Judge Overturns Army’s Affirmative Action Promotion Policy

In March a federal judge ruled unconstitutional an U.S. Army policy that gave preferential treatment in promotion to women and minorities.

The Army’s written policy urged promotion boards to consider “past personal or institutional discrimination” when considering candidates for promotion. A white, male officer passed over for promotion in 1996 and 1997 sued, arguing that the policy was unconstitutionally discriminatory.

In his ruling, Federal Judge Royce C. Lamberth noted that the Army had failed to establish that women and minorities had been discriminated against in the past during promotions. He cited statistics noting that since the 1970s the promotion rate for white and black officers had been almost identical.

“This [policy] undeniably establishes a preference in favor of one race or gender over another, and therefore is unconstitutional,” Lamberth wrote in his 68-page opinion.

The Army has not yet decided whether it will appeal, but since Lamberth framed his ruling very similar to Supreme Court decisions striking down affirmative action programs, overturning the verdict on appeal would be a long shot at best.

And imagine that — the Army having to judge people as individuals based on merit instead of based on their particular group membership. How will the nation ever survive such a radical notion?

Source:

Judge halts an army policy on promotion. Neely Tucker, Washington Post, March 5, 2002.

How Long Until Colleges Create Affirmative Action Programs for Men?

In recent months there have been a number of news stories about a gender discrepancy at American universities and colleges that is likely to grow even larger in coming years — women now are disproportionately represented in higher education.

This year, for example, men made up only 44 percent of admissions to colleges and universities. For a variety of reasons, that percentage is likely to decline further before it stabilizes. By 2010, the United States Department of Education estimates that men will make up only 42 percent of higher education admissions.

Already some colleges are creating what are essentially affirmative action programs for men to increase “diversity” on campus, and thanks to the feminist mantra that a statistical discrepancy is prima facie evidence of active discrimination, such programs are likely to survive and expand.

According to a Daily Telegraph (UK) report, The University of NOrth Carolina and DepauL University have already started targeting potential male students with more outreach than female students, including extra mailings with more emphasis on traditionally male areas of study such as engineering. Meanwhile, some women who applied to the University of Georgia sued that university because they argued it’s admissions policies were biased toward men. They lost their suit.

The Daily Telegraph claims that the decline is attributable to men opting not to go to college to pursue more lucrative independent careers such as with Internet companies, which may be true for a very small segment of men, but is unlikely to explain the entire difference. Rather the difference is attributable to the fact that women as a group tend to do better in high school then men as a group. Women have much higher graduation rates, and although men tend to do better on standardized tests than women, this is only because the male sample of test takers is skewed because far more men tend to take tests such as the SAT and ACT.

Given the disparities, should there be affirmative action programs for men? Absolutely not. Affirmative action programs were a lousy way to try to compensate for statistical disparities when they favored men and they would be a lousy way to compensate when the statistical disparities favor women.

Source:

University women in a class of their own. Philip Delves Broughton, The Daily Telegraph, December 6, 2000.