SCOTUS Affirmative Action decision could affect Service Academy and ROTC

Kierkegaard

5-Year Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2017
Messages
966
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2022/10/31/supreme-court-hears-race-conscious-admissions-cases-could-change-face-of-military.html

The Supreme Court is hearing arguments in a case that could end race based college admissions. Would be a big deal in higher education, which of course means it affects the US military officer corps. The federal government has made its stance known:
Elizabeth Prelogar, the United States Solicitor General, described race-conscious admissions as "vitally important to our nation's military," pointing to the need to have a diverse group of students in ROTC programs and the nation's service academies in order to develop diverse military leadership.

I’m all for expanding opportunities to underrepresented groups. Less sure of whether considering race in admissions is the best way to accomplish that. It seems a common argument in favor is that more ethnically diverse teams, including a diverse officer corps, are more effective. Perhaps that’s true, I have no idea. Either way, if the court ends affirmative action it looks like the military will need to find new ways of diversifying the officer corps.
 
Either way, if the court ends affirmative action it looks like the military will need to find new ways of diversifying the officer corps.
I don't think the latter necessarily follows from the former. Presumably any court decision will address college admissions and not address any actions by the military. It certainly wouldn't address the awarding of xROTC Scholarships. Although the racial mix in elite colleges may change somewhat, I expect there is enough people in the college population to meet the military's goals.
 
Harvard's president, Larry Bacow, sent a letter to the Harvard community yesterday regarding this important decision. In it, he expressly notes that the military and the heads of the SAs stand in solidarity with the universities named in the suit (emphasis mine):

Harvard University - Office of the President
Dear Members of the Harvard Community,

In a few hours, the Supreme Court will begin to hear oral arguments in our admissions case. Throughout my presidency, I have had opportunities to state the facts of the matter. I write now to share some personal reflections.

Whatever promise we hold as individuals—for ourselves and for our world—is not predicated on narrowly structured measures of academic distinction. When Harvard assembles a class of undergraduates, it matters that they come from different social, economic, geographical, racial, and ethnic backgrounds. It matters that they come to our campus with varied academic interests and skill sets. Research and lived experience teach us that each student’s learning experience is enriched by encountering classmates who grew up in different circumstances.

Harvard is not alone in believing that we are more than our test scores and that our unique perspectives bring a wealth of educational benefits to a high-quality educational enterprise. The legal battle we have waged, which reaches its apex today, is as important to other colleges and universities, and to society, as it is to us. Educators and scholars, civil rights organizers, historians, and education advocates stand with us. Leaders in business and technology stand with us. Former military officers and the heads of the nation’s service academies stand with us. Their voices—ringing out in amicus briefs—are part of a chorus that has risen across our campus and throughout our country in defense of forty years of legal precedent, as well as the history of the 14th Amendment.

Today, individuals of great skill will argue in favor of our cause inside the highest court in the land. This includes our colleagues from the University of North Carolina and the solicitor general of the United States. To all those who have worked hard to prepare us for today, thank you. To all those who have amplified and defended our argument on campus and elsewhere, thank you. We now await the final decision of the court with earnest anticipation. Whatever it is, we will honor the law while also remaining true to our values. May we continue to support and appreciate one another, as well as the institution we create together.

Sincerely,
Larry
 
.
From The Hill about a week ago …

.

I’m interested in the point that a majority-white officer corps commanding a diverse group of enlisted results in severe racial tensions undermining lethality. The article uses the 60s and 70s as an example but as I recall, that was a time of high racial tensions and social upheaval regardless of the military. The way I’m looking at it, for the trend to be a problem, that necessarily means that a division leader or platoon commander can’t as effectively lead people of a different race, which is absurd. And at least from my experience at USNA where the Brigade is quite diverse, race was not a major issue. I don’t recall anyone caring if their squad leader was white, black, or asian. Perhaps I am missing something, but to me it makes the most sense to just pick the most qualified people. If minorities are underrepresented among those competitive for admission, then let’s address the root of that problem. Easier said than done no doubt, but that’s the best way to increase diversity. Affirmative action seems like more of a “band-aid” solution.
 
If Harvard and their brethren feel more strongly about correcting perceived social ills than educating the best and brightest based on merit, perhaps they should stop accepting federal dollars. They would then be free to do as they wish. Their endowment certainly makes that feasible.

Did Harvard choose a diverse legal team for the defense of this case, or the best lawyers they could find?
 
The assumption that people of color are not among the nation's best and brightest is a very, very old and unfounded trope, not to mention racist. Race is not being used to admit those "less qualified." Thankfully, our university system is not a meritocracy and never has been.


:popcorn1:
 
Last edited:
If race were not being used to admit less qualified applicants, there would be no case before the Supreme Court.

In their argument, the universities do not deny they admit less qualified applicants as evaluated by objective measures. They merely argue that doing so is justified.
 
March 16, 1970:

carswell_200-971a28138bb7579281ef8155e615ce35940b56fa-s1100-c50.jpg

In 1970, Carswell sought a Senate seat in Florida but lost the GOP primary.
As the Senate is in the process of debating the nomination of Judge G. Harrold Carswell as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court -- to fill the seat vacated by Abe Fortas -- Nebraska Republican Roman Hruska says in a TV interview, "Even if he [Carswell] were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they? We can't have all Brandeises and Frankfurters and Cardozos."
 
The difficulty is that "best" isn't a very specific word, and in the past that has resulted in very substantial bias, intentional and unintentional, against people who don't look like the decision makers. Is best just test scores, or GPA, or alumni ties, or the quality of your high school, or something even softer like musical or athletic achievements, or worse still "leadership" skills?
 
The assumption that people of color are not among the nation's best and brightest is a very, very old and unfounded trope, not to mention racist. Race is not being used to admit those "less qualified." Thankfully, our university system is not a meritocracy and never has been.


:popcorn1:
I agree that the best and brightest come from many backgrounds and look different from each other. However, I find it hard to square your last two sentences. How do you think top universities pick students, if not by merit? Also, why are you thankful that the university system is not a meritocracy?
 
If race were not being used to admit less qualified applicants, there would be no case before the Supreme Court.

In their argument, the universities do not deny they admit less qualified applicants as evaluated by objective measures. They merely argue that doing so is justified.
Less Qualified is very subjective and it comes down to what defines one as being qualified. Is it strictly their test scores, GPA, leadership sports etc? It is almost impossible to to quantify the immense challenges that kids from underserved communities (most of the time are minorities) have to face. Daily crime, one parent family, poverty, transportation challenges, underperforming schools, the list goes on.

There is talent within these communities, but most of these kids have no chance if certain considerations are not taken. If not affirmative action then what is the solution? For the record, I dont believe admission should solely be based on race but I do think there should be some consideration with an emphasis on those that come from underserved communities, which again most of the time happen to be minorities.
 
The difficulty is that "best" isn't a very specific word, and in the past that has resulted in very substantial bias, intentional and unintentional, against people who don't look like the decision makers. Is best just test scores, or GPA, or alumni ties, or the quality of your high school, or something even softer like musical or athletic achievements, or worse still "leadership" skills?
What would the class look like if they based their decisions on WCS without knowing race or gender?
 
Harvard's president, Larry Bacow, sent a letter to the Harvard community yesterday regarding this important decision. In it, he expressly notes that the military and the heads of the SAs stand in solidarity with the universities named in the suit (emphasis mine):

Harvard University - Office of the President
Dear Members of the Harvard Community,

In a few hours, the Supreme Court will begin to hear oral arguments in our admissions case. Throughout my presidency, I have had opportunities to state the facts of the matter. I write now to share some personal reflections.

Whatever promise we hold as individuals—for ourselves and for our world—is not predicated on narrowly structured measures of academic distinction. When Harvard assembles a class of undergraduates, it matters that they come from different social, economic, geographical, racial, and ethnic backgrounds. It matters that they come to our campus with varied academic interests and skill sets. Research and lived experience teach us that each student’s learning experience is enriched by encountering classmates who grew up in different circumstances.

Harvard is not alone in believing that we are more than our test scores and that our unique perspectives bring a wealth of educational benefits to a high-quality educational enterprise. The legal battle we have waged, which reaches its apex today, is as important to other colleges and universities, and to society, as it is to us. Educators and scholars, civil rights organizers, historians, and education advocates stand with us. Leaders in business and technology stand with us. Former military officers and the heads of the nation’s service academies stand with us. Their voices—ringing out in amicus briefs—are part of a chorus that has risen across our campus and throughout our country in defense of forty years of legal precedent, as well as the history of the 14th Amendment.

Today, individuals of great skill will argue in favor of our cause inside the highest court in the land. This includes our colleagues from the University of North Carolina and the solicitor general of the United States. To all those who have worked hard to prepare us for today, thank you. To all those who have amplified and defended our argument on campus and elsewhere, thank you. We now await the final decision of the court with earnest anticipation. Whatever it is, we will honor the law while also remaining true to our values. May we continue to support and appreciate one another, as well as the institution we create together.

Sincerely,
Larry
@VelveteenR ,

You seem to have thought about this and have some insight into how the Elite Universities operate. I am a WASP Son of the South who generally agrees with your sentiments.

However, I have always been bothered by the system automatically rewarding members of under-represented racial/ethnic minorities based solely on their race or ethnicity. The thought that the son or daughter of a Black or Hispanic Cardiologist or partner at GS, would be given any kind of points for their minority status really p****s me off.
 
@VelveteenR ,

You seem to have thought about this and have some insight into how the Elite Universities operate. I am a WASP Son of the South who generally agrees with your sentiments.

However, I have always been bothered by the system automatically rewarding members of under-represented racial/ethnic minorities based solely on their race or ethnicity. The thought that the son or daughter of a Black or Hispanic Cardiologist or partner at GS, would be given any kind of points for their minority status really p****s me off.
On the flip side, it also bothers me that a minority who earned it is thought to not have earned it because of their skin color.
 
The elimination of legacy, donor and athletic preference would open up way more slots to "qualified candidates" than affirmative action policies have closed.

None of this bothers me personally, since my scions, male and female, have always been offered slots wherever they applied. And we are about as white as they come. I suppose if my "qualified candidates" had been less "qualified" and had been rejected, my attitude might be different.
 
Last edited:
It's a tricky question with no one answer. I do think elite schools have used race to filter out other possibly more qualified applicants which is wrong especially since they are obviously discriminating against another minority group. I think the SA's do use race as part of their selection criteria do try to make sure their officers represent more minorities as it definitely is a challenge to attract people to the service. The question for the SA's is does that make our military more or less effective? I think all cadets have to share the same load and are constantly competing against each once you enter the SA which is different then a public university. If you aren't good enough you won't make it through to graduation and that isn't just grades but physical fitness, military regulations, demeanor all things you don't have to do at a public school. SA's are much more balanced on treatment and the measure of success for cadets because they all use the same criteria as a whole to be judged and ranked. You can get admitted to a public university and hide your lesser academic qualifications by taking easy classes or as say in Brown University create your own major. In the SA's you have more limited major selections and all have to learn to march, pass the fitness test, take and pass the majority of the exact same classes as other cadets which leads to a more equal ranking of success or failure. It will be interesting how this plays out once the supreme court rules.
 
Lee Cheng's offers interesting insight here, Is Harvard Racist?

"Harvard University’s admissions policy is proof that one can remember negative history, write about it in great and vivid detail, and still be doomed to repeat it. In the name of “affirmative action” and “diversity,” Harvard is doing to Asian-American applicants exactly what it once did to Jewish applicants: discriminate. Lee Cheng explains."
 
Less Qualified is very subjective and it comes down to what defines one as being qualified. Is it strictly their test scores, GPA, leadership sports etc? It is almost impossible to to quantify the immense challenges that kids from underserved communities (most of the time are minorities) have to face. Daily crime, one parent family, poverty, transportation challenges, underperforming schools, the list goes on.

There is talent within these communities, but most of these kids have no chance if certain considerations are not taken. If not affirmative action then what is the solution? For the record, I dont believe admission should solely be based on race but I do think there should be some consideration with an emphasis on those that come from underserved communities, which again most of the time happen to be minorities.
In my statement, "less qualified" is not at all subjective. I stated specifically "as evaluated by objective measures". While not perfect, standardized tests and prior academic performance are the best predictors of future academic performance. Of course non-academic achievements should be considered, but no college applicant should be judged on their looks.
 
Back
Top