We track the SFFA vs West Point and similar cases, like the recent case involving the Naval Academy’s admissions.
Since the case is still in progress, it’s interesting to try to read the tea leaves on the strength of each side’s case and how the court will rule. We of course think that West Point’s biased, DEI, race-preferential admissions are wrong and harmful and that there’s no good reason for West Point to continue doing it.
On this topic, we found this paper analyzing the strength of the USMA legal case, in particular its claimed “national security interest” in applying diversity preferences in admissions. In abstract:
The United States Supreme Court struck down race-conscious admissions in universities, but it left the military academies unscathed because of the “potentially distinct interests that [they] may present.” This Note analyzes West Point’s race-conscious admissions. It describes the history and procedures of West Point’s admissions, focusing on how it uses race. It describes the legal framework of strict scrutiny, the military deference doctrine, and how they may interact. Through this lens, this Note analyzes West Point’s national security interest in diversity. It concludes by offering recommendations to West Point for how to achieve excellence through multi-domain diversity without violating the constitution. The author contends West Point will fail strict scrutiny, even under a deferential framework. West Point’s national security interest in a racially diverse officer corps is likely too amorphous to be a compelling interest because it is not sufficiently measurable to permit meaningful judicial review. And its admissions is not narrowly tailored because it promotes unconstitutional racial balancing through functional quotas and racially segregated admissions tracks. But despite this critical view on the legal issue, this Note acknowledges many of the important values West Point defends. In short, diversity is good, but affirmative action is unconstitutional.
We don’t agree that “diversity [qua diversity] is good” (we think winning warfighting should be the ultimate criterion of military policy decisions), but the analysis of West Point’s legal options is interesting. It leans towards West Point losing the case, probably unless judges insert their own ideologies as happened in the Annapolis case.
It’s disappointing that West Point is going to the mat to defend these policies. They are, quite obviously once anyone looks at the actual data, incorrect and harmful relics of racist politico-ideological biases.
Worth a download and read if you’re interested in such things. Here’s the link to the full paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5236302
Why hasn’t the current administration settled this case?
This is a good question
I have no clue why anyone thinks affirmative action at service academies in admissions and cadet ranks and maybe in grade inflation is any different from that at Harvard or UNC in either methods or goal. The goal is to use the academies to brand the Democrat party as pro black and Latino in order for Democrats to win elections. The method is simply secretly stating a quota of politically-favored admissions and high cadet chain of command rank and maybe a quota for each to graduate regardless of failing courses or honor violations or excess discipline infractions or peer-based aptitude for the service ratings or failing to meet physical fitness standards.
.
Fundamentally, West Point claiming that these admissions, promotions, and graduations are earned and in the best interest of defending the U.S. is a lie. It only serves the interests of a political party and disserves the national defense. This by a 223-year-old, previously highly respected United States Military Academy which claims “Duty honor country” is its guiding motto.
.
The SCOTUS decision by explicitly creating its exception for service academies is an admission that the academies ARE violating the equal protection clause. SCOTUS is the one who needs to explain this nutty exception and point to the constitutional words that create this exception. Like a person who rejects a pardon on principal, the academies should have said we do not wish to be excepted from the equal protection clause. Their embrace of the partisan exception is further evidence that the master they serve is the DNC, not the USA.
.
I am USMA class of 1968.