Report says too many whites, men leading (US) military

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. military is too white and too male at the top and needs to change recruiting and promotion policies and lift its ban on women in combat, an independent report for Congress said Monday.
Seventy-seven percent of senior officers in the active-duty military are white, while only 8 percent are black, 5 percent are Hispanic and 16 percent are women, the report by an independent panel said, quoting data from September 2008.

---

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...TAM&SECTION=US

Quote:

---

The report ordered by Congress in 2009 calls for greater diversity in the military's leadership so it will better reflect the racial, ethnic and gender mix in the armed forces and in American society.

---

I decided to find the complete report to see if this is really as detached from reality as it seems. Here it is: FROM REPRESENTATION TO INCLUSION

The .pdf files seem to be locked, so I wasn't able to copy any of the richer quotes. A quick scan indicates that winning wars was not among their goals.

This is a "third rail" topic.

No segment of society is perfect and achieving equity, respect, and fairness must be a continuous goal. The military in general, and the Army in particular, has led the way for US government and society in this regard, and should not be shy in reminding people when necessary of that fact.

Few things in life, however, are us unfair as "equal," in fact the very concept that equal be equated to fail is un-American. Certainly the battlefield is unfair, and treats those who are weak, or out of shape, or ill-prepared with a punishment that exceeds that delivered to those who are best equipped and prepared for that challenge.

IMO we should really have "soldier-standards," tailored by activity that are blind to color, gender, religion, or even sexual preference. I still remember thinking "WTF" as a cadet back in 1982 at airborne school when all male students were required to perform a certain number of pull ups to demonstrate our ability to be able to safely operate a T-10 parachute; while the female students merely had to do an inverted row with their feet on the ground (which is even different muscles, come to think of it). I thought "so what, we don't care if he females are not strong enough to operate their parachutes"?

There should be one hard standard. In physical tasks, this will naturally exclude many women. Personally I don't care if a woman goes to ranger school or even SF; I know some could make it. That does not make me less of a man; but it does weaken the service when accommodations are made solely to achieve some "equality" of representation, and that in turn weakens the nation. If women were allowed where they are currently barred, the Army would undoubted F it up, and lower the standards under pressure to balance the % of graduate.

At West Point, when women were first admitted, I was told by good authority, that when many were unable to perform "inspection arms" with their M-14 rifles, that springs were weakened on female rifles to allow them to stay in the program. For men, we demand that they get stronger or washout. For women we rendered their weapons inoperable so that they could stay weak and stay in.

In SOF we get heat because of the swim test. One truly must be able to swim to be in SOF, but it does preclude weak swimmers who are otherwise extremely capable, and many argue that that precludes many African Americans from being SOF. I had to get stronger, get in better shape, build my endurance, etc to go to selection being able to swim is just one more thing to add to that list. Can't do it? Learn. Weak? Train.

As I said this is third rail topic, but this is a hard business. The military needs to be fair, but that will never be equal, and as we look to improve the pursuit of "equal" would be in the wrong direction if it is equal representation. The pursuit of equal standards? That would be smarter, but is surely would not be fair in terms of representation. Our current approach is a compromise to both.

I skimmed the Executive Summary and part of the logic does seem to be that institutions need to be more diverse because everyone knows that diversity is good. But another motivation for diversity seems to be the notion that underrepresentation suggests that the military is not exploiting the potential pool of candidates as well as it might. One way to better exploit the pool would be by setting different standards for different groups. One could also explore what can be done to help bring members of different groups up to a single standard. At the level of the individual servicemember that might look like special treatment. But if there are some specific needs that can be met by an increase in diversity—like, say, how an increase in Muslim servicemembers might reasonably be expected to aid both non-Muslim servicemembers’ understanding of Islam as well as foreign perceptions of our military as well as the United States as a whole—isn’t some special treatment an acceptable trade-off?

Congress decrees we must be fair. They do not decree the Armed Forces must win wars...

(and the Cynic in me says that shows... :rolleyes: )

First, I note the Commission Chairman who I'm sure is a great guy, very intelligent and well meaning apparently has no actual combat experience and that he headed up the Air Material Command wherein I suspect a great deal of diversity is inherent. Did that effect things? Don't know but I suggest it will pose some harm to the overall credibility of the study.

Secondly, not to pick on ganulv but simply to remind:

Quote:

---

One way to better exploit the pool would be by setting different standards for different groups.

---

I doubt that will pass the scrutiny of many in Congress unless the services can make a better case than they did for DOPMA / OPMS 21 and many other statutorily (or financial threat) imposed constraints designed to impose 'fairness' and 'merit.' The fact that war isn't fair doesn't enter the equation.

Quote:

---

One could also explore what can be done to help bring members of different groups up to a single standard. At the level of the individual servicemember that might look like special treatment.

---

Not so much on that latter point, Congress tends to approve of that sort of special treatment. The problem with the approach is that it has historically led to a drop in standards to accommodate the 'needs' of some...

As Bob's World illustrated above. He's got it right; the services need to back off some things including some senior personages pet ideas, establish firm and logical standards across the force and stick to them. I believe Congress would support that approach IF the services would be logical and consistent instead of trying to often trying to bamboozle the Congroids to do it the service way...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken White

I believe Congress would support that approach IF the services would be logical and consistent instead of trying to often trying to bamboozle the Congroids to do it the service way...

---

From what I've heard, that's worked for the Marines. I hope I've heard correctly.

ganulv, the problem is that programs to accomplish diversity for the sake of diversity always crowd out merit and effectiveness. Always. If the diversity police decide the organization doesn't have enough members of subject group A in a particular category, then they will insist that members of group A be hired or promoted in regardless of ability. They will cheerfully explain that insistence on ability to perform the work is just bigotry.

That isn't to say that underrepresentation of a particular group might not indicate a problem. It may very well indicate that there is some bigotry involved in recruitment, selection or advancement. But even in that case, the problem is the bigotry that denies opportunity and advancement, not a lack of "diversity."

It also helps to recognize that in some cases, self selection does take place. There are few, if any, Seventh Day Adventists in the combat arms - because it violates there religious principles. They have and do, however, serve in other areas, and have a particularly distinguished record as medics and corpsmen. It is extremely unlikely we'll ever see, for example, a CJS who practices that religious tradition, not because of any bigotry, but because they have selected themselves out of any career track that might lead to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ganulv

I skimmed the Executive Summary and part of the logic does seem to be that institutions need to be more diverse because everyone knows that diversity is good.

---

It would be more accurate to say that the people who make a really good living out of imposing their vision of diversity will accuse people of bigotry, racism, etc. for questioning their assertion that "diversity is good."

Accomplishing the mission or achieving a (product or service oriented) goal is good. Recruiting and promoting people on their ability is good. Rewarding people on the basis of performance is good.

Recruiting, rewarding or promoting people on the basis of group membership is bad. Extremely bad.

Sorry all, I should have been clearer in my wording. I’m not advocating seperate but equal, just acknowledging that affirmative action-style programs have a tendency to place individuals in a sink-or-swim situation and mandate they not sink. Another option would be to place individuals in a sink-or-swim situation and make sure they know how to swim. The former option may be well-intentioned, but regardless of intentions the latter requires a lot more commitment and hard work on everyone’s part.

This seems something which politicians in Ottawa would foist on the Canadian Armed Forces. May God have mercy if this is established on the sharp end of your military. All I can see is a dangerous F*** UP.

Why do I suspect that the same civilians who squeal about issues that turn the DoD into a social petri dish would be the first ones to turn Quisling for any conquerer?