Affirmative Action Is To Die For

It appears that what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.

A federal district court judge rejected a challenge to affirmative action at the U.S. Naval Academy. The plaintiffs in the case were the very busy group, Students for Fair Admissions (SFA), joined by a white candidate and an Asian candidate who were not admitted. So unfair!

Edward Blum, the head of SFA, is a relentless crusader against affirmative action.He spearheaded the case against Harvard College and the University of North Carolina that led the Supreme Court to effectively drown affirmative action in the bathtub. SCOTUS ruled that racial preferences violated the 14th Amendment’s promise of equal protection.

SFA is an offshoot of the Project on Fair Representation, which Blum founded in 2005. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill says he is the only member of this organization. Blum’s fanatic opposition to racial preferences was, according to Blum himself, inspired by the antisemitism he and his family experienced when he was a kid in Benton Harbor, MI.

It seems a long, tortuous and illogical path from that experience to his adult crusade. Suffering the slings and arrows of discrimination seems an odd motivation to devote one’s life to eliminating programs that redress discrimination. One suspects that Blum suffered some deep wound in childhood that remains open, fueling his obsessive need to fight these battles.

The New York Times reported:

But the effort to bring those arguments to the Naval Academy “has FAILED,” U.S. Senior District Judge Richard D. Bennett of Maryland wrote in a 175-page decision.

Judge Bennett wrote that there was a “compelling national security interest in a diverse officer corps in the Navy and Marine Corps,” and that “the U.S. Naval Academy is distinct from a civilian university.”

I’m glad for Judge Bennett’s decision, but I suspect the case will be appealed to SCOTUS, where it too will be overturned and swept into the dustbin of dead efforts to forge a more just union.

I didn’t have the intellectual patience to read the 175 page opinion in its entirety, but the gist is clear enough. Bennett’s assertion that “the U.S. Naval Academy is distinct from a civilian university,” is founded in the notion that national security is at stake. Enlisted soldiers will, in Bennett’s view, “soldier” better if they see men (and a few women) who look like them in command positions. I suspect that this assertion is true and this ruling raises a much broader question about affirmative action in other realms.

If military efficacy and cohesion is enhanced by racial diversity in leadership, why is this principle not equally important in other realms?

Just as the military academies are a source of leaders, America’“elite” colleges and universities are similarly a source of leaders in civil society. (To be clear, I dispute the idea that “elite” schools are superior, but a cultural consensus remains.) Political leaders, business leaders and school leaders at every level are disproportionately drawn from the ranks of graduates of so-called top tier colleges. (Did I mention that the idea of “top tier” is mostly nonsense too?)

My cynicism doesn’t change the reality of social perception.

If - since - this is so, wouldn’t the efficacy and cohesion of any organization be enhanced by diversifying leadership?

There is little doubt that students of color benefit immensely from faculty and leadership of color in their schools. And yet, the Supreme Court’s systematic disassembling of affirmative action has already severely constricted the pipeline that might produce increasing numbers of such role models.

Would not a diverse cadre of employees in a large corporation derive similar emotional and motivational benefits from seeing more leaders of color in positions of influence? Are efficacy and cohesion only important for military missions?

Even by the broadest possible definition of racial and ethnic diversity, 12% of United States Senators fit the category. These leaders are also disproportionately drawn from “top tier” institutions. Would not more racial representation in Congressional leadership contribute to confidence, social cohesion and aspiration for children of color?

Bennett’s ruling has sturdy reasoning, but the rationale for diversity of leadership is far from unique to the military. In this sense his ruling is necessary but glaringly insufficient.

Affirmative action was never limited to creating campuses or businesses that are more diverse and welcoming to students or employees of color. Affirmative action also diversified the pipeline that feeds the ranks of leadership in every realm. That has far-reaching benefits for society.

But in our era of stubborn resistance to anti-racism, protection of white privilege and smug assertions of colorblindness and meritocracy, efforts to move toward an equitable, multi-racial society are withering on the vine.

Except, if Bennett’s ruling survives, at military academies. At least enlisted soldiers will have cohesion and efficacy as they risk life and limb in America’s largely futile war operations.

Helluva priority, isn’t it.