The whole diversity topic is a double-edge sword. Diversity; or in the old day "Affirmative Action"; and the likes, are not good if standards have to be lowered or compromised. Same applies to women doing military jobs that traditionally have been exclusive to men. I'm all for anyone applying and doing anything; regardless of race, color, ethnicity, gender, etc. Assuming, standards aren't lowered or compromise.
Here's where the problem arises; concerning appointments to the academy. The minimum standards for admittance to the academy are pretty much useless. Why? Because just about every single appointee hasn't just met the minimum standards, but they've greated exceeded them. Hence, the 3.87 average gpa; 30-31 average ACT. The "Minimum Standards" are much lower than the average.
Some will say: "Just take the BEST applicant; regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, etc." OK, I can deal with that. The problem is, what constitutes "THE BEST"? With the exception of your gpa, ACT/SAT, and CFA, all other facets of an application and the "WHOLE PERSON" concept is subjective. Even the GPA and CFA are somewhat subjective. Some high schools weight; others don't. Some have the IB program, others have only 3-4 AP classes. Some are home schooled. etc. CFA scores differ between men and women. But even if the gpa, standardized tests, and CFA could be made Non-Subjective; that only counts for a percentage of the application. Remember, the academy is looking for future LEADERS. No future College Professors. They don't want someone with a 4.0 gpa, 36ACT, eidetic memory, and nothing else. Likewise, they don't want the individual who has all this leadership experience, community involvement, work ethics, etc. but can't do basic academia and has difficulty learning. E.g. 2.4gpa and 13ACT scores.
So how do you take the majority of "Subjective Areas" and decide who THE BEST candidate is. Lets assume they made sports mandatory and all applicants did sports in their teen years. Is high school BETTER than club? Is Team Sports better than individual sports like martial arts? Is football better than soccer? Is BAND better than the debate or 4H club? And community service??? Is church better than helping with "Meals on Wheels"? What about "Life Experience"? Is being raised in a single parent house, in the inner city, public school, overcoming economic and social challenges BETTER than being raised in a traditional family in the suburbs where the applicant had very little challenges to overcome because their parents were financially stable, local unemployment was 3% vs 14% in the city? Or vs the kid raised on the ranch/farm who worked 2 hours every morning BEFORE school; didn't have any real high school sports to participate in; and worked another 2-3 hours when they came home...... So they could then eat dinner and then do 2 hours of homework before getting to bed late each night and waking up at 4-5am to start all over again?
This is what diversity is all about. An officer corp, representative of the enlisted corp. Urban, Suburban, ranch, farm, rich, poor, men, women, black, white, christian, jewish, atheist, band, football, JrROTC, lived overseas, military brats, prior enlisted, etc. This is why I'm all for diversity. Diversity helps all others. Your background, if diverse compared to another, will give insight to that other person and they can build understanding and enhance their leadership skills with individuals of backgrounds different than theirs. As will your perspective and leadership style be enhanced and improved by your experiences with someone considered diverse from your background. Would you want an enlisted corp made up of 70% men and 30% women, to be lead by an officer corp of 100% men? Or even 100% women. (Before anyone says: "Yes, if their qualified"; sorry, I'm not buying it. The answer is no, and anything other is rationalization. The truth is, just like our children growing up and complaining: "You don't understand me". Well, adults are the same way. An employee wants to know that their employer understands them. Understands what they do, how they do their job, their motivations, etc. I recently had a boss who was a good administrator. And in all reality, that's all he needed to be. He didn't have to actually know HOW to do my job. However; because he had no background at all in what I and the other employees did, it was always difficult. He wanted something done by a certain time, but he didn't understand the details behind accomplishing the job. Same with the military. Good leadership requires many attributes. The top of this list is respect and motivation. Gaining the respect of those you are leading, and understanding what positively motivates people to do their best. It's hard for followers to believe in their leader, if the leader doesn't understand them. And the more diversity a leader experiences, especially diversity that is representative of those they will be leading, the better leader that person will become.
Diversity is very important. Especially to the military. We are uniquely different than traditional companies and work environments. But I don't believe in lowering or compromising standards in order to make the officer corp more diverse. Fortunately, those standards aren't being compromised. IF, the minimum GPA is 3.0 and the minimum ACT is 25, I would much rather have a diverse cadet wing/officer corp, where the average is 3.5 gpa and 28 ACT; than to have a non-diverse cadet wing or officer corp with an average GPA of 3.95 unweighted and 35 ACT. Just to try and make the point of accepting "THE BEST QUALIFIED". Especially considering that other than the gpa and ACT/SAT and CFA; just about everything else in life is subjective. Especially in an application.