Published 06/14/09The Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead announced in Annapolis recently that "diversity is the number one priority" at the Naval Academy. ...
The stunning revelation last week was that the Naval Academy had an incoming class that was "more diverse" than ever before: 35 percent minority.
Sounds good, only this comes with a huge price tag. It's taxpayers who bankroll the military. Yet nobody has asked us if we're willing to pay this price. Instead we're being told there is no price to pay at all. If you believe that, you probably also believe in the Tooth Fairy.
A "diverse" class does not mean the Naval Academy recruits violinists, or older students (they can't be 23 on Induction Day), or gay people (who are thrown out) or foreign students (other than the dozen or so sent by client governments).
It means applicants checked a box on their application that says they are Hispanic, African American, Native American, and now, since my time on the Admissions Board of the Academy, where I've taught for 22 years, Asians.
Midshipmen are admitted by two tracks. White applicants out of high school who are not also athletic recruits typically need grades of A and B and minimum SAT scores of 600 on each part for the Board to vote them "qualified." Athletics and leadership also count.
A vote of "qualified" for a white applicant doesn't mean s/he's coming, only that he or she can compete to win the "slate" of up to 10 nominations that (most typically) a Congress(wo)man draws up. That means that nine "qualified" white applicants are rejected. SAT scores below 600 or C grades almost always produce a vote of "not qualified" for white applicants.
Not so for an applicant who self-identifies as one of the minorities who are our "number one priority." For them, another set of rules apply. Their cases are briefed separately to the board, and SAT scores to the mid-500s with quite a few Cs in classes (and no visible athletics or leadership) typically produce a vote of "qualified" for them, with direct admission to Annapolis. They're in, and are given a pro forma nomination to make it legit.
Minority applicants with scores and grades down to the 300s with Cs and Ds (and no particular leadership or athletics) also come, though after a remedial year at our taxpayer-supported remedial school, the Naval Academy Preparatory School.
By using NAPS as a feeder, we've virtually eliminated all competition for "diverse" candidates: in theory they have to get a C average at NAPS to come to USNA, but this is regularly re-negotiated.
All this is probably unconstitutional. That's what the Supreme Court said about the University of Michigan's two-track admissions in 2003.
Once at Annapolis, "diverse" midshipmen are over-represented in our pre-college classes, in lower-track courses, in mandatory tutoring programs and less challenging majors. Many struggle to master basic concepts. (I teach some of these courses.)
Of course, some minority students are stellar, but they're the exception. Despite being dragged toward the finish line, minorities graduate at about a 10 percent lower rate than the whole class, which of course includes them (so the real split is greater).
I wonder if Professor Fleming had to swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States to get his job at the Naval Academy, and he took his oath literally. Perhaps the higher-ups forgot to clue him into the secret Fingers-Crossed Clause in the Constitution about how that all equal protection of the laws stuff doesn't apply in the case of Diversity.
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Posts
52 comments:
So white graduates are higher-achieving than otherwise. Hmm. I wonder how this plays out in the future.
Well,this should help those who want to abolish the service academies.
After all,if they're turned into the equivalent of 2nd or even 3rd tier state schools dedicated to churning out students in statistically proper numbers,well,we got lot's of those already.
It seems that the USA military is torn by a struggle between those who wish to keep their oaths to uphold the Constitution and those who believe the Constitution to be a living document.
I think it reasonable to suggest that 14th Amendment prohibitions of racial discrimination apply more strongly to state governments than the federal government.
Fortunately all soldiers, sailors and airmen are going to be replaced by drones and robots anyways. Granted these cybersoldiers will have to be run by people, but so long as a person is smart enough to operate a videogame...
disappointing stuff.
i would say it's official that the united states is finished. it's power, influence, and cultural output can only decline from this point forward. only 40 years after the culture war began, the entire country is damaged beyond repair. nothing left but a slow and steady descent. it is nearly certain that china, japan, and korea will dominate america this century.
hard to believe that america is still 65% europeans, yet euro-americans have NO FUTURE WHATSOEVER in this nation. white politicians are fully committed to turning the united states into brazil, with south african politics.
reading about this kind of thing makes me SO GLAD i did not apply to west point. i visited for 1 week in 1994 back when i was still interested in serving. my father, and his father, had both served. my dad in vietnam, his dad in world war 2.
i finally decided that 4 years of college and 8 years of duty was more time than i was willing to give, and went to a private college instead. i never considered enlisting.
Ricks says close the academies. It costs a ridiculous amount of money to run them. Problem solved.
Wow this one hits too close to home. I considered applying to Annapolis in the early 80's when they were just starting to take women but few women were applying. So, it could have been relatively easy. I was just a little over the 600 mark on both parts of the SAT and my grades were just okay. But my grandfather was the the CO of a naval air station, and my grandmother had connections to a politician in the state. So I probably could have got in. After I started college, I got into a conversation with some young men, one of whom had applied and didn't make it even though he was more qualified. In truth, he was smarter, stronger, more diligent, well, just a better candidate than I was, by a lot. I would have been in over my head. The world will never be totally fair, but there is still value in striving toward it. Placing weaker candidates ahead of stronger ones is a mistake.
I had always imagined the armed forces were largely conservative institutions. My friend attended West Point and was often ostracized because he voted Democrat and wasn't a practicing Christian.
I imagine many in the academies feel the same way as Professor Fleming.
"I had always imagined the armed forces were largely conservative institutions. My friend attended West Point and was often ostracized because he voted Democrat and wasn't a practicing Christian."
Being an overtly pious Christian doesn't mean you don't have stupid ideas about NAMs and "diversity." To wit: Geore W. Bush.
Ideas have consequences, and the consequences of these diversity policies will be especially severe. Translation: sprinkling unqualified minorities throughout the military is going to get a lot of people killed.
Lemme see...................
White applicants have to score over 600 on their SAT to get in,
while Non-Asian-Minority applicants only have to score above 500 on their SAT to get in.
Lets apply this logic to the NFL, but reverse the roles shall we?
Black tailbacks should be made to run the 40 yard dash in under 4.5 seconds get drafted in the first two rounds, but white tailbacks should only have to run the 40 yard dash in under 4.6 seconds to get drafted in the first two rounds.
But WAIT! America is becoming more diverse than that. Lets make it so that Asian and Hispanic tailbacks can run as slow as 4.7 seconds and still get drafted in the first two rounds. Fair is fair right? It wont alter the competition on the field at all, we swear it.
Miles
"I had always imagined the armed forces were largely conservative institutions."
Maybe, but they still have to abide by mandates sent down by fed gov't bureaucrats.
true story:
I have a friend from college who always wanted to be in one of the national security agenecies. he studied a foriegn language, scored the highest level of the def. department ranking, scored in the top % of the other examiniations - and then President Clinton threw out the scores and embraced 'diversity' my friend spent the next years trying to get his life together- worked campus security - until that job too was 'diversitied' (and that was used as a justification to lay off older, higher paid white males, so it was a cost issue too) - now he's in his forties, no children.
It easy to imagine if he got in to that agency, which had a conservative culture (HAD) he would be married w/ children and pretty well off.
The military is a highly political institution, extremely political at the upper reaches. Bush didn't say much about affirmative action but likely the message was sent to the military to brown up the academies. The admirals and generals would have fallen all over each other to fill up on minorities.
The good news is the academies provide a very small portion of the officer corps (about 10% last I heard) and a similarly small percentage of general officers (also about 10%, except in the Marine Corps where it's 30%).
i would say it's official that the united states is finished. it's power, influence, and cultural output can only decline from this point forward. only 40 years after the culture war began, the entire country is damaged beyond repair
I believe this is true for all institutions, at this point its better to just let it fall apart that prolong it. The 1960s broke the back of this nation. Interestingly that is when the residual effects of the great immigraiton wave that stopped in '24 finally came to fruition.
i don't necessarily think this is going to get a LOT of people killed, although some people WILL get killed because of forced diversity, probably due to women in the military. they're promoted beyond their capabilities, and in a real situation where lead is flying, they could get people killed.
they're already a huge negative drain on the navy, because they often can't perform their duties in the middle of a long mission due to getting pregnant. they have to be swapped out back at shore.
in addition to knowing that serious border fences work, israel also knows where and how women can be deployed in the military. israel doesn't have the luxury of liberal idiocy, and has experimented with and removed women from roles in which they are a major detriment.
AA does lead to completely ridiculous stuff like colin powell, a career military AA guy, making it all the way to secretary of state, then backstabbing his own party.
It's all about clout. You don't get into NA or WP with out a politician's help.
What would the Spartan 300 think of this??
Our arrogance as a nation is breathtaking. I wonder if it was like this in ancient Rome at the height of its power.
Maybe SATs aren't that important to the school. Only a 10% greater chance of failing doesn't seem that high compared to the difference in requirements. Of course I haven't worked out the math.
I don't understand why Asians would receive extra consideration in admissions though.
They are already overrepresented at 7% of West Point. Considering how many Japanese/Korean multi-generation types are part of that figure, certain kinds of Asians might be the most overrepresented people at the academy.
it will be interesting to see the fallout from this and/or the defeaning silence from MSM or pundits.
One would think in a time of 'war' on terror that producing top notch officers would be of primary importance and such low standards an outrage..but alas, like our open borders and record level muslim immigration, its fairly obvious there is another more important agenda at play.
"Lets apply this logic to the NFL, but reverse the roles shall we?
In this scenario you'd end up with a bunch of white and asian special-team and marginal position players, while ALL the skill positions (minus QB) and ALL DB positions would still be occupied by the elite blacks who could meet these new elevated standards. In other words, nothing changes.
This is *mostly* true with this kind of AA. It's regrettable but it's not the end of the world as some of you lament. The top 10% of white applicants will still get into the leadership and high-cognitive positions. The best and brightest will still be running the show. Their rank and file may be a bit more colorful, but so what. Functionaries are functionaries.
AA sucks for the average Joe, but rarely does it trickle up (we just tend to notice it when it does).
"Their rank and file may be a bit more colorful, but so what. Functionaries are functionaries."
Bullshit. And you know it.
actually, with a few simple rule changes the NFL would easily become 80% white.
not to mention that divirsity pressure IS in the NFL - to recruit black quarterbacks, coaches, etc.
Mr. Lomez said:
"The top 10% of white applicants will still get into the leadership and high-cognitive positions. The best and brightest will still be running the show. Their rank and file may be a bit more colorful, but so what. Functionaries are functionaries...AA sucks for the average Joe, but rarely does it trickle up (we just tend to notice it when it does).
"
This has been Steve's point for years. Even accepting your assumption (which is certainly false) that the 'browing' of institutions won't hurt their efficiency that much, why should we find it acceptable when non-elite whites get screwed out of positions that mean a lot to them and their well-being in life in favor of even (far) dumber NAMs?
What is interesting is what drives this push for "diversity."
Whites are still around 65% of the nation. Theoretically, such preferences against ordinary Whites to advantage less qualified Blacks/Hispanics would generate an outcry. Yet it does not.
I give you ladies and gentlemen:
Patricia Clarkson. Who sums up her argument: Straight White Guys bad, Gays/Blacks/Hispanics good. Also, Straight White Guys ... over.
You can't understand the preference for "diversity" unless you understand how most White Women support it. There is a strong, informal alliance among White Women, Gays, Blacks, Hispanics, etc. to push White Men out of opportunities and push themselves in. This is natural, and inevitable as marriage declines among White Women, and they look to pure spoils politics.
Yeah Bush has clueless ideas about "diversity," but driving his electoral victory in the 2000 Primary was the votes of ... women. There were other, more conservative alternatives, who never got traction. Diversity has women's support, including the Academies, because they win by it, and pay little penalties (the women who are married are now treating it like a Short term commitment.
Shrug. No surprise. Politics follows demographics and changing family structure. It's a single mother world. Which explains WHY under a Republican President Diversity (in lending, in academies) INCREASED. Because White women are the dominant demographic slice of the diversity coalition.
The argument that AA shouldn't matter to you because it only hits the marginal white is basically a wedge argument.
It removes any sense of noblesse oblige on the part of high IQ whites.
Moreover, because AA makes the marginal whites angrily express racist sentiments, it shows the high IQ whites that the middle class whites are beneath them both in intelligence and in manners -- basically a lower social class of losers.
At the same time, high IQ WASPs are taught in college to display deference to Hispanics and blacks. They also become friends with (and marry) high IQ Asians and Jews. Many of those Asians and Jews are perfectly fine people. But the overall effect is to drive a wedge between the high IQ WASPs and the middle/lower class ones.
Now the high IQ WASPs side with Asians and Jews (because they are their friends) and with underclass blacks/Hispanics (because they have been taught to).
"The Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead announced in Annapolis recently that "diversity is the number one priority" at the Naval Academy."
I thought that their number one priority would be training the best officers they could. I guess I was wrong. What is their Chinese equivalent's number priority? Probably effectiveness.
The top 10% of white applicants will still get into the leadership and high-cognitive positions. The best and brightest will still be running the show.
Now that provokes some interesting questions. In such a situation, do the "best and brightest" continue running the show? (Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether our country's "best and brightest" haven't been skidding downhill since Madison left office). Or does this peculiar situation - elite whites working actively against the interests of their own genetic kin - introduce an enfeebling corruption into the whole works? Isn't the overwhelming impression of white "elites" on display in Washington one of infantilization, emasculation, and general all around worminess? And frankly, their competence (even in running their own self-serving scams) has become highly questionable. Can you really cut off the high green branches from the root and still thrive? I suspect in the end they'll just get plowed under by the "diversity" they're promoting.
It easy to imagine if he got in to that agency, which had a conservative culture (HAD) he would be married w/ children and pretty well off.
This is a pretty weird story. So this man saw working at that agency as his only option in life? And who says he wanted to marry and have children in the first place? You mean these actions are contingent on getting just the "right" job. Somebody ought to inform all those babymakers out there who work at second and third rate jobs. Most of them haven't gotten the message.
"Even accepting your assumption (which is certainly false) that the 'browing' [sic] of institutions won't hurt their efficiency that much, why should we find it acceptable when non-elite whites get screwed out of positions that mean a lot to them and their well-being in life in favor of even (far) dumber NAMs?"
We SHOULDN'T find it acceptable. That's not my argument. On Constitutional grounds, on a priori moral grounds even, we should rally against these kinds of policies. I AGREE. I am not a proponent of AA.
What I don't agree with is the commentary earlier in this thread that makes the (in my view) reactionary and absurd claim that giving NAM's a few extra strokes on their handicap marks the "official" end of the United States. HAH! That is such an overblown and unsubstantiated point that it ceases to mean anything at all.
I'll admit that I was a bit glib in dismissing the effects of this kind of AA on the personal lives of average whites, but I still doubt the argument that says our institutions cannot properly and efficiently function given a racially proportionate labor-base.
I also don't buy the "wedge" argument. If AA isn't creating antagonism between high IQ and average whites, then the lack of certain kinds of AA will most certainly create antagonisms between average whites and NAM's. So long as there exists inherent inequalities among the races, such divisiveness is unavoidable.
Here's a counter question: Would you rather have a bunch of pissed off average IQ whites, or a bunch of pissed off below average IQ blacks and hispanics?
OneSTDV: My friend attended West Point and was often ostracized because he voted Democrat and wasn't a practicing Christian.
Anyone who attended West Point and who voted Democrat after about, say, 1920, would have to have been assumed to be a Communist spy.
[And no, I'm not being facetious.]
PS: Steve, when I first saw the "35% minority at Annapolis" story the other day, I thought about emailing it to you.
At the time, I was thinking that I would say: In about 20 years, when this navy goes up against Mainland China, you can count on a Tsushima Straits-style disaster [and who knows? - it might even occur in the Tsushima Straits themselves].
Mark it down.
Take it to the bank.
Fo' Sho'.
Tru' Dat.
I remember reading one time about Chesty Puller's praise for the nationalist Chinese (KMT) amphibious training methods. They got their troops all suited up in boots and utes, rifles, helmets and packs . . . and threw them in the water. The ones that made it out? Well, they passed swim training.
Chesty also once said something along the lines of, "If the day comes when America is weak and soft, some better stronger people will come along and take us over."
"actually, with a few simple rule changes the NFL would easily become 80% white."
Yeah, one would be affirmative action.
AA sucks for the average Joe, but rarely does it trickle up (we just tend to notice it when it does).
You've got it absolutely ass-backwards. Affirmative action has much more of an effect on elite whites than on lower-level whites; it's just that the elite will do well anyway, though less well, and can therefore tolerate it more easily.
At my Ivy League alma mater, white gentiles were 35% of the student body. That was about a 50% to 55% underrepresentation, depending on whether you judged by academic credentials or population size. Where can you find a Ricci situation in which the white proportion of firefighters or public school teachers or whatever is cut in half because of AA?
You can't.
actually, with a few simple rule changes the NFL would easily become 80% white."
Yeah, one would be affirmative action.
nope, continuous clock and no substitutions or platooning. Look at rugby and soccer or swimming - 'high speed' blacks don't have endurance and don't do well in those sports
What a terrible burden diversity is. Jared Taylor was so right about Japan and homogeneity being a good thing.
"At my Ivy League alma mater, white gentiles were 35% of the student body. That was about a 50% to 55% underrepresentation, depending on whether you judged by academic credentials or population size."
There is a word for determining percentage by population size, what is it?....Oh yeah, quotas, and I think we all know that is Harvard was fair it would be mainly Brahmin, Jew and NE Asian, with a few whites thrown in.
"Look at rugby and soccer or swimming - 'high speed' blacks don't have endurance and don't do well in those sports."
Well, if you outlawed huddles, it wouldn't truly be football now would it? And "our" lack of endurance sure does hurt on the basketball court.
---Here's a counter question: Would you rather have a bunch of pissed off average IQ whites, or a bunch of pissed off below average IQ blacks and hispanics?---
If you're worried about riots and crime because NAMs might feel they aren't getting theirs due to AA being ended, you can stop. We already have that...
How much of this affirmative action BS comes from baby boomers who use it as an excuse to avoid any real competition lower in the ranks?
Yeah, one would be affirmative action.
Iron Man would be another.
~ Svigor
even if white players were not discriminated against in the NFL, which they are, the league would not be 80% white. there would be starting white cornerbacks and running backs though.
ironmanning the game would take the huge, fat black slugs out of the league, but black players would still be overrepresented. with the exceptions of throwing and kicking, they're simply a lot better at football than all other groups, man for man.
for me, the most infuriating thing about the NFL is that there is affirmative action even for black players. it's ridiculous. it's even worse than the rooney rule, which has now been extended to general manager.
"...if Harvard was fair it would be mainly Brahmin, Jew and NE Asian, with a few whites thrown in."
I'm with you on most things, Truth, but not here. You'd have to define "fair". It means all things to all people, but what it boils down to, in human society, is whatever those in power decide it is.
I personally detest Harvard, but one can't deny that it was an institution that sprang from a body of a particular people, Northern Europeans, and that it, somewhat, educated a portion of the educable of those particular people. If they wanted to keep the institution theirs, and had the power to do so, that would be fair. If the others were so fantastic, they could have made equally impressive universities - not just systems of education, which all three had (and have) but the university as we know it.
I've spent time among the undergrads of BHU, in Varanasi, and there's not a doubt in my mind that Germans, for instance, blow them away intellectually - and I'm talking about the debased, dumbed-down, one-world German of today, versus the superior one of yesteryear. I don't know that, by your implied definition, it'd be "fair" if tens of thousands of them kept applying and somehow gaining admission, to the detriment of natives.
Judging from the way Israeli youth comport themselves nowadays, versus the Chinese youth, I imagine that, as far as applied will and intelligence go, the latter are superior, and would outperform the former at the Technion. That doesn't mean the Israelis would let them in. Each group in the world has its own particular means of development, and specific genius springs from this.
These aren't perfect examples, of course. Many members/graduates of Harvard haven't really cared about the nation as a whole, and few of them in the modern era have any sense of fealty to a racial group like those three that you mentioned. Thus the current (and future) state of American/European universities is a natural outcome. Not to get all Heidegger, but I think we can say that what IS is fair and what's "fair" simply IS.
sabril: Our arrogance as a nation is breathtaking. I wonder if it was like this in ancient Rome at the height of its power.
Recently, someone here at iSteve posted a link to the following old article from 1916 [back when people in the academy were still allowed to talk about these things]:
RACE MIXTURE IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE
by Tenney Frank
American Historical Review
July 1916, vol. 21, no. 4: 689–708
54-Frank.pdf
The first time I read it I had the sense that I was reading the most profound piece of sociology that I had ever encountered in my life, and my head was just swimming at the thought of what you could do with his data.
I keep going back to it, re-reading it in pieces, to try to figure out what all the words mean.
There is a word for determining percentage by population size, what is it?....Oh yeah, quotas, and I think we all know that is Harvard was fair it would be mainly Brahmin, Jew and NE Asian, with a few whites thrown in.
You're innumerate. With admission based solely on academics and test scores, whites would form a 65-70% majority at all the Ivies, along with 20-25% Jews, 5-10% Asians, and a handful of others.
Hey, didn't Stalin, worrying about it's reliability, also purge the Red Army's Officer Corps? Something about fearing that it might be a a hotbed of 'counter-revolutionary' activity that could jeopardize the creation of a 'socialist utopia?'
Take heart. The countries you are likely to ever fight against are all mired in corruption, and their armed forces are not meritocracies either. Most non-western universities are corrupted by cheating, nepotism and bribery. A bit of AA won't bring you down to that level of incompetence.
I wonder if meritocracies are just inherently hard to sustain in our kind of government and society. In all kinds of different situations, you see the same pattern:
a. The rich want to make sure their kids get bumped to the top of the list.
b. Various ethnic interest groups demand "their" share of spots in the meritocracy.
c. People who are members of the meritocracy want to preserve spots for their kids.
d. Powerful people want some ability to provide spots in the meritocracy as a kind of patronage.
e. The majority who are excluded are hostile to the meritocracy, which leads to their leaders being bought off by AA or similar stuff.
Racial performance differences are one part of this, but only a part. Before anyone had ever imagined AA, we had the Jewish quota, and Ivies that weren't going to let in many poor white kids under any conditions, and those schools *still* have legacy admissions. Fred Reed talks a lot about the "you ain't no gooder'n me" attitude he grew up around in the South, and that wasn't about race, it was about social class.
It would be astonishing if a genuine meritocracy just happened to form up in a way that was politically optimal. So I think there will always be political pressure on any meritocracy. And when the meritocracy in question is susceptible to political pressure, it will likely be broken as a result.
---Take heart. The countries you are likely to ever fight against are all mired in corruption, and their armed forces are not meritocracies either. Most non-western universities are corrupted by cheating, nepotism and bribery. A bit of AA won't bring you down to that level of incompetence.---
You read the article, right?
It's not just the Naval Academy.
At the CIA, we are dedicated to promoting the critical diversity our mission demands. The Office of Diversity Plans and Programs (DPP) serves as the corporate advocate for creating an atmosphere where diversity hiring, development, and engagement are mission-critical.
Mr. Quinn
Post a Comment