Denied on basis of being a Non-Minority

Diversity is good for our military AND its ability to fuflill its core mission now and into the future. Once we understand that, it illuminates all the factors that need to be considered when choosing officer candidates.

Couldn't agree more with MedB on this!

This is where this conversation and thread really needed to go. Any candidate looking to join today's services needs to understand and embrace the value of diversity.

I watched interviews of CAPT Finton from fall of last year that addressed these very initiatives and positive results being attained. In just 5 years the CGA has gone from about 15% URM's to about 30%. Female cadets are close to 35%. The quality of the candidates has only gotten stronger as the pool to choose from is growing and the class sizes are cutting back. Ten years ago there was about 1,300 completed applications for admission. Now that number is around 2,000. The SAT average scores were 660 MATH and 620 CR for the most recent class.

I hope that I did not misquote any of the numbers. The interview for the alumni association can be seen on youtube. I believe that there are 7 videos that comprise the interview. Here are two that go to the heart of the matter imo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOP5byEILtg USCGA Ideal Applicants

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj_qXEErRZI USCGA Diversity Outreach

Luckily, you won't find the Coast Guard listed in the Top 10 Most Male Occupations.

Logging workers 99.8%

Automotive body and related repairers 99.4%

Cement masons, concrete finishers and terrazzo workers 99.3%

Bus and truck mechanics and diesel engine specialists 99.1%

Electrical power-line installers and repairers 99.1%

Tool and die makers 99.1%

Roofers 98.9%

Heavy vehicle/mobile equipment service technicians and mechanics 98.6%

Home appliance repairers 98.5%

Crane and tower operators 98.5%
 
Luckily, you won't find the Coast Guard listed in the Top 10 Most Male Occupations.

Logging workers 99.8%

Automotive body and related repairers 99.4%

Cement masons, concrete finishers and terrazzo workers 99.3%

Bus and truck mechanics and diesel engine specialists 99.1%

Electrical power-line installers and repairers 99.1%

Tool and die makers 99.1%

Roofers 98.9%

Heavy vehicle/mobile equipment service technicians and mechanics 98.6%

Home appliance repairers 98.5%

Crane and tower operators 98.5%

Your point with this list? I put myself through college working in the woods logging and their is a reason that an extremely small number of women work in that industry. #1 being they don't want to.
 
Your point with this list? I put myself through college working in the woods logging and their is a reason that an extremely small number of women work in that industry. #1 being they don't want to.

My point was simply that homogenous work places aren't often thought of as highly sought after careers. I doubt that these industries did much to broaden their appeal to a more diverse workforce.

I'm not knocking any job by any means. I'm simply saying that I strongly believe that it's a really good thing that USCG is nothing close to 99% male and/or 99% white.
 
My point was simply that homogenous work places aren't often thought of as highly sought after careers. I doubt that these industries did much to broaden their appeal to a more diverse workforce.

I'm not knocking any job by any means. I'm simply saying that I strongly believe that it's a really good thing that USCG is nothing close to 99% male and/or 99% white.

The Coast Guard hasn't been 99% male or 99% white for a VERY long time. If 40% of the Corps of Cadets is female that should only mean the same percentage of female applicants are accepted as male applicants (note I said percentage). I'd love to see the associated numbers.
 
I find these discussions to be fascinating, especially when such an amorphous term as "diversity" is used to define a "mission". This is particularly true of the armed services. It's fascinating to me that "diversity" has become such a major buzzword in society in general and the military in particular. "Diversity" shares the same root as diverge and divergent. Yet on the first day somebody enters the military, new recruits are stripped of most personal items and are issued and required to wear the same clothing as everybody else. So we now have organizations that claim diversity is a value while at the same time, stress uniformity. Members dress the same, walk the same, eat the same. Drills are in unison. Members march from one place to another in unison. Operating procedures are developed, all of which are standardized and generally uniform. You want to be diverse? See what happens. It really does make me think about members who decry "homogeneity" in the workplace, yet still want to make the military home. It's the most homogeneous place you can be.

But then we all know that uniformity is critical to unit cohesion, esprit de corps and all that. At least that's what we've been told. Now isn't uniformity another word for homogeneity?

But of course, we're not talking about diversity in dress and demeanor and mission, but rather diversity in terms of race, gender and ethnicity. We are told we can achieve these goals, while maintaining uniformity in all other aspects. Sounds fine. But then we run into a real buzz saw.

Government is now determining who gets what based on legally undefined terms. What is "white"? What is African-American? What is Hispanic? Was Roberto Clemente African American or Hispanic or both? What was the criterion used? His native language? The melanin level of his skin? How much melanin do you need to qualify for special minority status? Where he was born? Can an individual born of Afrikaans parents self-identify as African-American? Would he be entitled to extra benefits? Why? Why not? How about a Sephardic Jew whose ancestral home was Tunisia?

How about people of mixed heritage? Would I enhance diversity of one of my parents were black and the other white? How about if just three of eight of my great grand parents were black? Two of eight? At what point am I no longer entitled to a special minority designation? Will it be based on how somebody thinks I look? Will it be based on my facial features? Hair color?

How would I be classified if my great grandparents moved from Japan to Peru at the end of the 19th century. My parents and grandparents grew up and lived in Peru, speaking Spanish. My family name is Fujimori. One of my relatives served as President of Peru from 1990 to 2000. Am I Hispanic? Or am I Asian? Who decides? Me? Some government bureaucrat? what's the standard?

Diversity is a sticky subject. Racial and ethnic diversity is a good thing. However, we are moving down a very rocky road when suddenly bureaucrats decide who is entitled and who is not based on undefined standards and criteria. This is why moving from clearly defined merit-based system to a hybrid quota system can be just as unfair as a system the imposes racial and ethnic homogeneity. At this point, I can't see anything other than merit being a just and fair solution.
 
Holy cow...

AlexT ... I'm not sure what you said, but you said it with skill and eloquence.
 
Alex T - I AM sure what you said and you said it very well. One of the most well written pieces of rhetoric I've ever seen.
 
Has anyone noticed that Hunter.50 Cal has not commented on his own thread since page 2? You place a bold allegation such as "Denied on basis of being a Non-Minority" into a forum and split?

"CGA counciler said that they could not take me beacuse they had a minority quota to fill. Kinda makes me irrate"

Kinda makes me wonder.... :cool:
 
Kinda make you wonder what? The fact that I have moved on. Or that I no longer care that I was possibly wronged. All of the above apply because there is nothing that I can do to change that. I am waiting on the other two service academies that I have applied to.
 
Well, best of luck to you in your academy endeavors, and best of luck to us all that the academies do their best to keep acceptance requirements as just as possible.
 
Wow I'm sorry to hear. But in reality this is how not only the military academies are, but also civilian colleges and even jobs as well.
I agree that in a perfect world, we would all be evaluated the same way based on our efforts and grades.
However, the world we live in is not that simple.
Keep in mind that we have many economic and social factors at play.
Most minorities come from higher crime rate cities and have a greater likeliness of poverty than the average white male or female.
The common argument would be "They can work harder and study instead of partying or dealing with drugs."
However, there are a lot of young adults that may have to work to support their family. Therefore, they would not have as much time to study since work is usually at least 4 hours. Also, some families do not have enough money to have the luxuries that middle class families have (computers, books, etc.)
I think that the military academies are aware of this and are trying to help the economically disadvantaged before the educational gap between the rich and poor widens even further (affirmative action).

I'm a minority, but I personally believe that schools should admit people with the best credentials and attributes instead of basing their decision heavily on demographics. However, I do see where the academy is coming from.
 
If he said that, sue the university that is not what affirmative action is, there are not supposed to be quotas they just have to have a certain amount of diversity, if they denied you based on having a minority quota that violates the civil rights laws for blacks and white.. Sue, it should if the judge follows the law go in your favor.


Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app
 
Why is everyone assuming that any minorities accepted must have lower stats than white candidates? If I were an admissions officer, and I had two equally qualified candidates - one white, one minority, and the entering class is already comprised of a majority of white males, I'd probably give the nod to the minority candidate. Diversity is a good thing.

So you just admitted you would discriminate against a white candidate, because of "diversity". Two exactly equal candidates and you would choose the minority, because he/she is a minority. That is completely unethical and unfair. That betrays every principle that the academies preach and then they would further expect us to uphold these principles that they fail to maintain. Hypocritical much...Yeah I would think so, thus it should be abolished by all college, but especially by the service academies.

I don't understand your logic. How is that discrimination? If you have two exactly equal candidates and there's already over 80 percent white candidates, why wouldn't you give the minority the slot all things being equal? When would they ever get a chance then based on your logic? Are you saying they would have to be more qualified to even be considered because a white person who already is the majority didn't get in?

I agree that these kind of threads don't do anything but further stereotypes. How many years were white people given jobs, college admission to Ivies, not guilty verdicts, etc., based on the color of their skin. The only reason why quotas, affirmative action, whatever you want to call it was put in place was because white people would not do the right thing and let others avail themselves of opportunities that they were clearly qualified for, overly qualified for in many cases, but were denied because of the color of their skin. And they were forced to do it, not because white people believed that everybody is created equal and have a right to the pursuit of happiness and everybody deserves a shot. And this went on for years, at least back to my great grandparents. Do you know how many people had to die and were beaten just to vote? go to school? ride the bus? Not all white people, but the majority feel that they are better and are entitled to whatever their little heart desires because of their skin color. There aren't any threads about that, but yet if one white person is denied a spot at a SA, a job, admission to the Ivies, etc., it has to be because a URM or a woman took their spot. For the foreseeable future and as long as I've been alive, all the SA's, the Ivies, Congress, Senate, Wall Street, Hollywood, etc., have been and will be majority white even though the population clearly is a totally different makeup.

Why can't someone just get the slot because they worked hard and earned it in every way possible? Do you know how insulting it is to be told that you only got the slot because of the color of your skin without people even knowing your stats are or how you stacked up with them, that it's just a given that you are less qualified. All URMs and women ever want is a fair shake, no special favors. Is that too much to ask for without being demeaned?

I've taught my kids that God, hard work, and persistence is the way to be successful in life, but that it's not always fair. Sometimes you do your best and it doesn't fall your way. But you can't blame others or make excuses, just get back up and keep going and your time will come. What God has for you it is for you. It's just sad that in 2015 we're still talking about this subject:(
 
^Did you even read my post, Runningirlmom? You and I said the exact same thing, almost word for word.
 
Unless, of course, I didn't properly read your post and you were actually replying to #armystrong. Which is possible....;)
 
Back
Top