West Point sued over affirmative action admissions

Fairly certain it'll be dismissed with prejudice.
 
Do they even have standing if they haven’t even applied yet? Article says they will be applying over the next few years.
 
I don't play a lawyer on TV and haven't read the complaint - so I won't pretend to be able to comment on the viability of the complaint.

The only thing I know is that the plaintiffs' lawyers are very experienced with this type of litigation. So, I would not be surprised if they can find a way to overcome things like "standing" issues. And, I also know that the Supreme Court explicitly excepted Service Academies from its prior decision. That leads me to speculate that the Supreme Court wants nothing to do with Service Academy admissions. Then again, maybe the Supreme Court just wants a fully developed record to review how Service Academies' admissions decisions are made before weighing in.

I'm guessing this will take quite a long time to play out.

:popcorn1::popcorn1::popcorn1:
 
And, I also know that the Supreme Court explicitly excepted Service Academies from its prior decision.
If I recall the Supreme's decision, it specifically said that they weren't going to rule on the issue of applicability to Service Academies. This comment was made in response to an amicus brief filed by the Service Academies or other group which argued that Service Academies had a bona fide interest in ensuring that their graduates reflected the service members that they will lead (or something to that effect). The Supreme's comment was not a decision or a holding , but rather a deferral of the issue (and essentially tee'ing it up for the Plaintiffs group to take on the challenge).

I haven't read the complaint , but I'm sure it is well drafted to frame the issue in Plaintiff's favor, and as ddDad stated..thjis is going to take a while to play out.
 
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.
 
I wonder if it will involve the magical future telling magic 8 ball 🎱

Seriously, though, perhaps a SA doesn’t actually use an ‘Affirmative Action’ in appointing candidates. Could it be as ‘simple’ as that 🤔
 
The "Officer" Corps should rightly reflect the composition of those they will eventually lead. Better to have a diverse military, than a racially restrictive military. BUT, saying that, the standards need to be uniform and fair, and the acceptance of ANY candidate (officer or enlisted) should NOT be dependent on race! I would hope the above mentioned lawsuit would fail as the military has different specific needs than the civilian world. Always nice to have members who can speak a foreign language, or who are looked up to as someone who is a leader and those under them can aspire to become without racial barriers. But "Affirmative Action" has become synonymous with advancing people because of race and not ability or performance, and that is not good. Don't want leaders (enlisted or officer) who are there because of their race and not ability. JMPO!
 
I struggle with the plaintiff’s reasoning. DS received three appointments and checks the same box as the plaintiffs.

How can they predict an outcome before competing?
The question is whether the admissions process on the face of it is discriminatory - they will find standing at some point to proceed.

This lawsuit is slightly different than the one the lawyers already won.
 
I wonder if it will involve the magical future telling magic 8 ball 🎱

Seriously, though, perhaps a SA doesn’t actually use an ‘Affirmative Action’ in appointing candidates. Could it be as ‘simple’ as that 🤔
If it is as simple as that, the case will be dismissed (I believe in summary judgment phase).
 
Last edited:
The idea that your leaders must look like you is an interesting one. When I was a JO, there were initially zero women over the rank of LCDR in my field -- a handful (literally) made O-5 before I got out. None of my leaders EVER looked like me. Not one in any job I was ever in. There were also almost no people of color in leadership positions. Not saying any of the above was ideal or even good -- it was what it was at that time in the military. However, my generation of women and people of color -- mentored almost exclusively by white males -- went on to great success in leadership.

I think it's troubling to suggest that leaders must look like you, which implies that people who look the same think the same, which we all know isn't true. Leaders must lead and mentor subordinates of what they look like.

USNA has had gender-blind admissions for at least 20 years (maybe closer to 30). The percentage of women has steadily increased because more women have applied over the years and, taking the most excellent candidates overall has therefore increased the number and percentage of women.

I would like to think that, if admissions were color-blind AND there was effective recruiting by the Admissions departments at the SAs, the number/percentage of people of color applying would also increase. Thus, taking the best would result in a higher number / percentage of people of color at the SAs. The above said, I know it's not that simple.
 
The question is whether the admissions process on the face of it is discriminatory - they will find standing at some point to proceed.

This lawsuit is slightly different than the one the lawyers already won.
I would answer your first question from my point of view as "no it is not discriminatory." It only discriminates against people who think they are, or should be, qualified and don't get offered appointment, so then they believe the process discriminates against them.
 
I would answer your first question from my point of view as "no it is not discriminatory." It only discriminates against people who think they are, or should be, qualified and don't get offered appointment, so then they believe the process discriminates against them.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you.

But a judge might … we haven’t seen the evidence.
 
The idea that your leaders must look like you is an interesting one. When I was a JO, there were initially zero women over the rank of LCDR in my field -- a handful (literally) made O-5 before I got out. None of my leaders EVER looked like me. Not one in any job I was ever in. There were also almost no people of color in leadership positions. Not saying any of the above was ideal or even good -- it was what it was at that time in the military. However, my generation of women and people of color -- mentored almost exclusively by white males -- went on to great success in leadership.

I think it's troubling to suggest that leaders must look like you, which implies that people who look the same think the same, which we all know isn't true. Leaders must lead and mentor subordinates of what they look like.

USNA has had gender-blind admissions for at least 20 years (maybe closer to 30). The percentage of women has steadily increased because more women have applied over the years and, taking the most excellent candidates overall has therefore increased the number and percentage of women.

I would like to think that, if admissions were color-blind AND there was effective recruiting by the Admissions departments at the SAs, the number/percentage of people of color applying would also increase. Thus, taking the best would result in a higher number / percentage of people of color at the SAs. The above said, I know it's not that simple.
Thoughtful insights.

I was commissioned in ‘78. Until I retired 26 years later, there was not one woman above me in my chain of command all the way up to CNO, until my last tour, when I was privileged to work for VADM Patricia Tracey, the first woman in any service to put on 3 stars. She had been a mentor of mine, along with a few other senior women, remotely, in the sense there were so few, and you met them, and they offered to be a sounding board for you, you contacted them when you needed to. For everyday mentoring in the workplace, for things big and small, it was the male senior officers (and definitely the male chiefs, senior chiefs and master chiefs when I was a JO) who were my mentors and professional development coaches. I was grateful for the ones who mentored regardless of gender, skin color, ethnicity. They were focused on performance as an officer. I can close my eyes and think about CWO4 Roy Perez, LCDR Steve Flood, BTCM Higgins (his first name was Master Chief to me, and he was Black, and his lessons in deckplate leadership were gold, and his empathy for knowing how it felt to not be in the majority was powerful), and so many other Dept heads, XOs, COs, Chiefs of Staff, flag officers over the years. Sure, I encountered my share of those with a severe case of Disinclination In Mentoring Women In The Service (had to work for that acronym), but there were enough right-minded officers to carry on the work of developing those who came behind them. I also mentored without regard to whatever label or category might apply. That was my duty and also a great source of professional pleasure. I now volunteer with two non-profits mentoring military members in career transition out of the military through coaching calls, for the same reasons. (For my veteran friends here, if you haven’t already checked them out, Veterati and American Corporate Partners.)

I find today’s mix of people in the service to be energizing. One day, none of it will matter.
 
This will be an interesting case since West Point uses the Whole Candidate Score (WCS) to rank candidates by merit. Some points to consider:
  • The fact that unqualified candidates are not appointed is irrelevant. The question is whether less qualified applicants are appointed over more qualified applicants based on race.
  • It is very easy to determine that less qualified applicants are appointed over more qualified applicants by comparing WCS scores. This is an indisputable fact. The question is the reason for making such selections.
  • Federal regulations specifically allow Additional Appointees (AA) to be appointed out of order of merit, without specifying any criteria for making such selections.
  • AA appointments go primarily to recruited athletes and minorities and account for approximately 200 - 400 appointments each year, or about 15% - 30% of an incoming class. Very difficult for a candidate not in one of those two categories to get an AA appointment.
  • Congressional representatives and Senators can give a qualified candidate a principal nomination using any criteria they choose, thereby guaranteeing appointment over other candidates who may have a higher WCS score.
  • When West Point adjudicates slates, they do so based on WCS score, guaranteeing that selection is merit based for those slates.
 
This will be an interesting case since West Point uses the Whole Candidate Score (WCS) to rank candidates by merit. Some points to consider:
  • The fact that unqualified candidates are not appointed is irrelevant. The question is whether less qualified applicants are appointed over more qualified applicants based on race.
  • It is very easy to determine that less qualified applicants are appointed over more qualified applicants by comparing WCS scores. This is an indisputable fact. The question is the reason for making such selections.
  • Federal regulations specifically allow Additional Appointees (AA) to be appointed out of order of merit, without specifying any criteria for making such selections.
  • AA appointments go primarily to recruited athletes and minorities and account for approximately 200 - 400 appointments each year, or about 15% - 30% of an incoming class. Very difficult for a candidate not in one of those two categories to get an AA appointment.
  • Congressional representatives and Senators can give a qualified candidate a principal nomination using any criteria they choose, thereby guaranteeing appointment over other candidates who may have a higher WCS score.
  • When West Point adjudicates slates, they do so based on WCS score, guaranteeing that selection is merit based for those slates.
Excellent post. I believe this is the important stuff.

The only way I see a problem is if higher WCSs lost their slate to someone else.

What we know and believe might be opposite of what discovery shows.
 
Of course, principal nominees who barely qualify can be appointed over nominees with higher WCS. That is probably not an uncommon scenario.
 
Back
Top