The Problem Isn’t that DEI Brings Us Women, The Problem Is that It Brings Us the Wrong Women

Michael R. Shevock, USCGA ’76

Like many of you, following the assassination attempt on former President Trump, I cringed at the video footage of an overweight female Secret Service agent fumbling as she tried to holster her weapon, and the photo of possibly the same agent cowering behind the president and those agents who were protecting him.

These images and others have inspired a number of interested parties to declare that women do not belong in the Secret Service. I understand their concern, but the bumbling of a few is no cause to dismiss half the human population.

I started my career as a federal agent highly suspicious of the notion of bringing in female investigators. I quickly became an enthusiastic supporter of women on the job – not because of some inane lecture from a ‘diversity practitioner’, but because I repeatedly witnessed proof that qualified women brought significant value to the table.

They’re invisible on surveillance, they can be deadly undercover, and, more than once, I’ve seen a hardened criminal who’d spit in the eye of a male interrogator roll over and sing like Gaga when confronted with a female. A number of my female colleagues were accomplished athletes, and more than a few women agents have distinguished themselves when bullets were in the air.

That said, the Secret Service is a special organization. Due to the protection mission, the agents have to be ready to perform like professional athletes.

Were I in charge, one of the physical requirements would be to pick up a hundred-and-twenty pound bundle and run forty yards. I doubt the woman in the photo could comply. But some could, as they can also perform up to reasonable standards in the uniformed services as well.

And this is where DEI lets the country down.

Our security depends on our organs of authority performing in theaters that are never fair. ‘Equity’ is irrelevant in a gunfight.

Those who stand between polite society and the barbarians need to be the most capable professionals we can find. By definition, that means being exclusive.

Inclusivity is a great concept for organizing children’s games on a playground, not for a life-and-death struggle.

Proponents of DEI live in a fantasy world where they embrace the delusion (among others) where men and women are not merely equal but identical, and any discrepancy in representation is always and only attributable to the tyranny of an oppressive and toxic patriarchy.

Their remedy, of course, is to condescend and coddle, admitting marginal female candidates to front-line positions who are less qualified than some of their male counterparts who get rejected.

Their rationale in so doing is that they are compensating for centuries of domination by the patriarchy, with the belief that they are certain to usher in a utopia of perfect gender-equality, characterized by exactly proportional representation in every conceivable category of endeavor.

But there’s a problem, brought to the fore by mean old Mr. Reality.

Contrary to the rainbows and lollipops narrative, on average, innate personality characteristics that impact on career choices corollate with respect to gender. The evidence supporting this is compelling and irrefutable.

It has been established that, the wealthier the country and the more dedicated it is to egalitarian social policies, the more pronounced the differences in occupational preferences as relates to gender.

This verity is not presented as an argument to exclude women from the halls of science or authority. Marie Curie earned two Nobel Prizes a century before #metoo, and Elizabeth the First presided over the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588.

I am merely stating it is a sign of irresponsible scholarship to expect women to flock to careers involving violence or danger in numbers exactly proportional to men.

The only way for our self-anointed masters to achieve the comparative blend they seek is to apply inequitable standards that derogate the effectiveness of the organization.

The embarrassing performance on display at the assassination attempt on President Trump is the predictable and unavoidable result of the DEI agenda.

The US Coast Guard is a seagoing service where its personnel famously engage in harrowing rescues and armed boardings. It’s a military service for a reason.

The academy graduated its first female officers in 1980. Then as now, some of the women receiving commissions have been outstanding. Today, the academy boasts 43% of the most recent incoming class are female.

Weirdly though, as one tours the base today, one is liable to encounter a minority of female cadets who appear overweight and soft. It opens the door to suspicions that it’s bending standards to achieve the politically correct gender balance. The numbers say it all.

For the classes graduating between 2015 and 2022, 12% of male applicants with SAT board scores between 1100 and 1200 were accepted. During the same time period for the same board scores, 27% of female applicants were accepted.

Whereas 21% of male applicants with board scores between 1210 and 1300 were accepted, 46% of female applicants were accepted.

To suggest the same standards of physical fitness and leadership potential are being applied to both groups merits a horse-laugh.

It’s merely a matter of time before the inevitable result of this perfidy yields its own embarrassing headlines.

America deserves better.

Michael R. Shevock is a 1976 graduate of the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. Following graduation, he served three years afloat in the Bering Sea, and four years with Coast Guard Intelligence. From there, he worked as a criminal investigator/special agent with the Naval Investigative Service, the U.S. Customs Service, and the Department of Homeland Security.