Racial Quotas in the Military

By John R. “Buck” Surdu

Recently the Website American Greatness reported that “Biden Administration Opposes Merit-Based Military Promotions in Favor of Race Quotas.” This came on the heels of the recent Supreme Court rulings that reversed so-called “affirmative action” in college admissions. More on the orders here. Unfortunately, that ruling didn’t go far enough because it carved out an exception for the nation’s service academies.

As reported in Military.com,

However, the Court specifically exempted the military academies from its decision on race-based affirmative action. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, said in a footnote that this policy would not impact how military service academies approached admissions, citing “distinct interests” those institutions have.

“The special nature of military academies and their interests was addressed in an important amicus brief filed in Grutter v. Bollinger almost 20 years ago,” said Lawrence Friedman, JD, professor of law at New England Law Boston. “The Supreme Court’s decision tacitly acknowledges that.”

The Supreme Court’s decision allows the academies to continue race-conscious admissions policies [i.e., racial quotas] that have historically been justified by the need for a diverse officer corps. As of 2022 the Department of Defense’s Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion assessed that while 19% of the military’s enlisted personnel were Black, only 8% of its officers were Black.

None of the articles I read provide any evidence why this disparity in numbers matters, but just exactly what are those “distinct interests” if not the prevention and winning of the nation’s wars? What is more important than readiness? As a nation and taxpayers who fund the military, shouldn’t we expect those “distinct interests” to have the best qualified and best-trained personnel in all positions? Shouldn’t we want admissions, recruiting, and promotion based on merit and demonstrated potential for greater responsibility?

The Intercept, which clearly disagreed with the Supreme Court decision, asserted,

A common criticism of affirmative action programs at universities is that they undermine merit as a primary criterion for selection. Yet the same concern seems equally, if not more, relevant to U.S. military leadership, particularly given the strong emphasis on national security normally espoused by U.S. politicians and the electorate.

The court is apparently hesitant to prioritize demographic diversity in admissions to colleges that, ultimately, determine the future appearance of the country’s elite. But the same concerns do not seem to apply to the military, where one of the possibilities of membership, rather than joining the gilded class, is being severely injured or killed in one of the U.S.’s many foreign military conflicts.

Even an organization that opposed the ruling sees the hypocrisy in the exepmption of the military and the military academies.

Even before the ruling was announced, articles were published about how the service academies and other schools planned to circumvent the law (here and here for some examples). Tactics being explored include ignoring test scores and grades. On what will admission be based? Even if you don’t overtly [and provably] consider race, prospective students will be coached to include language in any essays they submit to allow admissions officers to know applicants’ race because, according to The Intercept, the ruling stated that universities may continue to consider in admissions “an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration or otherwise.”

To combat the rampant wokeness of the poltroons cosplaying as senior leaders of the military, Congressman Jim Banks (R-Ind.) pushed two provisions into the defense spending bill:

A candidate shall be evaluated on the bases of qualifications, performance, integrity, fitness, training and conduct. No determination may be based on favoritism or nepotism; and no quota may be used…

Other proposals by House Republicans that drew the White House’s ire include a ban on funding for the teaching of critical race theory (CRT), a ban on performing drag shows in the military, and outright eliminating the newly-created position of DEI Chief at the Pentagon. Another measure would forbid Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin from “appointing or employing a military or civilian employee whose duties include diversity, equity, and inclusion” to any high-ranking position.

Banks said that he considers “the White House’s opposition to my amendments a badge of honor” [in the same way that many of us feel a Fascistbook “fact check” to be a badge of honor] and that “Wokeness is a cancer that will destroy our military from the inside out if we don’t stop it.”

The problem with the Left is that they want to be more equal. The Civil Rights Act made it illegal to discriminate based on race. Period. The Left, however, is unwilling to live with equal protection and an end to discrimination. You can’t eliminate just selective parts of discrimination. You cannot use more illegal and unconstitutional discrimination to address discrimination. If you are going to eliminate discrimination, you have to eliminate all of it, not create more of it.  The Left however wants to turn back the clock, not to “separate but equal” to “separate and more-equal for some.”

Task and Purpose, a site focusing on military issues asserted,

Additionally, according to the most recent census survey, the national ethnic demographics show that 77.1% identify as white, 13.3% identify as black or African-American, 17.6% identify as Hispanic, 5.6% identify as Asian, and 4% identify as other or two races. But among active-duty enlisted service members, ethnic diversity exceeds the national percentages. Only 67% identify as white, while the rest identify as minorities or as two or more races.

American Greatness reported the Biden Administration’s reaction as,

The administration strongly opposes the House’s sweeping attempts to eliminate the [Defense Department’s] longstanding DEIA efforts and related initiatives to promote a cohesive and inclusive force,” OMB wrote in its response. “DoD’s strategic advantage in a complex global security environment is the diverse and dynamic talent pool from which we draw.

Are there any facts to support this assertion from the Wokagon and OMB? Do we want a military that looks exactly like society, or do we want an army with higher standards than society? Illegal and unconstitutional quotas are meant to redress past discrimination, and the wokesters in DC assert that making the military diverse organization is a preeminent goal. (That is why taxpayers now have to foot the bill for gender mutilation surgery for supposedly transgender soldiers.) But this assertion ignores that the military has consistently discriminated in its recruiting and selection. The military screens based on age, physical fitness, disabilities, and other factors that other organizations cannot because they have “distince interests” in fighting and winning the wars our political elite ruling class embroils us in incessantly.

A young officer told me that when he was applying for admission at a service academy, the recruiting officer told him that he had two strikes against him because he was white and male and that less-qualified candidates in preferred demographics would get preferential treatment. Is that the military we want?

Race has long been used in officer promotions. Once the candidate pool is evaluated and sorted in order of best qualified to least (so-called “racking and stacking), a cut line is drawn based on the number of officers needed in the next rank. Those are then the most qualified personnel for promotion. Then quotas are applied that perturb this list. The first set makes sense “for the good of the service.” If the Army knows it needs x officer of a certain branch (e.g., Air Defense Artillery, Aviation, or others) and there were fewer than x officers of that branch above the “cut line,” the next most qualified officers of that branch are moved above the cut line. Subsequently, otherwise-qualified officers are pushed below the cut line. This makes sense. Then preferred demographic quotas are applied. People of the anointed demographic categories are moved above the cut line to satisfy some quotas. This means that less-qualified candidates for promotion are moved ahead of more-qualified candidates to make wokesters feel good.

This also means that qualified officers are “passed over” for promotion.  For the 95% of Americans who have no clue about the military, being passed over for promotion can end your career; there are very few second chances.  Promotion boards meet once a year.  Typically a couple of percent of a year group is selected “below the zone,” ahead of one’s peers; most promotions occur during the “primary zone” look.  Those passed over in the primary zone are very unlikely to get selected “above the zone” the following year.  Being passed over “above the zone” means your career is over.  So this quota system deprives many fine officers of their continued careers and deprives our military of their continued contributions and service.

Diversity is a means, not an end. Instead of quotas for admissions and promotion that reduce the readiness of the force, if diversity is a legitimate goal (which is unproven in my mind), programs should be created that improve the qualifications of preferred demographic candidates. This has to occur very early in a student’s life. Quotas are a bandage at the tail end of the pipeline. Even though it can be circumvented (as suggested previously), a good first step is to prohibit by law the inclusion of race on all forms and databases except for legitimate use for medical treatment.  This includes blocking promotion and admissions boards from viewing photographs of candidates.

Biden’s opposition to the proposed legislation and the Supreme Court decision was sadly predictable. This administration has done everything within its power – and even many things that are not legally within its purview – to weaken and destroy everything about the Once-United States. Incredibly, the Free Beacon reported that “A new Biden administration rule aimed at reducing carbon emissions would give approval authority over large U.S. defense contracts to a little-known British environmentalist group that just incorporated two weeks ago.” It is clear that the last thing on the minds of the Biden Administration is the good of the nation.  Biden’s opposition to law and support for policies that weaken our nation is no surprise.

If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.

Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA