Without the context of the SecNav’s remarks it’s hard to say for sure why that particular answer was given, but there are definitely benefits to having a military that draws from the full range of American subcultures, races, religions, etc., bringing differing strengths and experiences to the mix even with the expectation that they will then be molded into a unified force, using their strength and experiences to achieve a common purpose.
(Also, of course, if you’re looking to recruit it’s good to send a message that you’ll take anyone from anywhere as long as they can cut the mustard.)
Well, diversity has its value. All things being equal, I’d like to show the world a fighting force that includes people that look like the people we are killing.
I don’t really believe in “diversity” for its own sake. Corporation talk about that all the time so they can show their “United Colors of Accenture” stock photos on their career page. But how “diverse” is it really, if everyone still acts and dresses and thinks the same.
But the fact is, the United States is a diverse country and if a person has the desire and ability to fight for their country (or be some sort of change management IT consultant or whatever), they should be given the same opportunities as everyone else.
Besides, I highly doubt the military wants an army of unthinking robots who all act and think in predictably the same way.
What? Of course they do. Officers are allowed to think on their own a bit, but for enlisted men a military obviously wants people who will predictably follow orders. You think the army wants a diverse group that could respond to their orders in totally unpredictable ways due to their cultural, religions, ethnic, gender, etc. identities? Predictable robots is exactly what’s wanted out of basically all non-officers in every military in history.
This board has a real trove of people who think they know better than the people who do it for a living…
But YES diversity IS valuable in the US Military, it does not want mindless drones, it wants disciplined people who will follow orders and regulation AND will think outside the box or apply common sense when required. Of course, the diversity must never be at the expense of mission readiness but it’s useful to have people who’ll look at things with “new eyes”.
In the context of what I’m replying - the idea that the military wants diversity because they want people with different cultural, ethnic, racial, and gender identities to respond differently to orders, I think it makes sense.
The whole point of boot camp is that it strips the individuality out of you and teaches you to function as a cog in a machine. You lose your individual identity and become part of a unit identity. They want predictable, similar function, not diversity. In fact, the military is the least likely organization in the world to want such diversity.
The NFL doesn’t care about “diversity”. They want the best players, period. Turns out that means a far higher percentage of blacks than occur in the general population. Why should the military not be the same way?
Following this logic, the military should create a profile. Using an algorithm (machine learning can do this), figure out which combination of race, gender, size, weight, height, grades in school, age, and so on make the best soldiers. Offer people who fit the profile recruiting bonuses and preferential treatment. At boot camp you’d probably just see a few “steroetypical” soldiers. Would they be all blacks from the hood? All redneck farmers? All city slicker political science majors? Who knows, but a standardized cog works best in a machine like this.
I agree for the most part with everything you’ve written here other than the notion that it’s “an entirely different issue”. It’s actually a very related issue, in that the same process and mechanism is in play.
There are many times where the same principles might apply differently in different situations, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be discussed together.
But in addition, including “soldiers” here seems to contradict your subsequent post (which I agree with, as below).
I actually think DA has a good point here. To the extent that you need to fight and kill people you need to do it, but you want to avoid alienating people any more than necessary. So if you can do something which shows in some small way that you’re not motivated by hatred of any ethnicity but are just doing what you’re unfortunately forced to do, then that’s a plus.
Not in the way you are thinking. Yes, ok, once you’re in a unit and once you’re doing real things and if it’s the airforce and you’re not under the stress of combat, sure. They might be interested in an alternate way to do things. Maybe. But usually not.
In the book Work on Trial, edited by Judy Fudge and Eric Tucker, there is a chapter, “Challenging Norms and Creating Precedents: The Tale of a Woman Firefighter in the Forests of British Columbia,” by Judy Fudge and Hester Lessard. While wildfire fighting is at best only analogous to the military, the article does describe how some physical abilities, eg X push-ups, were long assumed essential and accurate assessments of needed abilities for the job. Turns out they weren’t essential or accurate. Realizing that did not, however, end the misogyny, suggesting that misogyny, not physical ability, was the real problem. Ymmv.
Has he looked at the reasons why the women don’t last? Are the being harrassed by the staff? Are they not equally qualified? Are the unspoken expectations that they have to double the work of the men?
I can just picture a group of privates in combat telling their ist Lt or Sgt…" no, this is the way we would do that where I’m from"…" I think both of you are wrong…let’s take a vote on it"