<p>
</p>
<p>In fact that is a most likely suggestion. How so? One merely needs to look at 3 general factors:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The nearly 50% INCREASE in applicants over a 5 year comparison, from 2009 to 2014.</p></li>
<li><p>A nearly 50% INCREASE in APPOINTMENTS scoring below the magic 600 SAT scores during that same time. Note: Appointments vs. applicants. This flies in the course of conventional wisdom, i.e. that with applicants skyrocketing for the same number of slots that it would become MORE competitive according to all measures noted by USNA. (All but one, see #3.) In fact though it has become significantly, dramatically LESS COMPETITIVE by USNA measures.</p></li>
<li><p>Why this weird scenario? One is only left to conclude that indeed a very significant number of increasing diversity candidates are in fact driving down all USNA traditional profiling measures of academic performance. It is very simple to extrapolate.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>And so as has been noted, no matter where one falls in this political scenario, it is in fact the facts right now. This will change and swing back, in every likelihood, as it increasingly comes to light among the citizenry and thus the politicians who in turn will return this system to merit vs. genetics or gentry. </p>
<p>Thus, while the MOH rarities and McCain-style appointments have been and will continue to occur, either as function of law or of relationships among the powerful, i.e. those who can and do impact and influence outcomes, there is no comparison. These are statistically totally insignificant. Conversely, as USNA stats now expose, “diversity” appointments are very significant in changing the appearance and traditional academic performance and capacity of the fleet. That is a tough pill to swallow, especially for the PC elite who are determined to pervert the ideal of equal opportunity to mean equal outcomes. </p>
<p>And as all the research on this practice of affirmative action has shown, there’s not a shred of evidence it has any positive impact. See Thomas Sowell’s “Intellectuals in Society.” Beyond buying votes from those deemed born to this new manor. The company line is to diversify color and ethnicity, that a girl of hispanic descent or residency (even of one’s great-grandparents) might somehow be a better, more approrpiate leader for a fellow mate of some similar background …than any others. Flies in the face of the historically important foundation of working to unify diverse backgrounds that for the benefit of unit cohesiveness and those who serve therein. </p>
<p>What tangled webs we weave …</p>
<p>btw, a final thought …and here is one of the great disservices. Indeed there are a number of those diversity candidates who in fact would be admitted on their own merit, based on the traditional and current measures of non-diversity candidates. Unfortunately, they will be wrongly judged as either sub-par and/or unable to compete on the same level as those admitted competitively w/o benefit of checking a diversity box on the app. And in its purest form, that really is all it is. To my knowledge, none must pass a color or ethnicity screening.</p>