April 2, 2003
INSULTS:
Bush's racial policy insults the military (Cynthia Tucker, 4/2/03, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution)[P]resident Bush would restrict the equal opportunity currently available to young Americans of color seeking a college education, including those who would attend the service academies -- the U.S. Military Academy, the U.S. Naval Academy and the U.S. Air Force Academy. The president has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to rule against the modest affirmative action policies used by the University of Michigan. If the Michigan policies are outlawed, it is likely that the aggressive affirmative action programs in place at West Point, Annapolis and Colorado Springs would also be prohibited.So while Bush flies about the nation rallying the troops, in effect he seeks to whiten the nation's elite officer corps. (Even with aggressive affirmative action policies, the service academies admit only a small number of blacks and Hispanics.)
Bush apparently doesn't care if the enlisted ranks, heavily reliant on Americans of color, don't see themselves reflected in their officers. [...]
At West Point, while the average black cadet has an SAT score of 1191 and the average Hispanic cadet an SAT score of 1225, the average white cadet has an SAT score 60 to 100 points higher. But Michael Jones, dean of admissions at West Point, notes that "academic testing is not a science."
He argues that many cadets with lower test scores show superior leadership skills and will go on to become outstanding officers. Indeed, the service academies are generally regarded as more academically prestigious than they were 30 years ago, before they adopted affirmative action policies.
When Bush stood to attack affirmative action policies at the University of Michigan several months ago, he didn't mention that similar policies exist at West Point, Annapolis and Colorado Springs. But he has nevertheless opposed their affirmative action policies, too -- and, by extension, cast aspersions on the young black and brown officers they recruited and admitted through those policies, and who are now fighting for our country.
He owes them an apology.
Ms Tucker's position, that the only reason that there are officers of color is because they are quota hires, is hopefully wrong, but if true should indeed be opposed. That even she believes they are less qualified than their white peers suggests that affirmative action does convey a stigma and belittles peoples' future achievements--which may be a result of merit, but will always be viewed through a pall of doubt. Posted by Orrin Judd at April 2, 2003 8:29 AM
When I retired from the military, I was a Navy pilot training squadron commander. So I have a little insight.
Unintended consequences: Affirmative action pervades the US economy. The demand for accredited aggrieved group members (AAGMs)exceeds supply--the resulting compensation for those who are qualified to be officers exceeds what the military can pay. Therefore, despite aggressive recruiting efforts aimed at AAGMs (in my view a completely justified thing to do, as long as recruitment and opportunity are two different things), they often go elsewhere. Hence, affirmative action is helping to create the very problem Ms. Tucker is whining about.
Where the rubber meets the road. There is no
affirmative action in demanding and objectively measurable environments like pilot training. The standards apply to everyone equally, and in my considerable experience, there is no top-down pressure to retain AAGMs when their performance does not match up.
Unfortunately, AAGMs are under-represented because, in addition to the above, they disproportionately fail to score sufficiently well on the aptitude tests that are very
predictive of performance in pilot training.
Jeff:
Except, that is for women pilots, who do indeed have different standards, right? Ability to withstand fewer g's, etc...
My impression was that affirmative action programs in the military were roughly as follows:
a) cast a wide net
b) put more resources into training the less-qualified recruits
c) "no affirmative action in demanding and objectively measurable environments..."
In other words, no one gets promoted unless he/she demonstrates competence.
Analogy: practice affirmative action in college acceptances, but require 1 year of remedial education (real education, not feel-good squishy crappy stuff), after which one must pass a test. Those who don't pass, are not allowed to go on.
She's wrong about the academic standing of the academies. Back when my father was at Annapolis, everybody took the engineering course, and it was as tough as anywhere. (He had gone to a top civilian engineering school first, so he had a direct comparison.)
Military organization is more complex than it was then, and the academies need to offer soft course streams like personnel management, but Tucker should not delude herself into believing that enhances the academic splendor of the military academies.
Jeff's remarks about the shortage of qualified dark skins was obvious in my field, newspapering, 35 years ago. Attempting to recruit blacks for newspaper pay was impossible.
The situation is improved a little, in that there are a lot more black college students now than there were 35 years ago, and so low-paid fields can scoop up a few.
About 14 years ago, the paper I work on needed to hire a reporter, and it was understood that the new hire
ought to be a woman and preferably a local woman. Half the reporters on the staff were like me -- white guys born right after World War 2.
So 2 local women were invited to tryouts, and both performed very well and were offered the job, and both turned it down.
The paper ended up hiring another white guy from the Mainland, just a little younger than the rest of us.
It's a job so menial that only the overprivileged will do it.
As an aside, which is it:
"[P]resident Bush would restrict the equal opportunity currently available to young Americans of color",
or oppose "the aggressive affirmative action programs "???
It's either affirmative action, or equal opportunity.
Folks need to make up their minds about what they really want, and of course what the net result will be.
Richard
RE: Women pilots.
The standards they have to meet are identical to men. Women's graduation rates are similar to men's; however (I don't have stats here, so this is a little subjective), women are not proportionally represented in the top quartile of their classes.
Therefore, most women are not able to choose tactical aviation. The ones that do well enough to make the choice do so very
rarely. So rarely, in fact, that the Defense Commission on Women in the Services started, then stopped, an investigation (along the lines of: "Have you stopped beating your wife?) on the squadron for which I was second-in-command.
Anyway, there is no pressure on squadrons to adjust standards to meet some pre-ordained idea of a proper outcome. Equality of opportunity, yes. Equality of outcome? Well, that's up to the student.