The admissions board does a commendable job ensuring that the most highly qualified candidate is appointed from each nominating source. The issue seems to be that some individuals feel that certain nominating sources should not be afforded their legal rights in nominating candidates from their district.
You're couching your point behind the guise of
geographic diversity. Everybody understands that. It is a congressional mandate! You know that's
not what's being discussed here.
It has long been recognized that there may be a candidate admitted from an obscure district in Wyoming who does not have as an impressive packet as an alternate from a highly-competitive Virginia district. That's just the way it goes. Tough luck. That's been going on since time immemorial.
For better or worse (I'll let others me the judge), the academy has been on a campaign in the past few years to increase the
ethnic diversity. C'mon, let's not pretend that this is all about getting all the nominating sources their fair shot.
Every nominating source gets to have x-number of midshipmen enrolled at any one time and they have always had "the right" to fill vacancies with their nominees - provided they are qualified. Are you saying that, in the past, there were congressmen from "disadvantaged" districts who had nominated candidates for a vacancy - who were qualified and were
all rejected by the academy - resulting in that district being completely unrepresented?
If a congressman has a vacancy ... and he has nominees ... and at least one of those nominees is qualified ... the academy
must accept that nominee. Are you saying that hasn't been happening?
I understand that, on occasion, there are districts that go unrepresented because:
1) nobody applied for a nomination, or
2) all those who applied were unqualified.
In that case, that district
should go unrepresented.
What we're talking about is this: After all the principal nominees have received their appointment (even in the "disadvantaged" districts), the academy is going back to the pool of nominees and not necessarily picking the
best of who's left -rather- engineering it to get
ethnic diversity.
Maybe it's a good thing - I don't know. But,
certainly, that's what has been going on. To deny it is just plain disingenuous.
There is a BGO from Texas who has confided to me that this is
exactly what is happening. Better candidates are being left behind in the name of
ethnic diversity, not geographic diversity.
Even the word "diversity" (as it is being used in this context) is nothing more than a euphemism for
ethnic diversity. The word "diversity" only means "unlikeness". That unlikeness is not limited to ethnicity - although that is exactly what is meant. It's not as if the academy is accepting more
short midshipmen -or- more
red-headed midshipmen -or- more
skinny midshipmen - or more
Irish midshipmen.
I've said it before: I think it's not an accident that the Class of 2014 is not being hailed as the most "diverse" class in academy history. (
and it is!) Up till now, the Class of 2013 was the most "diverse" class. At the time, that was trumpeted from every mountain top. But, in the wake of the supe scandal, the use of the word "diversity" has be out of vogue although the momentum from the previous administration certainly carried through to the Class of 2014.
I'm not judging it - I'm simply pointing it out.
I can see where the current candidates have an interest in this dynamic. If I were a white candidate from McAllen, Texas - this would be a concern for me. Sure, there's nothing the candidate can do about it. "All you can do is do your best" are not words of comfort. That's like somebody with terminal cancer being told not not to worry since there's nothing they can do about it. Although true - it's not much comfort.