DOJ opens civil rights probe into Virginia high school's admissions policies
The Justice Department has opened a civil rights investigation into Fairfax County Public Schools in Virginia over the use of race in admissions to its top-ranked Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology.
Last year, the US Supreme Court declined to hear arguments over the same allegations, but this investigation signals that the Trump administration will use the civil rights division to challenge affirmative action policies – a longtime hot-button issue for conservatives who claim that such admissions policies focus more on race than they do academic achievement.
The investigation follows a referral from the state attorney general who announced Wednesday that his office had found reasonable cause to believe the district and the school discriminated against Asian American students on the basis of race. In a letter Wednesday, DOJ Civil Rights Division Chief, Harmeet Dhillon, confirmed her office will review the matter.
The Supreme Court has weighed in on the issue of affirmative action before. In 2023, the high court threw out policies used by Harvard and the University of North Carolina that considered race in its admissions decisions. Their decision pushed schools to experiment with 'race neutral' policies – such as those based on geography – to promote diversity.
The controversy at Thomas Jefferson High School in the Washington, DC, suburbs arose from a policy, which sought 'to mitigate socioeconomic obstacles faced by students of all races' by admitting students from every middle school in the county, CNN has reported
A group of parents in Fairfax County sued the school board in 2021, alleging that the new policy sought to balance the student body's racial makeup by 'excluding Asian Americans,' who had comprised 70% of enrollment before the changes.
A federal judge in 2022 ordered the school to stop using the new admissions policy, ruling that it was 'racially discriminatory,' but a panel of appeals court judges later reversed, saying that the policy did not disparately impact Asian American students and that the challengers didn't establish that it was adopted with discriminatory intent.
Asra Nomani, a former Thomas Jefferson High School parent who has been actively involved in the litigation, told CNN that she is 'elated' by news of the investigation. 'I have always believed this was not an issue of parental advocacy, but of civil rights…this great day for efforts to win merit in America.'
In a statement, the Fairfax County Public Schools responded: 'This matter has already been fully litigated. A federal appellate court determined there was no merit to arguments that the admissions policy for Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology discriminates against any group of students. Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) division leadership and counsel are currently reviewing the documents released today by the Attorney General and will issue a more detailed response in the coming days. FCPS remains committed to providing a world class education for all of our students.'
The Supreme Court also declined to hear similar challenges, including one accusing three elite Boston public schools with violated the Constitution by using a zip-code based admissions policy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
7 minutes ago
- Forbes
Leadership In An Age Of Digital Misinformation
Coronavirus lies and virus facts lying as a dishonest liar doctor spreading false medical ... More information as a physician with a long nose as a metaphor fake medical news medicine with 3D illustration elements. For decades, the image of a CEO's office was framed by the steady flicker of stock tickers tracking the Dow and S&P 500—symbols of economic pulse and performance. Today, that glow has been rivaled by another stream of influence: the frenetic, unfiltered scroll of social media. TikTok trends, Instagram reels, and viral comment-section narratives now carry just as much power to shape public perception—and corporate destiny—as any Wall Street report. In many ways, the battleground of brand reputation has shifted from boardrooms to the digital echo chambers of apps like X. Just look at modern politics: public sentiment is no longer shaped solely by debates or legislation, but by the algorithms driving virality and visibility. The recent public fallout between Elon Musk and President Donald Trump has underscored the profound influence of social media platforms in shaping political discourse and business dynamics. Once allies, their relationship deteriorated following Musk's criticism of Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill," a tax and spending proposal. Musk labeled the bill a "disgusting abomination," citing concerns over its fiscal implications and cuts to programs like Medicaid and SNAP. In retaliation, Trump threatened to revoke federal contracts with Musk's companies, including SpaceX, which plays a pivotal role in NASA operations. The dispute escalated on their respective platforms—X (formerly Twitter) and Truth Social—with Musk suggesting Trump's name appeared in the unreleased Epstein files, further intensifying the conflict. This clash has had tangible repercussions: Tesla's stock experienced a significant drop, erasing over $150 billion in market value, while Trump Media saw a decline of approximately $500 million. The feud has also created divisions within conservative circles and Silicon Valley, as stakeholders reassess their allegiances in light of the schism between two influential figures. For business leaders, this episode highlights the critical importance of strategic communication and the potential ramifications of public disputes, especially when amplified by powerful digital platforms. It serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between corporate interests, political affiliations, and public perception in today's interconnected landscape. In this new era, the modern CEO must wear multiple hats—strategist, culture architect, and now, digital myth-buster. The velocity of misinformation isn't just a nuisance. It's a reputational risk that, if left unaddressed, can unravel trust in a brand built over decades. Yet, here lies the paradox: according to the Edelman Trust Barometer, business remains the most trusted institution globally—outranking media, government, and NGOs. That trust, however, is not guaranteed. It's rented, not owned. And the rent is due every day. In industries where facts can be a matter of public safety—like healthcare and wellness—truth is not just good PR. It's a responsibility. Consider Bragg, the heritage health brand whose apple cider vinegar has long been a staple in wellness circles. Recently, however, the company found itself at the center of a cultural flashpoint—not because of a product failure, but because of the digital age's volatile ecosystem of misinformation. Wellness influencers began attaching outlandish claims to the product, attributing to it everything from instant weight loss to chronic disease cures. The issue was amplified by the release of Apple Cider Vinegar, a Netflix series inspired by a real-life scandal involving a wellness personality who capitalized on pseudoscience to build a loyal—and ultimately deceived—following. Linda Boardman, CEO of Bragg, recognized this as more than a brand crisis. It was a moment of cultural reflection. 'The value of this series is that it puts false health claims, predatory marketing, and social manipulation in the spotlight,' she noted. 'Consumers must have credible information—especially now, as reliable health platforms are disappearing and social media fact-checking continues to erode.' Rather than retreat into corporate caution, Bragg took a proactive stance rooted in clarity and credibility. The company turned to its Scientific Advisory Board not as a PR shield, but as a strategic asset—elevating expert voices, publishing evidence-backed insights, and drawing clear lines between marketing and medical guidance. In doing so, they reminded the business world of something essential: the most enduring brands aren't defined by what they sell, but by their willingness to lead with integrity when it matters most. This is not a health industry problem alone. In 2021, PepsiCo saw a 4% dip in stock value following a viral fake tweet alleging political controversy. In 2023, an entire banking institution suffered a bank run spurred by baseless posts about insolvency. The damage? Billions—erased in hours. Yet this challenge presents a powerful opportunity for leaders to rise above the noise. In a world where narratives can be hijacked in minutes, brands that lead with integrity and intentionality become bulletproof - the ones we follow, trust, and buy from again and again. Today's CEOs have to question if caution may come at too high a cost when a comment section can go unchallenged. 'Leaders must remember that not accepting or willfully fighting a result won't change it. More importantly, it doesn't put you in a strong position to make changes to prevent future failures,' says Scott Edinger for the Harvard Business Review. Authenticity isn't a marketing gimmick anymore. It's a survival strategy. Leadership in today's enterprise organization means taking a public stance on truth. It requires the humility to admit what we know, the courage to say what we don't, and the clarity to guide teams and customers through the ambiguity. In other words, real leadership doesn't seek perfection—it seeks precision. It builds cultures where truth isn't filtered for optics, and where decisions are made with both courage and data. As Alison Taylor of NYU Stern explains: 'If you are honest about your limitations, your need for collaboration, and the broader system you operate within, paradoxically, it builds more trust.' So what does this mean for leaders building brands in 2025 and beyond? It means remembering that reputation is no longer the result of well-managed press releases—it's the product of how you show up in real time. It means equipping your team with not just KPIs and enterprise software dashboards but also ethical clarity and narrative fluency. It means defining success not just by shareholder return but by stakeholder resilience—how your customers, employees, and communities respond when your brand is tested. At a time when fact-checking is being deprioritized, and attention spans are shorter than ever, leaders who ground their brands in evidence and ethics will win—not just market share, but enduring trust. Leadership today demands more than vision. It demands vigilance. The kind of vigilance that steps into the comment section when needed. That isn't afraid to challenge a viral lie with a quieter but more powerful truth. That understands great companies are not only built to perform—but to protect. These are just a few examples. But it speaks to a larger truth every leader must embrace: In the age of algorithm-driven influence, clarity is king. And those who lead with it will not only survive the noise—but shape what comes next.
Forbes
11 minutes ago
- Forbes
Will Musk And Trump Reconcile? Here Are The Betting Odds.
Bettors are waging the relationship between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk is unlikely to be repaired anytime soon, despite the world's wealthiest man signaling he was willing to de-escalate tensions, as their public feud appeared to cool Friday. Polymarket, a blockchain-based betting site, offered 31% odds that Trump and Musk publicly reconcile before July and a 2% chance Trump would apologize to Musk before Monday, June 9, after Trump said Friday he was 'not particularly' interested in speaking with Musk. Polymarket rival Kalshi placed odds a relationship between Trump and Musk could continue to unravel over social media, with a 34% chance Trump unfollows Musk on his X platform and a 36% chance that Musk unfollows Trump. There are greater odds that Trump and Elon will speak with each other at some point this year: Kalshi priced in a 55% chance the pair speak before July, while Polymarket set odds of 20% that Trump and Musk meet by June 30, 37% by July 31 and 59% by Dec. 31. Musk appeared willing to cool tensions with Trump, replying early Friday to hedge-fund billionaire Bill Ackman, who wrote on X that Trump and Musk 'should make peace for the benefit of our great country,' was 'not wrong.' Politico reported White House officials have worked to 'persuade the president to temper his public criticism of Musk' to prevent escalation and had scheduled a call between the two for Friday to 'broker peace.' Trump appeared to shut these plans down, however, telling ABC News he was uninterested in speaking with Musk right now, claiming Musk had 'lost his mind.' Tesla's shares, which dropped 14% in one of the stock's worst-ever trading sessions, appeared to pare back some losses Friday after jumping 3% in early trading. Trump Media also returned some losses after its stock fell 8% on Friday with a 2.4% increase. A feud between Musk and Trump escalated this week as Musk attacked Trump's policy bill over estimated adds to the federal debt. Musk wrote Tuesday that Trump's legislation was 'massive, outrageous, pork-filled' and a 'disgusting abomination' while threatening Republicans who voted for it, warning, 'in November next year, we fire all politicians who betrayed the American people.' He targeted Trump for the first time Thursday after reposting a 2013 tweet from Trump that said he was 'embarrassed' Republicans were extending the debt ceiling. Musk went on to say that, 'without me,' Trump would have lost the election, while Democrats would control the House and Republicans would hold a more narrow majority in the Senate. The pair continued to hurl jabs at each other over their respective social media platforms, including Trump claiming Musk's criticisms came from 'Trump derangement syndrome.'
Washington Post
14 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Musk already lost his war against Trump
There is only one person who is unquestionably able to both maintain a high level of public visibility and stay on President Donald Trump's good side. That person is Donald Trump. Everyone else who sidles up to him suffers from the deficit that they are not Trump himself. They therefore risk discovering that Trump has suddenly turned against them, bringing his fervent base of support — tens of millions of Americans strong — with him. Options from that point are limited: obsequious efforts at reintegration with the president or lining up for one of the modest but endless slots reserved in the public conversation for Trump's former allies.
