Diversity vs. merit in the military
Diversity sounds great. That's part of the problem. Today's "diversity," however, isn't what it used to be. Rather than diverse experiences, backgrounds, and perspectives — that promote healthy group decisions and outcomes — "diversity" has come to mean only race, ethnicity, and sex. Unfortunately, today's "diversity" is replacing our long, and largely successful, journey toward equal opportunity. We have moved the goalposts to the end of a new field — a field where equal racial and sex-based outcomes determine the score. In this new world, "diversity" has become an end unto itself, undermining the purpose of our military: winning wars. Here is why it is so damaging.
Today's diversity advocates measure organizational success by race/ethnicity and sex — factors that have nothing to do with performance or potential. Yet they are influencing accessions, advancements, and promotions across the force. Prioritizing racial and sex-based goals clearly undermines the importance of performance and merit. Sadly, today's military leaders are often downplaying talents, experience, and skills in favor of skin color and sex in their personnel decisions. The result is a less capable force with less capable leaders.
This new push for diversity also destroys trust. When merit and performance are downplayed in the name of quotas and goals, excellence is undermined. In this environment, leaders are increasingly doubted as representing the very best of the organization. Not only is this disheartening, but it also makes them question their leaders' abilities. If a leader, or commander, is seen as a "diversity hire," he will always be suspect. This is also devastating to the thousands of deserving minorities and women who are rightfully rising to the top on merit alone. Amid these growing doubts, trust is eroded.
Diversity programs also destroy the warrior culture by robbing it of its core ethos. This ethos is built, first and foremost, on accomplishing the mission. As soon as we elevate racial and sex-based quotas above this, the culture suffers. After all, diversity and unity are opposing concepts. Today's military is losing sight of the strength that comes from molding diverse people into a unified team. Instead, they are elevating diversity above the "unified" team, causing divisions. A warrior doesn't care about skin color, sex, or background. He cares about one thing: do you have what it takes to perform when the going gets tough and the consequences are life and death? Warriors want everyone to be judged by what they bring to the team — no favors, no quotas, no special considerations. LTG (Ret.) H.R. McMaster recently commented on this, writing, "Nothing could be more debilitating to combat effectiveness than adherence to CRT [Critical Race Theory]'s proposal that people be judged by identity category rather than by character and the ability to contribute to a team."
...
I have sometimes questioned diversity as being like the NFL requiring that teams hire petite women as defensive tackles. Petite women have their merits, but being a defensive tackle is not one of them. To be the best organizations should hire people based on merit. "Diversity is our strength" slogans are dead wrong especially when lives are on the line. The trend toward diversity officers in colleges and other organizations is a mistake.
Comments
Post a Comment