<p>Our current societal discourse does not accomodate letting FACTS get in the way of a good argument. </p>
<p>The way the statute reads, the FIRST 65 selectees of a class are to be those children of those killed in action or 100% disabled. [Interestingly, the applicant to whom I reference earlier has not completed his application; I think Dad is more interested in him attending than he is] In practice, I’m would thnk is not a problem, but interesting how the statute reads.</p>
<p>In any event, WP, in last few posts, has only bolstered my argument anyway: It is NOT just ethnic minorities who receive preferential treatment for admission to the Academy. There are many different groups of people who have received extra points [children of alumni?] in their Whole Person evaluation. But the bluster gets in the way of that message. The system seems to be working. aRe there anecdotal examples of unfairness? Absolutely. That’s life.</p>
<p>Thanks JAM</p>
<p>JAM, I wonder though a bit about the MOH selectees. The statute states that the "President may appoint . . . " children of MOH. It does not state that he may “nominate for appointment” as, for example, the language used for Supt. “appointments.” This implies that the President “may appoint” [without further review by the Academy?] any child who’s parent was a MOH recipient. Talk about winning the race merely by being born!</p>