West Point sued over affirmative action admissions

[Holden100]

<-------- First off, my son graduated from USNA this century and to be a little more specific, his graduation year is right under my name.
I'm not going to get into more specifics about my university except to say that we do in fact have an ROTC unit on campus and nothing that I've ever thought or believed included the thought that ROTC cadets want to serve any less than their Academy brethren. I don't know a single career officer who would ever believe that nonsense.

Obviously I was confused about your initial comment that you've had candidates who REALLY want to serve, which outweighs the perceived benefit of ED. My comments were always about kids who apply ED with ROTC intentions. Miscommunication on a message board. It happens often.

 

[USMAZoo98]

Last week there was a Facebook Live call hosted by Westpoint Admissions team. Where in the first minute of the call it was mentioned that admissions have goal to recruit “talent and diversity”. When there is a notion of the goal being discussed there would be means to meet it.

And what does "diversity" mean in this context? Seems like we are trying to fix this to one of race as a distinction in qualification. Diversity can also mean geographic representation, or any number of other factors. This lawsuit fits in perfectly with the political movement to drive the "idea of diversity" entirely out of the public discourse.

And nobody should have a problem with that.

Increasing awareness is good. Improving inner city schools to develop more qualified candidates would also be good.

Selecting less qualified candidates because of their skin color or other diversity needs is what needs to fixed (assuming the courts think there is a constitutional question to how it’s currently done - which I don’t think the court will find).

Don't disagree with your points here. But I bristle at the notion of "less qualified candidates." At some point, everyone has to accept that the Academy does not generally appoint unqualified candidates. I have seen my fair share of high performing candidates flame out spectacularly because they ultimately were the wrong type of person for West Point. The Admissions process is not perfect (my point earlier about other things that could be changed), but I think it does a very good job overall of achieving its end goal.

 

[mike1979]

And what does "diversity" mean in this context? Seems like we are trying to fix this to one of race as a distinction in qualification. Diversity can also mean geographic representation, or any number of other factors. This lawsuit fits in perfectly with the political movement to drive the "idea of diversity" entirely out of the public discourse.


Don't disagree with your points here. But I bristle at the notion of "less qualified candidates." At some point, everyone has to accept that the Academy does not generally appoint unqualified candidates. I have seen my fair share of high performing candidates flame out spectacularly because they ultimately were the wrong type of person for West Point. The Admissions process is not perfect (my point earlier about other things that could be changed), but I think it does a very good job overall of achieving its end goal.

You would have to call the admissions and ask. I put in quotes the exact wording that was used on the call.

 

[A1Janitor]

And what does "diversity" mean in this context? Seems like we are trying to fix this to one of race as a distinction in qualification. Diversity can also mean geographic representation, or any number of other factors. This lawsuit fits in perfectly with the political movement to drive the "idea of diversity" entirely out of the public discourse.


Don't disagree with your points here. But I bristle at the notion of "less qualified candidates." At some point, everyone has to accept that the Academy does not generally appoint unqualified candidates. I have seen my fair share of high performing candidates flame out spectacularly because they ultimately were the wrong type of person for West Point. The Admissions process is not perfect (my point earlier about other things that could be changed), but I think it does a very good job overall of achieving its end goal.

It doesn’t matter what anyone says, except the judge.

I assume the lawsuit doesn’t say the SAs are appointing unqualified candidates. Rather, they aren’t selecting the most qualified candidates based on unconstitutional (prohibited) criteria.

 

[Ivy22]

SCOTUS prefers to defer to the other two branches of government on matters concerning national security and the military (see e.g. Rostker v. Goldberg, (women in the draft case)). I would think that this discussion of affirmative action at service academies would be included. They also stated in the footnotes of their recent decision striking down most AA programs at universities that SAs are specifically excluded from the opinion. Yes, it's in the footnotes, but sometimes their footnotes have really important stuff like Footnote 4 from Carolene Products. Unless the composition of the court drastically changes, I don't see this SCOTUS banning AA at SAs.

(disclaimer: I am not a lawyer)

 

[jbm2m]

SCOTUS prefers to defer to the other two branches of government on matters concerning national security and the military (see e.g. Rostker v. Goldberg, (women in the draft case)). I would think that this discussion of affirmative action at service academies would be included. They also stated in the footnotes of their recent decision striking down most AA programs at universities that SAs are specifically excluded from the opinion. Yes, it's in the footnotes, but sometimes their footnotes have really important stuff like Footnote 4 from Carolene Products. Unless the composition of the court drastically changes, I don't see this SCOTUS banning AA at SAs.

(disclaimer: I am not a lawyer)

Love the footnote

 

[A1Janitor]

SCOTUS prefers to defer to the other two branches of government on matters concerning national security and the military (see e.g. Rostker v. Goldberg, (women in the draft case)). I would think that this discussion of affirmative action at service academies would be included. They also stated in the footnotes of their recent decision striking down most AA programs at universities that SAs are specifically excluded from the opinion. Yes, it's in the footnotes, but sometimes their footnotes have really important stuff like Footnote 4 from Carolene Products. Unless the composition of the court drastically changes, I don't see this SCOTUS banning AA at SAs.

(disclaimer: I am not a lawyer)

The service academies weren’t a party, so the opinion doesn’t apply to SA - which have different needs that a university.

It wasn’t ruling one way or another. Just deferring until they have to review. The newest lawsuit will force their hand.

I still don’t see the Court ruling the same way as before though.

 

[Ivy22]

The service academies weren’t a party, so the opinion doesn’t apply to SA - which have different needs that a university.

It wasn’t ruling one way or another. Just deferring until they have to review. The newest lawsuit will force their hand.

I still don’t see the Court ruling the same way as before though.

Yeah, exactly. They did still decide to write a footnote about it, which I find interesting... They could've not said anything, and it still would have had the same effect.

I think the footnote could be a preview of what's to come should the case end up before them. I can also see them not granting certiorari to the case and agreeing with a lower court keeping AA in place for SAs; or them using the "shadow docket" to quietly overturn a lower court should that court ban AA at SAs. Who knows, only time will tell.

 

[Ivy22]

Reading more on the subject... I guess it's also interesting the Solicitor General did in fact say diversity in the officer corps is important for national security during oral arguments for the Harvard and UNC cases. However, the court ruled against the universities in both cases. Perhaps the connection wasn't good enough between civilian universities and the officer corps, and the other issues discussed in the case were more involved in the final decision for the majority. I do think this inquiry might be more at play in the AA/SA discussion...

 

[unkown1961]

What does Ivy Plus mean? I'm fascinated.

If a student is that torn between a civilian college and a SA, the SA is very much unbothered by their decision to go elsewhere. Adjustment to recruit those students is unnecessary.

Recruitment for officers needs to be a bit more deliberate than just picking up the students with the best college applications. I've worked with plenty of Ivy league, Stanford, MIT, whatever graduates. They're not special; they're not better. If you want a more recent assessment, there it is.

If a student doesn't want to go to USNA and can't give up their once-in-a-lifetime shot at Harvard, then fine. The Navy is not missing out on recruiting the "best" officers by letting them go.

Ivy Plus is a term used for the very selective schools that aren't part of the Ivy League - MIT, Stanford, Duke, Rice, Cal...