The Fight Against Race-Based Admissions at the US Naval Academy

This is a monumental, in-depth investigation into race-based admissions at America’s elite military academies—and the landmark case that challenged them (and lost) by Manhattan Institute’s Zach Goldberg on his Substack,”Unwoke by the Numbers.”

It is a very long research paper with many charts that you can read on his Substack as it is too long to repost. But here is the intro and summary:

Introduction and Background

The views expressed in this report are my own and do not reflect the views of any of the parties involved in the case or the institutions referenced. Where this report references materials from Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. U.S. Naval Academy (USNA), it does so solely on the basis of publicly available records from the case—most of which were downloaded via PACER. All cited documents can be accessed and downloaded here.

Race-conscious admissions are illegal in American universities—and, as of February 2025, are now banned at the institutions that train the nation’s military leaders. This dramatic shift followed President Donald Trump’s January 27, 2025, executive order prohibiting race- or sex-based preferences across the U.S. Armed Forces, and a subsequent directive by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth enforcing those principles throughout the Department of Defense. In response, the Superintendent of the U.S. Naval Academy (USNA), Vice Admiral Yvette Davids, formally revised the Academy’s admissions policy on February 14, 2025. The new guidance prohibits consideration of race, ethnicity, or sex at any stage of the admissions process—a change confirmed in Senate testimony and a Department of Justice court filing.1

Although USNA has insisted that its use of race was “limited” and “non-determinative,” it also admitted to never having studied the impact of race on the composition of its admitted classes. Moreover, statistical analysis of admissions data tells a different story: a White applicant with a 5% chance of admission would have a 50% chance if evaluated as Black, and more than 70% of Black admits would not have been admitted under a race-neutral system. These findings, among similarly damning others examined in this report, directly contradict USNA’s characterization of its policies.

Nevertheless, Judge Richard Bennett ultimately ruled in favor of USNA on December 6, 2024, allowing race-based admissions to continue. His ruling effectively treated footnote 4 of the Supreme Court’s SFFA v. Harvard/UNC decision—which states that the ruling does not “address the propriety of race-based admissions [in the military academies]”—as a carve-out for service academies, shielding them from the Court’s holding and exempting them from the strict scrutiny standard applied to civilian universities. Accordingly, rather than applying the exacting strict scrutiny standard affirmed in Harvard, Bennett deferred entirely to the government’s assertions, accepting race-conscious admissions as essential to national security without demanding serious empirical proof.

Now, however, the policy defended in that decision has been rescinded. In light of the Academy’s revised guidance, the Department of Justice has moved to suspend appellate briefing while the parties consider whether the case has been rendered moot—and whether the district court’s ruling should be vacated. As of this writing, the case remains in legal limbo.

Yet even if the case is declared moot, its significance is far from extinguished. First, the risk of policy reversal under a future administration is real—if not inevitable. Without stronger institutional safeguards, nothing prevents a future Secretary of Defense—or Academy Superintendent—from reinstating race-based preferences. Second, if allowed to stand, the district court ruling sets a dangerous precedent: that other government agencies in a future administration may invoke vague claims of “national security” to justify racial classifications. The result would be a profound shift in equal protection jurisprudence, granting the executive branch a new and expansive justification for racial classifications in areas far beyond military personnel policy. Finally, the legal, empirical, and policy arguments advanced in SFFA v. USNA offer a critical lens for evaluating the proper role of merit, fairness, and equality in military officer selection.

About This Report

While the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in SFFA v. Harvard/UNC drew national attention to affirmative action in higher education, the application of race-conscious admissions policies at military academies has remained largely opaque—until now.

This report provides the first in-depth analysis of how racial preferences operate at a U.S. service academy. Focusing on SFFA v. USNA, it systematically examines the role of racial preferences in USNA’s admissions process and assesses their impact on the qualifications, performance, and eventual service assignments of admitted students. It also scrutinizes the legal and empirical justifications advanced by the government, including the claim that racial diversity is essential to military effectiveness.

In addition, the report critiques U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett’s December 2024 ruling, highlighting its deference to government assertions and its failure to apply meaningful constitutional scrutiny. Finally, it offers a series of policy recommendations—judicial, legislative, and executive—to ensure that the ban on racial preferences at service academies endures beyond the current Trump administration.

All told, this report not only brings long-overdue transparency to a system that has operated with minimal public scrutiny—it also lays a crucial foundation for preventing the quiet return of race-based preferences under future administrations. It is thus essential reading for policymakers, military leaders, legal scholars, and citizens concerned by the spread of racial equity-focused policies and norms in military institutions, as well as anyone interested in understanding how such policies have operated in practice, how they have been defended and justified, and how similar measures could resurface in the future.

Outline and Summary Overview of Report

This report is divided into five sections, each building upon the previous one to examine the role of racial preferences in USNA admissions, Judge Bennett’s ruling, and the broader legal and policy implications.

Section 1 provides an in-depth overview of USNA’s admissions process, which differs significantly from civilian universities due to its legally mandated nomination system and strict eligibility requirements. Unlike traditional colleges, USNA applicants must first secure a nomination—typically from a member of Congress—before they can be considered for admission. While USNA publicly maintains that race is not considered in most admissions decisions, the academy explicitly acknowledges its “limited” use in a variety of discretionary decisions, including the selection of Congressional slate winners, the awarding of Additional Appointee (AA) admissions, and the granting of Letters of Assurance (LOAs). By outlining the mechanics of the nomination and admissions process in detail, this section establishes the foundation for understanding how USNA exercises discretion in its admissions decisions and how that discretion creates opportunities for racial preferences.

Section 2 empirically assesses the extent to which race influences USNA’s admissions decisions. Using statistical analysis conducted by Duke University economist and SFFA expert witness Peter Arcidiacono, this section demonstrates that racial preferences play a decisive role in admission outcomes, directly contradicting USNA’s claims that racial considerations are limited and non-determinative. Admissions data reveal stark racial disparities, with non-White applicants—particularly Black applicants—admitted at significantly higher rates than White applicants with comparable WPM scores, especially in the middle qualification deciles. Regression models controlling for a broad range of factors confirm that these disparities persist even after accounting for potential omitted variables. Arcidiacono’s analysis also reveals how racial preferences extend beyond direct admissions into indirect pathways, particularly the Naval Academy Preparatory School (NAPS), where Black applicants are admitted at disproportionately high rates and whose matriculants enjoy near-automatic acceptance into USNA the following year. Additional discretionary mechanisms—including LOAs, medical waivers, and adjustments through the Recommendations of the Admissions Board (RAB)—further amplify racial preferences.

Beyond admissions, statistical analysis of matriculant performance data reveals that racial preferences at USNA have far-reaching consequences for academic performance, discipline, and graduation rates. Black midshipmen consistently earn lower grades, are more likely to be placed in remedial courses, and are significantly underrepresented on the Commandant’s List—a merit-based designation awarded to midshipmen with strong academic and leadership evaluations. Even after controlling for observable qualifications, racial disparities in performance persist, suggesting that Black applicants underperform relative to their admissions credentials and that the magnitude of racial preferences may be even larger than initially estimated. Further, internal USNA data reveal that Black midshipmen are overrepresented in conduct and honor offenses, underrepresented among the top Order of Merit (OOM) rankings, and disproportionately concentrated in the bottom OOM deciles. Minority midshipmen—except for Asians—also experience higher attrition and lower graduation rates than their White peers, with Black midshipmen typically graduating at rates 10 to 15 percentage points lower than Whites. These disparities persist despite USNA’s institutional shift toward a “developmental model” intended to boost overall graduation rates, raising serious concerns about whether racial preferences are setting some students up for failure rather than success. Taken together, these findings further undermine USNA’s claims that race is merely a minor, non-determinative factor in its admissions process.

Section 3 evaluates USNA’s defense of its race-conscious admissions practices, analyzing both its statistical rebuttal to Arcidiacono’s findings and its broader justification for racial preferences. The first part critiques USNA’s counteranalysis, which relied on the testimony of Dr. Stuart Gurrea, a legal economist with no peer-reviewed academic publications who was paid more than $500,000 in taxpayer money to challenge Arcidiacono’s findings. Rather than conducting an independent statistical analysis, Gurrea merely attempted to cast doubt on Arcidiacono’s methodology, arguing that the results were distorted by omitted variable bias, that Arcidiacono’s racial classification methods were flawed, and that logistic regression was an inappropriate tool for studying USNA admissions. However, these critiques fail under scrutiny. Not only do Gurrea’s arguments lack empirical support, but his suggested methodological changes, if taken seriously, would render USNA’s admissions process unmeasurable and immune to external scrutiny. That USNA relied on such a weak counteranalysis—rather than producing its own rigorous statistical study—suggests that it either could not refute Arcidiacono’s findings or feared what a full empirical investigation would reveal.

The second part of Section 3 shifts to USNA’s core legal defense, which hinges on the claim that racial diversity is essential for military effectiveness. Judge Bennett’s ruling largely accepts this assertion at face value, yet a closer examination—and even the government’s own testimony—reveals that the military has never conducted a systematic study proving that racial diversity improves battlefield performance, unit cohesion, or morale. A review of military diversity reports and testimony from military officials confirms that these justifications rest entirely on speculation rather than empirical evidence. Likewise, claims that increasing racial diversity in officer ranks is necessary to improve minority recruitment and retention lack empirical support. Historically, Black enlistment has remained strong regardless of the racial composition of the officer corps, and retention rates show no clear relationship to racial preferences. By critically assessing USNA’s diversity rationale, this section argues that it fails to meet the ‘compelling interest’ standard and is based more on untested assumptions than hard data.

Section 4 examines Judge Bennett’s ruling, arguing that it is not a neutral application of strict scrutiny but rather a legal justification designed to protect USNA’s race-conscious admissions policies. Unlike previous affirmative action rulings, which at least engaged with competing evidence, Bennett systematically defers to USNA, shifting the burden of proof onto SFFA and failing to demand clear empirical support for USNA’s claims. The first part critiques Bennett’s handling of the “compelling interest” standard, showing how he accepts USNA’s assertions about military diversity’s benefits without requiring concrete, measurable proof. Instead of engaging with the absence of empirical support, he relies on anecdotal testimony, politically motivated reports, and historical misrepresentations to justify his conclusions.

The second part of Section 4 examines how Bennett misapplies the standard of narrow tailoring. Instead of requiring USNA to exhaustively explore race-neutral alternatives, he dismisses them outright, applying an unconstitutional standard that requires such alternatives to precisely replicate current racial outcomes. His rejection of socioeconomic-based alternatives ignores clear evidence that such policies could maintain substantial racial diversity while expanding opportunities for disadvantaged applicants. Moreover, his justification for racial preferences as “time-limited” is illusory. By tying their continuation to an undefined future demographic balance, he effectively allows them to persist indefinitely, amounting to unconstitutional racial balancing. Beyond its immediate implications, Bennett’s ruling sets a dangerous precedent. If upheld, it would exempt military institutions from constitutional constraints on racial classifications, allowing them to justify racial preferences indefinitely under the guise of national security.

Section 5 outlines a comprehensive, three-pronged strategy—judicial, legislative, and executive—for ensuring that race-based admissions at USNA and other service academies are permanently eliminated and not quietly reinstated under future administrations. While the USNA case is now in legal limbo following the Academy’s policy reversal, judicial options remain crucial: parallel litigation at West Point and the Air Force Academy still offers a path to definitive constitutional resolution. However, SFFA must resist efforts to moot any of these cases absent structural safeguards. If mootness is ultimately declared, it must seek vacatur of the Bennett’s district court ruling to ensure it carries no precedential weight.

On the legislative front, embedding a statutory ban within the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) would offer more durable protections than executive orders alone, especially if pursued with active support from the Trump administration. Meanwhile, executive action provides immediate tools for enforcement, transparency, and deeper structural reform. These include auditing and data disclosure requirements to ensure compliance with the new ban, and the creation of an independent commission to reexamine the military’s longstanding but empirically untested “diversity rationale.” Finally, the section recommends strategically linking the admissions ban to the commission’s work by framing the policy as a temporary suspension pending evidence review. This approach would reframe the debate in empirical terms, shift the burden of proof onto proponents of racial preferences, and build institutional and legal barriers to their return. Taken together, these recommendations form a robust blueprint for securing the permanent end of race-conscious admissions at the service academies.

Read the report: https://zachgoldberg.substack.com/p/after-harvard-the-fight-against-race#%C2%A7review-of-findings-from-sffas-analysis-of-usna-data

Table of Contents