By Elaine Donnelly
President, Center for Military Readiness
STARRS Board of Advisors
For more than 30 years, mostly civilian social engineers have subjected America’s military to progressive experiments that are becoming more extreme.
These include “diversity, equity, & inclusion” (DEI) mandates, which replace meritocracy with deliberate discrimination based on race.
As this CMR Policy Analysis explains, DEI policies taken to extremes are eroding public support, harming recruiting, and demoralizing the troops:
Congress should honestly evaluate the results of controversial social experiments in the armed forces and do what is possible to re-establish sound priorities.
Changing the Paradigm of Military Values
In 2011, the Department of Defense (DoD) established the Military Leadership Diversity Commission (MLDC), which published a 162-page Report titled From Representation to Inclusion: Diversity Leadership for the 21st Century,
The frequently quoted MLDC Report shifted priorities away from meritocracy and non-discrimination, moving toward “diversity” and “equity” as paramount goals in the military.
The MLDC Report matters because that committee’s former chairman, Lt. Gen. Lester Lyles, USAF (Ret.), is now the Chairman of the DoD’s Defense Advisory Committee on Diversity & Inclusion.
The DACODAI, which prominently displays the MLDC Report and Issues Papers on its website, apparently intends to pick up where the MLDC left off.
The MLDC called for a military that is “reflective of the Nation we serve.” That concept has morphed into a constantly stated meme: “Diversity is a strategic imperative.”
Where did that concept come from?
As stated in the MLDC Report, members followed the advice of corporate business consultants, “nonmilitary organizations,” “relevant management literature,” and “diversity goals from successful businesses.” Corporations and private enterprises succeed by pleasing customers, but the military’s mission is to defend America, not to please customers.
Nevertheless, the MLDC stepped off the deep end when it asserted: “. . . although good diversity management rests on a foundation of fair treatment, it is not about treating everyone the same. (emphasis added throughout)
“This can be a difficult concept to grasp,” wrote the MLDC, “especially for leaders who grew up with the EO-inspired mandate to be both color and gender blind.”
This shift toward “not treating everyone the same” was inexplicable.
Every officer and enlisted person who joins the Armed Forces takes an oath to “support and defend the Constitution,” and numerous Supreme Court rulings have upheld the Constitution’s colorblind approach to race.
Race conscious DEI mandates encourage military personnel to violate their oath of office and enjoy career rewards if they do.
The MLDC Report also changed the paradigm of military cultural values with an astonishing call for the scrapping of sound practices in training: “Cultural assimilation, a key to military effectiveness in the past, will be challenged as inclusion becomes, and needs to become, the norm.”
The MLDC cited no credible evidence to support its irresponsible call to replace “cultural assimilation” and “warfighting standards of the past” with “inclusion” as the “norm.” Instead, it relied on a 1996 Harvard Business Review article advising private companies and law firms.
Experts quoted in the CMR Policy Analysis have described military assimilation that treats everyone the same as necessary for building mutual trust and cohesion in battle.
In contrast, the MLDC admitted that “The need to leverage diversity while maintaining unit cohesion will require new training and procedures addressing new tensions.”
The MLDC recommendation inverted sound priorities with upside-down priorities that could be summarized as follows: “Military readiness is important, but if there is a conflict between readiness and percentage-based “diversity,” diversity must come first.”
National Security Does Not Depend Upon Incoherent and Irrational Stereotypes
The Defense Department continues to claim without evidence that DEI bean-counting to determine numbers of people in arbitrary categories — Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, Native Americans/Pacific Islanders and whites serving in uniform — contributes something essential to military readiness. However, even a cursory examination of such claims exposes absurdity.
Recent words of the Supreme Court of the United States in Students for Fairness in Admissions vs. Harvard and the University of N. Carolina, found these same superficial categories to be “imprecise. . . overbroad . . . arbitrary . . . undefined . . . underinclusive . . . incoherent . . . irrational stereotypes . . . [and/or] opaque.” (pp. 216-217)
Where did these racial categories come from? Quoting Justice Neal Gorsuch in the Court’s 2023 ruling against racial discrimination in higher education, the answer is “bureaucrats.”
The May 4, 1978, edition of the Federal Register (p. 19269) indicates that arbitrary racial and ethnic categories were not devised by anthropologists or sociologists, but by bureaucrats who, to their credit, cautioned that the categories should [not] be viewed as determinants of eligibility for participation in any Federal program.”
In its opinion, the Supreme Court fully exposed the absurdity of racial and ethnic categories. The “Asian” category, for example, covers 60% of the world’s population, from East Asia through Japan and China to India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. The “Pacific Islander” category was the result of insider lobbying, and the “Black” category covers people of many backgrounds all around the world.
The “Hispanic” category refers to Spanish and several languages and skin tones, while the “White” category sweeps from Iraqis, Greeks, and Turks to Ukrainian refugees and the British royal family.
Bureaucratic categories tell us as much about a person’s competence as the color of their hair. Yet senior military leadership – people with stars on their shoulders, medals on their chests, and braid on their caps tell us that these unscientific, incoherent, and irrational stereotypes are critical to our national security!
To ensure compliance and stifle dissent, the MLDC recommended establishment of a “Chief Diversity Officer” (CDO) reporting directly to the Secretary of Defense.
Military personnel know that DoD Chief Diversity Officers are empowered to control every step of their careers – from recruitment, command assignments, to promotions, particularly to 3- and 4-star rank and service chief levels. No one protests (publicly) because numerous recommendations called for “reporting tools” to “ensure a sustained focus on diversity and diversity imperatives.” (another name for quotas).
Like the Wizard of Oz, highly paid consultants, amateur anthropologists, lobbyists, and bureaucrats behind the curtain have been using hot air, smoke, and noise to rule the Pentagon and intimidate promotable officers. The fictional Wizard was harmless, but real-world DEI advocates have been harming our military for years.
Quotas Worsen Recruiting Crisis
The Army, Navy and Air Force have been suffering serious recruiting shortages. Military.com recently reported that a steep decline in white recruits is almost entirely responsible for the recruiting crisis. In the Navy, white recruit losses accounted for an overall drop of about 9,000 new recruits.
Meanwhile, the Air Force is struggling with a shortage of pilots. On August 9, 2022, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall and then-Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown, Jr. co-signed a memorandum confirming the Air Force’s intent to reduce the percentage of white male officers from 64% to 43%.
Since the Air Force told a large cohort of officers that they are no longer wanted, it is not surprising that many experienced pilots pleased their families by moving to the commercial airlines. These losses leave the Air Force with elevated risks of mishaps involving less skilled pilots.
Public Opinion and Support for the Military
According to the latest annual Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation & Institute Survey and a Gallup Poll, public confidence in the All-Volunteer Force is sinking. And according to the Heritage Foundation’s 2024 Index of Military Strength, readiness ratings continue to slide into “very weak” and “weak” categories.
Americans who have always admired the military’s unique culture are baffled by the decision of West Point officials to drop the classic words “Duty, Honor, Country” from the Mission Statement of the U.S. Military Academy. The revised version buries General Douglas MacArthur’s three powerful words in a separate statement of “Army Values.” The same leaders who approved this gratuitous change already have redefined “Army Values” to further elevate “diversity & inclusion” above meritocracy.
In the Pentagon, color-consciousness has replaced color-blindness, even if it hurts the institution.
This is happening at a time when compelling evidence suggests that meritocracy, non-discrimination, and the needs of the military must be restored as paramount values.
Diversity Metrics Over Meritocracy
Instead of honestly assessing the premises and results of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs taken to extremes, today’s civilian and military leaders, including the DACODAI, seem stuck in a time warp, conducting DEI business as usual.
Misguided priorities, which followed the advice of civilian business consultants, are worsening the recruiting crisis, undermining morale and public support for the All-Volunteer Force, and contributing to weakness in armed forces that must remain strong in a very dangerous world.
Diversity, equality, and inclusion are good things, but DEI programs that divide and demoralize are not. A ship that is steered two degrees off course, without correction, eventually winds up in the wrong ocean.
The Department of Defense needs to change course and reinstate sound priorities – meritocracy, not diversity metrics, could restore confidence in our military and the willingness of young people to serve.
* * * * * *
The Center for Military Readiness (CMR)is an independent public policy organization, founded in 1993, which reports on and analyzes military/social issues. This article can be downloaded at: https://cmrlink.org/issues/full/why-the-dod-should-drop-dei-and-affirm-meritocracy-in-the-military, and the March 2024 CMR Policy Analysis cited above is available at: https://cmrlink.org/data/sites/85/CMRDocuments/CMRPolicyAnalysisMarch2024.pdf. To make a tax-deductible contribution to help continue CMR’s work, click here.
Leave a Comment