The service academies are NOT designed for social redress. There’s plenty of laws on the books and agencies to enforce them to insure equality. Leave it at the gate, period, dot, end of sentence.

As J. Scott stated, we need to figure out a way to treat people fairly. In doing what they are doing, I do believe the academy is trying to get at fairness-even if its methodology is a bit off. They are trying to bring into balance historical imbalances and for this I applaud them.

“Can someone truly say that that person is more qualified?”

Immaterial. There needs to be SOME criteria. If a certain score disqualifies someone or makes admission highly unlikely, why should it be considered acceptable for another based entirely on racial or ethnic or gender category? Are you suggesting the way to end racism is to discriminate against people based on skin color or race/ethnicity?

I ask, can someone explain to me the true difference between someone who scores a 1050- such as I did- and someone who scores 1150-aside from the 100 points? Can someone truly say that that person is more qualified, or did they have a better testing day that day? The truth of the matter is that once minimum proficiency is met, the rest doesn’t matter.

In reality, there exist no perfect application processes to determine the most qualified, since the term seems to be arbitrary at best. The smartest person is not always the best person for the job in any profession. There are other intangible that go into college admissions that people do not talk about such as legacy and who you know. I know that race and gender determinations make us as a society uneasy, but until you can truly make it a level playing field, then every factor should be taken into consideration.

No need to apologize. It’s the weak civilian coffee. Nobody washes it around in a hubcap the way we’re used to.

Excellent points, as does the article by Senior Chief Murphy. Phib appropriately labels such the “diversity industry”, which hints at finding problems that don’t exist, and constantly changing definitions in order to perpetuate a need for such “services”.

Be you a hammer, every problem is a nail. But I imagine they are going to get along smashingly with the “climate change industry”, whose scientific methodology has also come into question of late….

In ref to the correction, make that the second sentence within the next-to-last paragraph.

Let’s see…what was I doing?

“We’ve become so accustomed to handing out that which is not truly earned nor deserved that it has become the expected norm…”

“To be certain, there are advantages to having a diverse military in a country as diverse as ours. There is also a place for diversity in admissions decisions at the Naval Academy, but only when it does not come at the expense of more qualified applicants.”

As a retired MCPO, I’m fully aware of the benefits of a diverse workforce. If nothing more, it guarantees that those in charge will receive varying opinions/feedback in the course of their duties. One can only make an educated decision after they’ve maximized the opportunity (when and where practical) by examining all possibilities.

That said, I feel that the Academy’s approach represents a fundamental problem that’s wreaked havoc on our society as a whole – a problem that extends beyond the grounds of the Academy to the vast corners of this great nation. Somewhere along the path after realizing that we, collectively, could be a better people (and thereby a better nation) by instituting policy and law to thwart the efforts of those that would otherwise continue to oppress, we lost our focus. Instead of adhering to the very basis of these laws – laws which clearly state that one shall not deny another based on the color of their skin – we’re instead making decisions and affording/denying opportunities in a fashion that’s in direct conflict with the concepts and actions that these very laws were enacted to defeat.

Therefore, I would argue that we’re not a better nation because of this, but are instead weaker. We’ve become so accustomed to handing out that which is not truly earned nor deserved that it has become the exported norm, which is now a problem in and of itself. How, pray tell, does one attempt to right this ship? How, this late into the voyage, can one stand out front and say, without fear of being completely and totally disowned by the rest of society, “That’s not what was meant when this law was adopted, and therefore, we’re no longer going to do business in this fashion.”?

As the good Senior Chief so eloquently states, diversity is needed, “…but only when it does not come at the expense of more qualified applicants.” My oldest son and daughter are both serving proudly in the Navy today. The likelihood exists that they may very well find themselves in a combat situation one day, and should they, I would expect that they’ll be led into battle by the best trained, most knowledgeable, hardest working Officer the Navy has to offer, and not simply the next available lesser-qualified applicant chosen merely to demonstrate our dedication to diversifying our force. Should the latter occur, then this Master Chief might very well lose his military bearing!

JW