Chinese, Hindu, Jewish Groups File Brief Supporting TJ families

Editor’s note: This column was published June 21.by Asra Q. Nomani

Today, a diverse coalition of seven organizations representing parents and students from the Hindu, Jewish and Chinese communities, as well as others, filed an amicus brief — aptly named a brief by friends — supporting the families of Coalition for TJ as they fight to end the anti-Asian racism in Fairfax County Public Schools’ new admissions process to one of America’s top high schools, Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, or TJ.

In February, in a lawsuit, Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School Board, U.S. federal judge Claude Hilton ruled the new admissions policy is “patently unconstitutional” because it discriminates against Asian students in an obvious effort to increase the number of Black and Hispanic students at the school. The school board removed a race-blind, merit-based exam to the school in December 2020 and replaced it, in a “rushed” process, the judge ruled, with a subjective admissions process.

Fairfax County Public Schools, dubbed #UnFairfax by parents, is filing an appeal in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Pacific Legal Foundation, representing the Coalition for TJ, has filed its arguments why the ruling is correct. Oral arguments are expected in September. Fourth Circuit judges already indicated they are biased toward the school system, allowing them to continue the unconstitutional admissions process this past spring. If the Coalition for TJ loses the appeal, it will likely appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will next fall hear a similar case alleging anti-Asian bias by Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Why does all of this matter? This case raises questions about whether Asian families can expect equality under the law in America, as school systems pursue “equity” plans that discriminate against Asian students.

The amicus was filed by the Dhillon Law Group, led by attorney Harmeet Dhillon, whose family immigrated to the United States from India. Jewish groups signed onto the amicus brief because they are long familiar with targeted discrimination in education, barred for example from some Ivy League schools decades ago because admissions officers decided there were “too many Jews” on their campuses.

The groups that signed onto the amicus include:

  1. American Hindu Coalition is a national nonprofit organization that represents the many Hindus in the United States, many of them from India. It has a large Virginia chapter.
  2. Chinese American Citizens Alliance — Greater New York (CACAGNY) is a chapter of the Chinese American Citizens Alliance.
  3. Parent Leaders for Accelerated Curriculum and Education NYC (PLACE NYC) is an organization based in New York City, advocating for challenging and rigorous education for every public school student and access and opportunity for all students to achieve their full potential.
  4. Friends of Lowell Foundation is a San Francisco-based organization that represents alumni, parents, students and community members supporting Lowell High School, another leading U.S. high school where admissions was moved to an allegedly anti-Asian lottery system.
  5. No Left Turn in Education is a national nonprofit organization established in 2021 to revive objective thinking in education.
  6. Richmond Jewish Coalition is a Richmond, Va., organization of Jewish members promoting solutions grounded in America’s founding principles.
  7. United Against Antisemitism – NOVA.is an organization of Jewish members and their allies fighting antisemitism. It is committed to principles of liberalism, especially freedom of thought and conscience.

Please follow the Twitter accounts of the organizations and members who supported the amicus brief: @CoalitionForTJ, @PlaceNYC_org, @FriendsofLowell, @NoLeftTurnElana and American Hindu Coalition leader @Srilekha_Palle; PLACE leaders @Chien_Kwok, @ycinnewyork and @Queens_Parents; @DhillonLaw @pnjaban; and @PacificLegal, @ErinWilcoxPLF and others I will continue to add.

Gary Lawkowski is not only the attorney at the Dhillon Law Group who penned the amicus brief but he is also a Class of 2005 graduate of TJ. He says, “I worked on this brief because I do not believe it is appropriate to discriminate against students based on their race or ethnic background.”

He continues:

I am a Thomas Jefferson graduate, and I think some of the most important lessons I learned in TJ were not on the curriculum. Rather, they came from being in an environment that, in spite of some of the rhetoric today, is incredibly culturally diverse, where more is expected of you than in your base school, and where you have the opportunity to succeed or fail based on merit. The new admissions criteria move away from merit, which is bad policy, and do it by seeking to limit students opportunities based on race and ethnic background, which is illegal.

In New York City, Chien Kwok, a parent and cofounder of PLACE-NYC, says that the organization wants to make certain that families “defending meritocracy and fighting discrimination” across the country “know that they are not alone.” On June 17, families in New York City, for example, rallied in support of merit in admissions, opposing lottery admissions. Most of the families at the rally were Asian, with the lottery expected to lower the number of Asians admitted to top schools.

One student held up a sign that read, “I have a dream!”

Kwok, a parent and graduate of Brooklyn Technical High School, a leading public high school in New York, adds:

For PLACE NYC, we signed this amicus because we know that defending meritocracy and fighting discrimination is a shared cause across our country. The basis for the formation of PLACE is the notion that parents are not alone in believing in expanding access to rigorous accelerated education through merit-based admissions processes and opposing the minimizing Asian students just because they are the wrong racial minority group. Many families in NYC have found their voices amplified by PLACE’s advocacy work where they may not have the opportunity or want to risk their livelihoods for speaking out. By signing on the amicus brief, we want to, with our amicus partners, support the families of TJ and other schools across the country to let them know that they are not alone.

In a bold statement, the Chinese American Citizens Alliance Greater New York said:

The story is by now familiar. In 2020, the Fairfax County School Board decided that nationally acclaimed Thomas Jefferson High School (TJ) accepted ‘too many Asians’ with its meritocratic admissions process. To ‘solve’ this ‘Asian problem,’ the school board proposed a euphemistically named ‘merit lottery,’ but simulations showed that while Asian enrollment would plummet and both Black and Hispanic enrollments would rise, so would White enrollment – not the desired outcome. So the school board implemented instead a geographic quota on top of vaguely defined “holistic” criteria, which then delivered their desired racial outcome; Asian enrollment fell by more than 20%.

This is, clearly, engineering for racial balance, which is unconstitutional. The brave parents of TJ sued in 2021, and we support them with this amicus.

The Chinese American Citizens Alliance Greater New York notes in a statement:

The racial engineering at TJ is hardly unique. Also in 2021, Friends of Lowell Foundation –- a co-signer of this amicus brief — sued the San Francisco Unified School District for replacing meritocratic admissions at Lowell High School, the leading public magnet high school in San Francisco, by a euphemistically named ‘choice’ lottery — again, to ‘fix’ its own ‘too many Asians’ ‘problem.’ Significantly, it was admissions at Lowell that was the subject of Lee Cheng’s pioneering lawsuit in 1994, which resulted in Lowell backing down from its ‘diversity’ and ‘equity’ assault 27 years against meritocratic admissions.

Here in New York, in 2018, CACAGNY sued the City for “solving” its own “too many Asians” “problem” at the fabled Specialized High Schools by expanding vastly the historically limited, supplementary admissions pathway, known as the Discovery Program, at the expense of the main mechanism of the meritocratic admission test, and then jiggering the socio-economic qualifications for this secondary pathway so as to exclude the then-leading sources Asian students.

The San Francisco and CACAGY lawsuits are in litigation.

The Chinese American Citizens Alliance Greater New York adds:

These mechanisms, quite different from each other but all facially race-neutral, subtle in operation, and attractively packaged, show the considerable wile and determination educrats deploy as they systematically drive Asians out of meritocratic schools. Worse, these educrats are not beneath manipulating the dials in their mechanisms to either expand their effect when political winds are favorable, or pull back, to weather a temporary storm. The latter, called the “Harvard effect” because Harvard suddenly started admitting more Asians as Students for Fair Admissions launched its Asian discrimination lawsuit against Harvard, is also suspected at TJ and New York City’s Specialized High Schools. It is of utmost importance that the courts are wise to such subterfuge.

With parents and community members like this, school board members are not going to be able to continue their subterfuge without accountability.

We are on the job.

Asra Q. Nomani is a former Wall Street Journal reporter and cofounder of Coalition for TJ. She is a senior contributor to the Federalist and a senior fellow in the practice of journalism at Independent Women’s Forum. This column has been republished with permission from Asra Investigates.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

31 responses to “Chinese, Hindu, Jewish Groups File Brief Supporting TJ families”

  1. James McCarthy Avatar
    James McCarthy

    Well, that list of amici organizations leaves me breathless and feeling like a societal outsider. Of course, none of the amici listed have standing in the lawsuit but the amalgam makes for great media material. Nomani as she says is on the job.

    1. Standing is not required to file an amicus brief. The Court’s permission is/may be required according to its rules.

      1. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        None have standing on the merits. Yes, virtually anyone can file an amicus.

        1. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          Which goes against your comment, but that would require you to admit your own error. Which everyone knows won’t happen.

          PS:. Bar admission is public record.

      2. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        And, just saying now, the quickest way to said permission is either by standing, or reputation, lest the court be buried in paper such as is needed to print this article… and my comment. In short, “it helps”.

      3. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        And, just saying now, the quickest way to said permission is either by standing, or by reputation, lest the court be buried in paper such as is needed to print this article… and my comment. In short, “standing helps”.

    2. Matt Adams Avatar
      Matt Adams

      How does one claim to have been a lawyer, yet is unaware the requirements to make an amici brief?

      1. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        One is quite aware of the requirements set forth in Rule 37 of FRCP. No statement addressed that, only that amici do not have standing by definition of the term and jurisprudence. Under Constitution only cases and controversies may be heard in federal court which requires that the parties have standing to proceed. Amici do not have standing. No charge for the lesson. Important rule, never ask a question to which you do not know the answer. Or pose a question upon the misunderstanding of another’s statement.

        1. Jack Lucas Avatar
          Jack Lucas

          Mr. McCarthy, here is what I understand Rule 37 of the FRCP to cover: “Rule 37. Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions”. This is based on the reporting of several different law schools. My reading of Rule 37 did not find any indication that Rule 37 addresses amici briefs at all. What am I missing?

          1. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            TY. SCOTUS rules are 33.1, 34, and 37. FCRP 29 covers amicable briefs.

        2. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          “is an individual or organization who is not a party to a legal case, but who is permitted to assist a court by offering information, expertise, or insight that has a bearing on the issues in the case. The decision on whether to consider an amicus brief lies within the discretion of the court. ”

          Rule 37 of FRCP has nothing to do with an amicus breif, jimmy.

          “Failure of United States to Participate in Good Faith in Discovery”

          Edited, because I was being an ahole

          1. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Correction: FCRP 29 and SCOTUS rules 33.1, 34, and 37. You might want to study up on libel and slander.

          2. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Thanks for the correction.

        3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          “Or pose a question upon the intentional misunderstanding of another’s statement.”

          More accurate with that one word added.

  2. Carter Melton Avatar
    Carter Melton

    If there is an organization set up to help financially support this legal action, I will send a check if someone could give me the name, email address, mailing address, and the individual’s name in charge of the organization.

  3. Bubba1855 Avatar
    Bubba1855

    so sad…’diversity’ and ‘inclusion’ only seems to apply to people of color…all other minorities seem to be excluded.

    1. Teddy007 Avatar
      Teddy007

      Person of Color is one of the most worthless terms in politics. Who it is referring to has to be determined by context. I knew the term was worthless when a black female civil rights lawyer told a group I was in that there were not enough people of color in Silicon Valley. Many people quickly pointed out that Asians and Asian-Americans dominate in silicon valley. The black female got huffy and admitted that she was talk about blacks.

      1. killerhertz Avatar
        killerhertz

        Sounds a lot like the definition of gender. What is a woman eh?!

  4. Teddy007 Avatar
    Teddy007

    The problem with TJ is that the admission test is not made any more. Even if the courts settle the issue, it will take months to create a new admission test and that test will be subject to a round of lawsuits.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      If a school like TJ changes it’s admission standards to not be solely academic with no mention of race or ethnicity, is that “illegal’? Where does it say that it can only be on academic merit?

      1. Teddy007 Avatar
        Teddy007

        Under current guidance such as Fisher, Gratz, and Grutter, the state can claim a compelling interest in racial/ethnic diversity. However, there is nothing in the law that says that TJHSST has to be based 100% of merit. However, it is hard to have a STEM magnet school where all students are expected to master calculus, physics, chemistry, and statistics without making academic merit very important. Any school that lowers its admission standards quickly lowers its academic standards to match. If not, then minority students drop out at higher rates and have lower academic performance as shown by the study of overmatched students.

        On a side note, one of the problems with the entrace exam is that it covered topics not taught in middle school in Fairfax County. Getting admitted to TJ was dependent of parents being willing to fund tutoring/cram schools for their children. TJ also suffers from the problem of squatters who are families who move to Fairfax County when their child is in middle school to qualify to take the exam. Many Chinese parents lied about their children’s residence and age in hope of getting them into TJ.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          Many Colleges now admit on factors beyond pure STEM academics that can include other non-STEM things.

          Sports is an obvious example. But there fields like Music and Business, etc… I think the term is STEAM ?

          But your last paragraph is dead on correct and gets to the issue of which kids have parents who can afford the additional education that public schools may not offer – that clearly disadvantages kids of parents who do not have that income advantage.

          How would you fix that? Not 10-20-30 years from now but right now?

          1. Teddy007 Avatar
            Teddy007

            Actually one should look up the term “fire wall” used for college. Just because UT-Austin admits students using the top ten percent rule in Texas, that does not mean that students can major in what they want. There is a separate, more academic oriented admission process for the College of Engineering. the University of Michigan, Johns Hopkins, UC-Berkeley, Cal Poly and other use the same process. For kids in Texas, is one better off majoring in mass comm or sociology at UT-Austin or majoring in engineering or business at Texas Tech or Houston.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Would you have a link or links that lays out the UT approach?

          3. Teddy007 Avatar
            Teddy007

            https://cockrell.utexas.edu/admissions/undergraduate for UT
            https://www.engin.umich.edu/admissions-aid/undergraduate/ for michigan.

            I have noticed that many high school counsellors do not really understand the issue. There are also the schools that consider all students as undecided majors until they make certain grades in certain feeder classes. Once again, something that is not discussed with high schoolers very much.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Thanks. Did not see much about actual base academic or other requirements or considerations.

            I am familiar with the idea of required pre-requisites for acceptance into certain degree paths.

            Is that what you’re talking about?

            But at any rate – if TJ were to move to that kind of system – they would base admission on more core things and require /provide the “more” needed to proceed in the STEM disciplines?

          5. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            It used to be at the University of Virginia high school graduates could not apply directly to the highly regarded McIntyre School of Commerce. That school was only fo9r third and fourth year students (juniors and seniors). If you wanted to go to McIntyre you had to take pre-requisite courses your first and second years (freshman and sophomore) and apply to McIntyre as an undergraduate. Some years ago I was told that fewer than half of those who applied from within UVA were admitted to McIntyre.

          6. Teddy007 Avatar
            Teddy007

            According to the book “Parenting to a Degree” if one wants to be undergradudate in the College of Business at Indiana, one has to take certain classes in high school, make certain minimum grades, and have above certain SAT scores. The author was making the point that children from blue collar families where the parents had not gone to college did not stand a chance of getting in.

          7. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Many colleges will admit Freshmen but require remedial courses to get them to 100 level competence.

            This is especially true with freshmen admitted who play sports.

            If the kid has a normal IQ , resources can be brought to bear to get them to College level and then to graduation.

            UVA, in fact, has a graduation rate higher than a lot of comparable higher ed and yet it’s grads are considered exemplary.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2b6ea3b3be30615310ecf23901d436511565c99cc77e6b2141434d483ae5257f.jpg

        2. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          Many Colleges now admit on factors beyond pure STEM academics that can include other non-STEM things.

          Sports is an obvious example. But there fields like Music and Business, etc… I think the term is STEAM ?

          But your last paragraph is dead on correct and gets to the issue of which kids have parents who can afford the additional education that public schools may not offer – that clearly disadvantages kids of parents who do not have that income advantage.

          How would you fix that? Not 10-20-30 years from now but right now?

Leave a Reply