Federal Court Strikes Down Racial Balancing Policy Resulting in Discrimination Against Asian Applicants at Prominent Virginia Public School

The new admissions policy at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology did not explicitly discriminate based on race. But the court found it was intended to reduce the number of Asian students admitted, in order to increase the percentage of students from other groups.

The Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology. Fairfax, Virginia.

 

Yesterday, in Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School Board, a federal district court ruled that a new admissions policy at the Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, in Fairfax, Virginia is unconstitutional, because it discriminates against Asian-American applicants. Thomas Jefferson (known as "TJ") is one of the nation's most prestigious selective public schools. While the new policy does not explicitly discriminate on the basis of race, federal district court Judge Claude Hilton found that the evidence shows it was motivated by a desire on the part of Fairfax County school officials to reduce the percentage of Asian-American students in order to make the student body more demographically representative of the county population.

As I have explained in previous writings about this case (see here, here, and here), the issue arises from longstanding Supreme Court precedent holding that a facially neutral policy can qualify as unconstitutional racial discrimination if there is evidence that favoring some racial groups at the expense of others was part of the government's motive, and the defendants cannot prove they would have enacted the policy even in the absence of those discriminatory motivations. That is exactly what happened here. The Washington Post has a helpful summary of the ruling:

A federal judge ruled Friday that a new admissions system for Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, a prestigious magnet program in Fairfax, discriminates against Asian American applicants and must end

U.S. District Judge Claude Hilton concluded that an effort to boost African American and Latino representation at TJ, as the school is known, constitutes an illegal act of "racial balancing…"

Hilton wrote that "emails and text messages between Board members and high-ranking FCPS officials leave no material dispute that, at least in part, the purpose of the Board's admissions overhaul was to change the racial makeup to TJ to the detriment of Asian-Americans…."

In 2021, the first year the admissions changes took effect, officials at TJ enrolled the most diverse class in recent memory. The TJ Class of 2025 includes far more Black, Hispanic and low-income students than any class in recent memory. But Asian American representation dropped from roughly 70 percent to around 50 percent of the class.

The changes were controversial from the start; they inspired two swift lawsuits…..

 

[Judge Hilton] wrote that throughout the revision process, Fairfax school board members and the superintendent made clear that their goal was "to have TJ reflect the demographics of the surrounding area, described primarily in racial terms." Hilton wrote that this aim amounts to "racial balancing for its own sake," and as such is "patently unconstitutional."

He pointed to text messages and emails exchanged between school board members and some of the highest-ranking school officials in the Fairfax district. These communications, he wrote, prove that the school system's goal was always to decrease the percentage of Asian American students enrolled at TJ — to increase the number of Black and Hispanic students.

"The discussion of TJ admissions was infected with talk of racial balancing from its inception," Hilton wrote.

As the court explains, the new admissions policy ensured that most admissions slots were allocated by a system that limited the number of students admitted from any given middle school, thereby reducing the number of people who could be admitted from schools with relatively large Asian-American populations. Judge Hilton also went over the extensive evidence indicating that "racial balancing" was the most significant motive underlying the new policy.

He does not, however, mention evidence that some decision-makers were also motivated by bias against Asian-American students, such as claims that having too many of them would damage TJ's  "culture," negative stereotypes about Asian-American parents and students, and state legislator Mark Keam's fulminations about the "unethical ways" Asian-American parents "push their kids into [TJ]," when those parents are "not even going to stay in America," but instead are "using [TJ] to get into Ivy League schools and then go back to their home country." Keam's sentiments are relevant because, as Judge Hilton found, Fairfax County school officials were influenced in part by pressure from the state government.

Since the Coalition for TJ case began, the Supreme Court decided to hear two cases challenging racial preferences in higher education. One of them - a lawsuit against Harvard University - involves discrimination against Asian-Americans, much like the TJ case does. I wrote about these cases in articles published by the Boston Globe and NBC.

But the TJ case addresses a number of issues that are distinct from those in the new Supreme Court cases. One is that the admissions policy in the TJ litigation doesn't explicitly discriminate on the basis of race, but is a facially neutral program motivated by racial considerations. While such pretextual discrimination cases have a long history, this would be the first ruling of this kind against a policy intended to promote affirmative action or racial balancing. Another distinction is that this case involves K-12 education, rather than university admissions.

If, as many observers expect, the Supreme Court rules against Harvard's policy, university and public school officials might seek out less explicit ways to reduce the number of Asian-American students in order to promote what they regard as the proper representation of other racial and ethnic groups. The TJ case could set an important precedent about how courts should deal with such policies.

At least for the moment, TJ's new admissions policy has been invalidated. Judge Hilton's ruling is a decision on summary judgment, meaning that the facts are so clearly in the plaintiffs' favor, that no trial was necessary.

But the Fairfax County School Board is likely to appeal the decision to the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The case could even eventually end up in the Supreme Court.

NOTE: My wife, Alison Somin is one of the Pacific Legal Foundation public interest lawyers representing the plaintiffs in the TJ case. As links in one of my previous posts about this case demonstrate, I have been writing about these sorts of issues since long before Alison began working at PLF, and my views are much the same as they were before she did so.

Comments

[Darth Chocolate]

Why is it that the folks who preach non-discrimination are the most discriminating?

They seem to be the quickest to accuse others of what they do themselves.

[Lee Moore]

Discriminating against Asians is not discrimination !

When will you people learn ? Only racism directed against African Americans is racism. Racism directed against Native Americans is racism-adjacent but not actual racism unless perpetrated by a Republican, and racism against Hispanics is only racism contingently - doesn't count if you're a "White" Hispanic. Racism directed against Jews is only racism if it took place before 1946 in Europe.

[DaivdBehar]

Africans outperform whites. They are top performers and are the new Koreans. They come from intact, patriarchal families. They are Christian. They love America. They are more likely to vote for the Republican Party.

Zero tolerance of woke. All woke judges and legislators get an asskicking.

[MatthewSlyfield]

It's called projection...

[Queen Amalthea]

I think they're probably concerned about under-representation. Not having to or ever listen(ed) to them that likely didn't occur to you.

[SimonP]

There are basically two sides to this:

One side openly acknowledges the existence of racial disparities in success, wealth, etc., in American society. But they don't think this is a problem, or something that we can or should do anything about. In fact, they want to make it illegal to even consider these racial disparities when crafting public policy. Persistent gaps in achievement are just to be this mysterious phenomenon we can't acknowledge or do anything about, officially.

The other side wants to do something about these disparities. But, logically, we can't do anything about apparent racial disparities without acknowledging that race is part of the equation. So they try to shape approaches to public policy that do so.

And those in the former camp insist on calling those in the latter "the real racists."

[Dilan Esper]

That's certainly the story that is told, but there is more to it than that.

Essentially, the programs that actually exist depart from that vision in a couple of ways: (1) people who run these schools hold stereotypes about and prejudices against Asians and desires that the institutions don't become "too Asian"; and (2) in the case of elite institutions, there is a desire to maximize donations by letting in people whose families may or will donate, which usually means rich white people.

So the result is that the affirmative action slots, which should come out of the pool of rich white males (the most privileged group), instead get mostly taken out of Asian applicants, even though Asians are a historically oppressed racial group as well.

[Absaroka]

"...which usually means rich white people."

Taking the long view, today's high achieving Asian-American student is likely to become tomorrow's anesthesiologist or software innovator, and so will be able to make donations so their kids become legacy admits :-). If I wanted to ruthlessly maximize my schools future donations, I'd want to admit ... the most qualified students, regardless of ethnicity.

(I'm not disagreeing with your point ...admins might not take the long view)

[Toranth]

You beat the strawman pretty fiercely - did you make sure it wasn't BIPOC before you did that, or was it a hate crime?

You can spin it the other way, too:
One group thinks individuals should be given equal opportunities to succeed, regardless of race, and acts to prevent bias and prejudice from interfering with those opportunities.
The other group thinks minorities are too pathetic to succeed on their own, and thinks it is part of the White Man's Burden to help those poor pitiful failures by assigning them the trappings of success even without the substance of it.

That's about as accurate as your description - do you embrace it, or do you want to try again?

[Allutz]

"Persistent gaps in achievement are just to be this mysterious phenomenon we can't acknowledge or do anything about, officially."

Actually, its not that mysterious, its almost certainly caused by persistent gaps in adult IQ.

[John F. Carr]

In the other direction, Boston's admissions policy change to cut down on Asian overachievers was ruled legal because it did not explicitly discriminate based on race. The city won in part because "racially charged" communications from school board members were illegally withheld from challengers. That evidence would have suggested an illegal motive.

[Lee Moore]

If and when these administrators become more careful with their texts and emails, it'll just come down to judge selection. Drawing an 80 year old judge called Claude is not going to help you sell rebadged diversity schemes. But many judges will affect not to see the scheme and will OK it.

On current form liberal Appeals Courts will overrule any errant Claudes, but SCOTUS will run and hide in the corner.

[Dilan Esper]

There was a Janice Rogers Brown opinion on Prop. 209 in the California Supreme Court that I think reflects where a lot of conservative judges want to take the law on this. And I suspect that with a 6-3 conservative SCOTUS majority, that's where we are going to end up.

And under then-Justice Brown's analysis, you have to be pretty scrupulously race neutral, just like institutions have to have been scrupulously race neutral when facing a traditional civil rights lawsuit from a Black plaintiff. Rewriting the rules in an attempt to reduce the number of Asians is going to be tough to do; class-based affirmative action that tends to benefit lower income Blacks and Hispanics will be upheld, though. That isn't, of course, what they want to do, because many of these institutions want wealthy families to donate.

[David Nieporent]

While I agree with what you've written in this thread, I should note that it doesn't really apply to this case, which is about a high school. It's not about donations.

[Cal Cetín]

"a lawsuit against Harvard University"

"How could the Supreme Court strike down a Harvard policy?

"My good man, Harvard sets the standard for the country, the country doesn't set the standard for Harvard.

"We don't tell you how to run your tractor pulls, don't tell us how to run our university or our country."

[Illocust]

There is some hope then.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Judge Hilton's ruling is a decision on summary judgment, meaning that the facts are so clearly in the plaintiffs' favor, that no trial was necessary.

Wow. It is beyond travesty to have a summary judgment asserted explicitly on the basis of Asian-American ethnicity, which forbids in its text the assertion of any other racial or ethnic basis for policy.

This decision purports to rely on evidence culled from statements made by people who supported this controversial scheme for distributing much-sought-after admissions slots. How does that avoid becoming an actual judicial ruling against speech, putting off limits certain speech content, suppressing policy advocacy on behalf of racial and ethnic interests?

Will there come a time when judges making this kind of policy attack against affirmative action for blacks—we must call it what it is, court-decreed policy against blacks—will be forced to explain on what basis they make such policy decisions—or where the authority to do it comes from? Can there be any doubt a tacit premise of mandatory meritocracy—undefined by the judge, given this OP—was taken as basis for this decision?

Well, yes, there can be doubt. It could be that a policy of white supremacy is being asserted, targeting blacks, while abusing Asian-American ethnicity as a stalking horse. But for the sake of charity and innocence, dismiss that latter possibility, and consider only the former, the meritocracy. Without resort to some tacit assertion of superior merit, can it be possible to conclude that an ethnic group already represented far beyond its statistical prevalence, is somehow a victim of other ethnicities whose members are represented below their own prevalence? It must be the superior merit of the former which makes that happen, right?

So where do we look to find written this nation's policy of mandatory meritocracy? How can we discover on what basis some kinds of attributes contribute to measurable meritoriousness, while other kinds of attributes escape consideration altogether? Speaking strictly legally, what measurable thresholds of meritoriousness on this axis overcome measurable thresholds on some other axes, to deliver the golden standard of superior merit? Who decided those legal standards, when and where? Surely the proponents of this decision must presume that however privately those calculations were made, they were made according to legitimate standards, just standards, and with exacting accuracy. But on what basis?

Please, before answering with re-assertion of this judge's manifestly paradoxical reliance on a notion that distribution of public benefits cannot be organized according to considerations of race, at least notice that you must have some evidence in hand that that is what actually happened. Not that someone might have had some other motive—whether a judicially proscribed motive or otherwise—but whether it happened in fact. Except for resort to a presumed standard of meritocracy, where would you find evidence to make that case?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Goddamn you’re flailing. How did the administrators who spoke get punished relative to the 1st Amendment? A decision in favor of Asians is white supremacy? What fresh bullshit is this?

To you, racism is good. As long as it’s against Asians. Or, presumably, whites or Hispanics. Who’s the fuckin’ racist here?

[Michael P]

If the authors of some policy feel compelled to write into the policy that it's not intended to impose racial or ethnic discrimination, maybe that's because it pretty obviously is, and they're just trying to hide that.

Statements by a party are used as evidence of intent all the time. That doesn't infringe their speech rights. People can say those things, unless they fall into one of the exemptions to First Amendment protections and are illegal for some specific reason. But they are liable when they break laws, or violate the state or national constitution, through their conduct.

[David Nieporent]

Lathrop is attempting to make Behar look coherent.

Why he is unable to understand the concept of non-discrimination, despite having it explained to him repeatedly, is left as an exercise for the reader.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Does this nation have an official policy of meritocracy, Nieporent? If not, please explain what evidence shows discrimination in this case.

On what basis except meritocracy do you argue? How do you derive the notion that statistical over-representation of one ethnic group is insufficient, because that group deserves yet more? How do you even start to do that without a group-conscious evaluation, of the sort this case hypocritically practices, while pretending to deplore?

Where in your mind is the notion of, "deserves," getting evaluated? What basis in law is there for how your evaluation works? I get that you think as a matter of ideology that the question of who deserves what in society should be decided on an individual basis only—not be decided by politics—and never decided on the basis of any consideration involving groups, or history, or past discrimination, or enduring effects of past policies of discrimination, or even past policies of genocide.

What law says it has to be done your way? The best you can argue is that a policy made up by a Supreme Court majority says that, or might say that if only it were tweaked a bit more. Never mind that not even a Supreme Court majority is empowered as a policy maker, and should not be practicing anyone's political ideology.

Also, screw everyone who insists that these "abused-Asians," cases are anything but attempts to end affirmative action for blacks. This case is anti-black racism, pure and simple. Everyone knows it. Would-be racists deny it.

This case, like the Harvard case, is an effort to give the Supreme Court a chance to strike down affirmative action for blacks. That is what makes these cases popular among racists. They hate affirmative action for blacks. Only that stark light is suitable to show those harsh facts as clearly as they ought to be seen.

It is disturbing to see advocacy which comes cloaked in ethnic-conscious demands, but professes to advocate against every policy of ethnic or racial consideration. It is almost satirical, like Stephen Colbert, who doesn't see race. Who does not understand already that it is unwise to insist anyone can live a color-blind life in a colorful nation?

What Martin Luther King's famous remark about character shows us, is that however aspirational it may be, that color-blind notion has a long-standing history in this nation. It has been far more a history of oppression delivered, and aspirations delayed, than it has been a history of aspirations realized.

Nieporent, why not join with people who do focus forthrightly on group outcomes, and try to figure out what policies might work better to govern them? There is urgent need for harsh critics of affirmative action policies. I would prefer that they be much more tightly managed, and sharply restricted. You and I might have a lot in common. But not if you indulge your habit to insist that ideological priors ought to become the sum and substance of policy.

Ideology may seem to you a meritorious argument, but the U.S. is not a meritocracy, and never has been. In the U.S., merit has always had to take the back seat, and let pragmatism do the driving. That is the nature of this nation's political system of government. In the long run, it will not make an exception for you, or for the Supreme Court either.

[Michael P]

The same school board tried a more explicitly racist policy before, and it was struck down by a court for that reason. You claim to have read the court's ruling here -- you know what the school board members said, and what their objectives were.

The policy is not explicitly racist, but it has racially or ethnically disproportionate effects, and it was intended to have those effects. You, and segregationists, think the first part excuses the implementation of such a policy. It does not.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Michael P, you have understated my position. My position on affirmative action is that in principle it is entirely justified as policy. In that respect, there is no legitimate basis for the judicial system to outlaw it.

My position is also that AA is very strong, dangerous medicine, and ought to be managed accordingly, greatly restricted in its application, and governed strictly, to minimize harms to everyone it has potential to harm. I insist, however, that all of that is a subject for politics and policy, and only very seldom a subject for law, and then only with regard to particular facts in particular cases.

More specifically, I do not think affirmative action is justifiable policy except in the cases of black descendants of American slaves who are demonstrably not prosperous. And likewise, in the cases of Native Americans. At this point, it seems to me that only those two groups should enjoy colorable claims.

The rest of the nation's population, and their ancestors, may have experienced all kinds of social disadvantages, including widespread discrimination, but nothing typically similar in severity or kind to the experiences of blacks and Native Americans. Centuries of chattel slavery, followed by almost another century of state-sponsored Jim Crow, are far worse than even decades of employment prejudice against Hispanics, or people of Asian descent, or others. Even internment of Japanese Americans during WW II is not remotely comparable.

What was comparable, and maybe worse, were genocidal polices targeting Native Americas, likewise for centuries. On the basis of history, and on the basis of abiding effects, black descendants of slaves and Native Americans form a unique class, unlike any other claimants.

Less-advantaged members of those two groups, and those two groups only, may still be in need of further politically mediated ameliorations. That is something this nation has shown itself capable of implementing politically, albeit carelessly, and at unacceptable cost in collateral damage. It could be done better, and it should be. But those are political questions. For obvious reasons, no improvements of that sort can be ordered judicially.

[Michael P]

If I mis-stated your position, why not point out how I did so? You posted a ramble about affirmative action. Yet the policy that was struck down here was not affirmative action -- it was a strict quota system, albeit based on geography rather than directly on race.

Do you live here in Fairfax County? If not, residential areas are very strongly correlated with race and ethnicity. In particular, people of Asian descent tend to cluster much more within Fairfax County than other demographic groups. The biggest beneficiaries of this policy were not Black or even Hispanic, but the plurality of White students in the county school system.

[David Nieporent]

Fun fact: the word "meritocracy" appears not once in the court's opinion. This is your strawman.

Repeat after me: Non. Discrimination. For some reason you seem unable to grasp that this is both legally and constitutionally required. For some reason you don't even seem to be able to grasp what it constitutes: making decisions (admissions, hiring, promotions, etc., depending on the context) without race as a factor. That is what people "deserve."

The "basis in law" for that is the 14th amendment (if we're discussing state action) or the reverse-incorporated equal protection provisions of the 5th amendment (for federal action) and/or the Civil Rights Act (if we're discussing covered state or private action). The Supreme Court has carved out, for policy reasons, two limited exceptions to that requirement: (1) remedying past discrimination by the actor in question; and (2) in the case of higher education, "diversity."

I get that, like Brett Bellmore, you have your own ideas for what the constitution says, but It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, you ignore so much of my argument that you do not deserve a detailed reply. Sure, I get that anti-discrimination law is what the Court says it is. You seem to get that I insist what the Court says should be otherwise. If you want to engage me, there is no point in just restating what I have already argued against. Address my arguments, or save yourself the trouble.

[David Nieporent]

Lathrop, I'm not sure whether this lalalalalaican'thearyou is better or worse than your usual tactic of running and hiding when your arguments are refuted.

I "ignored" none of your argument. I addressed and refuted it. You keep talking about a "meritocracy" irrelevancy, while ignoring the issue of racial discrimination. You keep talking about "policy" while ignoring the fact that nobody has the policy discretion to disregard the constitution.

[Damuri]

You write fucking walls of text that all come down to justifying discrimination based on race because you want specific results.

The way arguments work is that if someone eliminates one of the foundations of your argument, they don't have to address the turrets and spires for your argument to fall.

[DaveM]

"So where do we look to find written this nation's policy of mandatory meritocracy?"

You're asking the wrong question, I think. The correct question is not where is meritocracy required, but where is racism forbidden?

[Dilan Esper]

This decision purports to rely on evidence culled from statements made by people who supported this controversial scheme for distributing much-sought-after admissions slots. How does that avoid becoming an actual judicial ruling against speech, putting off limits certain speech content, suppressing policy advocacy on behalf of racial and ethnic interests?

It's 100% established in civil rights law that if you make a bunch of disparaging statements about people of a certain race, that's going to come into evidence in the discrimination suit.

And I doubt you fail to understand this. Let's say a Fire Department has never hired a Black firefighter. A qualified applicant who was rejected sues the fire department, and e-mails are discovered where the Fire Chief is disparaging Blacks in a discussion with his HR manager. Do you really think those don't come into evidence?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Esper, your analogy is inapt. This is not a fire department which never hired a black fire fighter. This is—for the sake of your analogy—a fire department with mostly black fire fighters—fire fighters in fact over-represented compared to the their prevalence in the population.

One point here has been that before allegedly prejudicial remarks get consideration, you ought to have to show some kind of colorably prejudicial result to talk about. If the "minority" allegedly discriminated against is not only present, but over-represented statistically, it is stupid to say, "Look at all the prejudice." And especially stupid while statistical indicators compared to prevalence indicate that the lost opportunities are being inflicted on a different minority.

If you are forthright, I think you will acknowledge that the real basis of this lawsuit is a claim of superior merit among some Asian Americans who were rejected, compared to comparably measured lesser merit among other students who were accepted. If you acknowledge that, then I again challenge you to say on what legal basis a court can command meritocracy. If you do not acknowledge that, then I cannot agree that you are forthright.

[David Nieporent]

If you are forthright, I think you will acknowledge that the real basis of this lawsuit is a claim of superior merit among some Asian Americans who were rejected, compared to comparably measured lesser merit among other students who were accepted.

If you are intelligent, I think you will understand that this is completely wrong.

(You will not understand that this is completely wrong.)

If you acknowledge that, then I again challenge you to say on what legal basis a court can command meritocracy.

The court did not command meritocracy. It commanded non-discrimination.

[VinniUSMC]

Esper, your analogy is inapt.

SL, you are inept. And, thankfully, irrelevant.

[Queen Amalthea]

Republican judge, amirite usual suspects?

[Sarcastr0]

Sure, but this strikes me as a pretty stark case: evidence that some decision-makers were also motivated by bias against Asian-American students, such as claims that having too many of them would damage TJ's "culture," negative stereotypes about Asian-American parents and students

You just can't do this.

[Dilan Esper]

Obviously there are mixed motives for affirmative action programs in academia, and nobody should deny that schools have a sincere desire to admit people who historically were denied opportunities, and that this is part of what motivates these programs.

But there are absolutely any number of people in academia who have expressed, at one time or another, stereotypical and prejudiced views about Asian people and concerns that if "too many Asians" are let in, it would change the culture of the school, make things more "nerdy" and studious and less fun, and upset rich white parents whose offspring would have to compete with Asian students scholastically. These views are COMMON in academia. And they tend to come out in these sorts of lawsuits.

[David Nieporent]

And it should be noted that those are find-and-replace arguments; they used to be made word-for-word about Jews.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, Jews have been horrifically persecuted world-wide.

That has not been their experience in the United States. Among immigrants to the United States, including Germans, Irish, Czechs, Asians, Hispanics, Italians, Poles, and many others, Jews have been variously persecuted. All those historical persecutions—sometimes even sharp and deadly persecutions—have ameliorated over time, no doubt without completely going away. So resentments linger, including some justifiable resentments.

None of those historical experiences of various groups can justifiably be compared to the persecutions of black slaves and their descendants, or to persecutions against Native Americans amounting to actual policies of genocide. To suggest any such comparison is outrageous.

[David Nieporent]

Thanks for goysplaining that, but it's irrelevant to the discussion.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, do you count yourself among those advocating against taking account of race or ethnicity?

[David Nieporent]

What do my personal views have to do with the legal issue?

[SimonP]

Since the facially neutral policy adopted in this case seems to be similar to the kind of facially-neutral policy the Court has endorsed, as a way of achieving greater racial diversity without discriminating on the basis of race, this decision seems to come awfully close to saying that racial diversity is just not something we can really seek to achieve by any means whatsoever.

This seems like a really, up-is-down kind of way of interpreting and applying the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause.

[David Nieporent]

Since the facially neutral policy adopted in this case seems to be similar to the kind of facially-neutral policy the Court has endorsed, as a way of achieving greater racial diversity without discriminating on the basis of race,

The Court has only endorsed those arguments/policies in the context of higher education — not for K-12 schools.

Moreover, even in the context of higher education, the Court has required that diversity — not crude racial balancing — be the goal. Here, the evidence was that the board's decision was based on the latter objective.

[Sarcastr0]

From the evidence before the Court, this does not seem to be a merely disparate impact case.

[Stephen Lathrop]

From the evidence before the Court, this does not seem to be a merely disparate impact case.

It better not be. Among Asian Americans, there is no disparate impact to be seen. On the basis of the statistical evidence, they have instead been disparately advantaged.

This case is instead a tale of superior merit abused and slighted. On what legal basis can a court command meritocracy? If there is such a basis, is it up to the court, the political process, or some other law giver, to decide what constitutes merit?

[Stephen Lathrop]

That should have read, "Among the Asian Americans in this case, etc."

[David Nieporent]

The court did not command meritocracy. The. Court. Did. Not. Command. Meritocracy.

[VinniUSMC]

SL wouldn't know merit if it jumped up and bit him.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, the court decided the case on the basis of a tacit presumption of meritocracy transgressed. There is no other evidence of discriminatory effect in sight, and no other way to suggest discrimination even happened.

Asian-American students were represented among admitted students at more than twice their prevalence in the county population. If that is evidence of discriminatory effect, it is evidence that students other than Asian-Americans suffered the discrimination.

You seem to feel a personal stake in denial on this one, Nieporent. There are a lot of others like you. For those who presume they have been found meritorious, meritocracy feels so comfortable that they conclude it ought to be a legal principle, and probably already is. You are not the only one here ignoring my points, and dodging my questions—would-be legal meritocrats all of you.

In this case, Nieporent—absent a presumption of meritocracy libertarian ideology presumes ought to be applied universally—there is no case for the plaintiffs. For them, there is only overwhelming evidence of disproof for adverse discriminatory effect.

However, you can get to the court's result with a presumption of meritocracy—and only with a presumption of meritocracy. That is the route you want to take. But it leaves you stuck to justify a legal requirement for meritocracy. When called upon to think about it, you realize no such legal requirement exists. So you ignore my argument that presumed meritocracy decided the case, except to deny it without explanation.

Why are you so heavily invested in a hopeless argument you cannot even explain? Go ahead and try. Explain one convincing piece of evidence to show Asian-American plaintiffs suffered any adverse effect. Like, for instance, a decline in previously still-higher admissions rates. Just show us all, without reference to superior merit, why Asian-Americans were entitled to those.

[David Nieporent]

Nieporent, the court decided the case on the basis of a tacit presumption of meritocracy transgressed. There is no other evidence of discriminatory effect in sight, and no other way to suggest discrimination even happened.

Why are you commenting on the notions in your head rather than the actual court case that is the topic of this post? You don't even need to read the court's opinion or the pleadings (though it would help); the relevant section is quoted above:

"emails and text messages between Board members and high-ranking FCPS officials leave no material dispute that, at least in part, the purpose of the Board's admissions overhaul was to change the racial makeup to TJ to the detriment of Asian-Americans"

Asian-American students were represented among admitted students at more than twice their prevalence in the county population.

Why does that bother you so much? What do you have against Asian-Americans?

In this case, Nieporent—absent a presumption of meritocracy libertarian ideology presumes ought to be applied universally—there is no case for the plaintiffs.

"emails and text messages between Board members and high-ranking FCPS officials leave no material dispute that, at least in part, the purpose of the Board's admissions overhaul was to change the racial makeup to TJ to the detriment of Asian-Americans"

However, you can get to the court's result with a presumption of meritocracy—and only with a presumption of meritocracy. That is the route you want to take. But it leaves you stuck to justify a legal requirement for meritocracy. When called upon to think about it, you realize no such legal requirement exists. So you ignore my argument that presumed meritocracy decided the case, except to deny it without explanation.

Here's the explanation you keep being unable to see: "emails and text messages between Board members and high-ranking FCPS officials leave no material dispute that, at least in part, the purpose of the Board's admissions overhaul was to change the racial makeup to TJ to the detriment of Asian-Americans"

[John Rohan]

I agree with the ruling, but it's sad that courts are less timid about stopping this kind of racism when the victims are Asian students, than they are when white people are the victims.

[Ed Grinberg]

All animals are equal, but white animals are less equal than others.

[Damuri]

I think there is a difference between making a diversity argument that relies on white supremacy where the overrepresented group is white and making a diversity argument that relies on white supremacy where the overrepresented group is asian.

Without the white supremacy angle, what justification could you concoct to justify race based remedies? I mean without white supremacy, who the hell is holding the under-represented minorities back?