By Jeffrey H. Anderson
Professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy from 2001–2007
The United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) somehow survived without a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) office during the first 66 years of its existence.
Now it has one, with a self-declared mission to “aid in the transformation of future Air and Space Force leaders.”
Hudson Institute Senior Fellow John Fonte has written in this publication that “today, the goal of progressive educators is ‘fundamental transformation.’”
But one seldom sees this spelled out as clearly as it has been by Air Force’s DEI office.
The “transformation” being sought isn’t one from selfish teenager to selfless man or woman prepared to serve with distinction in the U.S. Air Force.
Rather, it’s from selfish teenager who believes in traditional American mores to self-obsessed adult who doesn’t.
Part of the current motto of the Air Force Academy—which ditched the more spirited “Bring Me Men” 20 years ago—is “Service Before Self.” But the USAFA DEI office largely encourages the opposite.
The DEI office teaches future military officers to emphasize their own identity—the ways in which they are different from others—at the expense of unit cohesion and shared goals.
It teaches, in the words of USAFA DEI chief Joseph Looney, that “it is impossible to ‘Respect Human Dignity’ as a leader if you fail to value a follower’s identity”—even if that identity defies reality. “We’re committed to supporting transgender Airmen and cadets,” says Looney.
The Air Force Academy DEI office, which opened shop the same month President Biden took office, also says its mission is “to serve as the U.S. Air Force Academy’s strategic leader in structuring a shared vision of diversity and inclusion.”
The notion that a DEI office would serve as a strategic leader of any sort in a military context is incredible.
The USAFA DEI office gained national attention a year ago when it told cadets during a presentation that they shouldn’t use such allegedly non-inclusive, insufficiently diverse terms as “boyfriend,” “girlfriend,” “Mom,” and “Dad.”
Also, they shouldn’t praise the “colorblind” ideal or say things like “we’re all just people.” That’s too divisive.
Worse even than this bizarre presentation was the response from USAFA Superintendent Richard Clark.
General Clark could have rebuffed the DEI presentation and replied, “Of course cadets should say ‘Mom’ and ‘Dad’! And of course we believe in Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s colorblind ideal.”
Instead, he said that the Academy “does not prohibit the use of ‘mom and dad’”—it just discourages their use—and lamely claimed that the briefing was “taken out of context” because “the slide in question was not intended to stand alone.”
Which it wasn’t—it was intended to be paired with intersectional instruction that cadets should be “color conscious.”
To further aid in the transformation of cadets, USAFA now also has a “Diversity and Inclusion Reading Room” in its library. It houses, in the words of English professor Daniel Couch, “a specially curated selection of books.” No doubt these are all recognized classics of the Western canon.
STARRS NOTE: See Inside the DEI Reading Room at the Air Force Academy
Meanwhile, Eric Tegler writes in Forbes, “The Air Force Academy began offering a minor in diversity and inclusion in 2021 as did West Point.” He adds, “In 2019 the Air Force started requiring D&I training to commission its officers.”
If all of this weren’t enough, the Air Force Academy now has a “Cadet Wing Diversity and Inclusion Program.” This program consists of 82 cadets—two or three, on average, per cadet squadron—who wear a “purple rope across their left shoulder symbolizing their position as a diversity representative.”
They work “with cadet clubs, affinity groups and senior cadet wing officials” and “advise students on diversity.” In a less politically correct time, such cadets would be called informants, or narks.
In short, the Air Force Academy DEI office is engaged in a woke effort to transform how cadets think, talk, and interact.
This reflects a larger effort to create a woke military.
Biden’s pick for chairman of the Joint Chiefs, C.Q. Brown, regularly deplores the putative “racial disparity” and “extremism” in the ranks.
Congressional inquiries have uncovered shameless anti-white racism in the Department of Defense.
Abuses of public trust like this likely help explain why Americans are rapidly losing faith in that long-revered institution.
According to Gallup’s polling, only 60 percent of Americans now have “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in the U.S. military (as opposed to having “some” or “very little” confidence).
Gallup finds that Independents hold the military in even lower esteem than either Republicans or Democrats. Only 55 percent of Independents have “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in our armed forces, down 17 percentage points from a decade ago.
That compares to 68 percent of Republicans (down 18 points from a decade ago) and 62 percent of Democrats (down 12 points). Over the past two years alone, the percentage of Gallup respondents who expressed “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in the military has dropped 10 points among Independents.
Overall, the 60 percent of Americans who have “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in the military is down from 76 percent a decade ago and 82 percent two decades ago. Indeed, it’s down from 69 percent just two years ago, in 2021—the year Biden took office and announced on day one that “equity” would be his administration’s lodestar.
USAFA DEI Chief Looney is helpful in explaining the difference between “equality” and “equity”:
Equality “is giving everyone the same,” he writes. “In contrast, equity seeks to give people what they need”—i.e., it’s not giving (or treating) everyone the same. Equity addresses so-called “systemic racism”: “Equity can also be described as the recognition and elimination of system barriers that produce disparate experiences of belongingness,” writes Looney.
(He doesn’t explain what “liberty” is, as it doesn’t seem to be on his radar.)
As I put it in the opening section of Mandate for Leadership 2025, a guide for the next conservative administration,
“America is now divided between two opposing forces: woke revolutionaries and those who believe in the ideals of the American revolution.”
The former believe that America “must be fundamentally transformed,” while the latter—the Americanists—believe in America’s history, its ideals, and its way of life.
In our military, and certainly in the education of future officers, this battle between woke revolutionaries and Americanists is very much being waged. So far, however, only one side really seems to be fighting.
–
Jeffrey H. Anderson is president of the American Main Street Initiative, was a professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy from 2001–2007, and was named the Political Science Department’s “Outstanding Upper-Division Instructor” for 2006–2007.
First published on The American Mind
Response
This well written article is worth the read.
The author contextualizes the role of DEI training at USAFA as part of the ongoing cultural transformation in our military from one requiring total selflessness to self-centered focus on identity differences, where “colorblindness” is rejected and replaced with “color consciousness” and the starting point of which expressly assumes the existence of systemic racism.
These are used to justify (not admitted by most) the (usually concealed) use of identity preferences instead of true equal opportunity (in fact “equal opportunity” is often baselessly used as justification).
Two examples of such result (in my observation) are all the academies’ use of identity preferences in admissions practices and in awarding senior year cadet chain of command positions. Both practices are concealed from Congress and the public, and the former violates constitutional guarantees of Due Process/Equal Protection.
Also, for those of you who missed it, yesterday the HASC Subc’ee on Military Personnel conducted a hearing on Meritocracy in the Military.
Among many interesting things said, Rep. Mike Waltz disclosed publicly (and “on the record”) for the first time that USAFA Superintendent Lt. Gen. Richard Clark had told him in a meeting that he found the term “colorblind” offensive. The context (from a private discussion about that meeting) was military culture.
One of the most harmful aspects of DEI in the military is that it undermines colorblindness.
It is founded in part on the erroneous assumption that “colorblindness” is a tool of white supremacists used to oppress minorities and therefore must be rejected and replaced with “color consciousness.”
Rejection of colorblindness is part of an intentional cultural transformation ongoing in the military that is antithetical to and undermines the selfless servant warrior ethos that all future military leaders should be taught.
That ethos requires total subordination of self, including of subgroup identity, and unqualified commitment to the mission and to teammates.
Trust that every teammate shares that unqualified selflessness and commitment, irrespective of identity differences, is essential to combat effectiveness.
Rejection of colorblindness (argued as necessary to achieve dignity and respect) isn’t necessary because dignity and respect can be maintained while still adhering to colorblindness, contrary to what DEI proponents claim.
In practice, focus on identity differences often results in “inclusive” practices that include the use of identity preferences (as is still happening at our service academies –you would be shocked if you saw confidential admissions data I have recently seen). Those practices erode morale, lower leader quality, and undermine unit cohesion.
—
STARRS Chairman Lt. Gen Rod Bishop (USAF ret) forward this article to the USAFA Superintendent and wrote:
Hi Rich–I imagine your PA has informed you about the article below (title of which is in the Subject line). I certainly understand this movement to “transform the culture” of our military precedes your tenure as our Superintendent.
Four cadets Mary and I sponsored in the 20teens told us over breakfast one morning before heading out to ski “the culture is changing underneath (our) feet.”
What most people don’t realize however is how you personally feel about “colorblindness”–i.e, the comment you made to Congressman Waltz explained in the email below. (Cong Waltz personally told me about that comment a couple of days after your meeting with him–but I didn’t publicize it in a big way as I wasn’t sure he wanted that conversation made public.)
Now, however, he has made it part of the Congressional Record–so it allows me to ask you the question I have always wanted to ask since Congressman Waltz told me about the exchange.
In the interest of better understanding–would you be able to explain why you feel “colorblindness” is “offensive?”
The way I believe most Americans are raised (at least the way I was raised) is to believe “we are all members of the human race–we are all Americans.” To highlight “color of skin” to the degree we are in today’s society seems to focus on (as one cadet told me) “identity group politics”–in other words, putting too much emPHAsis on the wrong sylLABle (as a retired 4 star I worked for used to like to say).
Another cadet told me–“I just used to consider all my black friends just friends–now I am being forced to look at them differently.”
(While my mom was always proud of our “Irish Heritage”, escaping the horrors of the potato famine in Ireland of the 1860s (two of our ancestors dying in the Civil War fighting against slavery), it never ascended to a point of being more important than being an “American” first and foremost (which is not the message being communicated today in many fora). The American “dream” and vision of our our founding fathers was “all men are created equal”–in other words–equality for all–not “equity”–where the government cooks the books to ensure equal outcomes. Hard work, motivation, education, merit, etc were the keys to success. Not leaving it up to the government to “balance”.)
Just seems to so many grads (who were raised the way I was), that “identity group politics” and “differently” are not words we would want to have in a military that thrives on “unity” and “cohesiveness.”
This movement seems unhealthy–as cadets have told us it is. Here is another quote from one–a minority by the way (you may have seen before).
“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.”
We also have a wonderful interview on our website (STARRS.US) of a black female former West Point cadet who left the USMA–a primary reason for her departure was the outright discrimination she witnessed there against whites.
Also see: Nickaylah Sampson’s Experience at West Point was the Racism of Low Expectations
As our Supreme Court Chief Justice has said: “The Way to Stop Discrimination on the Basis of Race Is to Stop Discriminating on the Basis of Race”
I hope you can help us understand why you and some minorities find “colorblindness” “offensive.”
On another note–you probably have seen the article here:
West Point Sued After Director of Admissions Brags About What Happens to White Applicants
Three times in the last week, I have been asked “how is USAFA handling admissions in light of the Harvard/UNC Supreme Court decision?” Can you shine any light there? Thanks in advance!
R, Rod
ROD BISHOP
Lt Gen USAF (Ret)
Chairman of the Board
Stand Together Against Racism and Radicalism in the Services, Inc
STARRS.US
Leave a Comment