The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the United States Military Academy at West Point, allowing it to continue using race as a factor in its admissions process.
West Point's use of race was challenged by Students for Fair Admissions (SFA) who sought to temporarily block the academy from using race while their lawsuit against West Point proceeded through lower courts.
The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the United States Military Academy at West Point, allowing it to continue using race as a factor in its admissions process. The court denied an emergency request from Students for Fair Admissions (SFA) that sought to temporarily block West Point's use of race while SFA's lawsuit against the academy proceeded through lower courts. In its order, the Supreme Court expressed no view on the merits of the constitutional question and indicated that it could consider admissions at West Point in future cases.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday declined a request to block the U.S. Military Academy at West Point from using race as a factor in admission decisions.
Colleges and universities can no longer use affirmative action practice, except for the U.S military academies.
West Point is not exempt from Harvard ruling.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in that it presents the Supreme Court's decision as a victory for affirmative action proponents when in fact it was a ruling against affirmative action policies. The author uses language such as 'RACE-BLIND AMERICA ADVOCATE THRILLED SCOTUS NIXED AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN COLLEGE ADMISSIONS' to present the decision as a positive outcome for those who oppose affirmative action, when in reality it was a ruling against such policies. Additionally, the author uses quotes from SFFA lawyers and Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar without disclosing their sources or providing any context about their positions on affirmative action.
The author uses language such as 'RACE-BLIND AMERICA ADVOCATE THRILLED SCOTUS NIXED AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN COLLEGE ADMISSIONS' to present the decision as a positive outcome for those who oppose affirmative action, when in reality it was a ruling against such policies.
The article presents the Supreme Court's decision as a victory for affirmative action proponents when in fact it was a ruling against such policies.
Fallacies
(70%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by citing the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in June that colleges and universities can no longer use affirmative action practices except for military academies like West Point.
](Timothy A. Clary/AFP/File)
Bias
(85%)
The article discusses the Supreme Court's decision to allow West Point to consider race in admission decisions. The author uses language that implies that affirmative action is a positive thing and necessary for diversity. They also use quotes from SFFA lawyers arguing against affirmative action policies at West Point, but do not provide any counter-arguments or evidence supporting the claim of discrimination.
The Supreme Court was responding on Friday to the SFFA's emergency request that it force the military academy to pause the practice while a lawsuit filed in September against West Point makes its way through the lower courts. The student group has also sued the Naval Academy.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of affirmative action in college admissions. The article mentions Students for Fair Admission (SFFA) and Harvard University North Carolina University which are both involved in lawsuits against affirmative action policies.
The Supreme Court rejected an emergency request to temporarily bar the U.S. Military Academy at West Point from using race in admissions while a lower-court lawsuit proceeds.
West Point takes some account of race in its admissions to help ensure that non-white enlisted personnel will look at their commanders and see some faces that resemble their own.
Accuracy
Colleges and universities can no longer use affirmative action practice, except for the U.S military academies.
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author uses sensationalist language such as 'blocked' and 'setback', which implies that West Point will not be able to use race in admissions at all when this is not entirely accurate. Secondly, the author quotes Edward Blum stating that it is disappointing for young men and women who apply to West Point, but fails to disclose any evidence of harm caused by such policies or how they affect these individuals negatively.
The court rejected an emergency request to temporarily bar the military academy from using race in admissions while a lower-court lawsuit proceeds. The justices signaled they could consider admissions at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in the future, writing that their order expressed no
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by citing the Supreme Court's decision without providing any evidence or reasoning for it. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing Edward Blum's statement as a 'setback'. Additionally, there is no clear dichotomous depiction of race in the article.
The court rejected an emergency request to temporarily bar the military academy from using race in admissions while a lower-court lawsuit proceeds.
Bias
(85%)
The author uses language that dehumanizes and demonizes those who support the use of race in admissions. The phrase 'white supremacists online celebrated' is a clear example of this bias.
> white supremacists online celebrated
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of race in admissions as they are reporting on West Point Admissions and Harvard University.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of race in admissions as they are reporting on West Point Admissions and Harvard University.
The Supreme Court released an order late afternoon on February 2 ruling in favor of West Point.
West Point takes some account of race in its admissions to help ensure that non-white enlisted personnel will look at their commanders and see some faces that resemble their own.
Colleges and universities can no longer use affirmative action practice, except for the U.S military academies.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several examples of logical fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the Supreme Court's decision in Students for Fair Admissions v Harvard and its footnote that it was not deciding whether academies such as West Point or the Naval Academy may continue to take steps to diversify their student bodies that the decision forbade in other schools. The author also uses an example of a dichotomous depiction by stating that
The Supreme Court's decision in Students for Fair Admissions v Harvard applies to civilian schools, but the Court also said in a footnote that it was not deciding whether academies such as West Point or the Naval Academy may continue to take steps to diversify their student bodies that the decision forbade in other schools.
The lack of non-white officers during the Vietnam War led to widespread violence within the military's ranks.
Bias
(85%)
Ian Millhiser has a history of making biased statements and using inflammatory language. In this article, he uses the phrase 'white supremacists' to describe those who celebrate a reference to racist conspiracy theories. He also describes Vivek Ramaswamy as dog-whistling supporters of extremist far-right ideologies and wild conspiracy theories like QAnon.
Ian Millhiser describes Vivek Ramaswamy as dog-whistling supporters of extremist far-right ideologies and wild conspiracy theories like QAnon.
Ian Millhiser uses the phrase 'white supremacists' to describe those who celebrate a reference to racist conspiracy theories.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Ian Millhiser has a conflict of interest on the topic of diversity in leadership at West Point as he is an author and editor for Vox. He also has a personal relationship with Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar who argued against affirmative action in Fisher v. University of Texas, which was cited in this article.
Ian Millhiser is the author and editor for Vox.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Ian Millhiser has a conflict of interest on the topic of diversity in leadership at West Point as he is an author for Vox.com which has published articles critical of affirmative action policies.
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to immediately force the U.S. Military Academy at West Point to change its race-conscious admissions policies.
West Point is not exempt from Harvard ruling.
Accuracy
Colleges and universities can no longer use affirmative action practice, except for the U.S military academies.
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it presents the Supreme Court's decision as a victory for affirmative action when in fact it was a ruling that severely limited its role nationwide. Secondly, the author uses emotional language such as 'burden of racial discrimination' and 'national-security imperative', which is not supported by any evidence presented in the article. Thirdly, the author presents West Point's policy as unconstitutional without providing any legal basis for this claim.
The Supreme Court struck down affirmative action programs at Harvard University and UNC Chapel Hill in June 2019 but left open the question of race in admissions to military academies. This is presented as a victory for affirmative action, when it was actually a ruling that severely limited its role nationwide.
The author uses emotional language such as 'burden of racial discrimination' and 'national-security imperative', which is not supported by any evidence presented in the article.
Fallacies
(70%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by citing the decision of the Supreme Court and Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar without providing any evidence or reasoning for their positions.
[], []
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article has a clear bias towards affirmative action policies in education and military admissions. The author uses language that dehumanizes those who oppose such policies as 'dog-whistling to supporters of extremist far-right ideologies and wild conspiracy theories like QAnon'. Additionally, the author portrays West Point's race-conscious admissions policy as necessary for a diverse Army officer corps. The author also uses language that implies those who oppose such policies are not patriotic or do not care about national security.
The author uses language that dehumanizes those who oppose affirmative action policies in education and military admissions.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Ann E. Marimow has a conflict of interest on the topic of affirmative action policies at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill as she is reporting on West Point's race-conscious admissions policy.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Ann E. Marimow has a conflict of interest on the topic of affirmative action policies at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill as she is reporting on West Point's race-conscious admissions policy.
