Kate Anderson
Daily Caller News Foundation
The West Point military academy is set to be the center of a lawsuit filed earlier this week over race-based admissions and legal experts and student advocates who spoke with the Daily Caller News Foundation said that there’s a strong case against the military on this issue.
The lawsuit was filed on Sept. 19 by Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), the same organization that sued Harvard and the University of North Carolina before ultimately winning at the Supreme Court in June. The court’s decision brought the military’s policies to the forefront, and legal experts and student advocates told the DCNF that there are a lot of questions concerning the military’s justification of its admissions policies that need to be answered.
While the military has a “unique role in our nation’s life” that doesn’t give its academies the ability to justify “polarizing and disliked racial classifications,” Edward Blum, president of SFFA, told the DCNF.
“Because the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent opinion in the SFFA case expressly forbids all institutions of higher education from using race in admissions decisions, it must follow that the U.S. military’s higher education institutions must end their race-based policies as well,” Blum said.
The lawsuit claims that the military has two general arguments for making race a deciding factor during the admissions process. The first is that “racial preferences enhance the military’s internal functioning”; and the second is that these same preferences are vital to the “military’s functional capacity by fostering internal confidence within the ranks” as well as boosting “external legitimacy.”
The “legitimacy” argument is not grounded in fact and “no level of deference justifies” racial preferences in the admission process, Blum told the DCNF.
The claim is not supported by the Department of Defense’s own research on the issue, according to Cully Stimson, former Navy JAG, retired captain and legal fellow for the Heritage Foundation, who spoke with the DCNF.
“They talk about this in a climate survey. There’s a perception among white students that some of the black students didn’t otherwise qualify to get in there, but for their race,” Stimson explained. “There’s a perception among black students that some of them were promoted within the academies solely because of their race, and therefore they put less emphasis and respect on some black officers if they get promoted because they wonder ‘well, did he get it or did she get it because she’s black or did she get it because she has merit?’”
The Supreme Court’s opinion in Harvard applies to the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) at public universities, which make up a significant portion of officers in the military, Stimson told the DCNF. He explained that this begs the question why it’s prohibited for admission into the ROTC and not West Point or the other academies, which only make up less than 20% of the officers in the service.
The other argument the military makes is that race-based admissions fosters “trust between the enlisted corps and its leaders,” according to the lawsuit. Diversity among the ranks means that minority servicemen and women will improve their “performance” if the military can create “‘greater confidence’ in leadership” as well as facilitate trust with a diverse civilian population.
The military’s position shows that they view minorities as the same and not individuals who think for themselves and determine their own set of values and loyalties, according to Blum
“The military assumes that enlisted men and women will respond to orders better from someone with the same skin color, but the truth is soldiers obey orders because of the uniform, not because of skin color,” Blum told the DCNF. “Policies like these just assume that different minority groups think the same way or will respond better to someone of the same race as opposed to someone of a different race.”
Along those same lines, David Bernstein, George Mason University professor of law and executive director of the Liberty & Law Center, told the DCNF that another point of interest was in the racial groups the military prioritized.
“One thing [SFFA] can argue is that the military says they want diversity in the officer corps but they haven’t explained why it’s important to have representation of a specific group like Hispanics, rather than Mexican Americans, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Columbian and for that matter, why not say why not Arab Americans? Why not Greek Americans?” Bernstein said.
Bernstein said that SFFA’s lawsuit creates an opportunity for the military to answer this question on the record and explain what Chief Justice John Roberts called an “arbitrary or undefined” means of classification in the Harvard case. Bernstein further stated that if SFFA could prove that the military was creating a quota for each racial group then it would put the academy in a “worse legal position than Harvard and UNC.”
Though he could not say with absolute certainty whether or not SFFA’s lawsuit would be the one taken up by the courts, Stimson felt that it is only a matter of time before the issue lands in the lap of the Supreme Court again.
“Sooner or later a case and controversy where a person has suffered concrete injury will go to the court, and it’s very likely the court is just going to extend Students for Fair Admissions to the academies and be done with it,” Stimson said.
The DOD and West Point told the DCNF that they do not comment on pending litigation.
This story originally was published by the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].
IMPORTANT NOTE TO WND READERS: Believe it or not, today’s high priests of climate-change apocalypse are correct in predicting that in just a few short years, the earth will become miserable, wretched and almost uninhabitable by human beings. But the grim future they envision won’t come about because of “catastrophic climate change,” but rather, because of the implementation of their completely insane and truly catastrophic agenda.
As Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore recently admitted, “If they actually achieve Net Zero, at least 50% of the population would die of hunger and disease.” Likewise, writes energy expert and author Alex Epstein: “Today’s proposed policies to rapidly eliminate fossil fuel use would, if fully implemented, have truly apocalyptic consequences – making the world an impoverished, dangerous, and miserable place for most people.”
Question: When the scientific case for global warming apocalypse consists primarily of a 1-degree Celsius rise in temperature over more than 130 years, what explains the obsession with an imminent, climate-caused end of the world?
Although many groups have been drawn into the Climate Change Cult – from the news media (which has warned of climate catastrophe, either global warming or a “new ice age,” for over a century!), to innocent school kids indoctrinated by hysterical leftist teachers, to liberal Democrats who claim “climate change” will destroy the earth in a few years – the REAL villains are the national and global elites who KNOW the apocalyptic global warming religion is just a cruel hoax, but promote and exploit it as a means of accomplishing their ultimate goal: Transforming and ruling the world.
The heart and soul of today’s bizarre, pagan climate-change religion, and the global elites’ strategies for using it to rule all of mankind, is powerfully exposed and illuminated in the September issue of WND’s critically acclaimed monthly Whistleblower magazine, an issue titled “CULT OF THE CLIMATE APOCALYPSE: The elites’ breathtaking strategy for ruling the world.” WHISTLEBLOWER is available in both the popular print edition and a state-of-the-art digital version, either single issues or discounted annual subscriptions.
SUPPORT TRUTHFUL JOURNALISM. MAKE A DONATION TO THE NONPROFIT WND NEWS CENTER. THANK YOU!
