By Captain Karl Flynn, U.S. Marine Corps | US Naval Institute
The Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc, v. President and Fellows of Harvard College struck down affirmative action for civilian institutions but allows the practice to continue at the military service academies.
Specifically, the decision notes, “The United States as amicus curiae contends that race-based admissions programs further compelling interests at our Nation’s military academies. . . . This opinion also does not address the issue, in light of the potentially distinct interests that military academies may present.”1
While the Supreme Court has not ruled on the legality of affirmative action at the service academies, the academies should abandon the practice.
In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argues affirmative action may be justified by the need for racial diversity in the military. She writes, “The United States explains that ‘the Nation’s military strength and readiness depend on a pipeline of officers who are both highly qualified and racially diverse—and who have been educated in diverse environments that prepare them to lead increasingly diverse forces.’ . . . Indeed, history teaches that racial diversity is a national security imperative.”2
This line of thinking is flawed not only because it assumes that racially diverse military personnel somehow benefit from having officers of their same race, but also that enlisted personnel judge their superiors by their race.
This does a disservice to enlisted service members of all races.
No one I have ever served with or met has cared about the race of their officers—nor should they.
I am confident a platoon of Marines preparing to locate, close with, and destroy the enemy is less concerned about their officers’ racial diversity than the comprehensiveness of their training, their competence, and their moral character.
As Americans, we recognize that skin color is, quite literally, skin deep.
Service members, who trust one another with their lives, care about character and competence, nothing more. Their lives depend on it.
Justice Sotomayor’s dissent also seems to support the idea that racial diversity, high qualifications, and educational diversity are characteristics of coequal importance for military officers. While the importance of qualifications is self-evident, she fails to make a case for the importance of diversity of race or education.
Competence is all that matters to the effectiveness of the officer corps. Placing anything as of coequal importance with competence—including race or educational background—risks sacrificing it.
To be clear, there is no problem with racial diversity in and of itself. The problem is the practice of racial discrimination. The race of any individual serving in the military could not be less relevant to their ability to serve and lead.
Many proponents argue that racial diversity correlates to diversity of thought and experience. But achieving the widest possible diversity of thought and experience is valuable only insofar as it is relevant to military function.
This is why, for example, the table of organization for a Marine rifle company includes not only infantrymen, but also Marines of various occupational specialties and a wide range of experiences and training: Artillery officers, joint terminal attack controllers, communications Marines, and corpsmen all provide a company commander with important capabilities.
While air maintenance Marines are highly skilled in their trade, a rifle company would not benefit from their skills and experience, as the diversity of thought and experience they would contribute is not relevant to an infantry unit’s mission.
Another common theme in many arguments for racial diversity is proportional racial representation—that the composition of the officer corps does not reflect that of America at large.3
Why is achieving proportional representation within the officer corps the ideal? Were white, Asian, or Hispanic service members not represented by Barack Obama when he served as their Commander-in-Chief? Are racial minorities somehow not represented by President Joe Biden?
The answer, of course, is that all service members, regardless of race, were and continue to be represented by their superiors in the chain of command.
Different articles have proposed various methods to correct the assumed systemic racism within the Department of the Navy or military at large. One argued for hiring race advisors, another for using race as a consideration in promotion panels, while one even advocated for exclusively race-based promotions.4
All these supposed solutions would harm the military. What exactly would race advisors, whom the author proposes should be selected because of their race, do? Advise commanders to treat everyone the same, regardless of their race?
The practice of colorblindness is already well ingrained in Marine Corps culture, but this, too, has come under fire.5
In a discussion hosted by the Marines Memorial Hotel in San Francisco, General Robert Neller described his experiences on overseas deployments with host-nation militaries. Personnel from foreign militaries would ask him, “How do you get along so well with so many races in your unit?” He simply replied, “We’re Americans.”
The underlying truth we should all reaffirm as Americans is that race is irrelevant to the value a service member brings to his or her unit.
As military professionals, we must embody the ideal that competence and character matter—not race.
We must select officers solely on these factors for the sake of victory on the battlefield, and for the sake of America’s sons and daughters with whom they have been entrusted to lead into combat.
–
1. Supreme Court of the United States, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, nos. 20-1199 and 21-707, 29 June 2023.
2. Supreme Court of the United States, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, Sotomayor, S., dissenting, nos. 20-1199 and 21-707, 29 June 2023.
3. CAPT Guy Higgins, USN (Ret.), “Diversity Is Not Just a Navy Issue,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings 149, no. 1 (January 2023).
4. CDR Jada Johnson, USN, “We Don’t Need Conversations, We Need Systemic Change,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings 146, no. 9 (July 2020); Maj Rafiel Deon Warfield, USMC, “Color-Blind Promotion Boards Devalue Diversity,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings 147, no. 7 (July 2021); and CPO Phillip Null, USCG, “The Lack of Diversity and Coast Guard Command,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings 147, no. 6 (June 2021).
5. LCol Brian Joseph Wilson and Capt Lakyra Nicole Pharms, USMC, “Color-Blindness Is a False Panacea,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, 148, no. 2 (February 2022).
First published in US Naval Institute
Leave a Comment