Skip to main content

That Story About the Naval Academy? The Facts Say Otherwise.

You may have seen the recent news that the Justice Department and the U.S. Naval Academy are officially ending the use of race in admissions. This follows a lawsuit challenging the practice and marks a significant shift in how the prestigious institution selects its future leaders.

Predictably, this news has brought out some old, tired arguments. You may hear claims that Black midshipmen were only admitted because of their race and, as a result, they can't handle the academy's rigorous demands and fail to graduate.

This narrative is powerful, but it crumbles when you look at the actual numbers.

The Claim: Black Midshipmen Don't Graduate. The Reality: The Data Shows High Success.
The idea that a significant number of Black midshipmen "wash out" is not supported by facts. In reality, their success rate is nearly identical to that of their white peers.

According to statistics from College Factual on six-year graduation rates at the Naval Academy:

Black/African-American Graduation Rate: 89%
White Graduation Rate: 90%
Hispanic Graduation Rate: 89%
Asian Graduation Rate: 91%
Let that sink in. The overwhelming majority of midshipmen from all racial backgrounds successfully complete one of the most challenging academic and military programs in the world. An 89% graduation rate is a testament to the qualification and perseverance of these individuals, directly refuting the myth that they are not equipped to succeed.

Furthermore, the overall first-year retention rate at the academy is a staggering 97%. This means nearly every student who begins at the academy, regardless of their background, returns for their second year. This is not a story of failure; it's a story of resilience and achievement.

The truth is that every midshipman who earns their place at the Naval Academy has proven their merit through a demanding, holistic admissions process that evaluates academics, leadership, physical fitness, and character. The high graduation rates across the board confirm that those selected are more than capable of meeting the standard.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.
Post a Comment
Read more

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...
3 comments
Read more

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...
Post a Comment
Read more