After 60 Years, Black Officers Rare
By Lolita C. Baldor, Associated Press
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...072300265.html
This sparked a massive debate among the officers in my battalion, asking why there are so few black Generals.
Printable View
After 60 Years, Black Officers Rare
By Lolita C. Baldor, Associated Press
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...072300265.html
This sparked a massive debate among the officers in my battalion, asking why there are so few black Generals.
the article -- which IMO is pretty well balanced and accurate -- answers that question...
there has been progress over the last 30 years. In 1965, my friend "Cash" was the only African-American cadet in both the Army and AF ROTC at MTU (IIRC). He went on to an AF career.Quote:
from article, p.4
The forces he sees now, he said, are far more diverse than when he graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 1975. Then, he said, blacks made up only about 2.5 percent of the Army's officer corps.
from article, p.1
The Army has led the way with black officers, with nearly double the percentage at times over the past three decades as the other services. Blacks represented 11 percent to 12 percent of all Army officers during that time, compared with 4 percent to 8 percent in the Navy, Air Force and Marines.
The article mirrored very closely many of the reasons that I've heard offered by some of my friends. Another thing to think about is the fact that the demographics of the general officer corps will reflect accessions from 2-3 decades ago. We can see a similiar situation with female general officers where you are seeing an increased number, both in numbers and highest rank achieved, based on policy changes made decades ago.
Another consideration that will have an impact on the demographics a few decades out are the opportunities available for the most competitive minorities. Given the choice between a service academy or ROTC with a service obligation and a scholarship through a masters degree at an Ivy League university or other top tier university, the military simply cannot compete.
Quite true and often overlooked. We see a similar situation here with a particular minority group. We'd love to recruit them, but can't compete with what they can get with no service obligation at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shek
1. Truth in lending -- I'm white
2. I fully understand that anecdotal evidence does not equal statistical analysis.
3. I found the article to be more balanced than the title. As I understand it, reporters write the articles, but editors title them. The job of newspapers is to sell newspapers, not inform the public.
Spent most of the first half of my career in light infantry battalions (not brigades or divisions or any of those other funny organizations).
During that service, had 8 bn cdrs, of which 3 were black. One went on to be a general and the other two just missed. Served w/2 of them as their S3, so had extensive one on one relationships. The last was a true soulmate, so our discussions were extremely unvarnished.
He was frustrated by several issues. For instance, mentoring was a real problem. LTs and LTCs don't bond in the infantry -- too big a gap, too hierarchical a structure. If the black bn cdr forms a visible support group with black subordinates (black OPD), he sets himself up for charges of racism. He must therefore work quietly, one-on-one, which brings us back to my previous point -- LTCs and LTs don't bond. An additional challenge was that whenever a weak black officer needed a company command, he got sent to us, so that in the event of failure, a black officer would do the relieving. We hopefully found ways to work through the issues, but the frustration level was high.
Back in that day (1945), the editor's hyperbole in titling the article would not have been hyperbole.
Moving ahead to circa 1963-1968, for more statistics than anyone probably wants:Quote:
Breaking the Color Barrier: The U.S. Naval Academy's First Black ... - Google Books Result by Robert John Schneller, Robert John Schneller, Jr. - 2005 - Social Science - 331 pages
"In August 1945, black Army officers numbered 7768, accounting for roughly 0.88 percent of all Army officers."
http://www.history.army.mil/books/in...ion/IAF-22.htmQuote:
CHAPTER 22
Equal Opportunity in the Military Community
.....
The low percentage of black officers, a matter of special concern to the Civil Rights Commission and the Gesell Committee as well as the civil rights organizations, remained relatively unchanged in the 1960's (see Table 24). Nor could any dramatic rise in the number of black officers be expected. Between 1963 and 1968 the three service academies graduated just fifty-one black officers, an impressive statistic only in the light of the record of a total of sixty black graduates in the preceding eighty-six years.
.....
Chance of promotion for officers and men was one factor in judging equal treatment and opportunity in the services. A statistical comparison of the ranks of enlisted black servicemen between 1964 and 1966 reveals a steady advance (Table 28). With the exception of the Air Force, the percentage of Negroes in the higher enlisted ranks compared favorably with the total black percentage in each service. The advance was less marked for officers, but here too the black share [Army = 5.2% in 1966] of the O-4 grade (major or lieutenant commander) was comparable with the black percentage of the service's total strength. The services could declare with considerable justification that reform in this area was necessarily a drawnout affair; promotion to the senior ranks must be won against strong competition.
....
In addition to complaining of direct denial of promotion opportunity, so-called "vertical mobility," some black officers alleged that their chances of promotion had been systematically reduced by the services when they failed to provide Negroes with "horizontal mobility," that is, with a wide variety of assignments and all-important command experience which would justify their future advancement. Supporting these claims, the civil rights office reported that only 5 Negroes were enrolled at the senior service schools in 1965, 4 black naval officers with command experience were on active duty, and 26 black Air Force officers had been given tactical command experience since 1950.
above from the following:
http://www.history.army.mil/books/in...ion/IAF-fm.htmQuote:
DEFENSE STUDIES SERIES
INTEGRATION OF THE ARMED FORCES
1940-1965
by Morris J. MacGregor, Jr.
CENTER OF MILITARY HISTORY
UNITED STATES ARMY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 1985
Old Eagle,Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Eagle
You reminded me of an outstanding Parameters article I read a few years back. Has a great section on why many black officers, especially those from HBU's, are set up to fail.
Butler, Remo. “Why Black Officers Fail.” Autumn 1999. pp. 54-69.
Quote:
My purpose in writing this article is not to throw stones. Most who read this are products of our Army system and have thrived under our system. Perhaps taking a moment to see things from the perspective of a black officer will help us to make the present system better.
The data from DCSPER, the GAO studies, Army Times articles, surveys, and personal interviews certainly indicate that a problem does exist. They show that black officers are failing. Black officers are not progressing in rank and responsibilities at the same rate as their white counterparts. If we proceed from the assumption that the cause is not simple racism, and I believe that assumption is correct, then perhaps the cause lies in the way our ROTC cadets are educated and assimilated, the way developmental assignments and OERs are managed, the need for better mentoring of young black officers, and our mutual shortcomings in terms of cultural awareness.
Might there be other explanations for the data? Perhaps. For example, it has been suggested that in the mid-to-late 1980s, when businesses were expanding and looking for ways to improve their racial mixes, the private sector may have taken from the Army the cream of the young black officer crop. I haven't the data to either prove or disprove such a contention, but it does not ring true in my opinion. Certainly some young black officers with good educations and leadership experience are attractive candidates to fill positions in the private sector, but based on my personal experience and anecdotal information from others, I don't believe that factor could account for the disparities in the data on promotions. To the contrary, I know of bright young black officers who are leaving the service and are scrambling to try to find jobs worthy of their talents.
So if the data are accurate and we are drawing the right inferences, the question then becomes, What are we going to do with this information? If we take the traditional approach, we will talk about it, study it, analyze it, and then hope it doesn't raise its ugly head on our watch.
One step forward would be for senior commanders to focus on performance and potential and to do what they can to minimize the workings of the old boy network. The only way this can be done is for standards to be set on how jobs are given. Once standards are set they must also be monitored. Any manipulation of the system that results in unfairness must be dealt with squarely and swiftly. If this happens, the playing field will automatically become more level. This problem has been commonly acknowledged but never dealt with directly. "Taking care of one's buddies" seems like a positive cultural trait within the Army, but most young black officers don't have anyone to take care of them, and they are thus left out of the old boy network to the detriment of the officers themselves and the Army as a whole.
Another important step would be to increase the stature of ROTC assignments, and thereby the quality of our instructors. Improving the racial mix of instructors would similarly enhance the ROTC experience of our soon-to-be lieutenants.
After accession, providing quality mentoring for young black officers is essential. The importance of this can hardly be overstated.
Finally, we can start educating our officers and senior leaders in cultural awareness. How that is done is important, though. Spending money and wasting time in pursuit of political correctness or some new catch-phrase would be counterproductive; it would annoy and aggravate rather than enlighten the participants. But actually making an effort to understand why blacks and whites react differently in military and social settings would be of great value in helping us to work together and understand each other. As professional soldiers we need to learn to communicate across cultural lines, not unlike the cross-cultural communication in which the US Army Special Forces excels in external scenarios. Army schools spend a lot of money on tools like the Myers-Briggs test to tell us what most of us already know about ourselves. That time and money would be better spent teaching us why soldiers act the way they do, why blacks and whites act differently, and why some are perceived to have bad attitudes. Teach us how to overcome some of our cultural biases, or at least make us aware that we all have some. Once we acknowledge that we have these biases, then we can start to work through them.
I started off with a much longer reply, but the system timed out on my login...:(
1. Truth in lending: I am black Marine Corps Infantry officer
2. I was an enlisted infantryman before I commisioned, serving just under 3 years as such.
3. I had my BA degree before I enlisted, and would have probably been happy serving on the E-side. Commissioning was an interest, but not an all-or-nothing desire.
This statement perpetuates a perception that we are stuck on handouts. How about getting a mentor who knows how to lead, to serve as a mentor? The color of that leader's skin is irrelevant...the leadership ability is not.Quote:
As a result, younger African-American soldiers have few mentors of their own race. And as the overall percentage of blacks in the service falls, particularly in combat careers that lead to top posts, the situation seems unlikely to change.
I'm also not so sure that under-representation in the officer ranks is hurting us. I'm more concerned about the SNCO ranks, but I don't see Blacks and Hispanics having too many problems rising to E-8/E-9 positions within both the combat arms and support elements. The better question is why are they taking hold and growing, while the officer ranks have the perceived glass ceiling.
I personally don't think it's the least bit important.
Perhaps it involves a perception that officers ("the expensive hired help") are driven foremost by careers, while NCOs are the true professionals.Quote:
Originally Posted by jcustis
In short, the pride of the Centurion.
Aye, that's why I "soldier for the sake of soldiering" and get the most job satisfaction when I watch the light bulb go on as a young Marine passes from knowledge to understanding...
You don't happen to have a Gunny's uniform in a place of honour hidden somewhere up in your attic, do you Major?:D ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by jcustis
The rest don't and focus on the esoteric, the bureaucratic or personalities.THAT is what's real. Keep on keeping on...Quote:
Originally Posted by jcustis: Aye, that's why I "soldier for the sake of soldiering" and get the most job satisfaction when I watch the light bulb go on as a young Marine passes from knowledge to understanding...
The first thought that came to my mind was that most GO's are combat arms, and historically, most black officers (that I know of) are combat of support branches.
I have been thinking about this and from where I am sitting our most senior officer is black, then there is a MAJ, a CPT and a CW3. Then we have a few people of Asian decent. I few of hispanic decent. A few of arabic/persian decent. And a few of caucasian decent.
Officers of african and caucasian decent just happen to be equal in number.
Maybe my unit is just lucky to have such a melting pot.
In case anyone's interested, one of the new SAMS monographs discusses this. Missing in Action.
Quote:
The purpose of this thesis is to examine the subject of African American United States Army officers and their service in the combat arms branches. The research uncovered the complex roles that African American combat arms officers assumed during the past century, and how these roles evolved into their current variation that benefits from the Army's unwavering commitment to equal opportunity. A historic snapshot of 20th century America's domestic tensions frames the pressing issue of why African American officers currently choose to serve in the combat arms at a disproportional rate when compared with the African Americans represented in the army's total officer corps.
In an interesting twist I suppose, I have actually had a number of commanders over the years who thought my being black was more important to the black Marines who served in the infantry, as opposed to the larger body of Marines as a whole.Quote:
The research uncovered the complex roles that African American combat arms officers assumed during the past century
It was another case of miscontrued value. Good leadership was all they needed, not seeing another Marine of the same ethnicity.
Great point, jcustis. I had a conversation with a peer yesterday (black, 28, West Pointer) and he said he never really sought or expected to have a "black" mentor of higher rank; not at the academy or active duty, but just a mentor of any color that he could look up to and emulate.Quote:
Originally Posted by jcustis
I think this is another of those lingering "Vietnam" mindsets on the part of some folks in higher positions. There was a great deal of concern then with getting younger black officers and NCOs that the troops could relate to (as there was a saying at the time that anyone above E-5 or O-3 was just Army green and not black...a lifer, in other words). By about mid-1968 racial identity was becoming more important to some than finding a good example of leadership (and of course the Army was suffering in that regard as well in many places and many units). The idea that things might have shifted back the other way or somehow changed might not compute with some (or not jive with their long-ago experiences).Quote:
Originally Posted by jkm_101_fso