The Naval Academy may continue to consider race in their admission process, a federal court Maryland court ruled earlier this month, offering lessons for businesses seeking to defend DEI programs. The lawsuit was brought by the same group that successfully challenged Harvard University and the University of North Carolina’s race-based admission policies in 2023.
In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that using race violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment—a ruling that set off concerns about the future of affirmative action for U.S. corporations. However, the Supreme Court’s decision applies to public and private universities, specifically excluding military academies due to their unique role in national security.
Judge Richard D. Bennett’s ruling highlights factors that could strengthen the defensibility of DEI initiatives, even though it arises from the unique context of military needs and national security. For companies evaluating which DEI initiatives to retain and how to position them, here are some takeaways from the Maryland court’s 175-page ruling that can help them evaluate and justify their DEI programs.
DEI As Mission Critical, Serving Strategic Interests
The Naval Academy persuaded the court that using applicants’ race in admissions furthers a compelling strategic national interest, citing research-backed evidence that a lack of diversity in military leadership jeopardizes cohesion and performance of its units.
The Naval Academy used race in personnel decisions (admission to officer training) directly linked to the mission critical need for diversity (having a more diverse leadership in warfare communities). The ruling indicates that there was considerable debate about the link between diversity and effectiveness in mission critical activities, and that the court deferred to military judgment citing “the judiciary’s limited competence to evaluate military determinations.”
Still, the court’s decision makes it clear that DEI efforts are more defensible when they target areas where a lack of diversity could undermine the achievement of mission-critical activities and strategic goals. This decision offers a lens for businesses to evaluate their DEI strategies by considering the following questions:
- How is diversity in your workforce related to your strategic goals?
- To what extent are your DEI efforts narrowly targeting mission-critical roles and units?
- What historical or other evidence shows that homogeneity jeopardizes the achievement of strategic goals?
Measurability Strengthens DEI Defensibility
The Naval Academy persuaded the court by demonstrating a link between its DEI efforts and measurable strategic activities, distinguishing itself from broader claims like Harvard’s interest in “diversity on campus,” as the ruling noted. That is, the Academy directly tied its use of race-conscious admissions to measurable improvements in mission-critical outcomes, such as improved retention rates for racial and ethnic minorities at later career stages.
This alignment was particularly persuasive because the strategic interest—enhancing military effectiveness through a diverse leadership—does not require quantification, as the judiciary defers to military leaders on matters of national security.
The Academy’s genuine and careful consideration of race-neutral options convinced the judge that, with those methods alone, the Academy couldn’t fully meet their strategic goals.
Executives reassessing their DEI programs may want to reflect on these questions to ensure their DEI programs are strategically aligned and defensible:
- How specific and measurable are the outcomes your DEI program seeks to achieve?
- Can you demonstrate how your DEI efforts directly support key business goals, such as driving innovation, improving decision-making, or boosting employee engagement?
- Have you assessed whether race-neutral strategies alone are sufficient to meet your organization’s diversity objectives?
DEI As One Factor In Holistic Evaluations
The decision to allow the Naval Academy to keep using race in its admission process rested on the principle that race served only as one of many factors in assessing a candidate’s potential.
For example, the Academy’s admission process broadens opportunities for minorities by expanding the candidate pool early on, inviting more qualified candidates to advance while maintaining rigorous, race-neutral criteria for the final selection.
Another example cited in the ruling was the Academy’s consideration of race when candidates have nearly identical scores. In these cases, race may factor into a review of specific elements in the applicant’s candidate, like recommendation letters. (Applicants who receive strong recommendations tend to be disproportionately white, but because congressional nominations—often the source of these recommendations—disproportionately favor white candidates due to district demographics.)
By targeting specific inequities in its process, the Academy’s limited use of race was deemed acceptable because it tackled gaps that race-neutral policies alone could not solve.
This aspect of the ruling encourages business leaders to reflect on their own processes by asking:
- How can you expand your talent pool while maintaining rigorous selection standards?
- Are there stages in your process where a holistic review could address disparities without resorting to quotas?
What To Expect Next
The ruling will likely be appealed, and new lawsuits by the same group, Students for Fair Admissions, are still unfolding against the United States Military Academy at West Point in New York and against the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado.
The Naval Academy’s victory underscores the importance of aligning DEI initiatives with mission-critical goals and supporting them with clear, evidence-based arguments. By focusing on measurable outcomes, aligning efforts with strategic goals and incorporating diversity as one of many factors in decision-making, businesses can strengthen and defend their DEI programs, even in an increasingly challenging landscape.