USNews.com: A Naval Academy affirmative-action firestorm (3/21/05)









            Home  Education

            3/21/05
            A Naval Academy firestorm 
            By Justin Ewers 
            Almost two years after the Supreme Court gave a qualified thumbs up 
            to affirmative action in higher education, the battles over college 
            admissions preferences are by no means over. The latest skirmish is 
            being fought in a corner of the admissions world that doesn't 
            usually receive much scrutiny--the highly competitive and famously 
            arduous U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis. At the institution charged 
            with training future Navy and Marine Corps officers, new questions 
            about how to foster effective military leadership have added a fresh 
            twist to the nation's long-simmering debate about race, class, and 
            meritocracy.


            The brouhaha began last month when Bruce Fleming, a professor of 
            English at the academy, argued in the flagship journal of the U.S. 
            Naval Institute that the academy lowers academic standards 
            significantly for what he calls "set-aside" groups--minorities, 
            athletes, and enlisted men and women who apply after serving in the 
            fleet. Too many students, he maintains, are being given the nod in 
            spite of C-level work in high school and SAT scores 200 to 300 
            points lower than the academy's impressive 1310 average. "If 
            thinking is necessary to Navy and Marine Corps officers," writes 
            Fleming, who served on the academy's admissions board in 2001-2002, 
            "weaker academics means weaker officers."
            Counterattack. Fleming's article caused a fierce backlash on a 
            campus that, like other elite schools, has made intense efforts to 
            bring greater racial diversity to a student body in which minorities 
            made up 21.7 percent of last year's admits. Some midshipmen called 
            for his resignation, and a few began distributing T-shirts that 
            read, "Set-Aside and Proud." The academy's superintendent, Vice Adm. 
            Rodney P. Rempt, weighed in with a harsh letter to Fleming: "Your 
            action," he wrote, "has served to needlessly criticize the academy . 
            . . and every midshipman--past, present, and future--who earned 
            their admission . . . and are serving successfully as officers."
            Despite the furious reaction, Fleming's defenders say he simply 
            spoke out about a subject that academy leaders would like to keep 
            under wraps. "Unfortunately, a lot of what he said was accurate," 
            says one junior, who spoke on condition of anonymity. (Last week, 
            academy officials said they were unable to provide information about 
            the average SAT scores, grades, or college record of the subgroups 
            whose performance Fleming criticizes.) But Col. Kenneth Inman, chair 
            of the school's admissions board, argues that leadership potential 
            and the "whole person" are more important than test scores and 
            grades when culling 1,200 future officers from a pool of 14,000 
            applicants. "They're not all going to be Hemingways when they leave 
            here," says Inman. "What they are going to be is combat leaders."
            Perhaps the most incendiary of Fleming's charges is that the 
            academy's admissions practices aren't just bad policy but may, in 
            the case of minority applicants, be illegal. The school requires 
            would-be midshipmen to jump over many hurdles: passing tough medical 
            and physical exams, receiving a nomination from a public official, 
            usually a member of Congress, and meeting core academic 
            requirements. Fleming contends that minority applicants get enough 
            breaks along the way--including having their files shepherded 
            through the process by a minority admissions officer--that the 
            system amounts to a two-track admissions procedure that doesn't 
            qualify as the kind of affirmative action the Supreme Court 
            permitted in the University of Michigan case in 2003. But Inman 
            vigorously defends the legality of the process, saying nonminority 
            applicants also receive special attention--from regional admissions 
            directors, for instance. No one, he insists, is rubber-stamped into 
            the academy based on race alone.
            The academy is certainly not the only school--military or 
            otherwise--to use the "whole person" rubric to seek out students who 
            bring something to campus besides academic laurels. But the academy 
            is different, of course. And given the unique stakes involved in 
            picking the nation's military leaders, disputes over just how the 
            delicate art of admissions is practiced in Annapolis may be destined 
            to linger.

       

























           





              SelectAAAEAKALAPARASAZCACOCTDCDEFLGAGUHIIAIDILINKSKYLAMAMDMEMIMNMOMSMTNCNDNENHNJNMNVNYOHOKORPAPRRISCSDTNTXUTVAVIVTWAWIWVWY




                   

            Copyright © 2005 U.S.News & World Report, L.P. All rights reserved.
            Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our Terms and 
            Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
            Subscribe | Text Index | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy | 
            Contact U.S. News | Advertise | Browser Specifications