Supreme Court knew that racial diversity is a matter of 'national security' | Opinion

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that raced-based admission programs of Harvard University and at the University of North Carolina are unconstitutional.

The court ruling means that similar admission programs in universities in the United States are now considered unconstitutional.

Three Supreme Court justices dissented. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a graduate of Princeton University and of Yale University Law School, in her own words “a perfect baby of Affirmative Action programs," made public her dissent in a 69-page-long robust opinion. Justice Elena Kagan signed the dissenting opinion by Sotomayor.

A comment by the Puerto Rican justice stood out to me. In her opinion, she wrote that the majority of the Supreme Court recognized the consequences of its decision for national security, and for that reason it exempted military academies from its ruling due to the “potentially particular interests” they may present.

Hear more Tennessee Voices: Get the weekly opinion newsletter for insightful and thought provoking columns.

The U.S. military insisted upon keep affirmative action

The Justice expanded on this curious exception with the help of a document commonly referred to as an “amicus brief” submitted by the United States military to the Court.

In this “friendly brief,” the U.S. military explains to the Court that “the Nation’s military strength and readiness depends on a pipeline of officers who are both highly qualified and racially diverse – and who have been educated in diverse environments that prepare them to lead increasingly diverse forces.”

Justice Sotomayor adds that history teaches us that racial diversity is a “national security imperative.”

She reminds us that during the Vietnam War, the absence of racial diversity among officers in the military “threatened the integrity and performance of the Nation’s military” because it fueled perceptions of racial /ethnic minorities serving as “cannon fodder” for white military leaders.

Sign up for Latino Tennessee Voices newsletter:Read compelling stories for and with the Latino community in Tennessee. 

Sign up for Black Tennessee Voices newsletter:Read compelling columns by Black writers from across Tennessee. 

The case of Damián Sánchez offers lessons on racism

The commentary by the justice reminded me of a short story that I teach in my courses at Vanderbilt University.

“Private Damián Sánchez” tells the story of a Puerto Rican soldier at the end of the Korean War, in 1953, shortly after the segregated 65th infantry regiment was decommissioned due to discipline problems between white officers and Puerto Rican subordinates. After his buddy and friend, Kim Wan, insults the protagonist to ingratiate himself with his white superiors, Damián wounds him.

Emilio Díaz Valcárcel, the author of the story, was a soldier and a war correspondent during the conflict. His firsthand story dramatizes the tragic and paradoxical effects on Puerto Rican soldiers of a racialized chain of command.

In her opinion, Justice Sotomayor points to the inconsistency and the arbitrariness of the decision by the Supreme Court.

When it’s a matter of national security, the court must recognize the tragic consequences of the absence of equality, and the effectiveness of the repair to that inequality by affirmative action.

The exception confirms that the racial inequities of 1862 were real, that they were real in 1953, and that they continue to be real today.

In this sense, the exception to the ruling by the Supreme Court is, in fact, the exception that proves the rule of inequity, and the effectiveness of Affirmative Action.

Benigno Trigo is the Gertrude Conaway Vanderbilt Chair in the Humanities, Spanish and PortugueseCollege of Arts and Science at Vanderbilt University.

This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Supreme Court knew racial diversity is a matter of 'national security