No, Racial Preferences In The Military Don’t Improve National Security

Oral argument in college admissions cases relating to racial preferences (Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard/UNCSupreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts asked Elizabeth Prelogar, United States SolicitorGeneral, if the academy should be called a service academy. “rise or fall” The court’s decision regarding Harvard and University of North Carolina is unanimous. The Department of Defense (DOD), general counsel and the solicitor general had claimed in briefing the court that the continued use of race preferences at service academies is an offense. “national security imperative,” The question should be asked.

Effectively, the chief justice asked Prelogar if DOD wanted an exemption for military from any ruling against Harvard & UNC banning racial preferences’ further use. Prelogar did not ask for a military exemption, but her replies were adequate. She also reiterated the military’s alleged need to be exempt from any ruling against Harvard and UNC banning racial preferences’ further use. “distinctive interests” Her use of racial preferences, and her claim that they are a “truly compelling interest” “critically important” For the military.

The reasons for the existence of the rebuttal arguments weren’t addressed. No How racial preferences are hurting our military and the compelling national security imperative

DOD surrogates claim that officer-enlisted race demographic parity (achieved through using racial preference in military officer accession programmes such as the service schools and ROTC) is crucial to national security. Their evidence is not based on the Vietnam experience.

This argument, which is absurd, was first used in the 2003 case Grutter v. BollingerThe court is now requesting to reconsider. It was designed to meet the strict legal requirements.”compelling national interest”) that “strict scrutiny” Extra-constitutional practice must be shown to support the suspension or modification of the constitution in question. This claim is disproved in the two most relevant generations of our military history.

America is unambiguous can be defended without suspending equal protection clause. No matter what racial difference, warfighters will obey their leaders’ orders. They need and deserve the best-qualified leaders regardless of race.

We have had the pleasure of commanding troops at various levels, including company, battalion and brigade (Gen. Brown), wing, air division and numbered air force (Gen. Fogleman), and major command and combatant command (Gen. Fogleman). Our experience with these commands led us to conclude that troops are attracted to three traits in leaders: character, moral courage, competence, and character. It is not the leader’s race or skin color that determines morale, effectiveness, and esprit of the unit.

DOD Practice Undermines Claim

DOD’s current practice undermines its claim. If DOD were serious about its claim, Army’s monthly Unit Status Report (AMR) would prove it. (Army Regulation 220-1, Chapter 5) It would be necessary to report on the racial makeup of military unit officers. All personnel reporting metrics, which were revised in August 2022 to allow Pentagon monitoring of operational unit readiness, are silent about racial characteristics. Because The Army recognizes that officer racial diversity does not affect combat effectiveness or readiness.

There would be no preference for military officers with racial diversity. According to DoD 2020Army active-duty officers (our largest service) were 27% racial minority (12.3%) black

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases