This news article, “Anti-Affirmative Action Group Sues West Point Over Admissions Policy,” contained this amazing quote:
“For most of its history, West Point has evaluated cadets based on merit and achievement,” the group said in its complaint, filed on Tuesday in the Southern District of New York. But that changed, the group argued, over the last few decades.
Whaaa . . .?
How many black cadets did they have in the 1840s, anyway? Guess we gotta check the internet . . . googling *black cadets at west point* points us to this article from the National Museum of African American History and Culture:
In its first 133 years of existence (1802–1935), over 10,000 white cadets graduated from the United States Military Academy at West Point. In stark contrast, only three African American cadets could claim this achievement . . . Benjamin O. Davis Jr. became the fourth African American cadet to graduate in 1936. Perhaps best known as commander of the famous Tuskegee Airmen in World War II, Davis had a long and distinguished career in the Air Force before retiring in 1970 at the rank of Lieutenant General. . . .
They’ve got this juicy quote from Major General John D. Schofield, Superintendent of West Point, in 1880:
“To send to West Point for four years competition a young man who was born in slavery is to assume that half a generation is sufficient to raise a colored man to the social, moral, and intellectual level which the average white man has reached in several hundred years. As well might the common farm horse be entered in a four-mile race against the best blood inherited from a long line of English racers.”
The article continues:
Between 1870 and 1899, only 12 African American cadets were admitted to West Point. Each endured physical and emotional abuse and racist treatment from their white peers and professors throughout their time at the Academy. They were ostracized, barred from social activities with other cadets, and spoken to only when officially necessary, a practice known as silencing. While white cadets were hazed by their fellow cadets as punishment for serious misconduct, Black cadets were hazed for being Black and for being at West Point.
OK, so here’s the score:
Years # black cadets # black graduates
1802-1869 0 0
1870-1935 12 3
Given the data, it’s absolutely ridiculous of them to say, “For most of its history, West Point has evaluated cadets based on merit and achievement.”
Is that just how lawyers write things in official complaints? Is the idea to make some ludicrous claims just to distract the other side? I don’t get it. If I were a judge, that sort of thing would just annoy me. Then again, I’m not a judge.
It’s just like major league baseball, which was purely based on merit and achievement until those pesky affirmative action bureaucrats came along in 1948 to mess everything up.
In all seriousness, it seems in retrospect to have been a terrible decision to restrict the military academies to whites for the first 100+ years. Imagine if Robert Lee and Stonewall Jackson had had black classmates at West Point. Maybe then they wouldn’t have been so gung-ho to lead troops in defense of slavery. The Dred Scott decision would have a different meaning if it was their friends who were at risk of being kidnapped and enslaved. It seems fair enough to draw a direct line from an all-white West Point to the tragedy of the Civil War. And then for some twit in 2023 to say, “For most of its history, West Point has evaluated cadets based on merit and achievement” . . . !
P.S. Annoyingly, the news article does not link to the actual complaint. But after some googling, I found it here. The whole thing is kinda nuts. In the same paragraph where they make the obviously false claim, “For most of its history, West Point has evaluated cadets based on merit and achievement,” they also point out that the U.S. military wasn’t desegregated until 1948!
Later on, they refer to “the brief period of racial unrest [from 1969 to 1972] that West Point retells over and over.” I guess they’re cool about the first 150 years or so when blacks were entirely or nearly-entirely excluded and evaluation was based on “based on merit and achievement”: keep the place essentially all-white and intimidate the few black cadets who are there, and you have no racial unrest, huh?
Affirmative action is a complicated issue. I don’t think this particular group is helping anyone by trying to push a distorted version of history.
P.P.S. Relevant context from Dred Scott v. Sandford:
The question is simply this: Can a negro whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights and privileges and immunities guaranteed to the citizen? . . .
It will be observed, that the plea applies to that class of persons only whose ancestors were negroes of the African race, and imported into this country, and sold and held as slaves. The only matter in issue before the court, therefore, is, whether the descendants of such slaves, when they shall be emancipated, or who are born of parents who had become free before their birth, are citizens of a State, in the sense in which the word citizen is used in the Constitution of the United States. . . .
The situation of this population was altogether unlike that of the Indian race. The latter, it is true, formed no part of the colonial communities, and never amalgamated with them in social connections or in government. But although they were uncivilized, they were yet a free and independent people, associated together in nations or tribes, and governed by their own laws. . . .
The words “people of the United States” and “citizens” are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. . . . The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word “citizens” in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings . . .
They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics, which no one thought of disputing . . .
That was in the good old days, back when West Point has evaluated cadets based on merit and achievement and there was no racial unrest. Somewhere between 1857 and today, something seems to have gone terribly wrong, according to this new lawsuit. Too bad for them that Roger Taney is no longer on the court.
I’m not surprised at the eugenics, but I am surprised at the “several hundred years” comment.
That would put the origin of European civilization at ~1500. Was the Roman empire considered civilized in the 1880s while the Byzantine was not? Or neither were?
Alternatively, did they think there was a kind of “reset” after the fall of Constantinople, where “barbarians” overran it all then needed to relearn/breed a new civilization?
I would have thought to put the start date much earlier.
Historiographically, I think the contemporary thinking was that:
1. The fall of the Western Roman Empire leading up the early Renaissance constituted savage dark ages for the “white” parts of the world of no cultural value
2. The Byzantines were not considered “white” or Roman (despite obviously being more contiguous with Rome than the Germanic “Holy Roman Empire”)
3. In any case, contemporary southern Europeans were variously considered nonwhite or at least inferior and so the rise of Anglo-Saxon empires and their progeny could constitute a “new” thing
Thanks. Then the idea at the time was it took “anglo-saxons” (or however they thought of themselves) ~10 generations (of cultural and/or biological evolution) to get to the point where they seem capable of dominating any other culture they come across. Thus it should take about as long for other cultures to catch up.
It seems obviously too simplified. Is there a source you know of where I can see the thought process at the time behind extrapolating from the (supposed) anglo-saxon transition to other cultures?
How cultures come to adopt and reward/enforce premises like this fascinate me because it seems in 100-200 years people will either look back on us as either ignorant or some mysteriously successful ancients.
“based on merit and achievement”
Your daddy’s a zillionaire, and you graduated from the most exclusive high school. Merit and achievement.
“Your daddy’s a zillionaire, and you graduated from the most exclusive high school.”
Historically, that’s not how you got into West Point. “Appointment” (=admission) to West Point required some political connection to an office holder, often a congressman. While this could obviously lead to corruption, it didn’t always. Ulysses Grant, a later Republican president, was appointed by a Democratic congressman; George A. Custer, a staunch Democrat, was appointed by a Republican congressman. Both Grant and Custer were “nobodies” at the time of their appointment.
Nowadays, appointment to a military academy still requires a nomination from an office holder (or a few other possibilities), but the appointment is made by the academy’s admissions office from among the nominees, and a congressman would generally waste his nominations by not nominating someone the academy wanted. I know from personal experience with several congressmen that most run the nomination process in a strictly apolitical manner.
This, of course, is neither here nor there with regard to Andrew’s point.
“Both Grant and Custer were “nobodies” at the time of their appointment.”
Well, I was offered a nomination to West Point from one of the local politicians because of my SAT score, and there never was a bigger nobody than me!
Perhaps my comment was too snarky. Andrew implied that there would have been black students who would have had more merit – in the academic sense – than some of the whites who got in, but they were excluded because of the color of their skin. I have no argument with that. My point is that his definition of merit is not universally accepted. Some feel that merit can only lead to wealth, because that is the one and only thing we all want. Winners come from winning families (by wealth) and losers come from losing families (by wealth), so why appoint losers? From this perspective the old West Point approach was based upon merit, with a similarly jaundiced view of achievement.
That your congressman approached you, based on your SAT scores, rather than the other way around, has led me to rethink a bit the political nomination process.
One original purpose of political nomination was geographic distribution– to have the officer corps be composed of men from all over the country. This was a good idea, but the obvious potential for corruption– favoritism, nepotism, influence peddling, etc.– made political nomination seem to me an overall bad idea. (This potential did not always come to pass in the old days, and today is largely eliminated. Your congressman, I presume, approached you because you had a good SAT score, and not because you were wealthy or a partisan activist.)
In the old days, criteria for college admission in general was a problem, since the absence of national exams, AP courses, and a standardized secondary curriculum made it hard to compare applicants from across the country. Under such circumstances, wealth, influence, connection, etc. could all play a large part. (See, for example, who got into prestigious East coast colleges in the 19th century.)
Since there were essentially no valid national criteria, pushing the selection of military academy cadets out to all the congressional districts created at least a chance that some actual accomplishments could be recognized. As noted, Grant and Custer were “nobodies”– neither wealthy nor influential. But Grant was a noted horseman, and Custer a school teacher, which would probably have been known to their congressmen.
One of course would have to study many more than just two cases (which I picked because they are well known Union Civil War generals), but the absence of applicable national criteria in the 19th century suggests that putting the recruiting of cadets in the hands of congressmen might not have been the absolutely terrible idea it appears at first glance.
(Again, none of this bears on Andrew’s original point.)
George C. Meyer: in the 19th century, the idea that all candidates for public-sector jobs should face the same impersonal test, rather than being chosen however their local boss saw fit, was the radical idea in the North Atlantic world (advocates pointed to the Chinese civil service exams, which was why the British civil service exams ended up containing a lot of Greek and Latin). The USA has always had problems with the impersonal approach, as people can see by studying the eerie world of college admissions in the USA or the reaction against standardized tests such as the SAT.
I find the last argument from the Dred Scott v. Sandford quote particularly annoying:
“It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics, which no one thought of disputing.” That argument is plain wrong now and it was wrong at the time of Dred Scott v. Sandford. Abolitionists have been around as long as slaver owners. They may not have been taken seriously for a long time, but they were always there and were already a vocal group at the time of the writing of the US Constitution.
It goes quite a bit further. Slavery was regarded as morally wrong by many writers of the U.S. Constitution, including, confusingly, notorious slaveowners.
– Thomas Jefferson on slavery
– James Madison on slavery
-Alexander Hamilton on a plan to emancipate slaves who fought in the Revolution
When people criticize the American founders for hypocrisy on the question of slavery, many react as if we’re applying anachronistic moral standards, when in fact they often criticized themselves for exactly that same reason. We, collectively, seem to have a mythology of linear progress, wherein moral opposition to slavery was an uncommon sentiment at the time of the Revolution and grew into a real political force around the time of the Civil War. The truth is that many, both white and black Americans, high and low in status, regarded slavery as evil at the time of the Revolution, but just enough regarded it was a practical necessity to effect a political compromise. Then, racist and pro-slavery sentiments actually grew and intensified over time in the south while abolitionist sentiments intensified in the north.
Some discussion of this point
https://www.econtalk.org/munger-on-slavery-and-racism/
In fairness (??) to the author of the majority opinion, he was purporting to describe the beliefs at the time that the Constitution was written (“It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate race, which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted. But the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken.”)
And, while @somebody is correct in his response to you about the attitudes of some of the founders regarding slavery, the Dred Scott decision was not about slavery per se. The basis of the decision, and one reason why it was so pernicious, is that it held that Scott could not sue in US courts, not because he was a slave, but because he was African American:
“The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied by that instrument to the citizen? One of which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the Constitution. . . . And upon a full and careful consideration of the subject, the court is of opinion, that, upon the facts stated in the plea in abatement, Dred Scott was not a citizen of Missouri within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, and not entitled as such to sue in its courts; and, consequently, that the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction of the case, and that the judgment on the plea in abatement is erroneous.”
And, whatever the founders might have thought about slavery, it is probably correct to say that few doubted that African Americans were “beings of an inferior order.” (Whether they believed that African Americans could become a member of the polis, I don’t know)
I’m not commenting on the legalese. It makes a factual claim about opinions about slavery
This statement is simply wrong. It is a common, now and then, factual error.
They also excluded women until 1976. I understand that’s not the topic of this lawsuit, but it’s also inconsistent with a purely merit/achievement-based admissions process.
I wish that what I’m about to say is satire, but it’s not:
Andrew’s post cannot be taught in Florida public schools because it violates Section 6A-1.094124 – Required Instruction Planning and Reporting (https://casetext.com/regulation/florida-administrative-code/department-6-department-of-education/division-6a-state-board-of-education/chapter-6a-1-finance-and-administration/section-6a-1094124-required-instruction-planning-and-reporting).
To take the heat off the military: Although my wife and I met on a blind date in Paris, we honeymooned in Cleveland, Ohio just as Negroes were becoming Blacks. Her uncle took us to dinner at his club, and in my gauche youth, I asked why his club had an all-white membership. Upon reflection, he said no one else besides whites had ever applied. He was satisfied with his answer and, uncharacteristically, I chose to move on to dessert and other topics.
I remember reading that Jesse Owens said that he was treated better by shopkeepers, waiters, and just regular citizens in 1932 Berlin than in his native Cleveland.
Honeymoon in Cleveland?
OTOH, the holocaust was already in progress in 1936, so I’m not sure exactly where to file that one. And probably most Berliners had never lived in Cleveland.
> he said no one else besides whites had ever applied. He was satisfied with his answer and, uncharacteristically, I chose to move on to dessert and other topics.
Perfect. Your uncle-in-law and chipmunk seem to have much in common.
This reminds me of people who argue that SAT screening for college students is “merit-based admissions.” Outside of the simple fact that the ability to take SAT prep classes would be an odd type of “merit,” the whole notion that only students who do well on SATs merit the best educational opportunity seems inherently problematic to me.
> Outside of the simple fact that the ability to take SAT prep classes would be an odd type of “merit,”
Last I read impact of SAT prep classes aren’t that large. Something like 0.3SD.
Jackie Robinson was mentioned so I went to Wikipedia which indicates that his wife, Rachel Robinson, is still alive at the age of 101!
Well at least there is good news: the social sciences have long exercised leadership in removing competence barriers!
Merit, Achievement, and Andersonville Prison
This might sound a little off-topic, but I think it might give a little background on what was current at the time of the Civil War (and other readers of the topic might have more examples to submit.)
Although I have lived in Texas for most of my adult life, I grew up in Michigan, and that is where much of my family history occurred. In particular, I have some family records from the time of the Civil War. Some of these records were written by two ancestors who fought for the North in the Civil War. They were not blood relations of each other, but became father-in-law and son-in-law after the war. They spent much of the civil war in Andersonville Prison. The family legend is that they escaped from Andersonville by hiding in two of the caskets that were taken out of the prison every day, carrying prison inmates who had died overnight in the prison. They then walked back to Michigan, where they settled, and lived to tell their story.