Skip to comments.Is diversity an Army euphemism?
Posted on 11/18/2009 8:26:38 AM PST by Ordinary_American
Nov. 18 (UPI) -- According to the Sept. 18 report from the U.S. Army Diversity Office (yes, there is one) titled "Military Leadership Diversity Commission," diversity is defined as "the different attributes, experiences and backgrounds of our Soldiers, Civilians and Family members that further enhance our global capabilities and contribute to an adaptive, culturally astute Army."
Those are wonderful words with which we can all immediately agree.
Unfortunately, the remainder of the report regresses to the standard affirmative action success criterion comparing the percentages, according to rank, of the selected racial or ethnic groups, "API, Black, AI/NA, White, Hispanic" i.e. Asian-Pacific Islander, African-American, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Caucasian (European, non-Hispanic origin) and Hispanic.
The demographic representation provided in that slide presentation could be considered a non sequitur. In other words, it is a response that does not follow logically from its premise. Furthermore, to assume that "different attributes, experiences and backgrounds" are derived solely from racial or ethnic origin could be considered by some as a criterion for a definition of racism. I presume that is not what was intended.
In the military, it is widely believed that promotion boards are strongly influenced by racial, ethnic and gender proportionality schemes, a euphemism for quotas, if you will. I presume that is an unsubstantiated rumor.
The U.S. Department of Defense announced that the first meeting of the Military Leadership Diversity Commission was Sept. 17-18.
"The commission, which was established pursuant to the 'Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009,' is tasked to conduct a comprehensive evaluation and assessment of policies that provide opportunities for the promotion and advancement of minority members of the armed forces, including minority members who are senior officers," the department said.
At an April 2009 conference at the U.S. Military Academy, Brig. Gen. Belinda Pinckney, chief of the Army Diversity Office, stated: "Diversity makes us better and more equipped to meet the challenges and threats of the 21st century. Diversity is an enabler. It enables us to benefit from a pool of different skills and move beyond preconceived notions to look at new procedures, processes, methods and structures."
Could one not just substitute the phrase equal opportunity for diversity?
I would also be interested to know what those "different skills," "preconceived notions" and "new procedures, processes, methods and structures" are, and how is the Army achieving that?
In its soldier development programs and promotion policies, is the Army measuring and using all the dimensions of diversity as stated in its 2008 Posture Statement: "race, culture, religion, gender, age, profession, organizational or functional area, tenure, personality type, functional background, education level, political party, and other demographic, socioeconomic and psychographic characteristics"?
At the West Point conference, Gen. Kip Ward, commander of U.S. Africa Command said: "Why is it in our best interest to do our best in promoting (diversity) and give the sort of opportunities and things that causes every one of our citizens (whether they are) black, white, Asian, Hispanic, Native American, male or female to be offered and afforded the opportunity to be ... all that they can be. That is important to our nation."
I would have hoped that the Army is already doing that by providing equal opportunity for all its soldiers.
Somehow over the course of political time questioning the intent or the empirical basis of diversity has become the equivalent of Holocaust denial. The phrase "strength through diversity" is uttered with same certainty as stating the Second Law of Thermodynamics. At this time of national crisis, we need more than ever to emphasize what we have in common as Americans rather than accentuate our differences.
U.S. Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., a speaker at the September 2009 Military Leadership Diversity Commission conference, wrote a letter dated June 24 to Secretary of the Army Pete Geren, which included:
"I understand that the Army is in the process of developing a strategic plan to correct this imbalance in efforts to resolve congressional concerns regarding the lack of qualified African-Americans who obtain the rank of General Officer in the Army. While the Army has made a good faith effort to address areas of minority underrepresentation, more aggressive steps are needed in order to achieve a fully diverse force and capitalize on the strength of this diversity. timeframe (sic) the Army has yet to identify concrete metrics to capture performance progress. Having addressed this issue for the past three years, the Army should be able to provide tangible results as a true measure of the leadership's commitment to institutionalizing diversity into the culture through their effective and efficient practices."
The honorable representative from Maryland raises an important point. Just what are the "concrete metrics to capture performance progress" to measure the strength of diversity, at least according to the Army's own definition of the word?
Just wondering. Maybe we should ask the New York Yankees.
(Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D., is a colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve and a veteran of the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.)
When they talk about Diversity, they aren't looking for more Asians, more Jews, more Christians, more Conservatives, or more elderly people.
They're looking for more negroes. That's what Diversity means.
“Diversity” is a euphemism for “suicide”.
Rumor? How about policy. Not only uniformed services, but even more so in civilian employee promotions and Senior Executive Services.
Oh, I don't know. In a pinch, an entire army made up of Audie Murphy clones woudn't be so bad.
Unum e pluribus...........
It's now the Army of Little Parts in Proper Proportion to the General Population?
Oh, and General Casey is concerned about a backlash against our "Muslim Soldiers." I didn't know we had "Muslim Soldiers." I thought they all were American Soldiers.
The "leadership" has acknowledged that they are foisting terrorists into the ranks of America's military, and their complete and total failure to see how dangerous this is baffles the mind.
It is absolutely psychologically disturbing to witness an organization push known terrorist sympathizers into the ranks of American Service Members.
There is ZERO excuse for this disgusting behavior from the "leadership" of today's military, and they should all resign from their positions of responsibility in total shame.
The blood of the 14 who were murdered is on the hands of the "leadership" because they FAILED to stop this senseless terrorist attack from happening.
You will get no arguments from me...
Like ALL leftist PC terms (”liberal” -> “progressive”),
“diversity” will come to mean what it actually means (like you said - blacks and hispanics),
and they’ll have to come up with another term.
I can see it now - “Hey, look at that diverse person run!”
Related - I once heard a university organization praised as being “most diverse” because it had 80% hispanic membership.
Where is it decreed in the Bible that “diversity” is a good thing? And if that decree did not come from the Almighty, then who declared that it was so, and why?
Ah, you’re looking at “fixed rules” vs the “evolving rules” that the “intellectual elite” determine are the “modern way of doing things”.
Seriously, OUR LAWS have undergone the same transformation.
It used to be, under Blackstone law, that laws would not even be considered unless they could be justified biblically.
Of course, modern liberals are smarter than the Author of the Bible.
Without a draft of everybody, ‘diversity’ provides the needed man/woman power. Without a job, it’s the only game in town.
Downstream consideration. The Navy (probably also the Army) wants their leadership to ‘look like’ the volunteers so ‘diversity’ recruitment won’t suffer.
The Brits had their Ghurkas and the French, the Foreign Legion when their natives found better things to do.
The other problem that the Army leadership refuses to acknowledge is that they are responsible for the 14 murders because they ignored the terrorist's clearly stated intentions and suspicious behavior.
I read somewhere that the Army/FBI "investigators" wrote off Hasan's communications with Al Qaeda as "research."
These "leaders" are endangering every single American that they are supposed to be looking out for.
I vividly remember the day my old battalion commander made the O-6 ("bird" colonel) list. It was his proudest moment, and he said "O-6 is the highest rank you can achieve solely on merit. After that, much of it is politics."
If politics weren't involved, how else do you explain that female MP BG that was part of the disaster at Abu Ghraib? Or Wesley Clarke, for that matter?
Competition for command slots (at battalion and brigade levels) is rigorous enough, and are ususally bereft of politics.
Thinking AnewSecurity Priorities for the Next Administration
PROCEEDINGS REPORT OF THE HSPI PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION TASK FORCE
April 2008-January 2009
May 19, 2009
Browse down to Page 29
Uniformed Services University School of
Now YOU know WHY Obama does NOT want a Congressional investigation.
Very interesting. Of even more interest - who picked him for this assignment?
This is second hand but one of the people I showed this to said Mike Savage was talking about this tie the other night and that OBAMA himself handpicked him.
Terrorist seem to hang together, right? I’ve written my senators and representative asking them what gives. Plus we all need to send it to people like Glenn Beck which I’ve already done.
Page 29, another tie to the terrorist in Chief but MSM will not touch it unless we make them.
History repeats itself. You’ll remember one of the first things Lyndon Johnson did after the JFK murder was to side track the Congressional investigation (and Texas investigation) by appointing a “Committee” to investigate. Hoover and LBJ were afraid they could not control a Congressional investigation so they grabbed all the evidence and locked it up at the FBI then grabbed the Chief Justice to give credibility.
We found out later that Congress joined the lie when the truth became obvious in 1978. Corruption runs deep in the Federal Government.