By CDR Breck Henderson, US Navy veteran, nuclear submarines
Writes “The Truth Is Out There” Substack
I’ve been arguing with my leftist friend over diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). He maintains that DEI is all about fairness, justice and civility. When I sent him an article from the latest edition of Commentary magazine in which Abe Greenwald explains with great clarity and insight just how destructive DEI is he responds that this is only the right’s caricature of DEI and is nothing but made up B.S.
He’s tragically wrong.
I have recently joined a fine organization of mostly retired military men and women called STARRS (Standing Together Against Racism & Radicalism in the Services.) The retired military officers of STARRS are strongly opposed to DEI programs in the military and service academies. Here’s a summary of their objections:
- DEI proponents falsely claim without evidence that it promotes fairness and unity and that its wholesale adoption is a military necessity.
- Contrary to official DOD statements regarding the purported benefits of DEI, studies from Harvard and Tel Aviv Universities of 800 companies over a 30 year time span demonstrate that DEI programs frequently do not change attitudes and often aggravate racial biases and hostility.
- DEI emphasis on racial and sexual identity as opposed to group loyalty and integrity undermines trust and combat effectiveness.
- DEI at its core minimizes merit based, objective value systems and promotes the widespread use of quotas and discrimination based on sex and race.
The STARRS website, which you can visit here, features a collection of more than 100 pages and over a thousand comments from members of the military, some of whom have recently left or retired in disgust over the morale-killing effects of DEI training and practices.
So I sent this information to my leftist friend, and he responded strangely — he claims that the DEI he was trained on at his work place was purely about fairness, justice and civility. Maybe he wasn’t paying close attention to the training, or maybe DEI training really does vary according to who’s in the classroom.
But Abe Greenwald gives us a much more accurate portrait of DEI training as it has manifested in the military and service academies in particular, but also in most if not all other places it is practiced:
“Intersectional ideology has infiltrated our lives mostly through the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion training programs at work and school. To conquer, you must first divide.
That’s the DEI trainer’s remit—splitting formerly cohesive groups into racial, ethnic, and gender camps, highlighting their differences and coaxing out ugly resentments.
Not surprisingly, DEI work increases bigotry.
As one DEI theorist recently admitted to the Wall Street Journal, “People often leave diversity training feeling angry and with greater animosity toward other groups.”
Because that’s what it’s supposed to do, especially regarding Jews.
Soon after October 7, Tabia Lee, the disenchanted former head of DEI at California’s De Anza College, told the New York Post that she was called a “dirty Zionist” for bringing Jewish speakers to campus. And school administrators refused her request to issue a condemnation of anti-Semitism.
Lee says, “I was told in no uncertain terms that Jews are ‘white oppressors’ and our job as faculty and staff members was to ‘decenter whiteness.’” Of the left’s post–October 7 bigotry, she writes, “This outpouring of antisemitic hatred is the direct result of DEI’s insistence that Jews are oppressors.”
The divisiveness is the most troubling aspect of DEI in the military.
For soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines to succeed in the difficult and dangerous missions they must undertake, unity of purpose and brotherhood in arms are essential.
One STARRS member, Larry Purdy, a former Naval Officer, published an article in the journal of the National Association of Scholars, Academic Questions, that describes the corrosive effects of DEI:
“As I observed over twenty years ago, if we have learned nothing else from our tragic history with race, we should have learned this: dividing any collection of individuals by race—whether it be a platoon, a battalion, a brigade, or an entire nation—and assigning benefits or assessing penalties to the resulting groups, is fundamentally destructive.
Perpetuating racial favoritism, and its opposite, racial discrimination, doesn’t heal a society; it poisons it.
Policies that focus on race don’t lead to a cohesive and effective military; they undermine it.
For the sake of our national security, our service academies’ race-based admissions policies should be ended.”
STARRS comprises many retired, high ranking officers including generals, who are trying to exert their influence to halt DEI practices.
Since Joe Biden was elected President the Defense Department has created a committee to advise it on DEI issues. STARRS has tried to provide input to this committee, which is officially named the Defense Advisory Committee on Diversity and Inclusion, or DACODAI.
Naturally, DACODAI members don’t want to hear anything negative about DEI, so they have barred physical attendance at their meetings, severely limited virtual attendance, failed to respond to information sent to them, and otherwise stonewalled any attempts engage them in discussions.
So I took a look at the people who were appointed to this committee. It’s not hard to see why these folks don’t want to hear anything STARRS has to say to them.
Several of them make a living in the DEI industry — training, consulting, coaching etc. — including the Vice Chairman, Kristen Kavanaugh, a self-described “gay, black, female veteran, who says she’s “passionate about leadership and serving others.” She was also “. . . a senior executive at Tesla where she led the Diversity, Equity & Inclusion, Talent Management and Learning & Development functions for the $750B organization.” Nothing anyone could possible say nor any contrary evidence will ever cause this woman to change her mind about DEI.
Committee members check all the diversity boxes. Of the 20 members, seven are African-Americans (35%), three Hispanic, two Asian, one Hawaiian, and one Native American. There are seven former generals and four former colonels. Of the generals, two are women and five are black.
My intention here is not to denigrate the competence, honesty or character of DACODAI committee members. But clearly, DACODAI members are all of like mind regarding DEI.
Interestingly, none of the retired military officers and enlisted committee members were what we might call “warfighters.” The Air Force officers were not fighter or bomber pilots. The Army officers were not infantry, airborne, armor, or special forces. I suspect they don’t have the warfighter’s perspective that might cause them to see DEI more like STARRS folks do, and that’s a problem.
The dangerous thing about all this is that well-meaning people like my Leftist friend and all the good people at DACODAI have somehow convinced themselves that DEI really is all about fairness, justice and civility.
Of course, to find a need for DEI training and DACODAI in the first place, you must also believe that minorities in the military are still not getting a fair shake, that racism is still rampant in today’s military. This ought to be a tough sell because the fact is that minorities are actually receiving preferential treatment when it comes to promotions into leadership positions and have long been accepted as equals in all branches of the military.
Abe Greenwald identifies the real agenda:
“The first thing to understand about any left-wing protest movement is that its nominal cause is irrelevant.
Black Lives Matter isn’t about saving black lives.
Trans activism isn’t about protecting trans children.
And intersectionality isn’t about the suffering of the diverse disaffected.
Never were, never will be.
Underneath their particular brands, social-justice movements are assorted fronts in a radical war against the good. And so it is for the “pro-Palestinian” encampments.
Would a group trying to save black lives have seized on a statistically tiny number of police killings as justification to rid black neighborhoods of police? That’s what Black Lives Matter did.
And by the time the cops were hobbled, and violent crime spiked precisely where police were most needed, the movement’s leaders were using corporate donations to buy safe suburban palaces.
BLM was an attack on law enforcement, because law enforcement maintains the good working order of the United States. Undermine that and you’re left with chaos, which is the objective.
And celebratory chaos is precisely the goal of the radical trans movement.
Consider Rose Montoya, the trans activist who went topless on the South Lawn of the White House during a Pride Month celebration. How does that viral stunt protect trans kids or evoke empathy for an outcast demographic?
Every aspect of the movement is designed to undo our common appreciation for a safe and sane way of life.
Denying solid biological reality, throwing kids into emotional disarray, scaring the hell out of parents, endorsing ruinous medical procedures for minors, and trolling everyone who’s not convinced—that’s the game.
And just as BLM leaders got rich, trans stars are furnished with endorsements and media deals once they’ve done their part to tear down the edifice of stability.”
You really ought to read Greenwald’s entire Commentary article, “The Woke Jihad.” He’s writing in response to the shameful demonstrations on college campuses in support of Hamas, but the same people who fund and organize these demonstrations are the ones who are pushing DEI in the military.
Why is forcing DEI on the military so important? Should be obvious — the military is a critical institution to be dismantled by the Left because a patriotic, conservative military could destroy “the revolution” they fervently hope will bring down the United States for good.
Which brings us to why the Democrats have seen fit to weaponize the legal system against Donald Trump. There is commentary today from all over, all perspectives, left and right, that this shameful, rigged trial in which there was no crime, no victim, an obviously prejudiced judge, and a feckless jury is a huge risk to take. It undermines the confidence of all Americans in our justice system, and risks retaliation from conservative AGs against Democrats. Our legal system, which is so important to our Republic, has been put in serious jeopardy.
But the left can’t tolerate what they perceive as the larger risk posed by Trump were he to once again become Commander-in-Chief. Among other things, he would be in position to undo and reverse the progress they’ve made toward transforming the U.S. military into a Leftist ally.
Which is why Rod Dreher says rightly, “Vote for the Crook. It’s important.”
Leave a Comment