Denied on basis of being a Non-Minority

[LineInTheSand]

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 understand what you're saying, but that does, in fact, sound like discrimination.

In an ideal world.... the best would always get in and that's that. But this isn't an ideal world, and I'm not sure if "the best" would be a diverse group. By "the best" here I mean the most prepared for admission.

"All things being equal" but then making a decision based on the color of the person's skin is discrimination. If you favor one skin color, you're essentially pcikign disfavorably, another skin color.

"But LITS, we need a diverse officer corps, and that starts at the academy."

I don't totally disagree, but if all things are equal (and they rarely are) are we comfortable making "skin color" a parameter for acceptance? Or, on the other side of the same coin, are we comfortable allowing skin color to be the reason someone is rejected? We can look from 30,000 feet, but on the ground... at the root of this, that's the question you have to ask. If the answer is yes... yes we should be able to deny access due to race... then own up to it. But if that's an answer that makes you uncomfortable, consider how that answer plays out in the larger process.

 

[LineInTheSand]

Here's how I'd prefer to see it....

Remove race from the equation, all together.

Add a socio-economic factor instead. In this case, if "all things are equal" then the deduction you can make is one person had to possibly overcome more than another... to end up in the "equal" spot. THAT'S the kind of person who will "find a way" and excel. They've already done it. It has nothing to do with skin color, but may in fact run along racial lines.

That's my solution.

 

[MedB]

It's a tired analogy, but a relevant one all the same...

You are a team manager and you have to pick a soccer/football/lacrosse etc team. You need a variety of player and personality types to round out your team and have a winning season. You need skill players, speedy players, lumbering hulks to help with defense, steady-eddy middle of the road players, etc. You also need players that will inspire, players that will be calm, etc. At the broad level, this makes total sense and few will argue with making selections based on this reality (rather than just "objective" shooting drills).

But on the personal level, the 8th in line speedy player who feels he's got better skills but still didn't get selected over the lumbering hulks feels slighted. Maybe he/she feels there was bias... and in a sense there was. Not against them personally but in favor of a more well-rounded team.

This equates to what the SAs are trying to do... Not discriminate on an individual level, but create the most successful and well-rounded officer corps to lead our troops now and in the future. Our enlisted military members deserve nothing less.

 

[LineInTheSand]

Except that this has nothing to do with skill. This is "we have too many Hispanic players, so no more Hispanic players."

 

[MedB]

Except that this has nothing to do with skill. This is "we have too many Hispanic players, so no more Hispanic players."

That is the classic misconception. The fact is being Hispanic, Black, Catholic, Martian, or anything else does matter when viewed through the macro lens of an entire officer corps if it is not seen as at least partially representative of the military at large. As a realist, I am a bit surprised you so easily dismiss the human factors involved here.

I won't requote my earlier posts in this thread, but please consider the lessons history has taught us about the perception of a "ruling class" of officers in the military. True or otherwise, the consequences of such perceptions are perilous . Or consider a police force that isn't perceived as being representative of the community it serves. Even if we agree on the factual stance that you don't need to be a certain race to police effectively, you ignore the human reality that happens amidst the community... especially if something goes wrong.

To be effective (many definitions), our officer corps must be diverse. It is not just political, it is a reality in a modern military like ours.

This is the world we live in and to use your words... I am owning up to it.

 

[LineInTheSand]

To achieve that "macro lense" you still have to either accept or reject people, and if race is the tie breaker, you can't discount it because of the "greater good." I believe some European friends can remind us of how that theme has played out over history too. That approach is turning a blind eye. Now, maybe that's what NEEDS to happen.

Each Sunday millions tune in to watch NFL football. The make up of NFL teams is HARDLY a reflection of the community.... and yet... people tune in and watch.

"I like the Titans, but I wish they had more Asians...." said no one. At the end of the day, you cheer for a team and you want them to win. You want the best to play and get touch downs.

The human reality here is, to the ends your want.... the means is discrimination. Own up to that. Accept it and do what you have to do, but let's not pretend that this isn't a "jusitified discrimination" and lets not forget how discrimination has been justified in the past.

 

[MedB]

It's an emotional issue for sure, and hopefully our respectful jousting for either position will help clear the air for folks.

On the narrow point of discrimination.... I concede the point. Yes, I think in this case discrimination is appropriate. But it can be characterized as against an individual (micro) or in support of better military/officer corps (macro); the lens matters.

If I were to look for common ground, where I think we are both in lock step is the floor below which there can be no compromise... all officer candidates MUST be qualified. Period.

So as long as we are arguing over one fully qualified candidate and another fully qualified candidate, then I think other factors such as diversity are perfectly appropriate to consider... scratch that.... SHOULD be considered. And to beat you to your point, yes even if that means one candidate may be arguably "more" qualified. Owning every bit of that.

Though, I would argue that if they are both fully qualified, then someone's background, ethnicity, race, etc might in some cases actually make them "more" qualified... given the goal creating the best overall corps.

 

[cga82]

I look at it as you want the best-very simple. For example: If you have a medical problem such as a heart condition and surgery is required. Who are going to choose? I could care less about who they/them/it/(s)he or race or creed/or non etc . I want to be taken care of by the best. Set the standards and draw from the best regardless and forget all the labels we put on people.