Racial Preferences Aid Naval Academy
False Assumption: Racial preferences in US Naval Academy admissions improve diversity without significantly harming merit or officer quality.
Written by FARAgent on February 11, 2026
America won World War II with admirals like Spruance, Mitscher, Nimitz, and Lee. All were white men. Postwar, racial preferences entered military academy admissions. Congress nominates candidates since 1857. Navy favors athletes and prep school kids. Black success in Gulf War Army prompted parity pushes in Navy.
Zach Goldberg's study reveals USNA gives huge admission boosts to blacks and Hispanics. A white applicant with 5% chance jumps to 50.3% as black, 14.8% as Hispanic, 18.3% as Asian. Post-George Floyd, black boost rose to 59.4%. Race-blind top-decile selection yields 2.7% blacks, not 10.5%. USNA admits no race-neutral modeling but claims minorities would drop dramatically.
Naval Academy discriminates more against whites than Asians. Prep school funnels favored groups to Annapolis. Historical British Navy favored merit over class, producing great admirals. US Navy now risks smart officer shortage for diversity metrics like non-white vs. white parity.
People Involved
- Zach Goldberg, a data analyst, dug into the numbers at the US Naval Academy. He modeled admissions without racial preferences and found black enrollment would drop sharply, from 10.5 percent to 2.7 percent. Critics argue this exposed how preferences distort merit, though the academy insists diversity gains outweigh any costs. [1]
- Professor Arcidiacono ran his own estimates on admission probabilities. He calculated that a white applicant with a 5 percent chance would see odds jump to 50.3 percent if black. Proponents of race-neutral systems point to his work as evidence of hidden biases, but the debate persists. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“Zach Goldberg has a fascinating study of racial preferences at the Naval Academy.”— Racial discrimination at Annapolis
“Professor Arcidiacono estimates that a white applicant with a modest 5% probability of admission would have a 50.3% chance of admission if treated as Black”— Racial discrimination at Annapolis
Organizations Involved
The US Naval Academy has long enforced racial preferences in its admissions process. Officials there boosted black enrollment to 10.5 percent, far above the 2.7 percent a race-blind model would yield, all while denying they use race-neutral alternatives. Mounting evidence challenges whether this enhances officer quality without trade-offs. [1] The US Congress got involved early, assigning nominations to the academy since 1857. This setup politicized selections and layered on preferences, with critics arguing it prioritizes diversity goals over pure merit. The system endures amid ongoing scrutiny. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“USNA simultaneously claims to have no insight into what the racial composition of its classes would look like absent the consideration of race. By its own admission, it has never conducted modeling”— Racial discrimination at Annapolis
“selecting Naval Academy cadets has been a highly political issue since 1857, when nominating candidates for the military academies was assigned to members of Congress.”— Racial discrimination at Annapolis
The Foundation
The assumption took root in the wake of the Gulf War, when black Army generals like Colin Powell and Calvin Waller stood out. Observers figured other services, including the Navy, needed similar parity to reflect the nation. This bred the idea that blacks were underrepresented due to rigid standards, not a lack of qualified applicants, making preferences seem like a fair fix. [1] The US Naval Academy claimed race played only a minor role in decisions, non-determinative at that. Yet officials predicted a dramatic drop in minorities without it. Growing questions surround this stance, as data reveals few black applicants in the top deciles, suggesting the foundation was shaky from the start. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“USNA argues that eliminating racial considerations would cause minority enrollment to “drop dramatically,” a claim that stands in tension with its characterization of race as a minor and non-determinative factor”— Racial discrimination at Annapolis
“When it emerged that 7% of Army generals were black, my reaction was, Wow, that’s great that African American talent specialized in the Army. Everybody else’s reaction, however, seemed to be: If blacks can succeed that well in the Army, then the other three services should make sure they succeed equally well.”— Racial discrimination at Annapolis
How It Spread
After George Floyd's death in 2020, public pressure for equity surged. The academy responded by increasing the black admission bonus from 40 percent to 59.4 percent. This shift spread through media channels and institutional memos, reinforcing the notion that preferences bolster diversity without eroding standards. [1] The academy began tracking parity between non-whites and whites as a key metric. This approach propagated broader diversity aims, often sidelining debates over individual group outcomes or merit impacts. Critics argue it masks deeper flaws, but the practice continues. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“the admission ‘bonus’ for being treated as a black applicant increased from 40% in the 2023–2024 cycle to 59.4% in the 2025–2027 cycle. This latter period coincided, perhaps not coincidentally, with heightened public focus on racial equity following the killing of George Floyd.”— Racial discrimination at Annapolis
“If USNA cannot achieve representational parity for each minority group individually, it can at least seek parity in the broader “non-white vs. white” sense--a metric it regularly tracks.”— Racial discrimination at Annapolis
Resulting Policies
The US Naval Academy's admissions policy carved out advantages for blue-chip athletes and prep school applicants. Combined with racial boosts, this created virtual guarantees for certain groups. Growing evidence suggests these layers compromise overall merit, though officials defend them as essential for a balanced force. [1] The Naval Academy Preparatory School offered another pathway, favoring groups like blacks. A white applicant's 5 percent chance of entry there rose to 68 percent if black, especially post-Floyd. This policy aimed to build diversity but faces criticism for potentially diluting officer readiness. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“If applied to the entire qualified applicant pool--meaning BCAs [Blue Chip Athletes] and prep applicants would no longer be virtual admission shoo-ins”— Racial discrimination at Annapolis
“a white applicant with a 5% chance of receiving a NAPS offer would see their probability rise to 37% if treated as Black during the 2023–2024 cycles—and to an astonishing 68% if treated as Black during the 2025–2026 cycles”— Racial discrimination at Annapolis
Harm Caused
Under a race-blind model focused on top deciles, white admits would hit 70.4 percent, compared to the actual 58.7 percent. Black admits, meanwhile, would fall from 10.5 percent to 2.7 percent. Critics argue this gap points to lowered officer quality, with preferences sidelining stronger candidates. [1] The academy discriminates more against whites than Asians, some say. This risks echoing the British army's aristocratic pitfalls, where merit took a back seat to status, unlike their navy's meritocratic edge. Growing questions surround whether such harms undermine naval competence. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“a race-blind admissions system that selected all applicants from the top four WPM [Whole Person Multiple] deciles would yield a markedly different racial composition among admitted students. ... whites would constitute 70.4% of admits (compared to 58.7% in actuality), Asians 13.8% (14.3%), Hispanics 9.3% (12.5%), and Blacks 2.7% (10.5%).”— Racial discrimination at Annapolis
“Annapolis is one of the few prestigious colleges that are more discriminatory against whites than against Asians.”— Racial discrimination at Annapolis
Downfall
Zach Goldberg's study in the mid-2020s modeled academy admissions without racial factors. It revealed too few black applicants in top deciles to achieve parity, even with boosts. Mounting evidence from this work challenges the idea that preferences don't harm merit. [1] Professor Arcidiacono's estimates quantified the gaps, showing massive racial advantages that undercut claims of race as a minor factor. Critics argue these findings expose systemic flaws, though the assumption remains contested in official circles. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (2)
“Ultimately, USNA would be unable to increase Black—and, to a lesser extent, Hispanic—representation to levels even approaching their share of the U.S. population if all applicants were held to the same standards as white applicants. There are simply too few Black applicants in the top deciles”— Racial discrimination at Annapolis
“a white applicant with a modest 5% probability of admission would have a 50.3% chance of admission if treated as Black, a 14.8% chance if treated as Hispanic, an 18.3% chance if treated as Asian”— Racial discrimination at Annapolis
Sources
-
[1]
Racial discrimination at Annapolisreputable_journalism