Is the Exemption of Military Academies from Affirmative Action Policy Justified by Constitutional Precedents?

Justice John Roberts has recently exempted military academies from an affirmative action ruling, an action that has sparked considerable debate among legal scholars and civil rights advocates. One of the primary arguments supporting this decision is rooted in the Rostker v. Goldberg case and other constitutional precedents, which suggest that military policies may enjoy a higher degree of deference compared to civilian policies. This article explores the reasons behind this decision and the relevant constitutional precedents.

Understanding Affirmative Action

Many often misunderstand the true purpose of affirmative action. It is not a route for admitting unqualified students; rather, it is a policy designed to address historical and systemic discrimination. Top-tier institutions, like those represented by West Point, have successfully admitted numerous African American cadets who have excelled in their studies and extracurricular activities. For instance, three African American students were awarded the highest scholarships in the history of the USA Wrestling program, a testament to their exceptional abilities.

Constitutional Precedents Supporting Military Policies

The Rostker v. Goldberg case of 1981 highlights judicial deference towards military policies. The Supreme Court noted that legislative action under the congressional authority to raise and support armies and make rules for their governance is subject to a high level of judicial deference. Similarly, in Goldman v. Weinberger (1986), the Court upheld regulations prohibiting Air Force members from wearing yarmulkes while on duty, further emphasizing the flexibility and breadth of military governance.

Deference to Military Authorities

Courts often adhere to the principle of deference, particularly in contexts involving the constitutional rights of servicemen. This principle is strongly expressed in cases like Weiss v. United States (1994), where the Court highlighted that Congress is permitted to legislate with greater breadth and flexibility in military matters:

“Congress is permitted to legislate both with greater breadth and with greater flexibility when the statute governs military society.”

Another significant case is Parker v. Levy (1974), which further emphasized that the tests and limitations associated with constitutional challenges may differ due to the military context:

“The tests and limitations that must be observed may differ because of the military context.”

Given these precedents, military policies often receive greater scrutiny and are upheld even when comparable civilian policies would be struck down. For example, the male-only draft policy in Rostker v. Goldberg was sustained, and the prohibition on wearing religious head coverings by military members in Goldman v. Weinberger was upheld.

Military Academies and Affirmative Action

The military academies, including the United States Military Academy, Naval Academy, and Air Force Academy, are known for their rigorous standards and high expectations. Only the most qualified applicants are accepted. The admission process involves stringent requirements such as excellent grades, active participation in community organizations, and strong leadership qualities. Even high-ranking military officials must compete for limited spots:

Top high school performers with military endorsements from local representatives or senators Children of Medal of Honor recipients Children of academy graduates who made a career of service

This competitive selection process is designed to ensure that the academies admit the most qualified candidates, an essential principle for the well-being and success of the military. This rationale makes it difficult to justify the implementation of affirmative action policies, as the need for diverse representation in military leadership is already addressed through these stringent admission criteria.

Conclusion

The exemption of military academies from affirmative action policies, as demonstrated by Justice John Roberts' decision, is supported by constitutional precedents that emphasize the deference owed to military governance. This deference is particularly relevant in contexts where the rights and conduct of military personnel are involved. Considering the rigorous admission process and the qualifications of the cadets admitted, there is little need for affirmative action policies in these prestigious institutions.