SCOTUS Affirmative Action decision could affect Service Academy and ROTC

Well said. Green is in fact the only color of Marines.
.
The old hometown looks the same
As I step down from the train
And there to meet me is my mama and papa
Down the road I look and there runs Mary
Hair of gold and lips like cherries
It's good to touch the green, green grass of home

Yes, they'll all come to meet me
Arms reaching, smiling sweetly
It's good to touch the green, green grass of home

 
.
The “Four Gray Walls” in the Green Green Grass of Home doesn’t have to be a a metaphor for life …

Anyway … Dolly Parton was a regular on the Porter Wagoner show.
.
 
Last edited:
"For the Academies, points are also given to kids whose parents were former military and if they were Academy grads. To me that is the same as giving a bump to someone from an underrepresented category. And it could be said that there are non-qualified cadets being admitted"

I've been a USAFA ALO for a LOOOONG time and I've never been told this by anyone in the admissions directorate. I've asked that very question and was told "no, we do not give credence, credit, or a leg-up for military kids or grads kids."

I do know they track that information as they're required to for audit purposes and other reasons I can't remember right now, but they've been pretty clear that whether the parent is military or a grad means nothing for scoring purposes, just demographics.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
In the interest of fairness and equal opportunity, ALL citizens should have an EQUAL opportunity to seek admittance based on merit and not just by being a DS/DD of a SA graduate.

Having said that, those DS/DDs with a SA graduate parent have one important advantage that is more in-direct and not a matter of bias. In many cases, they have had firsthand opportunities to observe military service and the military lifestyle and, as such, are better prepared for the rigors of military service. They know more of what to expect when they arrive at SAs. That isn't bias; it is life experience. The same can be said about a candidate with a close acquaintance or family member that had previously served. Those firsthand opportunities don't translate into extra application points; however, I would argue that the better prepared an appointee is, the more likely he/she is to graduate.

Bottom line: All admissions should be based on merit. Our citizens and our enlisted service men and women deserve the best qualified to lead them in the defense of our country.
 
In the interest of fairness and equal opportunity, ALL citizens should have an EQUAL opportunity to seek admittance based on merit and not just by being a DS/DD of a SA graduate.

Having said that, those DS/DDs with a SA graduate parent have one important advantage that is more in-direct and not a matter of bias. In many cases, they have had firsthand opportunities to observe military service and the military lifestyle and, as such, are better prepared for the rigors of military service. They know more of what to expect when they arrive at SAs. That isn't bias; it is life experience. The same can be said about a candidate with a close acquaintance or family member that had previously served. Those firsthand opportunities don't translate into extra application points; however, I would argue that the better prepared an appointee is, the more likely he/she is to graduate.

Bottom line: All admissions should be based on merit. Our citizens and our enlisted service men and women deserve the best qualified to lead them in the defense of our country.
I would argue that a candidate not from a military family can be sufficiently and as well prepared as one from a military family. I would also argue that they can succeed as well at the academy.

In fact, I have anecdotal evidence of that.
 
I would argue that a candidate not from a military family can be sufficiently and as well prepared as one from a military family. I would also argue that they can succeed as well at the academy.

In fact, I have anecdotal evidence of that.
I would agree -- which is why I would argue for fair and equal opportunity for admittance based on merit and not bias.
 
I would agree -- which is why I would argue for fair and equal opportunity for admittance based on merit and not bias.
Do you have a problem with the quality of officers the US military is turning out now?

And if so are those officers deficient based on being an equal opportunity hire in some way ?

Because if there is no actual observed problem what are we trying to fix?

And I would be the first to admit that none of mine made it in to a SA on merit. Quite the opposite. They made it in because they were much better at their sports.
 
Do you have a problem with the quality of officers the US military is turning out now?

And if so are those officers deficient based on being an equal opportunity hire in some way ?

Because if there is no actual observed problem what are we trying to fix?

And I would be the first to admit that none of mine made it in to a SA on merit. Quite the opposite. They made it in because they were much better at their sports.
D1 athletics is merit based on the current system.

Unless a better player at that position has better stats.
 
D1 athletics is merit based on the current system.

Unless a better player at that position has better stats.
Do you have a problem with the quality of officers we are turning out today? If so what might that be?

My impression is that the system we have today works quite well. And I like the fact that the officer corps we have today more accurately reflects the country they serve and the people they command

. Unlike my time when I never once came in contact with an officer of color. That was merit based as well at the time.

That is all very much merit as much as mine getting in because of their 40 time :)
 
Do you have a problem with the quality of officers we are turning out today? If so what might that be?

My impression is that the system we have today works quite well. And I like the fact that the officer corps we have today more accurately reflects the country they serve and the people they command

. Unlike my time when I never once came in contact with an officer of color. That was merit based as well at the time.

That is all very much merit as much as mine getting in because of their 40 time :)
I was disagreeing with your comment “And I would be the first to admit that none of mine made it in to a SA on merit.”

They made it on merit.
 
Supreme Court just ruled affirmative action in college admissions unconstitutional. We shall see how this affects the academies and officer corps in the years ahead.

I read the amicus brief filed by former flag officers which argued that the end of affirmative action in service academies would be a major blow to readiness, and to be honest I didn’t find it very convincing.
 
The decision specifically exempts service academies from its umbrella.

"None of the courts below addressed the propriety of race-based admissions systems in that context," reads the footnote on page 30 of the decision. "This opinion also does not address the issue, in light of the potentially distinct interests that military academies may present."
 
Supreme Court just ruled affirmative action in college admissions unconstitutional. We shall see how this affects the academies and officer corps in the years ahead.

I read the amicus brief filed by former flag officers which argued that the end of affirmative action in service academies would be a major blow to readiness, and to be honest I didn’t find it very convincing.
I saw your earlier comments as well

The 60s and 70s were certainly a racially charged time in the military. Some violence in VN.

Would that racial division and violence have been any different if there were minority senior nco s and minority officers? Don’t know since i virtually never saw one.

In combat we had blacks on the teams. But I never had a black nco or black officer in over a year of people constantly coming and going.

And no one even the blacks assumed it was going to be any different not in 1965.

You never saw blacks in important positions of power virtually anywhere.. Even on tv shows.

I think the readiness issue is compelling. Not for 1967 maybe but for 2023.
 
The decision specifically exempts service academies from its umbrella.

"None of the courts below addressed the propriety of race-based admissions systems in that context," reads the footnote on page 30 of the decision. "This opinion also does not address the issue, in light of the potentially distinct interests that military academies may present."
Good catch.
 
Never be able to convince me otherwise of all of this talk by politicians is to perpetuate racism. Racism has been, is, and will continue to be profitable for the non productive politicians on both sides of the aisle!
 
The reporter just asked the winning lawyers specifically about SAs. Said they were still digesting the opinion, and the future plans of the law firm as it related to pursuing things re SAs were not for discussion today.
 
Due to the competitive nature of the appointment process, regulated by law, and the details of the Supreme Court decision, it is unlikely that the decision will affect SA's. Most appointments are made strictly on the basis of merit, but the law allows a number of appointments to be made out of order of merit. Additionally, in its decision, the Court also ruled that colleges and universities may consider in admissions decisions an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life.

While correct in principle that affirmative action violates the equal protection clause, the decision will not change race based admissions policies. Institutions intent on circumventing the Supreme Court decision need only look to California for guidance.

In 1996 California voters passed proposition 209 which eliminated affirmative action in public employment, public education, and public contracting. In response the University of California system developed proxies for race, thereby preserving race based admissions and bypassing the will of California voters.
 
Additionally, in its decision, the Court also ruled that colleges and universities may consider in admissions decisions an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life.

Keep reading that paragraph.

…. Universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we find unlawful today … what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly.
 
How does anyone really know how a college admissions office makes its admissions decisions?

Does anyone really think that Ivy League schools are now going to ignore race and ethnicity? Because if they did, their student bodies would have a disproportionately high percentage of Asian and Jewish students. They have always discriminated against those groups and I hate to tell you folks, but they are not going to change and ignore race and ethnicity
 
Last edited:
Back
Top