Analysis of USNA Annapolis Racial Bias In Admissions

Yes, we’re focused on the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. But the diversity and standards problems afflicting West Point, currently in litigation with Students for Fair Admissions, are also the problems afflicting Annapolis. So we pay attention when others, including CDR Salamander , write about the Navy. And today we learned about an exceptional report by Zach Goldberg, which is extensively researched and examines the analysis and findings in the recent SFFA vs USNA case. USNA won, but it’s far from clear that the finding will stand in the USMA case and presumably in the Supreme Court afterward.

Statistical Analysis Clearly Shows USNA Racial Bias In Admissions

The section most of interest to us in the report is section 2 (link) “Review of Findings from SFFA’s Analysis of USNA Data”. Some key excerpts are below:

First, summary table of key admissions statistics by race and admitted status (look all the way to the bottom for the race indicators, then check the bar legend for what the different colors mean):

This lines up neatly with our data in On Diversity As Strength and USMA Acceptance Rates. Blacks are being admitted at scores and achievements much, much lower than other races.

Admissions preferences by WPM (Navy’s equivalent of the USMA Whole Candidate Score, a holistic measure of academic, leadership, and physical achievement to drive admissions rankings)

Again, Blacks are being admitted at much higher rates per WPM than other races.

The summary of the impact of racial preferences on class composition:

Given these distributions, a race-blind admissions system that selected all applicants from the top four WPM deciles would yield a markedly different racial composition among admitted students. Under such a system, the share of non-BCA/non-prep admits would shift to 71.4% white (compared to 61.3% in actuality), 14.3% Asian (16.7%), 8.5% Hispanic (11.8%), and just 1.9% Black (6.1%). If applied to the entire qualified applicant pool–meaning BCAs and prep applicants would no longer be virtual admission shoo-ins–whites would constitute 70.4% of admits (compared to 58.7% in actuality), Asians 13.8% (14.3%), Hispanics 9.3% (12.5%), and Blacks 2.7% (10.5%).

Zach Goldberg

And on the practical impacts for applicants:

The results, shown in Figure 2.4A below, translate abstract statistical coefficients into real differences in admission odds. Beginning with the pooled models (dark blue bars) in the top row, Professor Arcidiacono estimates that a white applicant with a modest 5% probability of admission would have a 50.3% chance of admission if treated as Black, a 14.8% chance if treated as Hispanic, an 18.3% chance if treated as Asian, and a 15.3% chance if treated as Native American/Hawaiian. Notably, the admission ‘bonus’ for being treated as a black applicant increased from 40% in the 2023–2024 cycle to 59.4% in the 2025–2027 cycle. This latter period coincided, perhaps not coincidentally, with heightened public focus on racial equity following the killing of George Floyd. Turning to the right panel, a white applicant with a 25% chance of admission would see their probability rise to 85.7% if treated as Black, 51.3% if treated as Hispanic, and 59.1% if treated as Asian.

And so on it goes. We can see clearly that race was nakedly more important than qualifications in selecting the midshipman corps.

Conclusion

This is an amazing find and write-up by Mr. Goldberg. After examining our own data, we have no doubt that similar preferences were, and perhaps are, still in play at West Point. But this is the first recent public analysis to go deep into the admissions rabbit hole, with serious analysis, and show exactly how much impact racial preferences have had on our nation’s military.

More disturbingly, this is a reflection on the military leadership over the past–what–10, 15, 20 years? Did no one think that this was wrong? That our military’s values are more focused on skin color to win political brownie points and promotions than on implications for warfighting? Who are these officers, and why are they trying to create a social lab out of the military? Fire them all, immediately, every one who had anything to do with this, and any one who is still doing it.

Reading the Academy’s case for *why* they did these things is appalling. Completely without merit. We can only hope that the higher judges can reason their way through their “feelings” and understand that lethality is borne on competence, and our nation’s military needs the most competent, skilled leadership it can get.