West Point sued over affirmative action admissions

DTT!FSA! said:
Of course, principal nominees who barely qualify can be appointed over nominees with higher WCS. That is probably not an uncommon scenario.
Click to expand...
I can’t imagine that scenario would be considered in the arguments. It seems to me that would be laughed out of court.
 
My point is that existing law potentially allows for demonstrably inferior candidates to be appointed at the whim of a representative or senator. I am, and have been, more concerned with that loophole in the admissions process than with the SAs' evaluation processes.
 
DTT!FSA! said:
My point is that existing law potentially allows for demonstrably inferior candidates to be appointed at the whim of a representative or senator. I am, and have been, more concerned with that loophole in the admissions process than with the SAs' evaluation processes.
Click to expand...
I was agreeing with you. If a lesser candidate was put in with a principal nomination, the SAs are required to follow the law and therefore aren’t liable.
 
I wonder if an outcome of this is changing the WCS to have max possible scores in some areas like GPA and test scores (similar to situps in the CFA) so that there's no difference past a certain point. They could also change the bucketing to be less precise in other areas to make it harder to use the WCS as an exact scale of merit and make the Qualified label more true. The Admissions folks would be left with more latitude to make choices and less evidence that one person was ahead or behind another. It also leaves more room for the behavior of the bad old days, but I guess we can trust everyone to do the right thing these days. We'll see how it plays out.
 
A1Janitor said:
I was agreeing with you. If a lesser candidate was put in with a principal nomination, the SAs are required to follow the law and therefore aren’t liable.
Click to expand...
Putting on my pretend lawyer costume - if the law concerning principal nominations results in illegal/unconstitutional activity in the appointment of cadets, the nomination process could presumably be struck down? That sounds crazy, but maybe it isn't? Can a statute that allows for the appointment of candidates based on race survive? If that happens under an the existing nomination process, would Congress have to come up with a new system? LOL - I can just imagine - not really - every MOC's nominating criteria being delved into by plaintiffs' counsel. Imagine the hours that would go into that inquiry. I'm sure there would be an easier way to skin the cat.
 
DTT!FSA! said:
My point is that existing law potentially allows for demonstrably inferior candidates to be appointed at the whim of a representative or senator. I am, and have been, more concerned with that loophole in the admissions process than with the SAs' evaluation processes.
Click to expand...
I guess my quibble with your point is that the candidate pool more broadly has "demonstrably inferior candidates" that are prevalent and tend to be favored in appointment selection. I have spent a lot of time with cadets in recent years, and I would have a hard time picking someone selected for admission as "demonstrably inferior."

Another facet that has been discussed is how the nomination fits into this process. Nominations are not controlled by the Academy's admissions office. Members' offices do not always rank their slates by WCS. So if a member of Congress ranks someone as a primary who otherwise has a lower WCS, then the Academy is placed in the position of having to supersede the determination of the member of congress. So does the actions of the Congressional office fall outside of the scope of this lawsuit in assessing affirmative action (admittedly, I don't know).

All that is to say, purely as an opinion, that I believe these people are out to fix a problem that doesn't need fixing.
 
dddad said:
Putting on my pretend lawyer costume - if the law concerning principal nominations results in illegal/unconstitutional activity in the appointment of cadets, the nomination process could presumably be struck down? That sounds crazy, but maybe it isn't? Can a statute that allows for the appointment of candidates based on race survive? If that happens under a the existing nomination process, would Congress have to come up with a new system? LOL - I can just imagine - not really - every MOC's nominating criteria being delved into by plaintiffs' counsel. Imagine the hours that would go into that inquiry. I'm sure there would be an easier way to skin the cat.
Click to expand...
I would guess (I have some experience with this - I successfully sued a municipality for passing an unconstitutional law twice - the last was pro se) that the law allowing principal noms isn’t discriminatory on its face.

Any principal noms given to lower candidates would be as applied - and the plaintiffs would have to prove discriminatory intent - in an individual case. Impossible to prove.

And even then they would be suing the MOC and not the Academy. I assume MOC have immunity.
 
One large difficulty here is that academics are easier to measure and so any rankings will rely on them more than they probably should. If the academies think leadership or experience count then someone is going to have to come up with a measure for them or courts will find themselves making choices they probably don't want to be involved in as carefully crafted cases are brought forward.
 
USMAZoo98 said:
The notion that West Point uses affirmative action (as presumed by this lawsuit) to fill out its incoming classes is flawed at best. Since joining the Field Force, I have more visibility in how the process works. The primary takeaway is that West Point (cannot speak to other SAs) does not appoint unqualified candidates. The lawsuit would have to argue that presumably minorities are being offered appointment over "more qualified" candidates. But every candidate has to meet any number of qualifications. The lawsuit also completely overlooks the fact that if members of Congress wanted to circumvent this issue, they can rank their nominees according to their own interests.

All that is to say, diversity at the Service Academies is not a bad thing. And it is not the primary factor driving admissions decisions. I doubt the plaintiffs in this lawsuit have ever spent time with cadets and understand how ridiculous their underlying notions about this issue are.
Click to expand...
i would assume that the argument isnt that nonqualified people are getting in because they are of a specific race but rather if you have two people one white and one black and they basically had the exact same resume, the black one would get in because of their race. I get that we want a more diversified military but we should be looking at removing obstacles that prevent anyone from joining and not giving anyone points because of the their race.
 
And of course that's why this is dumb, because if the other equal candidate is chosen then it's equally valid to say it was because they were white, which probably wasn't the case either. But when there's only one spot then a choice still has to be made so you look at the larger class composition to see what's missing. If I don't play an instrument can I complain that musicians get extra points? Why do athletes get extra weight? If there were only two Hispanic applicants chosen for the entire class of 2028 would it be OK then?
 
StPaulDad said:
And of course that's why this is dumb, because if the other equal candidate is chosen then it's equally valid to say it was because they were white, which probably wasn't the case either. But when there's only one spot then a choice still has to be made so you look at the larger class composition to see what's missing. If I don't play an instrument can I complain that musicians get extra points? Why do athletes get extra weight? If there were only two Hispanic applicants chosen for the entire class of 2028 would it be OK then?
Click to expand...
If two candidates are equal, the legal argument goes away.

As a private employer - if two candidates are equal, I have no problem hiring one that is from an underrepresented class. I did as an employer.
 
StPaulDad said:
I wonder if an outcome of this is changing the WCS to have max possible scores in some areas like GPA and test scores (similar to situps in the CFA) so that there's no difference past a certain point. They could also change the bucketing to be less precise in other areas to make it harder to use the WCS as an exact scale of merit and make the Qualified label more true. The Admissions folks would be left with more latitude to make choices and less evidence that one person was ahead or behind another. It also leaves more room for the behavior of the bad old days, but I guess we can trust everyone to do the right thing these days. We'll see how it plays out.
Click to expand...
There are max possible scores built into the WCS calculation. Academic 60%, Leadership 30%, and Physical 10%. Each area has a max number of points. Although academics is rightfully weighted the most, no GPA or test score can overcome poor scores in other areas.
 
A1Janitor said:
If two candidates are equal, the legal argument goes away.

As a private employer - if two candidates are equal, I have no problem hiring one that is from an underrepresented class. I did as an employer.
Click to expand...
It would be really interesting to see how many candidates, on the same slate, have the same WCS score. It is probably rare, but must have happened at some time. I wonder how it was resolved in those cases and whether it will come out in this law suit.

It wouldn't matter if they were on different slates.
 
jl123 said:
It would be really interesting to see how many candidates, on the same slate, have the same WCS score. It is probably rare, but must have happened at some time. I wonder how it was resolved in those cases and whether it will come out in this law suit.

It wouldn't matter if they were on different slates.
Click to expand...

The local slate is not the end of the competition between candidates.
 
A1Janitor said:
I would guess (I have some experience with this - I successfully sued a municipality for passing an unconstitutional law twice - the last was pro se) that the law allowing principal noms isn’t discriminatory on its face.

Any principal noms given to lower candidates would be as applied - and the plaintiffs would have to prove discriminatory intent - in an individual case. Impossible to prove.

And even then they would be suing the MOC and not the Academy. I assume MOC have immunity.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected. Thank you.
 
As was discussed earlier, the issue isn't, in the vast majority of cases, when two people have an equal WCS. Rather, it is when candidates with lower WCS are appointed over more qualified (higher WCS). That's what doesn't make sense, generally, and constitutionally. First, race shouldn't play a role in admissions, as MLK Jr. said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." It is fair and logical that the most qualified candidate should be appointed, with no regard given to an unchangeable, unimportant characteristic like skin color. And, constitutionally, the 14th amendment means each citizen should have equal protection under the law. So, each has an equal opportunity to get into a SA, and using race as a factor in admissions obviously tilts the scale. Imagine if an Academy would appoint people in the majority for the sake of skin color (as they, and other colleges, used to do). That would be clearly unconstitutional, so why would affirmative action be different?
 
ThomasJ said:
As was discussed earlier, the issue isn't, in the vast majority of cases, when two people have an equal WCS. Rather, it is when candidates with lower WCS are appointed over more qualified (higher WCS). That's what doesn't make sense, generally, and constitutionally. First, race shouldn't play a role in admissions, as MLK Jr. said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." It is fair and logical that the most qualified candidate should be appointed, with no regard given to an unchangeable, unimportant characteristic like skin color. And, constitutionally, the 14th amendment means each citizen should have equal protection under the law. So, each has an equal opportunity to get into a SA, and using race as a factor in admissions obviously tilts the scale. Imagine if an Academy would appoint people in the majority for the sake of skin color (as they, and other colleges, used to do). That would be clearly unconstitutional, so why would affirmative action be different?
Click to expand...
The problem isn't WCS/WPM, the academies do appoint based on whole-person when given the option to do so. I think the plaintiff is going to have a problem proving otherwise. The exceptions come into play with other institutions, like Congress, and for USNA, the NAAA.

The problem is when the academies are not given the option to appoint based on WCS/WPM. This same argument would put principal nominations on the chopping block. Might very well be a good thing, and finally put a lid any inkling of political favoritism and whispers of "having the right connections" in this admissions process.

And hey, let's think about recruited athletes. Why does USNA have a class we all lovingly dubbed "trucker English" and an eighth grade Algebra class? I thought that's what NAPS was for. Bruce Fleming is a scumbag for what he did, and we all hated the way he went about making the point, but at some level the point was there.

You're telling me these MIDN were so good at football it made up for an utter lack of upper level high school mathematics and science? How much weight exactly is being recruited for football in that WPM?

This suit might be good. It might shed light in some dark places, but I expect the skeletons here are not at all about race.

USNA is more than a college. Does a Supreme Court decision here impact ROTC, OCS, and the Navy as an institution? Will ISR scholarships go away? HBCU ISR reservations? Will the services have to eliminate minority recruitment and accessions initiatives across all commissioning programs? I think the wider implications are the reason the topic was avoided the first time.

It can be much more than a few high school kids applying to college, because the SAs are not just college, but service education and training commands implementing officer training and accessions programs.

I'm not a lawyer or anything, so many of these opinions might be wrong. Not trying to engage anyone in anything, I just think this could be interesting and about more than just the surface "reverse racial discrimination" argument. There's an opportunity here for the courts to tell the Executive how to run the military and Congress how to pass laws, and I think that's the problem they were trying to sidestep to begin with.
 
Last edited:
ThomasJ said:
As was discussed earlier, the issue isn't, in the vast majority of cases, when two people have an equal WCS. Rather, it is when candidates with lower WCS are appointed over more qualified (higher WCS). That's what doesn't make sense, generally, and constitutionally. First, race shouldn't play a role in admissions, as MLK Jr. said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." It is fair and logical that the most qualified candidate should be appointed, with no regard given to an unchangeable, unimportant characteristic like skin color. And, constitutionally, the 14th amendment means each citizen should have equal protection under the law. So, each has an equal opportunity to get into a SA, and using race as a factor in admissions obviously tilts the scale. Imagine if an Academy would appoint people in the majority for the sake of skin color (as they, and other colleges, used to do). That would be clearly unconstitutional, so why would affirmative action be different?
Click to expand...
I would say that affirmative action isn’t in play at SAs. But what I would *also* say is that affirmative action is an attempt to even the playing field, so to speak, after centuries of subjugation, and the educational and correlated economic disparities that resulted from such. You can quote MLK all you want, but we haven’t realized his dream yet.
 
jbm2m said:
I would say that affirmative action isn’t in play at SAs. But what I would *also* say is that affirmative action is an attempt to even the playing field, so to speak, after centuries of subjugation, and the educational and correlated economic disparities that resulted from such. You can quote MLK all you want, but we haven’t realized his dream yet.
Click to expand...
And it's pretty likely there are/were years when underqualified candidates were admitted based on their race (white) and gender (male) over the same or more qualified candidates of a different race and/or gender.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top