We All Wear Green, We All Bleed Red, There is No Difference: Race-conscious Admissions Policies Have No Place at Our Military Academies

By Larry Purdy, USNA ’68

Abstract

While the thousands upon thousands of dedicated military officers do not share the same skin color, what they do—and must—share is something vastly more important; it is a dedication to our Nation, its Constitution, and a willingness to put their lives on the line to protect and defend the Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of every American.

This includes the safety and well-being of every sailor, soldier, airman, and Marine without considering anyone’s race or ethnicity.

That should be the only test for every officer entrusted with protecting our national security.

If we have learned nothing else from our history surrounding race, we should have learned this: dividing any collection of individuals by race— whether it be a platoon, a battalion, an airwing, a Corps of Cadets, or a Brigade of Midshipmen—and assigning benefits or assessing penalties to the resulting groups is fundamentally destructive.

Perpetuating racial favoritism and its opposite, racial discrimination, does not heal a society; it poisons it.

Policies that focus on race do not lead to a cohesive and effective military; they undermine it.

Such policies have no place in our military.

Download Full Paper by Larry Purdy:

We All Wear Green, We All Bleed Red, There is No Difference: Race-conscious Admissions Policies Have No Place at Our Military Academies (pdf)

Posted on SSRN in the St. Mary’s Law Journal

Purdy, Larry, We All Wear Green, We All Bleed Red, There is No Difference: Race-conscious Admissions Policies Have No Place at Our Military Academies (October 15, 2024). St. Mary’s Law Journal, Forthcoming, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4988319 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4988319

---

I. INTRODUCTION  103

A. Promises Made  103
B. Promises Broken  106

II. ARE RACE-CONSCIOUS ADMISSIONS LAWFUL AT OUR NATION’S MILITARY ACADEMIES AFTER THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISION IN SFFA?   108

III. A BRIEF BUT NECESSARY DETOUR  109

IV. DISCUSSION  110

A. The Principle Announced in SFFA   110
B. DoD’s Poorly Camouflaged Opposition to a Color-blind Meritocratic System  112
C. Analysis of the Military Amici’s Claim of Compelling Interest  113
D. Diversity is Neither a Core Value nor a Compelling Interest  117
E. A Military that “Looks Like America”?  119
F. DoD’s Use of Race to Achieve Unconstitutional Quotas  123
G. The Military’s Permissible Discrimination  124
H. Reliance on a Color-blind Meritocratic System Avoids the Dangers and Divisiveness Created by Race-Based Policies  124

1. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas   126
2. The Late Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor   127
3. Retired Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy   128
4. The Late Army General Colin Powell (USA, Ret.)  129
5. Major General Alfred A. Valenzuela (USA, Ret.)  131
6. Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold (USMC, Ret.)  131
7. Voices of Hundreds of Decorated Military Combat Veterans Opposing Race-Based Decision-Making  132
8. The Long-Term Adverse Consequences to the Purported Beneficiaries of Race-Preference Policies  133

V. THE UNAVOIDABLE DILEMMA: HOW “RACE” AND “ETHNICITY” ARE DEFINED WHEN ADMINISTERING RACE-PREFERENCE ADMISSIONS POLICIES   136

VI. CONCLUSION  138