By Lt. General Rod Bishop, USAF ret, USAFA ’74
STARRS Chairman of the Board
From part of an email sent out by General Bishop to USAFA and other leaders:
People talk past one another on the topic of DEI.
When it comes to “diversity” and “inclusion”, in my 34 years in uniform and my 7 commands (plus 2 shorter joint commands (JTFs)), I never had a boss who didn’t strive to have “diversity” and who didn’t try to be “inclusive”, nor did I ever not welcome same. It was diversity of thought or experience mostly.
The only time I ever remember color of skin even entering a conversation was when we were selecting some folks to set up an austere base in Africa, thinking the country hadn’t progressed as far as we had accepting people of different backgrounds and skin color (notice I said “had” unfortunately).
In other words—no one I ever knew in leadership was “anti-diversity” or “anti-inclusive”.
Col Reeves in his USAFA Association of Graduates Checkpoints magazine letter to the editor may think “(the anti DEI rhetoric) will continue to send inclusivity back to a dark time and place we haven’t seen in decades,” but I would disagree with that opinion. It is not in our genes as Air Force (or other Service leaders); I never observed.
I would add—I didn’t mention equity for a reason—even retired General Lester Lyles, the head of the Defense Advisory Committee on Diversity and Inclusion (DACODAI) has told me personally over the phone “I don’t like ‘equity'”.
I believe he understands equity is government cooking the books to ensure equal outcomes (my words). It is certainly not fulfilling the American dream of “equal opportunity for all.” (Note how they even took “equity” out of the name of the DACODAI Committee.)
I believe we would be better off and perhaps less divided as a nation if more Americans understood the history and intent of CRT/DEI. If it comes from someplace else other than the Marxist Frankfurt School (originally called the “Marxist School”) please let me know where from.
It is not the words or the original meaning of “diversity and inclusion” that are offensive—it is the manner, method and steps that are taken to implement, that are objectionable.
It is the blatant discrimination, the “how”, the obsession on skin color—placing skin color in terms of importance above one’s humanity.
It is the lowering of standards (as, for example, the Service Academies are doing by as much as 20% lowering of standards in order to be “diverse” and “inclusive”) and the corresponding dismissal of the importance of merit and hard work.
I would suggest, there are much better ways to go about being “diverse and inclusive.”
I think we can agree that the playing field is not level, but as Chief Justice Roberts has said,
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
So let’s focus our work on leveling the playing field without discriminating. It is clearly against our Constitution—the Constitution every service members takes an oath to “support and defend” and “bear true faith and allegiance to the same.”
It will take some time, and we should get started, since, for example, in Service Academy admissions we are doing today exactly what we did 40 years ago when I worked in USAFA Admissions: discriminate in the selection process on the basis of race. That course of action, clearly is not working.
I just love Bari Weiss’ (self-described liberal-progressive and former New York Times editor) explanation:
“Those who understand DEI—know it contradicts much of what we have been taught since childhood:
— DEI is world view replaces basic ideas of good vs evil with a new rubric powerless (good) vs powerful (bad)
–replaces colorblindness with race obsession
–ideas with identity
–debate with denunciation
–persuasion with public shaming
–rule of law with the fury of the mob
“People are given authority in this new world order not based on talents, gifts, their hard work or accomplishments or their contributions to society, but in inverse proportion to the disadvantages their identity group has suffered as defined by radical ideologues.”
AND VERY POWERFULLY:
“Diversity Equity Inclusion—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.”
Quite clearly it is the “identity politics on steroids” (quote from a USAFA cadet) that people object to. It places one’s skin color ahead of being (in our case) an American airman and human being first and foremost.
But some good news: most aren’t buying into it. Another quote from a cadet (this one a female minority):
“I see so many bright young Cadets here who know what is going on is wrong but at the same time are too scared to speak up. The fear we feel, not being able to address our concerns only makes the lack of courage issue worse.
“However, I have a lot of hope that Cadets will start to speak up. Perhaps they just needed a catalyst or some leadership to speak up first, but already I see a shift in Cadet’s attitude, one that is more determined on stopping the push of leftist ideologies.“
Leave a Comment