West Point Military Academy is facing a lawsuit over race-based admissions, and legal experts and student advocates believe that there is a strong case against the military on this issue.
The lawsuit was filed by Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), the same organization that successfully sued Harvard and the University of North Carolina. The Supreme Court's decision in the SFFA case brought the military's admissions policies into question, and there are many unanswered questions regarding the military's justification for these policies.
Edward Blum, President of SFFA, argues that the military's unique role in the nation does not give its academies the right to use "polarizing and disliked racial classifications" in their admissions process. Blum believes that the Supreme Court's ruling against race-based admissions in higher education applies to the military as well.
The lawsuit claims that the military justifies its use of race in admissions based on two arguments. The first is that racial preferences enhance the military's internal functioning, and the second is that these preferences boost the military's external legitimacy. However, Blum argues that the legitimacy argument is not supported by the Department of Defense's own research on the issue.
Cully Stimson, a former Navy JAG and legal fellow for the Heritage Foundation, explains that there is a perception among white and black students at the academies that race plays a role in admissions and promotions. This perception undermines trust and respect within the ranks.
The Supreme Court's ruling in the Harvard case applies to the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) at public universities, which make up a significant portion of military officers. This raises the question of why race-based admissions are prohibited for ROTC but not for West Point and other military academies, which only account for less than 20% of officers.
The military also argues that race-based admissions foster trust between the enlisted corps and its leaders, as well as improve performance and facilitate trust with a diverse civilian population. However, Blum believes that this view fails to recognize individuals' ability to think for themselves and determine their own values and loyalties.
David Bernstein, a law professor at George Mason University, points out that the military prioritizes certain racial groups for diversity without explaining why those specific groups are important. He believes that SFFA's lawsuit provides an opportunity for the military to explain its classification system and potentially face legal consequences if it is found to be creating quotas for each racial group.
While it is uncertain which lawsuit will be taken up by the courts, legal experts like Stimson believe that it is only a matter of time before the issue reaches the Supreme Court again. The Department of Defense and West Point declined to comment on the pending litigation.
Login