Lt General Rod Bishop, USAF ret
By Lt General Rod Bishop, USAF ret, USAFA ’74
STARRS Chairman of the Board
Biography
As many of you know, DACODAI canceled any public appearance at all at their next public meeting 2-3 May. Below is my reply to the DACODAI chair, General Lester Lyles, USAF ret.
I would hope you all would agree that this email is at least 1/2 of a “professional dialogue” and it is hopefully moving the national conversation more towards “ground truth,” exposing “facts on the ground.” IG reports, court cases, hard data, etc certainly advance “a professional dialogue” more than just opinions.
VR, Rod
General Lyles,
This is a long email–and the two retired flag officers and lawyers who reviewed my draft, only made it longer and more direct.
I hope you will accept my comments below with all the good intentions with which they are written. Respect as well.
First of all, if you really wanted to have a discussion on “merit” we could have had one. Consider all the attempts we made to have that discussion:
–We were invited by you to a panel in January–panel canceled–too hard to set up and do we were told
–We suggested an informal panel (just a zoom)–no response
–We then recorded input from 9 distinguished former DOD leaders and patriotic Americans –no response
–We coordinated with 9 Presidents of concerned organizations from across the USA to attend the 2 May meeting
–We were then told we couldn’t speak at the public meeting but were still welcome to come (in contrast to what was published in the Federal Register)
–We are now uninvited to come at all (except virtually where no one can speak even in sidebars/breaks)
Add to that, I was invited to have a beer with you, (one we have been unable to schedule), and now, if I understand your email correctly, you don’t want to have that beer “right now” because we are not “communicating” on the meaning of that key word “merit”?
Personally, I would absolutely love to “communicate” on the word “merit.” But first to other points made in your email–especially your thoughts on equity.
EQUITY
You say you didn’t use the word “equity” and DACODI doesn’t have the word in the title. Scholars who are studying this Marxist-based movement would tell us that it is a common tactic of the left to “change the language.”
Consider about two or more years ago all the talk was about “CRT.” That acronym has pretty much disappeared from the public discourse, I believe, because people were beginning to understand its Marxist roots and those words behind the acronym are not appealing to the ear.
Enter DEI. “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion”–nice sounding words. Who can disagree with any of them on the surface? But as former NYT Editor and self described “progressive liberal,” Bari Weiss, has told us:
“In theory these three words represent noble causes—But in actuality DEI is not about any of those words—rather it uses those words as camouflage.”
Those words are now in fact metaphors for a powerful ideological movement—bent on recategorizing every American, not as an individual worthy of equal rights and dignity because of their individuality, but as an avatar of an identity group—a person’s behavior prejudged according to that group, setting all of us up in a kind of zero sum game”. She gets it!
Scholars on this topic, like Professor James Lindsay, would tell us DEI even without the E is all about “equity” anyway as “equity” is the end goal–it is easy to get to equity by “cloaking” it and just talk about “diversity” and “inclusion.” Canadians as you may know, have taken a different tact and call DEI “EDI” because “it places ‘equity’ before ‘diversity and inclusion'”–in other words the whole movement is all about “Equity.”
Now consider people were coming to understand “equity” was being achieved by the government or other organizations by “cooking the books” to ensure equal outcomes–not the American dream of “equal opportunity” for all…and now what is happening? “Poof” “equity” disappears from the vernacular. (Although I would note, the rest of the DOD still refers to “DEI” or “DEIA” (adding “A” for “accessibility”.)
Or as one of the smartest men on this topic I know describes it:
“They know that their using the word “equity” (with its negative connotation of “equality of outcome”) makes them vulnerable. So, they now retreat to using “equal opportunity” in their messaging, a safer phrase….
There’s… no real difference between the corrupted use of the phrase “equal opportunity” and “equality of outcome.”
Their corrupted meaning of “equal opportunity,” without more, is just another word game that manifests as racial/ethnic preferences in personnel actions.”
MERIT
Now on to our apparent “non communication” on “merit.” Let’s have that discussion–“discussion” being a key word here meaning I hope you will reply with your thoughts as well!
Miriam Webster defines “merit” as:
a. a praiseworthy character
b. conduct deserving reward, honor, or esteem
c. a person’s qualities, actions, etc. regarded as indicating what the person deserves to receive
Nowhere here, or in the Oxford Dictionary’s definition of “merit” does it refer to ethnicity or color of skin. (Unless you are you saying a person’s “qualities” include their skin color? If so, I think you would agree that is not a very common interpretation of the word “qualities.”)
Now in your email you say,
“with no degradation of the importance of “merit / meritocracy” , others think we are de-emphasizing “merit” . That is absolutely NOT THE CASE !”
Your capitalization and exclamation point seem to communicate to me that you are emphasizing that DACODI really believes that selections for accessions, promotions, assignments in DOD are all exclusively based on merit (“with no degradation of the importance of merit/meritocracy”). Is that what you are saying sir? That may be your belief–but I don’t know how?! Is that what the Pentagon is telling you?
That is simply NOT the way DOD is implementing the recommendations from the MLDC you led which said “this means treating people differently.” (Supporting evidence here abounds!)
That is one of your conclusions in that report–(a report which paved the way/created the blueprint for this destructive Marxist infection called DEI throughout our military), nor will it be the way DOD implements a recommendation we saw coming from your December meeting–i.e, to have the % of minorities in the officer corps reflect the % of minorities in the enlisted force.
If you had allowed any of the interfaces we tried to have that I mentioned above, our African American board members would have told you–you just can’t get there from here in the America of today, without lowering standards and/or discriminating. (One of those Board members, a retired General, just finished serving our country for nearly 40 years with an assignment in the SECAF’s DEI office.)
In other words–we understand you have what I would classify as an impossible mission trying to increase % of minorities in the officer corps, while ensuring EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL and not sacrificing “merit”.
I would hope you would agree that lowering standards to ensure “inclusion” only makes our military weaker and the blatant discrimination (see Reform and Restore’s (R2) input below) only creates resentment among majority service members and doubts in the minds of many of the minorities (asking themselves–“did I get here because of the color of my skin–or did I earn it?). “Immoral” is a word used in R2’s input–their president being in a unique position to have observed what was happening first hand! Please note in that input how she describes how “insidiously” this all happens–nothing is written down–“but everyone understands what is to be done.”
Sir, again, if you are not aware, there is much hard evidence of lowered standards and resulting discrimination in our military today.
For example, DOD argued disingenuously to the Supreme Court that continued discrimination in Service Academy admissions is a “national security imperative.” That is not “with no degradation in the importance of merit/meritocracy.”
Did you also know, for example, that at West Point, information from a special IG Investigation reported an average difference in academic qualifications (CEER score) between entering blacks and whites was about 13% (and in individual cases it is much higher–up to 20%), meaning that much better-qualified white applicants are being rejected because of their race?
That is clearly a DENIAL of equal opportunity to those better qualified applicants and that is discrimination!
The IG report (and another study) also found that the lesser qualified cadets “consistently perform at a lower level,” both academically and militarily, proving that the lowering of admissions standards is degrading graduate quality, resulting in our warfighters sometimes being deprived of “best-qualified” leaders.
America’s moms and dads trust DoD to provide their sons and daughters with the “best qualified” leaders available.
DoD has consistently violated that trust by using racial preferences in their service academy admissions practices, in the process violating a DoD Instruction, while falsely claiming “equal opportunity” and “no degradation of merit.”
Separately, the GAO in 2022 (unsurprisingly) reported disproportionately high attrition rates for Blacks and Hispanics at all three academies, a clear documentation of waste of valuable officer accession slots (forever), and an obvious waste of taxpayer dollars.
We believe these failures also represent a completely avoidable moral hazard, and an inexcusable failure of DoD’s obligation to warfighters and violation of trust of the American people.
I cannot imagine that you would find these facts on the ground defensible, much less a policy you want to be on record as having advocated when the truth is exposed (as it soon will be).
Is DACODAI asking all the Academies for data that would shed light on precisely HOW the Academies use race to “shape” (quote from Lt Gen Clark) the demographics of each entering class?
We recommend you should and we would tell you–you would be surprised! We have evidence of similar discrimination occurring in promotion and command selection boards.
Also, look at the recruiting woes, the decrease in end strength because recruiting goals can’t be met, and also the declining retention rates in key billet areas.
A USAF Capt recently told me he doesn’t know of even one pilot in his entire wing who is staying “one hour” past his/her commitment date. He blames “all of this DEI crap” as one of the reasons. See our December 2023 input–discrimination is turning people away from wanting to serve our country. (What Military Service Members, Veterans and Parents Are Saying: Evidence that the CRT/DEI/Woke agenda being pushed in the military is harming morale, recruitment and retention (pdf))
What is happening is certainly not exclusively based on selection by merit by any definition or as you implied. The NBA and the NFL, for example, are merit based–choosing the best players based on their ability for mission success (win the next game), not the color of their skin or ethnic background. Why wouldn’t we all want merit based selections (choosing the very best) for our military, where the result can be life and death (national security) and not just a Win or a Loss in a game of all things?
As a 7-time Air Force Commander and 2-time Joint Forces Commander, I have to tell you sir, I am with Gen Fogleman, our former Air Force Chief of Staff, on this one when he wrote
“Troops are interested in three characteristics in their leaders: competency, moral courage, and character. The color of a leader’s skin or ethnicity is not what determines unit morale, esprit, and effectiveness.”
In fact, I would argue, when the troops see people being promoted (or getting a prize assignment) because of race, ethnicity, or gender–it plunges a knife into the heart of what is the key to success in any military–“unity and cohesiveness.”
You don’t have to believe me here sir, again, just look at the over 100 pages of quotes we sent you for our December input from military members and vets–or take a look at the continually updated “Boots on the Ground” section on our website at STARRS.US.
Please do not ignore the facts on the ground perspective of those serving–summed up by: DEI may sound nice-but the way it is being implemented (NOT merit-based) isn’t working–in fact, it is doing way more harm than good, negatively impacting morale (recruitment and retention aside).
As evidence here–70% of Army recruits historically come from military families and now many of those families are not recommending family members enlist due to the secondary unintended consequences of DEI. Many, many of the thousands of STARRS supporters tell us they can no longer recommend a military career due to “wokeness.” This is breaking the military family tradition of serving our nation.
Before DEI ever entered the military (prior to your 2011 MLDC report), the US Military was already one of–if not THE–premier diverse and inclusive organizations in our federal government.
In over 34 years of wearing our nation’s cloth, I never observed even one leader worth his/her salt not be totally invested in “diversity” and “inclusion.” Nor did I ever witness any discrimination except during my 4 years in the admissions office at USAFA.
In closing, quite honestly, sir, I find it distressing that good, patriotic people like you and the DACODAI committee members–people who have served our nation with distinction; people who have a great love for our country–(joined by so many leaders of today, unfortunately as well) just seem to want to ignore all the very clear discriminatory evidence that is before us –(and, as importantly, the input of the people serving!).
You also continue seemingly want to dismiss the equal protection clause of our Constitution (under the guise of “it is a national security imperative” with no empirical data to back up that statement) while continuing to push this Marxist- based ideology seemingly down the throats of those who tell us it is discriminatory, divisive, demoralizing and demeaning, all the while creating resentment. It is meant to divide and it is working.
Our fervent hope is DACODI will come to this realization and implement the recommendation in the first paragraph of page 5 of the STARRS input (submitted but attached here for your convenience.) We really are trying to help! I wrote that paragraph myself and it is based on input I received all winter long while riding 632 chairlifts (according to the app) with some very liberal ski buddies. 🙂
All of us agreed that the playing field is NOT level–but the best time to go about leveling it –and if we are going to advance as a nation–is a point in one’s life where giving an extra leg up (extra instruction, extra care, etc) doesn’t negatively impact the dreams and aspirations of someone else who may be “more qualified” but doesn’t have the “right” skin color. If we continue to do so (continue to discriminate)–that is NOT equal opportunity for all and the American dream.
Now that we have had 1/2 of the discussion, I am looking forward to the other half (hearing your thoughts) with a goal of having that beer soon! 🙂
Regards and Respectfully, Rod
PS: One final point, sir. As you have seen by now, just from STARRS and other vet-led or other organizations concerned about our military, the “collective we” have submitted at least 17 different written inputs (that I know of) probably totaling close to 100 pages to DACODAI.
While we assume the Committee members will read all of the input, a number of folks have expressed (1) concern about how little time (10 minutes each day of a two day conference) is spent addressing all of that input and (2) their ability to speak has been canceled. (The first piece of guidance after a lot of work had gone into preparing verbal statements on our parts, we get a “no public statements allowed” notice.)
And then apparently, when receiving notification of a “Military Readiness and Merit Coalition” being formed? to oppose the Marxist ideology DACODAI appears intent on supporting (and with 9 members of this growing coalition (19 organizations joined in less than a week) planning on attending), “the Department” decides “for unforeseen reasons” that the public meeting will now only be virtual, with no public input at that meeting allowed. People suspect that “the Military Readiness and Merit Coalition” and the attendance of 9 of the 19 (so far) organizational Presidents is one of the “unforeseen reasons.” If that is not the case, please tell me what is and I will share that info with the rest of the coalition.
I know you know I have also had to deal with numerous phone calls/emails regarding the late cancellation of being able to attend the meeting “in person” (only 3 days before). After all the hotel, airplane, rental car reservations, other plans, etc., that were made and now have to be canceled, “that is not the right way to treat people” is a common input I have received.
Many, unfortunately, now believe DACODAI, despite your statements to the contrary, is not really serious about wanting to have that “diversity of thought” we discussed in that Dec/Jan phone call. The cancel culture seems alive and well! We hope that isn’t the case–so again we look forward to a continued dialogue on these issues–so important to the future of our nation and our national security!
ROD BISHOP
Lt Gen USAF (Ret)
Chairman of the Board
Stand Together Against Racism and Radicalism in the Services, Inc
STARRS.US
PPS: Gen Lyles–in addition to my last email, I do hope you have just a few minutes to watch the short you tube video sent to me this morning from Maj Gen (Ret) Joe Arbuckle, the leader for Flag Officers for America, and the Vice Chair of STARRS.
In the video, Joe Rogan is certainly no conservative–and the other speaker is a Soviet, former KGB agent. It is a clip from 1984–ironic the title of a George Orwell book which also predicted this ideology taking hold.
STARRS is on a mission to establish some common ground. Our logic is as follows. If we can get our fellow Americans to understand that this CRT/DEI ideology infecting America:
1. Is rooted in Marxism. If it didn’t originate from the Frankfurt School (formerly known as the Marxist School) that resettled (escaping Nazi Germany) at Columbia University in the 1930s (a hotbed of radical leftist thinking to this day as we see playing out across our TV sets) then where did it come from?
2. Has the intent “to divide”. Just look at the writings of those who inspired the movement. Traditional Marxist “economic” division wasn’t working in the West–so to have the “revolution”, different means of dividing had to be found. Race is just one of them. For more here–see this speech before the European parliament: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVZPYQS1dFA&t=742s
3. Is working. Look no further than the thousands of inputs we have on our website and Senator Cotton and Rep Crenshaw have in their database–or the protests occurring across our college campuses. (“The same ideological rot” according to a former NYT editor.)
Instead of resisting this DEI infection, DOD is embracing it–thinking it can write “policy” that supersedes the laws (especially the Constitution) of our land. They will base further policy and $$$ requests partly on DACODI’s recommendations for sure.
In other words, the policies they are instituting, will institute, and the $$$ they are requesting– trying to spread the DEI culture throughout the Services (since the only way to achieve their racially based goals is to lower standards and discriminate)–is an extra-constitutional act, despite every one of them having raised their right hand and sworn an oath “to bear true faith and allegiance” to the Constitution. Ground truth.
I hope you now better understand how DOD is implementing the recommendations that came from the MLDC (“this means treating people differently” is not advocating for a “merit based” selection process) and will likely try and implement the recommendation we saw from your December meeting (% of officers should mirror % of enlisted).
DOD is great at concealing what they are doing. Facts on the ground only come to light in the courts when sued or through whistleblowers. (Read what the Supreme Court said in the UNC/Harvard case.). Discrimination of any kind is hopefully something that is dying in the USA. Should have been dead years ago.
A friend recently told me this line of thinking doesn’t inspire him–he would rather hear, for example, some of the positive messages STARRS wants to promote. I referred him to:
https://starrs.us/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/STARRS-Handout-Flyer-email.pdf
But if we can establish common ground on the 3 points above, than all of us who love America have to wonder–why, when we as a nation, sacrificed 95,000 precious American lives fighting this same ideology in Korea and Vietnam and spent $Trillions of our national treasury, again, fighting against this same poisonous ideology in the Cold War, would we want to embrace this ideology and let it walk in an open front door–especially when thousands of people experiencing this indoctrination/this cultural push, tell us it is discriminatory, divisive, demoralizing, demeaning and creates resentment ?
Does this make sense? Is there anything I have said that is not ground truth or you disagree with here?
VR, Rod
Leave a Comment