Our Military Needs Officers Chosen For Their Qualifications, Not Skin Color

The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in two cases challenging race-based affirmative action practices at Harvard and the University of North Carolina (UNC). A group called Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) sued those civilian schools for discriminatory admission policies, but the high-stakes legal drama also involves the military.

Arguing for the Department of Defense, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar insisted (without evidence) that military officer corps diversity “is a critical national security imperative” and that “it’s not possible to achieve that diversity without race conscious admissions, including at the nation’s service academies.”  

How did the military get roped into this legal debate?

The controversy started with a 2003 case called Grutter v. Bollinger, when a group of retired defense officials and military officers filed a friend of the court (amicus) brief arguing in support of racial preferences at the University of Michigan Law School.

In Grutter, the Department of Defense (DOD) surrogate brief claimed that racial preferences in admissions to the service academies and colleges having Reserve Officers’ Training Corp (ROTC) scholarship programs were “essential to national security.” It was a far-fetched, disingenuous argument, but absent rebuttal, some justices bought it.

The 5-4 Grutter ruling allowed Michigan Law to consider race in choosing applicants, relying on the contrived claim that racial preferences in admissions were necessary to achieve racially diverse ROTC and military service academy programs. The alleged “national security imperative,” unfortunately, was deemed sufficient to satisfy the “compelling state interest” requirement needed to survive strict scrutiny.

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor supported the Grutter ruling, but she cautioned that race-conscious practices should end in about 25 years. Nineteen years later, SFFA is petitioning the court to overturn Grutter and end discriminatory admissions policies now.

DOD and Veterans Engaged on Both Sides

The students’ case presents specific evidence of race-based discrimination against higher-scoring Asian applicants at Harvard and higher-scoring Asian and white applicants at UNC, arguing that such practices violate the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution and Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The Biden administration is supporting the pro-discrimination side, not the white and Asian students seeking non-discrimination and recognition of merit. Another DOD surrogate group filed an amicus brief like the one submitted in Grutter.

Enter a group called Veterans for Fairness and Merit (VFM), which advocates for equal opportunity and merit and condemns all forms of racism. VFM filed a new amicus brief disputing the claim that effectiveness in combat depends on policies that are race-conscious instead of colorblind.

The VFM brief, filed on behalf of its more than 600 distinguished veteran members including 21 Medal of Honor recipients, presents persuasive facts countering the claim that the military officer corps lacks diversity. The percentage of black Army officers (12.3 percent), for example, is only one point shy of the approximately 13 percent of black people in the general population. VFM also argues that increased officer diversity is not essential to national security and that our military can defend America without suspending