Changes to SA Nominations

Wyoming has 1 representative in the House and California has 52 currently due to population. Is Wyoming not represented because they only have 1?
On the other hand, Idaho will have 10 selectees based on Senatorial nominations, as will California. That might not seem fair to applicants from California, but that's how the law has been written.
And as with requests for White House tours and House and Senate passes, some of the House and Senate delegations work together to eliminate potential duplication, but that's up to them how well they coordinate constituent requests.
 
On the other hand, Idaho will have 10 selectees based on Senatorial nominations, as will California. That might not seem fair to applicants from California, but that's how the law has been written.
You do not understand how the nomination process and admissions work for the Service Academies. You just might want to read some of the stickied posts or many post threads on this topic.
 
You do not understand how the nomination process and admissions work for the Service Academies. You just might want to read some of the stickied posts or many post threads on this topic.
Thanks for setting me straight on this - I was basing it on how Congress tried to distribute selections in 10 U.S.C. 8454, but as you've pointed out, the actual process is different. I'll stand down. :)
 
The FY 2024 NDAA was the legislation that included the changes re number of congressional vacancy nominations (from 10 to 15) and the number of Qualified Alternate (QA) appointments from 150 to 200. The amendment was sponsored by Rep Mike Waltz (R-FL). Rationale for the change in nominations was to update the statute (US population had about doubled, if I recall correctly, since the statutory number was set at 10), increase the pool of nominated candidates (in order to, in turn, increase the pool of qualified and nominated applicants, which for USMA had been declining for several years (from about 2228 to 1771, for the classes of 2022 to 2026, respectively)). Also, as some here have identified, in districts having high concentration of military and thus interested applicants, it can be very difficult just to get a nomination, so it was felt that by expanding the number to 15, more well qualified applicants (primarily from such districts) would get nominations and be able to compete for QA appointments. The rationale for increasing the number of QAs from 150 to 200 was to increase the number of candidates chosen in order of merit (at USMA, in order of Whole Candidate Score (WCS) per internal USMA Directive). As many of you know, increasing the number of QAs results in fewer "unfilled vacancies," so that the number of "Additional Appointees" (AAs) under 10 USC 7443 (USMA), 10 USC 8456 (USNA) and 10 USC 9443 (USAFA) would decrease coordinately. You might be aware that it is the AA category, which Congress intended as a "top off" category (to fill any remaining vacancies after all vacancies are filled under the primary statutes), that the academies use to fulfill their class composition goals for diversity and recruited athletes. They do so lawfully because those statutes contain no "in order of merit" requirement. In recent years, the average number of AAs for USMA was 282 and for USNA 283. So, the goal was to increase the number of vacancies that will be filled by well qualified candidates as QAs who did not get the charged congressional vacancy and at the same time reduce the number of unfilled vacancies that are filled using the AA category. There is a lot to know about how the academies have quietly gamed a very complex statutory scheme for decades that virtually no one on Capitol Hill understands. The academies have for too long used admissions practices that would surprise and anger many Americans. Hopefully that will soon come to an end, or at least be exposed and reduced in degree. I would be interested to learn what USNA B&G officers, USAFA LOs, and USMA FFRs are telling candidates and their families about the new congressional vacancy nomination number and the new QA number. I.e., have the admissions offices told them about the changes?
 
...The academies have for too long used admissions practices that would surprise and anger many Americans. Hopefully that will soon come to an end, or at least be exposed and reduced in degree...

I think this assumes facts not in evidence.
 
Last edited:
Have you read COL McDonald's declaration (and studied exhibits A&B thereto carefully) from the USMA lawsuit? The 2015 and 2016 RAND reports? The 2020 USMA IG report? The 2022 GAO study?
 
The FY 2024 NDAA was the legislation that included the changes re number of congressional vacancy nominations (from 10 to 15) and the number of Qualified Alternate (QA) appointments from 150 to 200. The amendment was sponsored by Rep Mike Waltz (R-FL). Rationale for the change in nominations was to update the statute (US population had about doubled, if I recall correctly, since the statutory number was set at 10), increase the pool of nominated candidates (in order to, in turn, increase the pool of qualified and nominated applicants, which for USMA had been declining for several years (from about 2228 to 1771, for the classes of 2022 to 2026, respectively)). Also, as some here have identified, in districts having high concentration of military and thus interested applicants, it can be very difficult just to get a nomination, so it was felt that by expanding the number to 15, more well qualified applicants (primarily from such districts) would get nominations and be able to compete for QA appointments. The rationale for increasing the number of QAs from 150 to 200 was to increase the number of candidates chosen in order of merit (at USMA, in order of Whole Candidate Score (WCS) per internal USMA Directive). As many of you know, increasing the number of QAs results in fewer "unfilled vacancies," so that the number of "Additional Appointees" (AAs) under 10 USC 7443 (USMA), 10 USC 8456 (USNA) and 10 USC 9443 (USAFA) would decrease coordinately. You might be aware that it is the AA category, which Congress intended as a "top off" category (to fill any remaining vacancies after all vacancies are filled under the primary statutes), that the academies use to fulfill their class composition goals for diversity and recruited athletes. They do so lawfully because those statutes contain no "in order of merit" requirement. In recent years, the average number of AAs for USMA was 282 and for USNA 283. So, the goal was to increase the number of vacancies that will be filled by well qualified candidates as QAs who did not get the charged congressional vacancy and at the same time reduce the number of unfilled vacancies that are filled using the AA category. There is a lot to know about how the academies have quietly gamed a very complex statutory scheme for decades that virtually no one on Capitol Hill understands. The academies have for too long used admissions practices that would surprise and anger many Americans. Hopefully that will soon come to an end, or at least be exposed and reduced in degree. I would be interested to learn what USNA B&G officers, USAFA LOs, and USMA FFRs are telling candidates and their families about the new congressional vacancy nomination number and the new QA number. I.e., have the admissions offices told them about the changes
Have you read COL McDonald's declaration (and studied exhibits A&B thereto carefully) from the USMA lawsuit? The 2015 and 2016 RAND reports? The 2020 USMA IG report? The 2022 GAO study?
I’m sincerely interested in these reports. I can just google them? Is there a summary report for each?
 
The FY 2024 NDAA was the legislation that included the changes re number of congressional vacancy nominations (from 10 to 15) and the number of Qualified Alternate (QA) appointments from 150 to 200. The amendment was sponsored by Rep Mike Waltz (R-FL). Rationale for the change in nominations was to update the statute (US population had about doubled, if I recall correctly, since the statutory number was set at 10), increase the pool of nominated candidates (in order to, in turn, increase the pool of qualified and nominated applicants, which for USMA had been declining for several years (from about 2228 to 1771, for the classes of 2022 to 2026, respectively)). Also, as some here have identified, in districts having high concentration of military and thus interested applicants, it can be very difficult just to get a nomination, so it was felt that by expanding the number to 15, more well qualified applicants (primarily from such districts) would get nominations and be able to compete for QA appointments. The rationale for increasing the number of QAs from 150 to 200 was to increase the number of candidates chosen in order of merit (at USMA, in order of Whole Candidate Score (WCS) per internal USMA Directive). As many of you know, increasing the number of QAs results in fewer "unfilled vacancies," so that the number of "Additional Appointees" (AAs) under 10 USC 7443 (USMA), 10 USC 8456 (USNA) and 10 USC 9443 (USAFA) would decrease coordinately. You might be aware that it is the AA category, which Congress intended as a "top off" category (to fill any remaining vacancies after all vacancies are filled under the primary statutes), that the academies use to fulfill their class composition goals for diversity and recruited athletes. They do so lawfully because those statutes contain no "in order of merit" requirement. In recent years, the average number of AAs for USMA was 282 and for USNA 283. So, the goal was to increase the number of vacancies that will be filled by well qualified candidates as QAs who did not get the charged congressional vacancy and at the same time reduce the number of unfilled vacancies that are filled using the AA category. There is a lot to know about how the academies have quietly gamed a very complex statutory scheme for decades that virtually no one on Capitol Hill understands. The academies have for too long used admissions practices that would surprise and anger many Americans. Hopefully that will soon come to an end, or at least be exposed and reduced in degree. I would be interested to learn what USNA B&G officers, USAFA LOs, and USMA FFRs are telling candidates and their families about the new congressional vacancy nomination number and the new QA number. I.e., have the admissions offices told them about the changes?
Are your sources (not includes the USCs) from the reports you mentioned? Why would the GAO care to "expose" these "unfair practices"? Because the AA category has a stipulation that, before any diversity/sports appointments, to take the top 250 applicants who didn't succeed in getting a nomination in an order of merit (as has been mentioned in another post). Also, are you a congressional staffer or the like? What are your qualifications, to be able to claim everyday Americans would be shocked at the current practices for AAs?
 
I didn't say that the GAO wanted to (or did) "expose unfair practices." Its 2022 report (item 5 below) is just one reference that contains relevant information.

Below is a list of some of the sources where data are found. One has to connect a lot of dots. The most significant are the exhibits to COL MacDonald's declaration. Don't understand "Because the AA category has a stipulation that, before any diversity/sports appointments, to take the top 250 applicants who didn't succeed in getting a nomination in an order of merit (as has been mentioned in another post)." If you are saying that the additional appointment statutes (10 USC 7443, 8456 and 9443) contain a provision requiring that 250 applicants be selected under those provisions, respectively, in order of merit, before diversity and recruited athletes are selected under those provisions, that would not be correct.

I prefer to remain anonymous, but can tell you that I have studied SA admissions, and the legal issues surrounding them, for many years.

1. Preferences in the Service Academies, Lerner, R & Nagai, A, Ctr. For Equal Opp. (Oct. 16, 2006), pp. 8, 11.

2. Analysis of Effect of Quantitative and Qualitative Admissions Factors in Determining Student Performance at USNA, Phillips, Barton L. Naval Postgraduate School 2004, pp. 1, 2, 24, 25, 28, 32, 71, 72.

3. Declaration of COL Deborah McDonald, fmr Dir. of Admissions, USMA filed Nov. 22, 2023 in SFFA v. USMA, et al, (U.S. Dist. Ct., So. Dist. NY), Exhibits A&B.

4. Report of Special Inspection – Assessment of Race or Ethnicity Based Treatment of Cadets at USMA, Oct. 2020, USMA Inspector General, pp. 38, 40, 42, 49.

5. GAO Report to Congressional Committees – Military Service Academies GAO-22-105130, July 2022, pp. 21-23, 70-75.

6. Carved from Granite, Lance Betros (BG, USA ret.), fmr Professor USMA, fmr Provost, Army War College, Texas A&M University Press, 2012, pp. 301-316.

7. Still Soldiers and Scholars? An Analysis of Army Officer Testing, Dec. 2017. Coumbe, A.T., Condly, S.J., Skimmyhorn, W. L., Strategic Studies Institute and U.S. Army War College Press, pp. xix, 8, 9, 353.

8. Examining Diversity in Developmental Trajectories of Cadets’ Performance and Character at USMA, (2021). Schaefer, H.S. et al. Journal of Character Education, Vol. 17, No. 1, p. 73.

9. On Diversity as Strength, usmadata (June 10, 2018), https://usmadata.com/2018/06/10/on-diversity-as-strength/.

10. U.S. Service Academy Admissions, Selecting for Success at the Military Academy/West Point and as an Officer. RAND Corporation 2015, pp. x, xi. U.S. Service Academy Admissions, Selecting for Success at the Air Force Academy and as an Officer. RAND Corporation 2016, pp. 35-36, 39-40, 41-43.
 
I didn't say that the GAO wanted to (or did) "expose unfair practices." Its 2022 report (item 5 below) is just one reference that contains relevant information.

Below is a list of some of the sources where data are found. One has to connect a lot of dots. The most significant are the exhibits to COL MacDonald's declaration. Don't understand "Because the AA category has a stipulation that, before any diversity/sports appointments, to take the top 250 applicants who didn't succeed in getting a nomination in an order of merit (as has been mentioned in another post)." If you are saying that the additional appointment statutes (10 USC 7443, 8456 and 9443) contain a provision requiring that 250 applicants be selected under those provisions, respectively, in order of merit, before diversity and recruited athletes are selected under those provisions, that would not be correct.

I prefer to remain anonymous, but can tell you that I have studied SA admissions, and the legal issues surrounding them, for many years.

1. Preferences in the Service Academies, Lerner, R & Nagai, A, Ctr. For Equal Opp. (Oct. 16, 2006), pp. 8, 11.

2. Analysis of Effect of Quantitative and Qualitative Admissions Factors in Determining Student Performance at USNA, Phillips, Barton L. Naval Postgraduate School 2004, pp. 1, 2, 24, 25, 28, 32, 71, 72.

3. Declaration of COL Deborah McDonald, fmr Dir. of Admissions, USMA filed Nov. 22, 2023 in SFFA v. USMA, et al, (U.S. Dist. Ct., So. Dist. NY), Exhibits A&B.

4. Report of Special Inspection – Assessment of Race or Ethnicity Based Treatment of Cadets at USMA, Oct. 2020, USMA Inspector General, pp. 38, 40, 42, 49.

5. GAO Report to Congressional Committees – Military Service Academies GAO-22-105130, July 2022, pp. 21-23, 70-75.

6. Carved from Granite, Lance Betros (BG, USA ret.), fmr Professor USMA, fmr Provost, Army War College, Texas A&M University Press, 2012, pp. 301-316.

7. Still Soldiers and Scholars? An Analysis of Army Officer Testing, Dec. 2017. Coumbe, A.T., Condly, S.J., Skimmyhorn, W. L., Strategic Studies Institute and U.S. Army War College Press, pp. xix, 8, 9, 353.

8. Examining Diversity in Developmental Trajectories of Cadets’ Performance and Character at USMA, (2021). Schaefer, H.S. et al. Journal of Character Education, Vol. 17, No. 1, p. 73.

9. On Diversity as Strength, usmadata (June 10, 2018), https://usmadata.com/2018/06/10/on-diversity-as-strength/.

10. U.S. Service Academy Admissions, Selecting for Success at the Military Academy/West Point and as an Officer. RAND Corporation 2015, pp. x, xi. U.S. Service Academy Admissions, Selecting for Success at the Air Force Academy and as an Officer. RAND Corporation 2016, pp. 35-36, 39-40, 41-43.
Interesting... I'll try to find time to reading these at some time.

A few years ago someone posted in the USAFA subforum a breakdown of one of the incoming classes. I don't know where they got the info but the poster showed two columns with test scores, gpa, and extracurriculars. The admitted students had lower stats than the denied students. I can't find the post anymore but it had lots of responses. I don't think the poster posited a hypothesis but questioned why USAFA was admitting students with lower candidate scores.
 
I didn't say that the GAO wanted to (or did) "expose unfair practices." Its 2022 report (item 5 below) is just one reference that contains relevant information.

Below is a list of some of the sources where data are found. One has to connect a lot of dots. The most significant are the exhibits to COL MacDonald's declaration. Don't understand "Because the AA category has a stipulation that, before any diversity/sports appointments, to take the top 250 applicants who didn't succeed in getting a nomination in an order of merit (as has been mentioned in another post)." If you are saying that the additional appointment statutes (10 USC 7443, 8456 and 9443) contain a provision requiring that 250 applicants be selected under those provisions, respectively, in order of merit, before diversity and recruited athletes are selected under those provisions, that would not be correct.

I prefer to remain anonymous, but can tell you that I have studied SA admissions, and the legal issues surrounding them, for many years.

1. Preferences in the Service Academies, Lerner, R & Nagai, A, Ctr. For Equal Opp. (Oct. 16, 2006), pp. 8, 11.

2. Analysis of Effect of Quantitative and Qualitative Admissions Factors in Determining Student Performance at USNA, Phillips, Barton L. Naval Postgraduate School 2004, pp. 1, 2, 24, 25, 28, 32, 71, 72.

3. Declaration of COL Deborah McDonald, fmr Dir. of Admissions, USMA filed Nov. 22, 2023 in SFFA v. USMA, et al, (U.S. Dist. Ct., So. Dist. NY), Exhibits A&B.

4. Report of Special Inspection – Assessment of Race or Ethnicity Based Treatment of Cadets at USMA, Oct. 2020, USMA Inspector General, pp. 38, 40, 42, 49.

5. GAO Report to Congressional Committees – Military Service Academies GAO-22-105130, July 2022, pp. 21-23, 70-75.

6. Carved from Granite, Lance Betros (BG, USA ret.), fmr Professor USMA, fmr Provost, Army War College, Texas A&M University Press, 2012, pp. 301-316.

7. Still Soldiers and Scholars? An Analysis of Army Officer Testing, Dec. 2017. Coumbe, A.T., Condly, S.J., Skimmyhorn, W. L., Strategic Studies Institute and U.S. Army War College Press, pp. xix, 8, 9, 353.

8. Examining Diversity in Developmental Trajectories of Cadets’ Performance and Character at USMA, (2021). Schaefer, H.S. et al. Journal of Character Education, Vol. 17, No. 1, p. 73.

9. On Diversity as Strength, usmadata (June 10, 2018), https://usmadata.com/2018/06/10/on-diversity-as-strength/.

10. U.S. Service Academy Admissions, Selecting for Success at the Military Academy/West Point and as an Officer. RAND Corporation 2015, pp. x, xi. U.S. Service Academy Admissions, Selecting for Success at the Air Force Academy and as an Officer. RAND Corporation 2016, pp. 35-36, 39-40, 41-43.
I respectfully disagree with some of these. Additionally, affirmative action for Service Academies was ruled in favor of by the courts, so it is certainly legal, and therefore fair play.

1. This only focuses on the SAT scores and class ranking of the Hispanic/Black/Asian/White students, not their transcripts, and academics is only 60% of the application anyway. Also, this is data from 29 years ago and the publisher has a stated mission of opposing affirmative action, which the courts have ruled to uphold.

2. I will not claim to understand multivariable statistics, but two things stuck out to me:
The thesis paper ultimately concluded that the process of using a review board as an additional step that considers unspecified subjective traits was beneficial.
The author attempted to find the impact of the review board by solely using GPA, SAT scores, nomination source, and ethnicity of accepted applicants from 1995-2001, without including the data of applicants who were rejected (to be fair, it wasn't available), which seems like a critical deficiency in any model to only use the successful data points, and not the unsuccessful ones. Furthermore, the academy admissions processes are holistic, not just considering race and academics, meaning the statistical derivations are flawed.

3. Exhibit A can be summed up to be proof that an easier process exists for minorities, which is allowed since affirmative action is allowed. In Exhibit B, it's more of the same. Interestingly, West Point didn't meet its target for African American cadets, showing that the actual impact of AAs going to minorities has limits.

4. Affirmative action is legal for SAs, so this doesn't matter

5. I might've missed the point for this one, but what stuck with me was that there was a proportionally higher rate of attrition for African American cadets than White, as well as problems with resolving complaints about a lack of equal opportunity by certain members of the corps of cadets. Seems to me that the solution is to implement better training in the corps commanders to address these types of complaints.

6. I'm not going to buy the book

7. The reason that affirmative action was allowed in SAs was that it reflects the diversity in the military itself. According to CNN, black enlisted personnel represent 19% of the military's enlisted members, but only 9% of officers. This disparity is potentially damaging to the unity of the military and harming recruitment numbers and needs to be addressed effectively.

8. Not willing to buy

9. Doesn't take into account the reasons for WP needing to have a diverse class, as mentioned above in my #7.

10. Had no mention of race or ethnicity being an unfair advantage to minority applicants. In fact, it advocated for the revocation of (for USAFA) the CFA, ALOs, letters of recommendation, and personal statements. Not sure how it applies.


For the record, I'm white and a class of 2029 applicant. Statistically, the ending of affirmative action in SAs would benefit me. However, it wouldn't benefit the U.S., and, equally as important, it is the law of the land.
 
Additionally, affirmative action for Service Academies was ruled in favor of by the courts, so it is certainly legal, and therefore fair play.
Yours is a common misconception that derives from a misunderstanding of the meaning of footnote 4 (discussed below) in the recent SFFA v. Harvard decision. The academies' use of racial classifications is unarguably contrary to constitutional principles of equal protection (see below for some of what SCOTUS said those principles include). The unresolved issue is whether the academies can prove a "compelling governmental interest" sufficient to warrant excusal from constitutional compliance. That is the principal issue in the pending lawsuits against USMA and USNA.

In SFFA v. Harvard/UNC, 600 U.S. ___ (2023), the court said, regarding the use of racial classifications,

The “core purpose of the Equal Protection Clause” is “do[ing] away with all governmentally imposed discrimination based on race.” (slip op. 14)

“Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.” (slip op. 15)

“Distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.” (slip op. 16)

“[r]acial discrimination is invidious in all contexts” (slip op. 22)

“race … may not operate as a stereotype.” (slip op. p.27)

“One of the principal reasons race is treated as a forbidden classification is that it demeans the dignity and worth of a person to be judged by ancestry instead of by his or her own merit and essential qualities.” (slip op. 29)

“’[a]t the heart of the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection lies the simple command that the Government must treat citizens as individuals, not as simply components of a racial, religious, sexual or national class.” (slip op. 32)

Using racial classifications to achieve racial demographic balance must be rejected as illegitimate because otherwise, “’race will always be relevant … the ultimate goal of eliminating race as a criterion will never be achieved.’” (slip op. 32)

Footnote 4 in the court’s opinion acknowledged that DOD in its amicus brief and at oral argument had claimed the existence of “distinct interests” for the academies that necessitate the use of racial preferences in admissions decisions and that, if proved and shown to be a compelling governmental interest, might justify exemption from constitutional compliance.
(Fn 4 reads: “The United States as amicus curiae contends that race-based admissions programs further compelling interests at our Nation’s military academies. No military academy is a party to these cases, however, and none of the courts below addressed the propriety of race-based admissions systems in that context. This opinion also does not address the issue, in light of the potentially distinct interests that military academies may present.” Id., slip op. at 22. )

Fn 4 thus means that because the academies were not parties to the cases before them, and their contention had not been reviewed by the lower courts, whether DoD’s claim of a “potentially distinct interest” amounts to a compelling governmental interest necessitating use of racial preferences would not be addressed in their opinion. Justice Sotomayor's unfortunate mischaracterization of fn 4 in her dissenting opinion as a carve out of an exemption for the SAs contributed to considerable misunderstanding. (As Chief Justice Roberts reminded us, dissenting opinions are generally not the best source of advice on proper interpretation of the court's opinion.)

SFFA was thus not a decision on the merits regarding the academies’ "compelling governmental interest" defense (merits rulings in SCOTUS cases are not made in footnotes). Instead, the issue of whether the academies' use of racial preferences will be excused from constitutional compliance has not been decided.

Perhaps instructive, by the way, is that DoD made the same "compelling governmental interest" argument in SFFA regarding schools (like the defendants Harvard and UNC) who have ROTC (the primary commissioning source for the Nation's military officers). SCOTUS was unswayed by those arguments, however, and its decision against Harvard and UNC was an implicit rejection of DoD's position that national security requires that racial preferences be permitted at schools that participate in ROTC to increase the percentage of minority officers so as to achieve officer-enlisted racial demographic parity.

DoD has chosen, despite the rather strong and sweeping language of the SFFA court's opinion, to continue using racial preferences in academy admissions, which is why SFFA has sued both USMA and USNA. DoD is asserting its "compelling government interest" defense to SFFA's position that DoD's practices violate the 5th Amendment's Due Process Clause equal protection requirement. Unless the suits are rendered moot by legislation (enactment of a statute that prohibits the academies from considering race in admissions decisions), the pending lawsuits could result in the issue being addressed by the courts, possibly to include SCOTUS.

Here is a former Pentagon lawyer's explanation: https://thefederalist.com/2023/07/0...-military-exception-in-race-based-admissions/

Good luck with your application to USAFA! You're quite correct that the termination of affirmative action at the SAs would help you (as a white male) in your chances of admissio; however, as of now that is unlikely to happen in the current admissions cycle. If you are highly qualified, the increase of the number of QAs (order of merit selection required) from 150 to 200 (which takes effect this cycle) could increase your chances if you don't win a congressional vacancy of your representative or one of your senators. Be sure you apply for an appointment under all categories for which you are statutorily eligible. You might also want to apply for an AFROTC scholarship as a backup.

Your opinion that using racial classifications in USAFA admissions decisions is good for the Air Force and the country is one to which you are certainly entitled, but you might want to consider other views (and their reasoning), like those of USAFA graduate (distinguished graduate award recipient) and former Air Force Chief of Staff (highly regarded by his peers) Gen. Ron Fogleman and USMA graduate and former Army Vice Chief of Staff (also highly regarded) Gen. Art Brown, here: https://thefederalist.com/2023/03/0...-the-military-dont-improve-national-security/
 
I’m sincerely interested in these reports. I can just google them? Is there a summary report for each?
Hello, you rang?

Many resources, including the RAND study and the Officer Testing paper, linked in sidebar here:


Many legal docs including Col McDonald's declaration from the latest SFFA suit are here:


Clearly I have an opinion on all this (AcademyApirant's #7 above is exactly the point being litigated. It is not a given that "[this] disparity is potentially damaging to the unity of the military and harming recruitment numbers and needs to be addressed effectively." And even if that is true, and even if what West Point is doing is "addressing it effectively," it is not a given that the harm outweighs the harm of discrimination in admissions to the effectiveness of West Point and the Army. Legal <> right.) but will keep it down for sake of the thread.
 
Yours is a common misconception that derives from a misunderstanding of the meaning of footnote 4 (discussed below) in the recent SFFA v. Harvard decision. The academies' use of racial classifications is unarguably contrary to constitutional principles of equal protection (see below for some of what SCOTUS said those principles include). The unresolved issue is whether the academies can prove a "compelling governmental interest" sufficient to warrant excusal from constitutional compliance. That is the principal issue in the pending lawsuits against USMA and USNA.

In SFFA v. Harvard/UNC, 600 U.S. ___ (2023), the court said, regarding the use of racial classifications,

The “core purpose of the Equal Protection Clause” is “do[ing] away with all governmentally imposed discrimination based on race.” (slip op. 14)

“Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.” (slip op. 15)

“Distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.” (slip op. 16)

“[r]acial discrimination is invidious in all contexts” (slip op. 22)

“race … may not operate as a stereotype.” (slip op. p.27)

“One of the principal reasons race is treated as a forbidden classification is that it demeans the dignity and worth of a person to be judged by ancestry instead of by his or her own merit and essential qualities.” (slip op. 29)

“’[a]t the heart of the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection lies the simple command that the Government must treat citizens as individuals, not as simply components of a racial, religious, sexual or national class.” (slip op. 32)

Using racial classifications to achieve racial demographic balance must be rejected as illegitimate because otherwise, “’race will always be relevant … the ultimate goal of eliminating race as a criterion will never be achieved.’” (slip op. 32)

Footnote 4 in the court’s opinion acknowledged that DOD in its amicus brief and at oral argument had claimed the existence of “distinct interests” for the academies that necessitate the use of racial preferences in admissions decisions and that, if proved and shown to be a compelling governmental interest, might justify exemption from constitutional compliance.
(Fn 4 reads: “The United States as amicus curiae contends that race-based admissions programs further compelling interests at our Nation’s military academies. No military academy is a party to these cases, however, and none of the courts below addressed the propriety of race-based admissions systems in that context. This opinion also does not address the issue, in light of the potentially distinct interests that military academies may present.” Id., slip op. at 22. )

Fn 4 thus means that because the academies were not parties to the cases before them, and their contention had not been reviewed by the lower courts, whether DoD’s claim of a “potentially distinct interest” amounts to a compelling governmental interest necessitating use of racial preferences would not be addressed in their opinion. Justice Sotomayor's unfortunate mischaracterization of fn 4 in her dissenting opinion as a carve out of an exemption for the SAs contributed to considerable misunderstanding. (As Chief Justice Roberts reminded us, dissenting opinions are generally not the best source of advice on proper interpretation of the court's opinion.)

SFFA was thus not a decision on the merits regarding the academies’ "compelling governmental interest" defense (merits rulings in SCOTUS cases are not made in footnotes). Instead, the issue of whether the academies' use of racial preferences will be excused from constitutional compliance has not been decided.

Perhaps instructive, by the way, is that DoD made the same "compelling governmental interest" argument in SFFA regarding schools (like the defendants Harvard and UNC) who have ROTC (the primary commissioning source for the Nation's military officers). SCOTUS was unswayed by those arguments, however, and its decision against Harvard and UNC was an implicit rejection of DoD's position that national security requires that racial preferences be permitted at schools that participate in ROTC to increase the percentage of minority officers so as to achieve officer-enlisted racial demographic parity.

DoD has chosen, despite the rather strong and sweeping language of the SFFA court's opinion, to continue using racial preferences in academy admissions, which is why SFFA has sued both USMA and USNA. DoD is asserting its "compelling government interest" defense to SFFA's position that DoD's practices violate the 5th Amendment's Due Process Clause equal protection requirement. Unless the suits are rendered moot by legislation (enactment of a statute that prohibits the academies from considering race in admissions decisions), the pending lawsuits could result in the issue being addressed by the courts, possibly to include SCOTUS.

Here is a former Pentagon lawyer's explanation: https://thefederalist.com/2023/07/0...-military-exception-in-race-based-admissions/

Good luck with your application to USAFA! You're quite correct that the termination of affirmative action at the SAs would help you (as a white male) in your chances of admissio; however, as of now that is unlikely to happen in the current admissions cycle. If you are highly qualified, the increase of the number of QAs (order of merit selection required) from 150 to 200 (which takes effect this cycle) could increase your chances if you don't win a congressional vacancy of your representative or one of your senators. Be sure you apply for an appointment under all categories for which you are statutorily eligible. You might also want to apply for an AFROTC scholarship as a backup.

Your opinion that using racial classifications in USAFA admissions decisions is good for the Air Force and the country is one to which you are certainly entitled, but you might want to consider other views (and their reasoning), like those of USAFA graduate (distinguished graduate award recipient) and former Air Force Chief of Staff (highly regarded by his peers) Gen. Ron Fogleman and USMA graduate and former Army Vice Chief of Staff (also highly regarded) Gen. Art Brown, here: https://thefederalist.com/2023/03/0...-the-military-dont-improve-national-security/
I understand that it's a multifaceted argument with different sides, and I respect your opinion which you are also entitled to hold. I do see my mistake, as in the Supreme Court merely blocked an emergency plea about SA affirmative action, and the issue is formally going through the courts now and it's constitutionality is unproven, thus invalidating some of my earlier points.

As of now, I favor the logic of General Joseph Dunford (USMC ret. Chairman of the JCS), Admiral Michael Mullen (ret. Chairman of the JCS), and the eight assorted former service academy superintendents, who, I believe, would have more insight into the issue.

While the admittedly vague "compelling government interest" may have been ruled against with regards to ROTC, I would be highly interested to see what the courts decide with regards to the SAs, which are entirely different as ROTC programs in civilian colleges make up a small portion of the overall culture in the school, and SAs are entirely centered around and built on that military culture.

The Supreme Court allowed for the SAs to keep using affirmative action, but simultaneously allowed this to be challenged, which SFFA did. (As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote "This opinion also does not address the issue, in light of the potentially distinct interests that military academies may present.”) So, the DoD is legally allowed to continue using affirmative action for the SAs, which they are, because of just how different the SAs are from civilian colleges and Chief Justice Roberts has indicated that the "potentially distinct interests" of SAs could lead him to rule in favor of affirmative action for SAs.
 
Hello, you rang?

Many resources, including the RAND study and the Officer Testing paper, linked in sidebar here:


Many legal docs including Col McDonald's declaration from the latest SFFA suit are here:


Clearly I have an opinion on all this (AcademyApirant's #7 above is exactly the point being litigated. It is not a given that "[this] disparity is potentially damaging to the unity of the military and harming recruitment numbers and needs to be addressed effectively." And even if that is true, and even if what West Point is doing is "addressing it effectively," it is not a given that the harm outweighs the harm of discrimination in admissions to the effectiveness of West Point and the Army. Legal <> right.) but will keep it down for sake of the thread.
Haha. Thank you!

How would you coach applicants to respond if asked about this during an interview? Seems like the "safest" answer would be to state the current view of leadership but display understanding of the current decision of Harvard case and ongoing litigation with academies. Then you could state your own opinion with quotes/stats as backup.
 
DoD is legally allowed to continue using affirmative action for the SAs
Almost correct. SCOTUS' not deciding DoD's claim of a compelling government interest sufficient to justify excusal from constitutional compliance for the SAs was nothing more than that (no decision), not an implicit endorsement of the academies' continuing to use the racial preferences that the court soundly rejected (e.g., “[r]acial discrimination is invidious in all contexts”). The SAs have neither been "legally allowed" nor prevented by the courts from doing what they are doing because their practices have not yet been litigated to conclusion.

It would be more accurate to say that no court has ruled that the SAs may or may not do what all other schools no longer may do because the Constitution prevents racial discrimination in college admissions. But, undeniably, the court has said that using racial preferences is constitutionally repugnant (and harmful) for the many reasons they enumerated in their opinion, a few of which were quoted above. And, as you will learn when (or hopefully before) you become an officer, your oath will unclude the words "that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same" (referring to the Constitution).
 
I understand that it's a multifaceted argument with different sides, and I respect your opinion which you are also entitled to hold. I do see my mistake, as in the Supreme Court merely blocked an emergency plea about SA affirmative action, and the issue is formally going through the courts now and it's constitutionality is unproven, thus invalidating some of my earlier points.

As of now, I favor the logic of General Joseph Dunford (USMC ret. Chairman of the JCS), Admiral Michael Mullen (ret. Chairman of the JCS), and the eight assorted former service academy superintendents, who, I believe, would have more insight into the issue.

While the admittedly vague "compelling government interest" may have been ruled against [...]
Reaction - As other groups have advised in this case, don't defer too much to the generals based on their 'halo.' They are not objective arbiters of the Truth. Rather, they are personally invested, emotional humans responding to their individual histories and incentives. Evaluate the argument on its merits, not on who is giving it. Ok, I'm off the thread. Cheers,
 
Reaction - As other groups have advised in this case, don't defer too much to the generals based on their 'halo.' They are not objective arbiters of the Truth. Rather, they are personally invested, emotional humans responding to their individual histories and incentives. Evaluate the argument on its merits, not on who is giving it. Ok, I'm off the thread. Cheers,
Good idea! Same. Perhaps take your case to the reporters, Ranger72. I don't want to be a part of creating any divisive environment through agitation, not when we all here have roughly the same goals and core values.
 
Last edited:
Hello, you rang?

Many resources, including the RAND study and the Officer Testing paper, linked in sidebar here:


Many legal docs including Col McDonald's declaration from the latest SFFA suit are here:


Clearly I have an opinion on all this (AcademyApirant's #7 above is exactly the point being litigated. It is not a given that "[this] disparity is potentially damaging to the unity of the military and harming recruitment numbers and needs to be addressed effectively." And even if that is true, and even if what West Point is doing is "addressing it effectively," it is not a given that the harm outweighs the harm of discrimination in admissions to the effectiveness of West Point and the Army. Legal <> right.) but will keep it down for sake of the thread.
I finally got a chance to read your blog site. And I found the post I was asking about, https://usmadata.com/2022/03/29/usma-acceptance-rates-who-didnt-make-it/

USMA Acceptance Rates: Who Didn’t Make It”​

…had to go all the way to page 3! For some reason I remembered it on the USAFA forum, but apparently I was mistaken.
 
Back
Top