Why Getting Rid of Affirmative Action at Service Academies is Stupid

[Anonymous]

Pete boy is a traitor to the US.

If you send your kid to a service academy or want them to join our military you are a god dammed POS.

Signed a person who had has 4 generations of Army & Navy & Marines

The US military is compromised by Donald Trump and his sycophant traitors

If you think for one minute Trump has not given our National Secrets to Putin you have missed the plot.

Go on MAGA sign up your white boys to die for a triator

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who the heck gets up on a Tuesday morning and pens something like this? I don't think you are a local mom or dad at all

They are correct you should go back to the hole you climbed out of

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look at the books they removed from the Academies' libraries

The Secretary of War thought they didn’t belong. Tells you all you need to know know about their priorities

+1

[Anonymous]

Service Academies often have 2 levels of DEI - many times nominations are based on DEI.

[Anonymous]

We cannot afford dumb soldiers anymore especially in the age of AI weapons and other advanced technology.

[Anonymous]

The reason eliminating efforts to create a qualified, smart, diverse class there are stupid is that the graduates are supposed to be smart, strong, charismatic people who can persuade other people to risk their lives for what might or might not be important causes.

The soldiers and sailors will be diverse. They might, in a lot of causes, be poor people who will be fighting to protect other, richer people’s wealth and safety.

The soldiers and officers need to look at the officers and have enough respect for them and faith in the fundamental fairness of the military to get their jobs done.

If having a diverse group of officers makes the officer corps and the military more effective, the military needs to have diverse leaders, even if that means picking some officers who have lower stats than the people not picked for those roles.

[Anonymous]

I personally wouldn't follow a guy into a combat zone because of his SAT score.

[Anonymous]

Would you throw yourself on top of a grenade to save the guy with highest HS rigor and GPA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the academies aren’t Harvard or Yale.Getting into an Ivy really does give you a leg up in the private sector. Goldman, McKinsey, Big Law, Silicon Valley—they all recruit heavily from those schools and the name brand opens doors. A state school grad with the same GPA and resume is starting behind. That’s why those admissions battles are so cutthroat.The service academies are completely different. Their only job is to produce military officers. A brand-new 2nd Lieutenant or Ensign from West Point has the exact same starting pay, job, and career path as someone commissioned through ROTC at a random state school, an HBCU, or straight out of OCS. The military doesn’t give extra points for having gone to Annapolis.

You’re all in the same boat. The troops these officers lead—the enlisted force—are already way more diverse and look a lot more like America than the officer corps does. Unless someone is actually proposing we scrap ROTC and OCS completely and make the academies the only way to become an officer—which nobody is—then why single out the academies and strip away their ability to build a more representative class? ROTC and OCS will keep producing diverse officers because they draw from a much wider pool of colleges.


You’d just be making one small commissioning source less diverse while the majority stay the same.The military itself keeps saying a diverse officer corps is essential for unit cohesion, recruitment, retention, and national security. The academies are a tiny fraction of total officers, but they punch above their weight in producing senior leaders 20-30 years down the road.So yeah, I think the academies should keep using race-conscious admissions (within whatever narrow lane the Court left open for national security reasons) to look more like the country. Otherwise we’re just making the problem worse for no reason.

You do not want incompetent (DEI hire) officer in command in battles or wars. Elimination of DEI for the military is even more important than for civilian universities.

100%

+1. It’s not only this -the professors and teachers have made it clear nationwide (see MIT, etc.) that they cannot effectively teach to such a wide array of skill-levels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The reason eliminating efforts to create a qualified, smart, diverse class there are stupid is that the graduates are supposed to be smart, strong, charismatic people who can persuade other people to risk their lives for what might or might not be important causes.

The soldiers and sailors will be diverse. They might, in a lot of causes, be poor people who will be fighting to protect other, richer people’s wealth and safety.

The soldiers and officers need to look at the officers and have enough respect for them and faith in the fundamental fairness of the military to get their jobs done.

If having a diverse group of officers makes the officer corps and the military more effective, the military needs to have diverse leaders, even if that means picking some officers who have lower stats than the people not picked for those roles.

So you what enlisted to believe in the fundamental fairness of the military by (checks notes) being fundamentally unfair in promotions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pete boy is a traitor to the US.

If you send your kid to a service academy or want them to join our military you are a god dammed POS.

Signed a person who had has 4 generations of Army & Navy & Marines

The US military is compromised by Donald Trump and his sycophant traitors

If you think for one minute Trump has not given our National Secrets to Putin you have missed the plot.

Go on MAGA sign up your white boys to die for a triator

Have another gallon of Kool-Aid.

[Anonymous]

Enlisted men have been known to turn on officers they don't respect or more commonly officers with "I'm better than you" attitudes. Fragging is an extreme example. The Army knows this an recruits for leaders. That magic dust isn't revealed in test scores. It is revealed when something hard needs to get done and soldiers follow the man they TRUST.

You keyboard warriors can read all the website statistics you want. You will never understand

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact is that the government isn't making it very appealing for the talented academy, ROTC, and OCS officers to stay.

And they have good options in the private sector. Hegseth has been awful for officer retention.

Hegseth has been great for retention and recruitment - the military services are FINALLY exceeding their recruitment goals not just meeting them unlike the previous administration which had difficulty meeting the goals. Do not provide disinformation and do not politicize educational topics.

I highly doubt it. Perhaps in absolute numbers (but I'm not sure of that). But if the military is getting the same level of loser who is joining ICE and violating our civil liberties because Trump has scared idiot Americans into thinking that there are countless bad guys who need to be rooted out by unemployable losers in masks, then that does not make me feel confident in the safety of our country. I think most of them are people who are too dumb to do anything else, rather than leaders who know how to think critically, analyze situations and make important decisions.

The dumbing down of our nation is truly scary. And note that I am generally opposed to DEI - I think that if there is a true "tie" then there are benefits to hiring minorities, but that is not how it has been implemented - they often dig way too deep to hit their DEI quotas and that is not OK.

So lets say that you have two candidates that are similar in every way except SAT score. How much of a gap in SAT score would you tolerate to achieve DEI goals?

Why don’t you just come out & say you think some groups can’t compete with other groups?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Enlisted men have been known to turn on officers they don't respect or more commonly officers with "I'm better than you" attitudes. Fragging is an extreme example. The Army knows this an recruits for leaders. That magic dust isn't revealed in test scores. It is revealed when something hard needs to get done and soldiers follow the man they TRUST.

You keyboard warriors can read all the website statistics you want. You will never understand

Look, the Navy has a robust athletic program. There will be plenty of Academy kids in the military who had substandard stats and that are diverse. The rest should be based strictly on stats (including the CFA) without DEI. There is also a ton of diversity that comes through ROTC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Enlisted men have been known to turn on officers they don't respect or more commonly officers with "I'm better than you" attitudes. Fragging is an extreme example. The Army knows this an recruits for leaders. That magic dust isn't revealed in test scores. It is revealed when something hard needs to get done and soldiers follow the man they TRUST.

You keyboard warriors can read all the website statistics you want. You will never understand

Look, the Navy has a robust athletic program. There will be plenty of Academy kids in the military who had substandard stats and that are diverse. The rest should be based strictly on stats (including the CFA) without DEI. There is also a ton of diversity that comes through ROTC.

You will never understand. Cutting the pie has F all to do with stats. When a squad enters a building they need to all have confidence that the other guys are 100% going to do their bit. That can't be measured by HS stats.

You probably never even played football. Ever played tackle and taken hits just to give your QB an extra 0.5 seconds?

Service academies are not like other schools. Their recruiting standards are different and always will be.