation of Asians – all of which it in fact means in the case of the nationwide assault on test-based magnet school admission – then I will continue to maintain that it is a cancer on American values and our educational system and must be opposed. And in the case of TJ that is the only thing it means and the only thing you are defending.
Again - no one ever cared about TJ being non “diverse” when it was a majority-white school. No one has any plan to actually change the deplorable conditions that lead to black test-takers being unable to compete on the admissions exam. And in fact, even in the systems of random entry and quota that fanatical race warrior Atif Qarni is pushing, black representation at TJ will only go up a few percentage points. The only thing that has people up in arms is “too many Asians” and the only goal of the reform plans is to deny spots to Asians and redistribute them to make the school majority-white.
And no matter how many times the people in the state government making the decisions go on camera and say “the reason we are doing this is the school has too many Asians and we don’t like it,” “I hate the way Asian families value their kids’ education,” or other extremely clear and explicit statements about what is going on here, there will always be GIGObusters insisting that they have no idea why anyone thinks this is about Asians, that it’s just about “diversity” which has some other meaning outside of what the people pushing it keep saying it will mean, etc. You can’t prove anything to them because if they let reality in for one second they will be forced to admit to everything that is going on so it’s just an iron shell of irrelevant insults and pointless op/eds about other issues.
“Diversity” in Fairfax County means discriminating against Asian immigrants and giving things to white people who haven’t earned them. It’s interchangeable with “racism” or “white supremacy” and the fact that you think you are the “anti-racist” for supporting it speaks to nothing but how useless that term has become.
No it’s not. Their opinion is nob better than mine or yours. They are not presenting arguments, they are presenting their preferences and opinioins.
That is why I used the word “might” this is the subject of a lawsuit. I don’t know enough about the law to say for sure but the law itself seems to indicate that the schools must be for the gifted and the law defines gifted using a standardized test.
All in all, I am feeling better that racist policies like the one driving the TJHSST admissions revision will be exposed as unconstitutional by the supreme court. It’s amazing how hard it is for people to see the racism within their dogma.
And the best part is, given Virginia’s history, that the reason the law authorizing the governor’s school program included a requirement for objective admissions standards was because of a well-founded fear that “holistic” selection would be an excuse to segregate the schools and make magnets the newest version of a whites-only public school with the thinnest veneer of other motives. De facto desegregation in Virginia only came in after 1972 following 18 years of transparent attempts to maintain segregation under other names such as “pupil placement boards,” and TJ was established in 1985, so this was a big concern. That the law will ultimately be used to prevent exactly the racist behavior it was intended to prevent is fitting.
Uh, their opinion is better for being part of the universities or commissions that are involved in the decisions of the universities or the schools that we are talking about. What I notice is just an effort to deny that they are very relevant reports as they are coming from people with direct experiences on the issue.
The last one refers to a California district, that while it is true that California an the whole did not vote to reverse the restrictions against AA, it is more evidence that the ones that reported that the proposition in California was confusing were correct. Most people when explained about, do agree with more diversity in schools.
Was “diverse” defined as “containing as many white people as possible even if overtly racist means must be used to achieve that end?” Since that’s what it means in discussions of the TJ admissions policy, comparing those polls to the TJ situation, for whatever value a poll has in this situation normally, is quite misleading.
And honestly that seems to be the theme here - “diversity” is so good that it not only justifies overt racial discrimination, but it justifies anything at all that anyone deems “diversity” even if they are using the word in a wildly nonstandard way.
“Affirmative action” is legal in some contexts and benefitted (some unspecified subgroup of) Asians in some (never specified) way in 1975, therefore anything at all that anyone deems “affirmative action” is justified even if what they use “affirmative action” to mean has no resemblance to whatever policy from 1975 is being discussed, or to policies that the Supreme Court has deemed acceptable.
Even if the only person who uses “diversity” and “affirmative action” to mean “the policy of discriminating in favor of white people at Thomas Jefferson High School” is one poster on a message board, diversity and affirmative action are so important that this usage alone means they override all other concerns!
I understand the rationale behind putting asians with whites when you are trying to look at who needs help.
The problem is trying to characterize this gap as the result of racial dynamics. The subext here is that racism is responsible for the disparity. A form of racism that affects all minorities except asians. If you are treating asians differently because they they are working harder, and achieing more success is bad enough. Attributing that success to some for of racism working in their favor is utter bullshit.
You realize that these articles don’t actually say anything worth saying, right?
