<p>“the needs of the Navy” … are not equitable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is quite evident.</p>
<p>What I would like the Naval Academy to admit, however - is that their admission process is also not equitable despite their continual insistence that there is not a 2-track admission process; one for minorities and one for non-minorities. At least, they should not insult our intelligence.</p>
<p>
Of course they aren’t. They are political. This is about VOTES and PC. And as Memphis notes, it becomes sillier all the time, as USNA works to distract and disguise the 2 track system. </p>
<p>They’ve embraced the big lie …labeling their admissions manipulations of EQUAL OUTCOMES as EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, when it is merely changing the “strike zone” that those unable to do so previously, may now hit home runs. And they perceive the public is sufficiently starry eyed and/or stupid about the Academy to buy it. </p>
<p>Thomas Sowell, one of the great intellects of our time, nearly 80 now and btw, a black man who is scholar in residence at the Hoover Institute at Stanford said this of this antiquated notion in his 27 Oct 2010 nationally syndicated column:</p>
<p>“Multiculturalism is NOT just a recognition that different groups have different cultures. We all knew that, long before multiculturalism became a “cult” that has spawned mindless rhapsodies about “DIVERSITY” without a speck of evidence to substantiate its supposed benefits.”</p>
<p>What Dr. Sowell was alluding to was Europes confession that the idea of allowing separate cultures within specific nations has created literal disasters. They have failed to assimilate various cultures, religions, and races, trying to appease them by allowing and even fostering distinct separation among these groups. </p>
<p>Sound familiar? </p>
<p>Again, this has nothing to do with trying to accommodate and foster difference as much as it is trying to pander to ethnic and minorities in return for votes. A sad way to denigrate, dishonor and ultimately destroy the greatest of meritocracies, where one traditionally was able to rise to the top, regardless of where or to whom he/she may have been born. Sounds both futile and feudal, might we agree. And as Dr. Sowell’s research and writing reveals …destroying the good without a speck of evidence that it has a single benefit …beyond some ballots in the box.</p>
<p>Well, I suppose, it is difficult to admit a two-track system when there isn’t a two-track system.
All applicants are on “one-track.” It’s just that the one-track accomodates identifying some applicants as having characteristics that are more desirable than others. That’s the way it has ALWAYS been, i.e. that some applicants have preferences over others.<br>
The problem is that when those characteristics identified as preferable dont’ match up with what YOU think are preferable, then disagreements arise.</p>
<p>Why, for example, should medal of honor children recieve a preference? It’s not as if the child did anything more heroic than any other applicant except be born to a parent who did something heroic. Reward the parent? okay, but it doesn’t mean the kid is anything special.
I have an applicant right now who is eligible for a special n omination because his father is on 100% disability for PTSD fromt he Vietnam war. In Patton’s day, PTSD received a slap on the helmet, now we reward the disability with a preferred nomination. Changing times.</p>
<p>Get over it. It’s not JUST minorities that receive preferences.</p>
<p>My Plebe received preferential treatment too…she got in. That proves that she was preferred over 15,000 others who did not. The same can be said for the other 1200 or so who got preferred treatment. I can speculate as to what the NA saw in her that made them decide the way they did but that’s all it would be - speculation.</p>
<p>Enough already.</p>
<p>Well, let’s clarify some things.</p>
<ol>
<li>Nominations and appointments are totally separate. Providing special opportunity to compete for an appointment, is a far different thing than providing special opportunity to be appointed as a function of one’s birthright, especially in the annals, traditions, and culture that has made USA great. In fact, escaping the notion that one was “born” into his/her ultimate class in life was one of THE fundamental concepts of our nation’s founding. Now, this simply says …to merit that special advantage …must be BORN into the “right” family. hmmmm</li>
</ol>
<p>AND the fact that that nomination is provided lends zero weight to being appointed absent individual merit …UNLESS that individual has that special birthright noted earlier. </p>
<p>Lastly, lending favor of a nomination (NOt an appointment) based on a super-human act of sacrifice and bravery done FOR the USA …well, equating that to “my dad lived in Mexico City working for Exxon all during my HS years, which btw, I spent at Valley Forge Military Academy outside Philly” (and thus under the rules and your definition may be “legally” considered “hispanic” on the app …and by law is not allowed to be either asked or investigated about such claim) …come on. Apples and oranges, and you know that obviously, as you attempt to distract from the issue.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Osdad, sorry …your contention holds no water either. Simply because your dd received an appointment lends no evidence that she was given “preferential treatment” in the process. What it MAY mean is that she competed favorably and won the race, not because of hers. Unless she did. Did she? If so then, you are correct. She DID receive unmerited favor based on her color/birthright.</p></li>
<li><p>Lastly, justifying being given special treatment for appointment (not nomination), as a function of where and/or to whom one is born,suggesting “it’s no worse” than giving a nomination to a child of a disabled military vet? What’s the point? Duh! Again, nominations (even anomalous ones like this …I never heard of students receiving nominations based upon physical conditions of a veteran parent, but we’re learning) are NOT appointments. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>And in both the medal of honor and parental tramatization circumstances, neither was given any special treatment as a consequence of those parental conditions. Merely undue chances to compete, but in any case, to get that appointment, students must be 3Qed and sufficiently ranked in either their home pools or the national pool. UNLESS they are diversity dudes and daughters.</p>
<p>Sorry. You’ve given us nothing of consequence in this argument. And as Dr. Sowell’s research at Stanford reveals, there is “not a speck of evidence” that this diversity thing has any POSITIVE impact on outcomes. Again, what we SHOULD be striving for is …unit cohesion, not multicultural division. It’s called assimilization.</p>
<p>
Totally UNTRUE, Buddy. You need to get your facts in order.</p>
<p>Any QUALIFIED candidate who’s parent was awarded the MOH - WILL receive an APPOINTMENT.
Those who receive nominations for being the child of a 100% disabled/deceased servicemember compete in their own category. Since their are fewer candidates than slots available it’s safe to say that they WILL recieve an appointment if they are fully qualified.
Neither candidates must compete for a MOC nomination. They are ‘special’ because of their parent’s sacrifice.</p>
<p>I have personal knowledge of two example of APPOINTMENTS made to two relations of prominent graduates.</p>
<p>BOTH were graduates of NAPS. BOTH had GPAs that were, up to that point in time, below the 2.0 that was stated as being the required minimum for admission. BOTH were related to prominent graduates. The ONLY distinguishing quality that either of these, now graduates, had was that they had won a genetic lottery. </p>
<p>The FACT is that preferences have been granted by the Navy for many years in much the same way that the Catholic church granted indulgences, based on criteria that suited the needs of the Navy, the Superintendent, MOCs, and society as a whole. Oh, and it never hurt if you were related to a prominent graduate.</p>
<p>What comes around, goes around . . . </p>
<p>The Navy does not seem to have suffered for this to any great degree.</p>
<p>Well, as usual, justamom spins the facts to fit her rant.</p>
<p>The facts are in fact …that in BOTH MOH recipient and the disabled/POW categories …it specifies, as she notes but fails to interpret …they are nominated …and MAY (USNA’s specific word) be appointed IF they are deemed QUALIFIED. </p>
<p>So you see, in McCain,Jrs. instance in neither his initial application nor his ensuing NAPS status was he deemed QUALIFIED under the traditional requirements, as Bill has noted, altho he may not be alluding to this specific case. </p>
<p>But in any case, no sweat. Change the strike zone. Appointment made.</p>
<p>btw, his father John,Sr. acknowledges in his own hand, the favor given him by the fact that he was then (and since) the only candidate receiving an appointment as function of having 2 admirals in his direct lineage.</p>
<p>Furthermore, he confesses the ONLY way he was allowed to graduate, having run up monumental demerits that would get anyones else booted, was that his mommy personally went and pleaded her case to the Supe, who was …surprise surprise …a personal friend.</p>
<p>This is public knowledge and McCain, Jr.'s struggles are conventional knowledge. It’s understandable jam would have no idea of knowing that, tho, in her defense.</p>
<p>One more anecdote to illustrate the amazing power of politics and who one knows in this process …</p>
<p>Can anyone name anyone in history who cracked up not one but 2 airplanes in flight school …and was consequently allowed to get his wings? Now you can. And he’s a U.S. Senator!</p>
<p>
Oh dear. Honestly, WP I am getting tired of correcting you and wonder if you have ever bothered to read the US Code under which all mishipmen are to be selected - yes, even Senator McCain’s son.</p>
<p>Let me help you - US Code Title 10 Subtitle C Part III Chapter 603 Sec 6954: Midshipmen, Number:
a) determines the authorized strength of Midshipmen to be 4400. Under this the allocation of that strength is clearly spelled out.
The FIRST part - #1 clearly and succinctly allows the Academy to select 65 (total at one time) by order of merit from children of 100% service disabled or death as determined by the Dept of VA.</p>
<p>There is NO nomination here. They are simply selected. If the number of midshipmen who qualifies for this approaches the 65 mark - they would select via MERIT (not cronyism). In fact, if you are eligible to be selected for an appointment via this clause you may not receive a Presidenial Nomination or other service selected nomination.</p>
<p>Similarly for those who qualify for an appointment because of their birth to a MOH awardee - there is no number limitation or other qualification other than that deemed by academy admissions. Their is no MOH nomination.</p>
<p>None of this ‘cronyism’ or ‘favoritism’ of which you espouse has anything to do with politics, Republican or Democrat. It has to do with having a military legacy. This is not uncommon and the McCain’s are not special in this regard.
I am sure that when your great-grandchild applies you will be glad he has a Admiral for a Grandpa and a Captain as a Daddy.</p>
<p>Our current societal discourse does not accomodate letting FACTS get in the way of a good argument. </p>
<p>The way the statute reads, the FIRST 65 selectees of a class are to be those children of those killed in action or 100% disabled. [Interestingly, the applicant to whom I reference earlier has not completed his application; I think Dad is more interested in him attending than he is] In practice, I’m would thnk is not a problem, but interesting how the statute reads.</p>
<p>In any event, WP, in last few posts, has only bolstered my argument anyway: It is NOT just ethnic minorities who receive preferential treatment for admission to the Academy. There are many different groups of people who have received extra points [children of alumni?] in their Whole Person evaluation. But the bluster gets in the way of that message. The system seems to be working. aRe there anecdotal examples of unfairness? Absolutely. That’s life.</p>
<p>Thanks JAM</p>
<p>JAM, I wonder though a bit about the MOH selectees. The statute states that the "President may appoint . . . " children of MOH. It does not state that he may “nominate for appointment” as, for example, the language used for Supt. “appointments.” This implies that the President “may appoint” [without further review by the Academy?] any child who’s parent was a MOH recipient. Talk about winning the race merely by being born!</p>
<p>On average - how many new Plebes are the son/daughter of a Medal of Honor winner? I would venture that many classes have ZERO that fall under this category. It’s a drop in the bucket compared to the massive numbers being admitted (over 1/3 of the class!) under the umbrella of “diversity.”</p>
<p>The comparison is ridiculous.</p>
<p>the MOH example is just an example of many different classes of applicants/appointees who receive preferences; there are others.</p>
<p>Are you suggesting that “over 1/3 of the class” would not have been admitted but for their classification as a minority? In other words, NONE of that group could have been admitted when compared to a white male applicant?</p>
<p>That is why trying to have anyh sort of rational discussion is beyond the capabilities of this thread. Just better to say it is what it is: Minorities are not the only group who receive preferential treatment.</p>
<p>good luck to all; now back to a quiet day and remaining quiet.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In fact that is a most likely suggestion. How so? One merely needs to look at 3 general factors:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The nearly 50% INCREASE in applicants over a 5 year comparison, from 2009 to 2014.</p></li>
<li><p>A nearly 50% INCREASE in APPOINTMENTS scoring below the magic 600 SAT scores during that same time. Note: Appointments vs. applicants. This flies in the course of conventional wisdom, i.e. that with applicants skyrocketing for the same number of slots that it would become MORE competitive according to all measures noted by USNA. (All but one, see #3.) In fact though it has become significantly, dramatically LESS COMPETITIVE by USNA measures.</p></li>
<li><p>Why this weird scenario? One is only left to conclude that indeed a very significant number of increasing diversity candidates are in fact driving down all USNA traditional profiling measures of academic performance. It is very simple to extrapolate.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>And so as has been noted, no matter where one falls in this political scenario, it is in fact the facts right now. This will change and swing back, in every likelihood, as it increasingly comes to light among the citizenry and thus the politicians who in turn will return this system to merit vs. genetics or gentry. </p>
<p>Thus, while the MOH rarities and McCain-style appointments have been and will continue to occur, either as function of law or of relationships among the powerful, i.e. those who can and do impact and influence outcomes, there is no comparison. These are statistically totally insignificant. Conversely, as USNA stats now expose, “diversity” appointments are very significant in changing the appearance and traditional academic performance and capacity of the fleet. That is a tough pill to swallow, especially for the PC elite who are determined to pervert the ideal of equal opportunity to mean equal outcomes. </p>
<p>And as all the research on this practice of affirmative action has shown, there’s not a shred of evidence it has any positive impact. See Thomas Sowell’s “Intellectuals in Society.” Beyond buying votes from those deemed born to this new manor. The company line is to diversify color and ethnicity, that a girl of hispanic descent or residency (even of one’s great-grandparents) might somehow be a better, more approrpiate leader for a fellow mate of some similar background …than any others. Flies in the face of the historically important foundation of working to unify diverse backgrounds that for the benefit of unit cohesiveness and those who serve therein. </p>
<p>What tangled webs we weave …</p>
<p>btw, a final thought …and here is one of the great disservices. Indeed there are a number of those diversity candidates who in fact would be admitted on their own merit, based on the traditional and current measures of non-diversity candidates. Unfortunately, they will be wrongly judged as either sub-par and/or unable to compete on the same level as those admitted competitively w/o benefit of checking a diversity box on the app. And in its purest form, that really is all it is. To my knowledge, none must pass a color or ethnicity screening.</p>
<p>One point of clarification. While it is speculative, it’s likely that, contrary to my observation that generally USNA has become LESS COMPETITIVE by all academic, traditional measures, it is likely/probalbe that indeed, for non-diversity candidates, appointment has become significantly MORE COMPETITIVE. Why? Simply because there are presumably an equal number (or perhaps a few more) applicant/candidates now competing for FEWER APPOINTMENTS to that group.</p>
<p>So while it seems inequitable, and is, placements are fewer for those scoring better. </p>
<p>In the very truest sense however, this reflects our current governmental leaders fundamental philosophy of socializing this process by redistributing resources not on the basis of work and earning it, but rather on the basis of entitlement. And that is why for many it seems fine and appropriate, and for others it seems sadly unfair and inequitable.</p>
<p>Hopefully the taxpayers who provide all funding for USNA will soon be heard about this practice.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I predict the pendulum will start to swing back in the other direction.</p>
<p>The Class of 2013 was heralded as the most diverse class in USNA history. The academy was screaming it from the mountain tops and it was reflected in all the press coverage of the Class of 2013’s induction. No news spot failed to comment on this achievement and, of course, the media was fed this information directly from the PR department of the academy. The academy was proud of it and they wanted the world to know. Maybe rightfully so.</p>
<p>But the academy has received some bad press in the wake of the Fowler administration on several fronts - its obsession with diversity being one of them.</p>
<p>Interestingly, the Class of 2014 was even more diverse than the Class of 2013. Undoubtedly, this was a result of the momentum that carried over in the admission process. The Class of 2014 is the new record holder. But - this was not trumpeted at all. The Class of 2014 walked through the doors of Alumni Hall on I-Day without a single peep of their record breaking diversity. The academy had clearly made the decision to let this one fly under the radar. In the wake of the perceived scandals, it was no longer in vogue to brag about such things.</p>
<p>My prediction is that the Class of 2015 will not trump the Class of 2014.</p>
<p>Memphis, your points are right on, imo. Especially on the naive notion USNA and the Fowler administration exhibited on this. They were really convinced they’d done well. Sounds just like Pelosi and company. They too perceive they’ve achieved so much, despite the fact that 3/4 of the country (more if one merely counts the states, it’s 90%) perceive she, Reid, and our CiC have driven the bus into the wall.</p>
<p>And the point is not to make this a PC discussion. Rather my point is that undoubtedly, Fowler and his staff were merely “taking orders” and when they succeeded in even misguided mandates, they thought it was a grand success while virtually all others were wondering what in the world he was trying to do. A total misread of this one.</p>
<p>And the outcome for 2013, which they DID NOT repeat this year was trumpeting that the diversity admits were among the top ranked among their fellow diversity competitors at secular institutions. But total subversion of comparing that same group to the overall USNA class. They surely perceived readers as being stupid and suckers to the max.</p>
<p>It was like my brother said when he came home from 2nd grade and was asked about how he was doing, having been placed in the lower group …he noted, “Well, I’m the fastest one in the slow group.”</p>
<p>And that is precisely what Fowlers foul-ups achieved. Establishing fast and slow groups, sadly, pre-determined by color and ethnicity. What an enormous disservice to men and women on both sides of the equation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Bill - since all appointments are made by the President of the United States it would be redundant for the President to ‘nominate’. If you read the statue carefully, you will find there really is no such thing as a “Presidential Nomination”. It says:
“one hundred selected by the President from the children of members of an armed force who—”
Note that there is no number limit - for MOH legacies -every qualified applicant will be appointed by the President.</p>
<p>BTW - why muddy the argument with FACTS??? ;)</p>
<p>yay pilots?</p>
<p>"My black nephew looks like he could be Marilyn Monroe’s grandson more than Ella Fitzgerald’s. Speaks no ebonics. How would he be IDed?</p>
<p>I’m confident some of the enlightened might enlighten us. "</p>
<p>Ebonics? What a rude stereotype to get your point across.
FAIL</p>