Students for Fair Admission continue their efforts to require truly equal standards in college and university admissions. This is the group that successfully sued Harvard University and the University of North Carolina for giving preferential treatment to certain ethnic groups in the admissions process. Both universities had artificially limited admissions of Asian Americans claiming that group was dominating admissions because of their superior academic achievements which was unfair to other groups. Fresh off those victories, the group turned their attention to West Point and Annapolis.

Judges in both cases have awarded the military academies a small victory, refusing to hold them to the same standards and allowing their discriminatory practices to remain in place for the time being. In the Harvard and North Carolina cases, the judges determined that neither university had demonstrated a compelling reason to justify granting preferential treatment or putting artificial barriers in place for specific groups. In their preliminary decisions regarding the military academies, the judges stated that the federal government made claims that could justify discrimination in the admissions process. However, they requested further explanation of their claims.

Here is what the government's lawyers claimed:

"Namely, (1) that a diverse officer corps is necessary for the "lethality" of and the "cohesion" within military units, (2) such a policy is necessary for satisfactory recruitment and retention of a potential and existing officer corps, and (3) such a policy would enhance "the military's legitimacy in the eyes of the nation and the world."

Having a "cohesive and lethal military unit" is no doubt necessary for defense and for winning battles. The court correctly asked for documentation and support of the claim that diversity enhances lethality and cohesiveness. History has shown us that when our military was integrated, there were problems similar to what was experienced in society at large. But familiarity and a common goal began to break down the biases and stereotypes that groups may have held about each other. It is inarguable that once the bullets start flying you don't care who is in the foxhole next to you, you only care if that person can fight and help you stay alive while killing the other guys.

I really have no idea if there is demonstrable evidence that people of certain ethnic groups are better fighters and thus more lethal than those in other demographic groups. I feel comfortable in saying that the characteristics which make a person a good and effective soldier cross demographic boundaries. There are people in each demographic group that would make good soldiers and people in the same groups that would not make a good soldier.

Maybe a case can be made that soldiers in a unit prefer officers that share demographic characteristics with them, but once again if that person is a poor leader, no one cares what they look like or what identity they claim. They all want to win the battle and come home alive and will follow the person that gives them the best chance to do so.

To the last point made by the attorneys for the academies, do other generals look at an army and shake in their boots because they are diverse? Has the phrase, 'look at how diverse that military is; they must be unbeatable', ever been uttered in the history of the world? Have wars been avoided because of the diversity of one nation's military? It will be interesting to see the justification provided to support that claim. As far as I can tell, the only thing that avoids wars is the perception that the other country's military is superior to yours. That means they are well equipped and capable of using that equipment in an efficient and effective manner that is superior to anyone else's military.

The military is one of the worst places to implement diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. The only standards to be applied should be physical and mental. We know what skills and attributes are necessary for a person to be a good soldier and fulfill the obligation of the military. If a person can meet those requirements, then they should be admitted. If they cannot, McDonald's and Walmart are hiring. Let's hope the judges see it the same way.