The Washington Post’s snotty headline is “Hegseth escalates targeting of race, gender in military’s academic settings.” That’s because he’s a racist and sexist, see, like all of the Trump allies, appointees, voters and supporters.
Oh, dear. “[T]he nation’s prestigious military academies” have been ordered “to end consideration of race, gender and ethnicity in their admissions processes” and ‘begin a purge….of educational materials focused on those “divisive concepts,” gasps the Post, as if this isn’t a completely practical and fair policy. The military’s job is to protect the nation and, when necessary, to fight and fight effectively. Race, gender and ethnicity are completely irrelevant to the capability of performing those tasks, so it should be beyond debate that such considerations have no place in the determination of who should gain admission to the military academies.
There is a much stronger case to be made that “diversity” is deleterious to military morale, cohesiveness and performance, but okay, discrimination is contrary to the culture and national values, so we won’t say that women categorically don’t belong in male battle units. But they better be as capable as any of the men.
If it turned out that race, gender and ethicity-blind admissions and recruitment resulted in an all-Macedonian-American, female marksman bodybuilder army, great!…. as long as it meant America was safe and secure, and can protect its interests abroad. What’s the counter-argument to that? The same logic should apply to police and fire departments. I don’t care who or what the individuals are who take on such duties; I do care that they are the most qualified, best trained and most competent and effective people available. Reading that last sentence, I realize that physicians belong on the list too.
The Post, however, seems to think pure merit-based advancement is a sinister concept. “The expansive effort has focused, too, on culling books from the libraries of Defense Department-run schools attended by the children of service members, and removing several senior military leaders — among them people of color and women — whom Hegseth deemed overly focused on DEI initiatives,” the story complains. “Earlier this year, the Trump administration also terminated several social clubs and other extracurricular activities that served as outlets for academy cadets and centered on gender, race and ethnicity.”
Not to repeat myself, but good. Diversity, like homogeneity, is not a virtue, enhancement or benefit in every human pursuit. The military is definitely one in which it isn’t.
Ethics Alarms 
Race, gender and ethnicity are completely irrelevant to the capability of performing those tasks, so it should be beyond debate that such considerations have no place in the determination of who should gain admission to the military academies.
I’m not sure it is quite as straightforward as that.
If left completely to merit, women and Blacks will be significantly underrepresented — women throughout, and Blacks in the officer corps. E.g: Pilot training admission is still very much merit based, both because of the cost of training, and the very visible consequences stemming from inadequate performance. Consequently, military pilots are largely white and male, and this is particularly true for fighter pilots.
So what’s the problem? Black enlisted may build resentment over being commanded by a largely not black officer corps. Race, therefore, is not completely irrelevant.
That said, to the extent that race, gender and ethnicity are taken into account for academy admission invariably means lowered standards — otherwise, there would be no need. Moreover, there is the problem of adverse selection: failing to graduate from an academy, instead of succeeding at an HBCU ROTC program.
Speaking as a 20 year USAF veteran who graduated from ROTC because I wasn’t good enough for the AF academy.
this is where you lost me:
Consequently, military pilots are largely white and male,
why aren’t black males able to compete on the same level with white men?
what am I missing?
-Jut
I don’t think you miss much, and, getting the question right is where we have to start our discussion of big issues. Your question nails it. I’ll add just one:
Why aren’t Blacks educated in our public schools to the same level as Whites?
I don’t think that’s the right question, HJ. Blacks have lower levels of achievement than Asians and whites at the same schools. They may be educated the same. Why don’t they become as educated and able from the same training by the same teachers? Framing it as you did rigs the question.
I actually have not heard this before.
What is the evidence?
Well, bar exam pass rates by race, for one thing. Look at the grades in New York Public Schools. Black students consistently score lower than white students on standardized tests, regardless of the schools they attend. Wow, I assumed what I wrote was generally known….
I wonder why that would be.
I did high school education for 20 years after my military career. I saw that some teachers, a precious few, were able to work successfully with students of diverse backgrounds and abilities while others were stuck in the ‘one size fits all’ mode. Individualized instruction is not easy, and is not much done. That is only part of the answer to Jut’s question.
@JutGlory: “this is where you lost me:
‘Consequently, military pilots are largely white and male,
why aren’t black males able to compete on the same level with white men?’
what am I missing?”
You are missing everything, in the interest of brevity, I left out.
The military has long used aptitude tests. In order to be considered for pilot training, one must be a college graduate, and test above the 85th percentile. The aptitude tests include mechanical reasoning and 3D visualization. Why? Because success in pilot training is highly correlated with all of these.
As evolution has it, women aren’t, statistically, as adept as men at either — there is an entire standard deviation between the female and male means in mechanical reasoning. I don’t remember the difference for 3D visualization, but it is there.
Fewer women than men apply to join the military. Fewer women who do apply meet the entrance requirements. Consequently, pilot training will skew male.
Blacks are disproportionately not college graduates. For those who are, the market economy outbids what the military can offer. The Black applicant population is, therefore, different.
(I am greatly distilling a presentation that a DIE officer presented to a Squadron Commanders’ conference 25 years ago regarding the Navy’s goal to increase diversity in student pilots, and why it wasn’t going well, given the nature of the applicant pool. Amazingly fact based, considering what we have come to expect from DIE.)
In my experience, Black males who clear the hurdles compete on the same level as their white counterparts.
“Black enlisted may build resentment over being commanded by a largely not black officer corps.”
This is where you lost me.
Why exactly is THAT? If the officers under which someone serves are skilled leaders who are talented at accomplishing the mission and otherwise maintaining good morale among their commands, what does their skin color matter? Who are the ones being racist here?
I have dream where one day skin color is regarded as essentially the same as hair color or eye color. Yes, they’re different. Yes, I can see it. No, it doesn’t matter. No, it doesn’t change what I think of you.
. . . but somehow I’m the racist in the eyes of some people.
–Dwayne
Why exactly is [it that Black enlisted may resent being commanded by a largely not-black officer corps]? If the officers under which someone serves are skilled leaders who are talented at accomplishing the mission and otherwise maintaining good morale among their commands, what does their skin color matter?
Objectively, skin color is immaterial. Subjectively, it is certain Black enlisted will notice a striking absence of Black officers; it is predictable that some will draw incorrect conclusions about that absence, imputing to animus that which is better explained by an insufficient number of black applicants with sufficient merit.
The military isn’t the cause of this insufficiency, anymore than universities are; therefore, it is extremely unlikely to present the solution, anymore than universities are.
That doesn’t mean Black resentment won’t occur; rather, to the extent that it happens, it means race is *not* completely irrelevant to military capability.
To which I reiterate the question: Who are the ones being racist here?
…or to re-frame it: Who are the ones making race “*not* completely irrelevant to military capability”, and why?
–Dwayne
“…so we won’t say that women categorically don’t belong in male battle units. But they better be as capable as any of the men.”
In other words, women categorically do not belong in combat units.
Which means women do not belong in the military, full stop.
After all, if women are excluded from combat units, that means they will disproportionately fill echelon positions, meaning men will deploy more often in more dangerous roles.
“There is a much stronger case to be made that ‘diversity’ is deleterious to military morale, cohesiveness and performance … .”
No.
Diversity, and the acceptance of it, actually contributes to higher morale, cohesiveness, and, therefore, ultimately, performance. Our nation is ethnically diverse and so must be our military.
It is the unwarranted focus on diversity which emanates from the left and the right that is destructive.
The current Commander-in-Chief, talks a good game about a powerful, or is it ‘beautiful’, military, his musings echoed and amplified by the current Secretary of Defense. But, their actions tell a different story.
Promoting officers, selecting officers for top leadership positions, based primarily on ethnicity or gender obviously is contrary to the Constitution as well as deleterious. But, dismissing high-ranking proven, competent, leaders because things they have said or written don’t pass muster with Fox television’s (don’t call it news) talking heads is deleterious. What does it tell the up-and-coming? ‘Shut up and stick to the party line.’
Creating a news media firestorm by removing from DoD libraries books that don’t parrot the approved narrative is deleterious, in that it presumes prospective officers are incapable of dealing with opinions other than those officially approved.
Warehousing or disposing of art works, photos, and monuments simply because of a perception that honoring those being portrayed was a promotion of DEI, without due regard to their accomplishments, is deleterious.
So, no. Diversity is not deleterious. Opposing diversity to please supporters and garner their applause is deleterious. And stupid. Unfortunately, to an extent, it works.
A personal note: a woman officer who worked for me was being transferred to another office. I met ahead of the transfer with the head of that office (a guy who out-ranked me). He said, and I paraphrase, ‘Well, she may be as good as you say, but I’ll make sure she never gets promoted.’ Bravo for anti-diversity, right? I know where that guy would fit in now. And where I wouldn’t.
1. “Diversity, and the acceptance of it, actually contributes to higher morale, cohesiveness, and, therefore, ultimately, performance.”
So we are always told. There is no evidence of this whatsoever. It’s just cant: supposed studies supporting the idea have been either propaganda, over-hyped or rigged. Why would this be true?
2.“Our nation is ethnically diverse and so must be our military.” Again, that’s cant. A nation is not like a military force. A nation isn’t a team. A nation isn’t a unit. That’s like saying, “Our nation is ethnically diverse and so must be the cast of “The Music Man””
3.“But, dismissing high-ranking proven, competent, leaders because things they have said or written don’t pass muster with Fox television’s (don’t call it news) talking heads is deleterious.” Whiplash! That’s not on topic. The post and the order literally didn’t address political or viewpoint diversity at all.
4. “What does it tell the up-and-coming? ‘Shut up and stick to the party line.” Members of an army are supposed to shut up and follow orders.
5. “Creating a news media firestorm by removing from DoD libraries books that don’t parrot the approved narrative is deleterious, in that it presumes prospective officers are incapable of dealing with opinions other than those officially approved.” Who cares what creates a “news media firestorm”? Any library book that doesn’t clearly and directly enhance the military’s personnel’s ability to fight, lead or follow is superfluous.
6. “Warehousing or disposing of art works, photos, and monuments simply because of a perception that honoring those being portrayed was a promotion of DEI, without due regard to their accomplishments.” Again, not at issue.
7. So, no. Diversity is not deleterious. Opposing diversity to please supporters and garner their applause is deleterious. And stupid. Unfortunately, to an extent, it works.
Nothing you wrote above supports this conclusion.
8. “A personal note: a woman officer who worked for me was being transferred to another office. I met ahead of the transfer with the head of that office (a guy who out-ranked me). He said, and I paraphrase, ‘Well, she may be as good as you say, but I’ll make sure she never gets promoted.’ Bravo for anti-diversity, right? I know where that guy would fit in now. And where I wouldn’t.”
The guy is a bigoted asshole. The anecdote has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
1. My experience of 24 years in the Army tells me exactly the opposite. YMMV.
2. Theater is irrelevant here. Ethnicity is not. It is helpful to beginners in any minority group to see that others from that group have been successful, especially given that some groups have been marginalized, and, no, that is not the same as giving preference to minority group members.
3. Even though they were ousted for their actual or perceived views on diversity, but, oh well, never mind. The post is about actual diversity, not views on diversity.
4. In the military, most above the rank of Private understand the difference between instant obedience and intelligent obedience. Most outside the military don’t.
5. Who cares? The better question is ‘Who should care?’ The answer to the latter is those who understand how the distraction adversely impacts their mission accomplishment.
6. Again, YMMV. But, for example, many thousands of photos were identified for deletion from military websites because of some connection to diversity. Provided that was done by bureaucrats who otherwise would have spent their time sitting on their thumbs, then, I guess, not an issue.
7. And yet again, YMMV. For me, all the ink spilled and airtime wafted about has been a distraction. But, I’ll amend my comment: promoting diversity for the sake of diversity and opposing diversity for the sake of opposing diversity are both deleterious.
8. Really? He opposed her simply because she was a woman. She was transferring from an office job to an office job in a large headquarters that was highly unlikely to ever be involved in close combat, and he knew nothing of her abilities should that unlikely event come to pass. But, yeah, not anti-diversity, just plain old misogyny which has nothing to do with diversity.
8. You are correct.