You may have seen in the news lately that the Military Leadership Diversity Commission has just issued a report(.pdf) that the upper ranks of our military are too male, and too white.
I’ll let CDR Salamander delve into the specifics. He’s been all over the Diversity Bullies in uniform for years.
But a couple things pop into my head.
1. How white is too white? How male is too male?
2. Is the perceived lack of diversity in the upper ranks due to choices the military makes, or does it also reflect choices made by service members? If a larger percentage of black or hispanic junior officers decide to leave the service after their initial obligations are completed, it stands to reason they’d be less represented a generation later. But is that really a bad thing?Ddon’t a lot of people compete for scholarships to gain a leg up economically, and only intend to serve their obligation before entering private enterprise? When those junior officers leave the service, and become movers and shakers in industry, that’s a good thing, right (note- I don’t have an numbers on how many people of what ethnicity leave the service before reaching the upper echelons; my point is that it is entirely possible for the diversity numbers to be skewed for reasons that don’t reflect institutional bias or racism).
3. I’m shocked, shocked, that a commission established specifically to push diversity in the services found, well, a greater need for diversity! The commission was designed to push for increased diversity. Nowhere is there a metric that shows that the efficiency or effectiveness of the armed forces are increased by pushing diversity. I’m all for equal opportunity, but equal outcome is a somewhat different proposition.