Lack of minority officers leading Army combat units? How do you respond to this article?

SFC A.M. Drake — Thu, 11 Sep 2014 20:05:55 -0400

WASHINGTON — Command of the Army's main combat units — its pipeline to top leadership — is virtually devoid of black officers, according to interviews, documents and data obtained by USA TODAY.

The lack of black officers who lead infantry, armor and field artillery battalions and brigades — there are no black colonels at the brigade level this year — threatens the Army's effectiveness, disconnects it from American society and deprives black officers of the principal route to top Army posts, according to officers and military sociologists. Fewer than 10 percent of the active-duty Army's officers are black compared with 18 percent of its enlisted men, according to the Army.

The problem is most acute in its main combat units: infantry, armor and artillery. In 2014, there was not a single black colonel among those 25 brigades, the Army's main fighting unit of about 4,000 soldiers. Brigades consist of three to four battalions of 800 to 1,000 soldiers led by lieutenant colonels. Just one of those 78 battalions is scheduled to be led by a black officer in 2015.

Leading combat units is an essential ticket to the Army's brass ring. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the Army's chief of staff, commanded artillery units; his predecessor, Gen. Martin Dempsey, led armored units, and is now the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"The issue exists. The leadership is aware of it," says Brig. Gen. Ronald Lewis, the Army's chief of public affairs. Lewis is a helicopter pilot who has commanded at the battalion and brigade levels and is African-American. "The leadership does have an action plan in place. And it's complicated."

Among the complications: expanding the pool of minority candidates qualified to be officers, and helping them choose the right military jobs they'll need to climb the ranks, Lewis says.

To be sure, there are black officers who have attained four stars. Gen. Lloyd Austin, an infantry officer, leads Central Command, arguably the military's most critical combatant command as it oversees military operations in the Middle East. Another four-star officer, Gen. Vincent Brooks, leads U.S. Army Pacific, and Gen. Dennis Via runs Army Materiel Command, its logistics operation.

The concern, however, is for Army's seed bed for four-star officers — the combat commands from which two-thirds of its generals are grown. They're unlikely to produce a diverse officer corps if candidates remain mostly white.

"It certainly is a problem for several reasons," says Col. Irving Smith, director of sociology at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. Smith is also an African-American infantry officer who has served in Afghanistan. "First we are a public institution. And as a public institution we certainly have more of a responsibility to our nation than a private company to reflect it. In order to maintain their trust and confidence, the people of America need to know that the Army is not only effective but representative of them."

Black officers at the top ranks of the brass show young minority officers what they can achieve. Their presence also signals to allies in emerging democracies like Afghanistan that inclusive leadership is important. Diverse leadership, research shows, is better able to solve complex problems such as those the Army confronted in Iraq and Afghanistan, Smith said.

"It comes down to effectiveness," Smith said. "Diversity and equal opportunity are important, but most people don't point out that it makes the Army more effective."

The Problem
The Army's — and the Pentagon's — main ground fighting force remains the Army's infantry, armor and artillery units, although aviation and engineering units are also considered combat arms. Many of their names have become familiar to the American public after more than a decade of war: The 101st Airborne Division; the 82nd Airborne Division; the 10th Mountain Division.

They share a proud history of tough fights and multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. They also share a lack of black leaders. In all, eight of 10 of the Army's fighting divisions do not have a black battalion commander in their combat units.

(For now, they also lack women. The military plans to open combat roles to women in 2016.)

USA TODAY obtained the Army's list of battalion and brigade commanders. Several officers familiar with the personnel on them identified the black officers, which the Army refused to do. The paper considered officers in infantry, armor and field artillery — the three main combat-arms branches.

The results: In 2014, there is not a single black commander among its 25 brigades; there were three black commanders in its 80 battalion openings.

In 2015, there will be two black commanders of combat brigades; and one black commander among 78 battalions openings.

"It's command. If you don't command at the (lieutenant colonel) level, you're not going to command at (the colonel level)," says Army Col. Ron Clark, an African-American infantry officer who has commanded platoon, company, battalion and brigade level. "If you don't command at the (colonel) level, you're not going to be a general officer."

Capt. Grancis Santana, 33, knows about the long odds he faces as an artillery officer hoping to become a colonel.

He found few black officers in his specialty — about two of 20 when he was a lieutenant, and about three of 30 when he made captain.

"It's not a good feeling when you're one of the few," Santana said. "There was no discrimination; there are just not a lot of people like you."

A key reason is the paucity of black officers graduated by the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, its ROTC programs and Officer Candidate School.

For instance, the newly minted officer classes of 2012 and 2013 in combat arms remained mostly white, according to data released by the Army. Of the 238 West Point graduates commissioned to be infantry officers in 2012, 199 were white; seven were black. At Officer Candidate School, which accepts qualified enlisted soldiers and graduates with four-year degrees, 66 received commissions as infantry officers — 55 were white, none was black. The figures remained nearly unchanged for 2013.

The downsizing of the Army is having a disproportional effect on African-American officers. From the pool of officers screened, almost 10 percent of eligible black majors are being dismissed from the Army compared with 5.6 percent of eligible white majors, USA TODAY reported in early August. The Army is cutting 550 majors and about 1,000 captains as the Army seeks to reduce its force to 490,000 soldiers by the end of 2015.

The Causes
Two forces seem to reinforce the lack of black officers in combat command. For decades, young black men have tended to choose other fields, including logistics. With fewer role models and mentors in combat specialties, those fields have been seen as less welcoming to African-American officers.

Irving Smith remembers his parents being "heartbroken" that he chose infantry.

"African Americans have historically used the armed forces as a means of social mobility," says Smith, who joined the infantry, has risen to the rank of colonel and now is professor and director of sociology at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. "That is certainly true for African Americans who have used the armed forces as a bridging opportunity (to new careers)."

Parents, pastors and coaches of young black men and women considering the Army often don't encourage them to join the combat specialties.

"Why would you go in the infantry?" Smith says of a common question. "Why would you want to run around in the woods and jump out of airplanes, things that have no connection to private businesses? Do transportation. Do logistics. That will provide you with transferable skills."

Developing marketable skills has been a key motivation for many African Americans, said David Segal, a military sociologist at the University of Maryland. That has often meant driving a truck, not a tank.

"There has been a trend among African Americans who do come into the military to gravitate to career fields that have transfer value — that pretty much excludes the combat arms," Segal said.

Clark, who now works at the Pentagon, wasn't encouraged initially to join the infantry. His father enlisted in 1964 and had an Army career in food service.

"He grew up in a small town in southern Louisiana in the middle of Jim Crow South," Clark says. "He was tired of having someone telling him where to sit on a bus, which water fountain to drink from and which bathroom he could use."

At age 11, the younger Clark remembers climbing on a tank when the family was stationed in Grafenwoehr, Germany. The U.S. invasion of Grenada in 1983 sealed the deal for him: He wanted to be infantryman.

"I wanted to be an Airborne Ranger in a tree," Clark says, "and my dad was not having it. He said, 'Nope, you are not going following my footsteps. I want you to go to college.'"

The compromise, after his father had him speak with an African-American brigade executive officer named Larry Ellis, was to enroll at West Point. Ellis went on to become a four-star general, and Clark graduated from the academy in 1988.

Clark and Irving remain exceptional cases.

The downsizing of the Army is having a disproportional effect on African-American officers. From the pool of officers screened, almost 10 percent of eligible black majors are being dismissed from the Army compared with 5.6 percent of eligible white majors, USA TODAY reported in early August. The Army is cutting 550 majors and about 1,000 captains as the Army seeks to reduce its force to 490,000 soldiers by the end of 2015.

The Army's Response
The problem has attracted attention at the Army's highest ranks. In March, Army Secretary John McHugh and Odierno, the chief of staff, issued a directive aimed at diversifying the leadership of its combat units.

USA TODAY obtained a copy of the memo, which notes that the Army historically has drawn the majority of its generals from combat fields, specifically "Infantry, Armor and Field Artillery." For at least two decades, however, young minority officers have selected those fields in the numbers necessary to produce enough generals.

"African Americans have the most limited preference in combat arms, followed by Hispanic and Asian Pacific officers," the memo states. While black officers make up 12 percent of Army officers in all competitive specialties, they make up just 7 percent of the Army's infantry, armor and artillery officers. For junior officers, that figure is lower, 6 percent.

Minority groups need a "critical mass" of about 15 percent to feel they have a voice, Smith says.

The Army's plan calls for enhanced recruiting and mentoring for minority officers, particularly in combat fields, tracking their progress and encouraging mentorship.

Mentors needn't be of the same race, Clark and Lewis say. Lewis noted that several of his closest mentors were white officers, including retired general Richard Cody, who retired as Army vice chief of staff. Cody advised him to spend time at the Army's National Training Center, in the California desert. It paid off, Lewis says.

"Everyone does not have to look like you," Lewis says. "You have to be able to receive mentorship, leadership. And you have to follow some of that. You may have to spend some time at a really hard place for a bit."

Byron Bagby, a retired African-American two-star artillery officer, applauds the Army for acknowledging the problem and taking steps to address it. He cautions progress will be slow. Bagby retired in 2011 from a top post with NATO in the Netherlands.

"We're not going to solve this tomorrow, or a year from now," Bagby says.

Smith has another suggestion for the Army. Ask an in-house expert: him.

The brass could also stop by his office for a chat, he says.

"I've never had anybody from the Department of the Army come to me. I'm a sociologist. I've studied these issues for six years."

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 11 at 2014 8:41 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 11 Sep 2014 20:41:31 -0400

I have to say that this is why I say that it is foolish to think that there is no such thing as "quotas" in boards. My point of view is the best person should be picked for the job regardless what color of their skin, accent they speak with, gender, or anything other than their performance. The only reason I think DA photos are necessary is to ensure that there are nobody wearing items that they should not and that they wear them properly and are not cover up or lying that they pass height/weight. However, just like marital status I think the different methods that society tries to identify us should not be a factor. Unfortunately as soon as a DA photo comes into play the race and gender are apparent. I have never seen and hope to never see discrimination for who gets command or promotion. Right now we do not have any female officers in command at this point in time in my battalion. Then again we only have 2LT and 1LT officers with all CPTs holding the CPT slots. The race is mixed and was never a determining factor in who holds which slots. The more articles like these point out that there is differences in us the more society presses into us that we are different when we are not. We are not Asian-American, African-American, and white. We are all Americans and we need to act like it and put this behind us.

What I did not see in this article was how many people were up for these positions that were of different race. What if that year ground only had a few people of different gender and race? You cannot go out recruiting to just put in someone that fits society's version of diversity. That goes against everything that any good civil rights activist would stand and fight for. That would be worse as you are just trying to hire window dressing regardless of if that person is capable for that position or not. If you are eligible for promotion good luck and if you are the right person you should be selected for promotion and position.

Now if there is discrimination in the board and it is proven then those leaders need to be relieved of their duties and punished and put out of the Army as there is no place for discrimination. Otherwise let those who want to enlist, enlist. And those who possess the aspects to be a good officer get a commission through ROTC, an academy, direct commission, or OCS. Once again discrimination does not have a place in the Army....that includes just sharpshooting for someone to fit a non-existent quota. Pick who is right for the position and promotion without regard to gender, skin color, or anything else that is not based on performance and merit.

Just my two cents.

Response by SGT Donald Croswhite made Sep 11 at 2014 8:56 PM

SGT Donald Croswhite — Thu, 11 Sep 2014 20:56:38 -0400

If only 10 percent of Army officers are black then it would seem by statistics alone that you wouldn't find a lot of Black officers the further up you go. If 90 percent of officers are name Steve and ten percent are named George, then by odds alone you would find a lot more Steves sticking around. We should be looking for good leadership and not be racist about what color they are. If their is a EO promotion problem it should be adressed.

The question should be is, why are Blacks not seeing the officer route a feasibleone?

2012 Militaryonesource DOD Demographics:
http://www.militaryonesource.mil/12038/MOS/Reports/2012_Demographics_Report.pdf

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 11 at 2014 10:40 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 11 Sep 2014 22:40:33 -0400

This is not a story about EO/Racism. I was talking about this topic today with two LTCs. Minorities do not chose to be officers. BAM, I said it. And when they do, they tend to pick logistics or signal. I think the "transferable skills" point is a good one that I had not considered. With logistics, there is legacy because that branch was one of the earliest accepted roles for minorities (both race and gender minorities). There was also the point that it takes a 15% presence of a group for that group to feel heard. I don't know where that statistic comes from, but I can understand that people feel drawn to branches that their brothers/sisters, college buddies, cousins, etc chose. That causes it to become a circular problem.

The basic problem is that if minorities are not choosing to be officers at all, and those who do chose career paths that basically put them on the side-lines, how do we change? I was *the* black officer in my MIBOLC cycle and there was not one in the cycle before or after mine, so in a quarter, I was it. I hate filling out the Army's "anonymous" surveys because after I get done entering my race, rank, basic branch and duty station, I might as well write my name on it. Before I chose my branch, I felt no pressure to chose a different one because of my race. But it was no secret that I was going into a white career field. I was ok with it, but that is not the norm.

Many people don't think of all of the ramifications that minorities face if they chose to go it alone on the racial front. It's hard to find people who grew up in the inner city like I did, so there's not many people to swap "back in the day" stories with. For those that have a native language that is not English, that is another challenge. What if no one likes to worship like you do (many black churches are not remotely like most white churches)? What if the other kids don't invite yours to their birthday parties? And for the young ones (and us divorced types), you have to consider the dating pool. That's just a reality. I'm tired of being the star of "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?" This is a reality that white people in America do not normally have to face. The same people who claim they would have no problem being the only white person at their job, in their apartment complex, at their gym - all of it, 24/7 - are the ones who lock their doors driving through a black neighborhood, so I'm not buying it.

I am not trying to be all gloom and doom, but I really don't know when/if this will change. I think programs like the one where you can come in with a friend or group of friends and be guaranteed to stay together from BCT through first duty station (if it still exists) could help if they offered it to officers, through the 09S program. That's starting from scratch, but we have to. The real problem, as highlighted by the article, is that there are not many even in the pipeline (so bag the "quotas" talk LTC Private RallyPoint Member, there are not bodies to fill the quotas that people are so sure exist). In MI, I know of one black LTC...her last name is Ellis and yes, GEN Ellis is daddy (and he is pure awesomeness). When she gets her star, I'm sure a big deal will be made of it, but there are not too many others to follow in her footsteps.

Response by SGT Richard H. made Sep 11 at 2014 11:43 PM

SGT Richard H. — Thu, 11 Sep 2014 23:43:40 -0400

I'm going to answer this one simply, and from the heart. If you are black, white, green, or have rainbow stripes superimposed with polka-dots, I couldn't care less. I'm an Infantry guy. Do you know your job? Do you know mine? can you both lead and follow?

If you can answer yes to ALL of those questions, then you can lead me, and I can follow you.

This is going to get less simple....

Where the disconnect lies, I think, is in the application process. if any particular demographic makes up a given percentage of society, but doesn't make up the same percentage of a given career field, the first thing to explore is the whether the entry level applications to the field are proportionate.

Example in this case: let's say that purple people make up 20% of the population, If they make up 20% of the leadership, we have no problem. Call it a day.
How about if the purple people make up 20% of the population and 17% of the leadership? Do we have an issue? Maybe. Let's explore.
With experience/education being equal, do they make up 20% of the applications for leadership? if yes, we might have a problem. If the applications are higher...say 30%....the problem gets bigger. If it goes the other way...say the demographic is 20% of the population, the applications are 15% of the applications, and the positions are made up of 30% to the said demographic..is that a problem? Yes, it might be...only from a different perspective.

The point is, ALL facts are necessary. Skin color is FAR from enough. At the end of the day, It shouldn't matter at all. If it does, it needs to be fixed....regardless of the direction of flow.

Response by 1SG Michael Blount made Sep 12 at 2014 7:46 AM

1SG Michael Blount — Fri, 12 Sep 2014 07:46:43 -0400

Upper leadership has been disconnected from the ranks for quite some time. I don't understand why it's such a big deal now.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Sep 12 at 2014 8:39 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Fri, 12 Sep 2014 08:39:12 -0400

I had a diatribe prepared, but it seems like the bulk of commentators have gone the common sense route, so consider me defused. It does my soul good to see people advocating for performance over pigmentation as the most important variable.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 12 at 2014 11:51 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Sep 2014 11:51:51 -0400

As usual, CPT Ann Wolfer is insightful and powerful. I would, however, prefer to see the numbers; i.e. racial demographics by branch, adjusted for accession/commission rates. General officers are supposed to be generalists, no coincidence there, but historically you are not going to see a former Loggie commanding an infantry division. Maybe that will change, and there is a powerful argument that it should (e.g. "Amateurs talk tactics; Professionals talk logistics," attributed to Napoleon). The obvious counter-argument is that Infantry, Armor, and Field Artillery officers grow up through the company- and field-grade ranks dabbling in sustainment functions at nearly all times (though I would point out that logistical considerations were noticeably lacking when i went through MCCC). Anyway, the educational component is tied to family financial well-being, and that can be closely associated with minority status. The came-from-nothing success stories are the extreme outliers.

The most ridiculous statement of the article is that "there are no black colonels at the brigade level this year." That may be true, but it needs to be proved and I don't see a source.

To correct the problem, if there is one, the Army would just have to adopt the university admissions systems currently operating in several states. Make racial diversity a +1 factor in accessioning new officers, and you'll see results (or confirm the problem) in about 20 years. Otherwise, there are two ways to have a more immediate impact; 1) force the branch transfers of captains and field-grades based on race, or 2) allow a relaxed command-appointment method in which combat arms commands get coded 01A and the best men (and women!) get the jobs. The +1 system sounds like something the Army would adopt. Forced transfers (is diversity a "needs of the Army" issue?) won't be accepted, and the 01A method would and should (probably) be rejected at the tactical level, maybe at the operational level, but probably would work at the strategic level.

On another note, I would caution all RP users to avoid simply copying the text of an article, even if the source (i.e. USAToday) is identified. In the case of this discussion, the author is not credited, so as a professional courtesy the ver batim text should be replaced with original commentary, or the author should be explicitly identified.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 12 at 2014 12:17 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Sep 2014 12:17:43 -0400

I read this today and was shocked by it. My friend, who is the only other Portuguese Officer in the Army that I know of, sent me a text about this.

I come from combat arms. I recall only have a couple at most black soldiers in my company that were infantry. But the issue is that they choose their job. This is clearly a hit piece. It seems that someone out there has an agenda.

Lets look at it from a white males perspective being the one that is the victim here. "White soldiers forced into positions that don't have transferable skills while other racial groups learn valuable lessons that will help them after the army." That is what is happening. At the end of the day the ones, such as myself that is an infantry is going to suffer in the long run. But that is what I choose.

Targeting minorities to join combat arms is fine. Why don't they just force branch them. As we all know that your branch is pretty much up to you. You do well and you get your choice. You can't withhold the information that more of one racial group wants to be infantry and then blame the Army.

This is simply an attack on the Army. My commander is not white but what does that matter. He choose infantry. I am sorry to those out there that may not approve that Combat Arms is the Heart of the Army. That is where most of the generals come from. You have to realize if you pick branch like Chemical your chances of being the Chief of Staff are pretty dismal. But you may get a good job on the outside.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 12 at 2014 12:51 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Sep 2014 12:51:49 -0400

The question I have is how do you feel about it, SFC A.M. Drake ? I didn't see an opinion.

Response by SGT Marvin "Dave" Bigham made Sep 12 at 2014 1:50 PM

SGT Marvin "Dave" Bigham — Fri, 12 Sep 2014 13:50:35 -0400

Seems the article was written to sell papers... that being said, as an enlisted soldier, the color of my leader's skin (when we were most effective) was generally brown/black or green/brown. My skin color doesn't make me a better leader and neither does my MBA or GPA. A leader's ability to lead is much more than that. Leaders in Army combat units tend to get shot at, maybe the minority officers are smarter than that... hmmm. As a military brat, I grew up "color blind". Folks not in the military can say what they want, but in a combat unit, race just isn't something we care about much.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 12 at 2014 2:26 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Sep 2014 14:26:48 -0400

What the article only eludes to this, thou many here seem to understand it. The "problem" is that the Army is filled with individuals who are free to make their own choices. Individuals who are black that join the Army are much more likely to think of the Army as a stepping stone to their life after the Army and choose a career field that will transfer more easily. Other black individuals have made the choice to go into fields where their mentors served or where they may more easily find a mentor pushing them to the CSS branches that have history with the black community dating back to the world wars. In my experience I have noticed that black officers, on average, are much more interested in mentorship and planning for their future after the Army than other officers. I wish I would have been that forward thinking when I was younger. I have no issue with providing incentives to make some branches of the Army more diverse as long as we don't take away an individual's choice from the equation.

In reference to the downsizing effecting blacks more. Black officers are much more likely to have gone to OCS and OCS officers are much more likely to be downsized because they are closer to retirement than their peers so they are not seen as the right long term choice because they do not have longevity.

Response by LTC Paul Heinlein made Sep 12 at 2014 3:29 PM

LTC Paul Heinlein — Fri, 12 Sep 2014 15:29:23 -0400

http://www.stewart.army.mil/units/biography.asp?u=1ABCT&t=CDR

I agree we have work to do in representation at the highest ranks, but
whoever wrote the article did not do any research or they totally disregarded any information that did not support their hypothesis.

From the Article "The problem is most acute in its main combat units: infantry, armor and artillery. In 2014, there was not a single black colonel among those 25 brigades, the Army's main fighting unit of about 4,000 soldiers. "

COL Robert P. Ashe is the Commander of 1st Armored Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division.

The link to his Bio is attached. COL Ashe is a great man, Officer, and American. I served with him in Iraq during the surge.

Since it is not too hard to google the different brigade commanders, I really question the motives of the author, because you would really think double checking your facts would be the first thing you would do before you submitted this type of article.

Response by SPC David S. made Sep 12 at 2014 5:52 PM

SPC David S. — Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:52:17 -0400

Sargent Drake from my perspective I feel there are a number of factors that may be culpable in creating this disproportion. There are socioeconomic factors in considering the cost of education, legacy factors within the branches of the Army, and retention/career counselling issues with mentoring black officers. However as the Army can only take corrective actions in its efforts in retention/career counselling I do not expect to see these numbers improve anytime soon. As there is a big rift in progress the Army is looking for ways to get more people out at lower pay-grades with less time. However hopefully the next time the Army ramps up it will do a better job in regards to its diversity.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 12 at 2014 6:20 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Sep 2014 18:20:06 -0400

Basically it boils down to the jobs that any Officer takes. I just know that every that I have seen in the Army, I see diversity spreading more and more. It's not based on EO, but due to generational shifts in attitude towards race. My cousin is black and is a BN CDR in a logistic unit due to his hard work, not his race. It's just that it takes a long time for diversity to continue. You can argue factors based on education levels, backgrounds, and etc.

Response by CW2 Ernest Krutzsch made Sep 12 at 2014 6:57 PM

CW2 Ernest Krutzsch — Fri, 12 Sep 2014 18:57:26 -0400

My question is...Why does everything have to be determined by race? I don't care where you come from, what color you are, or even how smart you are....Can you lead and do you have the desire to do so.. I have so many examples of superb leaders, General Harding, Colonel Bazemore, people I respect and would follow into battle anytime.. Seek and ye shall find :-)

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Sep 12 at 2014 10:37 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Fri, 12 Sep 2014 22:37:56 -0400

I know this won't be insightful to your thread SFC A.M. Drake, but are any complaints being generated by the individuals that may have been passed over for any of these positions? If so, do you know the status of their allegations? That would be very valuable in discussing this thread. Thanks. MM

Response by PO3 John Jeter made Sep 13 at 2014 1:04 AM

PO3 John Jeter — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 01:04:14 -0400

I'm going to be bluntly honest in my remarks. I wish to state up front I'm speaking with the utmost respect to you all. I find this question to be the "other side" of racism. The thought that a leader of any caliber would be more desirable because of the color of their skin or their ethnic background is disturbing. As an enlisted man, I never gave much thought about what color my officers were. What counted to me was that they knew their stuff and looked after our well-being. We need to encourage color blindness in looking for leadership potential. Now if it is found that persons of color are being systematically or institutionally held back then we need to hammer the practitioners into the ground.
Our primary focus needs to be the development of the best leaders possible, regardless of color (or sex for that matter). Diverting resources into special programs that favor any particular group does nothing but stir resentment in those who aren't given that advantage. That divides the very troops you need to unify. We have programs in place to raise educational levels for those who lacked prior opportunities and leadership ability is evaluated at regular intervals along with performance levels. The key ingredient is the ambition of the individual. It's up to our current leaders to recognize and encourage those individuals, regardless of any other consideration other than leadership potential. To do any thing other is to short-change your brothers and sisters in arms. God bless you all!

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 13 at 2014 8:50 AM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 08:50:27 -0400

The late, great MLK said it best, "...where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character..."

If we start playing the race card and mandating affirmative action amongst the ranks, it will backfire. Guaranteed. Let's stick to evals, achievements, accomplishments, and character over exterior appearances, please, for whatever reason it's happening!

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 13 at 2014 10:11 AM

WO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 10:11:06 -0400

Lack of Officers because minority officers dont/didnt apply to those positions as well as holding a minority makeup of the overall force.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Sep 13 at 2014 10:14 AM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 10:14:51 -0400

This is a difficult topic to say something w/o offending someone, so I apologize up front. When I was in, we were faced with a similar recruiting issue, why are we not getting enough minorities in the guard? None of us, not event the temporary minority committee of NG personnel they put together to figure out the issue could really come up with a reasonable answer. We set up recruiting events geared towards minority groups an run in areas of the state where minority populations were prevalent and our numbers didn't change after 2 years. Numbers and percentages are based on other numbers and percentages and IMHO that has never been sound reasoning for calculations like "almost 10 percent of eligible black majors are being dismissed from the Army compared with 5.6 percent of eligible white majors. If there are less officers of one race than of another and overall there are less of one race vs. another in the entire population then unless the percentages carry through from entire population to military population there will never be an accurate comparison.

What I find disheartening, even when we were doing the recruiting is that the majority population seems to get "blamed" for the issue. Our command came down to each company commander - at that time it was 3 white (I was one) and 2 Latino commanders in our Bn and wanted to know what we could do better. We had plenty of Latino representation in the NG but why not enough Black or Asian? Bottom line from State Command was - what were "we" collectively doing wrong?

Just as a side note COL Javier "Alex" Reina one of my fellow Latino company commanders was recently promoted to COL and is taking command of our unit, the 43rd MP Bde in 2 weeks.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 13 at 2014 12:36 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 12:36:49 -0400

I like what Alan West has to say about it...

"So here we go again with the social engineering concerns, when we should be concerned about the fact that the U.S. Army is at 1940s pre-conscription levels, at a time when we’re facing countless ground-based threats. The last thing I want to see is the pursuit of some misguided affirmative action program in the U.S. Army."

"I always cringe when progressive socialists start talking about “diversity.” Henry O. Flipper, the first black West Point graduate didn’t have any role model, he stepped up."

http://allenbwest.com/2014/09/editorial-says-army-officers-dominated-white-men-liberals-obsessed-race/

Editorial says Army officers are dominated by white men. Why are liberals so obsessed with race?...

Here we go again with social engineering...

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 13 at 2014 1:06 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 13:06:15 -0400

Is not about race, is about what a SM as a person want to do. I'm a Cuban born and raced with dark skin and broken English but that don't hold me down the day I decided to become an warrant officer, is all about you and how far you want to go get it

Response by SFC A.M. Drake made Sep 13 at 2014 1:25 PM

SFC A.M. Drake — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 13:25:37 -0400

Here is the breakdown of Army Forces FY11

http://www.armyg1.army.mil/HR/demographics.asp

Response by SFC Boots Attaway made Sep 13 at 2014 1:58 PM

SFC Boots Attaway — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 13:58:31 -0400

First off the National Guard needs to get rid of the Good Old Boy System that I saw when I was in the guard. Second they need to recognize the everyday soldier more often. I saw several minority soldiers NOT get promoted when they were supposed to and their leaders (NCOs and Officers alike) NOT do anything to get them what they earned or were due. The leaders need to treat every soldier the SAME.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 13 at 2014 2:30 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 14:30:38 -0400

How many minorities do you see in combat units, regardless of rank? Not many. As CPT Private RallyPoint Member stated, most tend to pick logistics or signal. And to that I'll add transportation. A lot of it could simply have to do with numbers.

According to the US Census, this is what America looks like:

White, percent, 2013 77.7%
Black or African American, percent, 2013 13.2%
American Indian and Alaska Native, percent, 2013 1.2%
Asian, percent, 2013 5.3%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent, 2013 0.2%

According to a DoD demographics report from 2012, only 30.3% of active servicemembers identify themselves as a minority and only 24.5% of Reservists/Guardsmen identify themselves as a minority.

I think that all it has to do with is numbers and what minorities are deciding to do. You can't promote people that just aren't there.

Response by Cpl Peter Martuneac made Sep 13 at 2014 3:19 PM

Cpl Peter Martuneac — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 15:19:56 -0400

In the Marines, we say that everybody is green, just a different shade.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 13 at 2014 4:55 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 16:55:53 -0400

Regardless of statistics, THANK GOD FOR AMERICA, STILL THE #1 LAND OF OPPORTUNITY. WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL!

For black and white, and all 50 shades of gray

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 13 at 2014 5:10 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 17:10:18 -0400

A simple, yet lengthy, process to determine the cause of this racial disparity would be to poll/question potential officers attending West Point, OCS, and ROTC and determine their want to become Combat Officers. Secondly, poll present and recently retired African American Officers and question why they chose or opted not to choose positions as Combat Officers.

The results of these polls should be very clear! Personally, I would love to become an officer, however, the combat arms branches would not be in my "top 5".

Response by COL Randall C. made Sep 13 at 2014 7:11 PM

COL Randall C. — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 19:11:50 -0400

This report seems to be along the lines of a rehash of the one that the Associate Press put out in 2011 saying that there are too many white males leading the military. Back then it said that 77% of the senior officers were white and 84% of them were male. Of course, in 2011, 77% of all active duty officers were white and 84% of them were male. Go figure.

I am not sure about the accuracy of the report - couple of goofs when you compare the numbers in the article with the published statistics (for example, less than 10% active officers are black ... Army published number are a bit more than 12%, doing the same for active enlisted, you get 18% (article) vs 22.7% (published)), so I'm curious what exactly they were using for the source. As LTC Paul Heinlein pointed out, the information about "No black BDE Commanders" is incorrect. How incorrect, I'm not sure, but the article looks like it is is starting to become strewn with inaccuracies [Note, I used the latest Defense Manpower Report for the official statistics] ... [edit: I also just figured out using 'less than' or 'greater than' signs in your text will make it think you're doing some sort of HTTP reference ;)]

It does bear out what CPT Private RallyPoint Member and the report stated about less black officers going combat arms though. The USA article says that the Army stated (take it with a grain of salt) that 7% of the Army officers are combat arms, compared with 12.2% of the total officers.

I agree with LTC Paul Labrador comments above regarding looking at the pipeline, however not sure about specifics. More minorities are getting bachelor degrees (from 1990 to 2013 .. Blacks 13%->20%, Hispanics 8%->16%) but whites have increased at a higher % (26%-40%). Is this a case of 'a rising tide raises all boats' or something else? If you look at the info from the Army's G1 Demographics section (from FY11), blacks aged 25-54 years old holding an advanced degree were 9% of the total population but were 13% of the Army officer population (using the latest DMR, that slice is 12.2%)

I agree with CPT Private RallyPoint Member regarding quotas. We may have goals, but none of those 'break the rules until you get the numbers' type of quotas (if you have a quota that doesn't have a big negative associated if you don't meet it, then you really have a goal that is being called a quota).

I also agree with SFC Jerry Crouch and LTC Private RallyPoint Member regarding their comment about free will. I've never seen any indication that minorities have been steered away from combat arms because of race. I've seen them steered towards another branch because they have attributes better suited for it (or, more nefariously, because there is an incentive to steer them that way such as goals and such), but again, never because it was a "lets put less minorities in combat arms".

I'm with MAJ Keith Young ... I have no idea why the article was written.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 13 at 2014 10:38 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 22:38:45 -0400

Two phrases that stand out in regards to the question:

"Among the complications: expanding the pool of minority candidates qualified to be officers, and helping them choose the right military jobs they'll need to climb the ranks, Lewis says."

and

"Parents, pastors and coaches of young black men and women considering the Army often don't encourage them to join the combat specialties."

Two questions:
1) By which means would the "pool be expanded"? You are either qualified for commission or you're not. If a combat job held higher potential for "climbing the ladder", qualified non-minorities would be competing as well, and we'd be back to the original question.
2) If black youth are dissuaded from combat specialties, in general, wouldn't it stand to reason that black officers would compose an even smaller bracket in the combat MOSs?

Response by SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 14 at 2014 12:54 AM

SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 14 Sep 2014 00:54:48 -0400

When I was in AIT I read an article saying that there were not enough African-Americans, in the officer Corps. My biggest issue with both of those articles is that, 1: We have the ability to choose our course in the Army, even if we don't know all of the options that exist that we are allowed to choose. 2: These types of articles make me not want to become an officer, even though I have a degree, and I am asked when I won't do it, but I never want my soldiers, or other leaders to look at me, and wonder if I made it to where I am based upon my own merits or if it was because the Army was trying to fill what was a perceived problem. I am where I am today in the Army because of my own hard work, and the belief from my leaders that I could make it. At no point do I ever want someone to think that I was handed something. I know that that may seem like a foolish reason to not want to be an Officer, but to me it is important. At no point have I ever felt that there was a sense of prejudice in the Army, and that could be that I've only been in for 4 years, but most of what I have seen has come from the outside in. I can't see why this is an issue for the Army, you can't give the soldiers a choice for what they want to do in the Army, and when they choose, it becomes a problem, that they didn't choose something else.

Response by LT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 14 at 2014 11:47 AM

LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 14 Sep 2014 11:47:31 -0400

I don't think it is necessarily just black officer. The idea of the US military is to have a melting pot of races and ethnicities. Furthermore, it's not just the Army that is lacking in this area, it is all branches. I believe all branches are looking to put people in those other races in to leadership positions (hence the race boxes on the applications), however, if they are eligible they need to apply.

Response by SSG Kevin McCulley made Sep 14 at 2014 4:24 PM

SSG Kevin McCulley — Sun, 14 Sep 2014 16:24:59 -0400

Personally, I think the officers that came up with this have just self identified for RIFing because if they have time to think up this kind of stuff they aren't focused on their assigned duties.

Response by SSG Kevin McCulley made Sep 14 at 2014 5:15 PM

SSG Kevin McCulley — Sun, 14 Sep 2014 17:15:13 -0400

A couple of items of note: The only way you can make the Armed Services direct demographic mirrors of society is to enact a draft. Since military service is voluntary in the United States, any attempt to 'force' diversity will be at the expense of merit. Just like an SSG waiting for an SFC to retire or be promoted so that slot can become available for them to move up, do you want a system where it becomes: "Ahh.. damn.. A Hispanic SFC slot opened up and I'm Asian!" If you think that is preposterous, it is EXACTLY what would have to happen.

Next, the disparity is the lack of representation in combat arms for black soldiers. This can be for two reasons: A> Choice B> OML Standing. I am not going to touch B with a 10 foot pole so I'll hit A. I think there are cultural pressures for not choosing combat arms. Back in high school I heard it said, "Why would I die for a racist country that hates me?" Most of the black soldiers in the Infantry company I grew up in were actually FROM Africa… and incidentally some of the best soldiers in the company. As the article states, this is the pool from which our senior leaders are chosen. I hate to use the Obama retort but, if we have men of Colin Powell’s caliber having Chairman of the Joint Chiefs under his name on the sign in the hall, I think it hard to talk about racial barriers. I also push the point that Colin Powell was elevated to his chair in 1989, 25 years ago!

I think the United States Army has made more progress towards being post-racial than any other element of the US Government. It clouded my perceptions on race in ways I didn’t notice until I visited parts of the country where it is a significant issue. In the mall, you can always tell a group of soldiers in civilian clothes because you’ll see a group with diversity that screams at you. (e.g. 1 hip-hop, 1 redneck, 1 goth like dude with too many chains on his wallet, 1 prep dude all walking together) These groups of people would likely NEVER mix if not for the Army. It was very striking when I was a Private and we would agree to meet at the mall and once there see how differently our styles were. When you’re in uniform, none of that is visible and none of it matters. Hell, none of it matters out of uniform either. I really hate it when people look through everything through the lens of race. If you look hard enough for patterns in the noise, you will find them, real or imagined.

Response by SGT Thomas Lucken made Sep 14 at 2014 8:14 PM

SGT Thomas Lucken — Sun, 14 Sep 2014 20:14:58 -0400

SFC Drake, that is a good question!

I was combat arms from 82 to 91 (9 1/2 years) and I was a contractor from 91 to 00 and strictly worked with combat arms. There have been very feel that have gone combat arms and the ones that I know who were, always excelled! Even the aviation officers and warrant officers did also.

General Brooks is a good example! I work with him and his unit at the time 2-9 Inf in Korea 96 - 98. He was a fast tracker, very intelligent, down to earth, and alot of common sense. More soldiers need to be like him....

Another good example was LTG Doctor, was 2ID Commander in 84-85....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Doctor,_Jr.

Henry Doctor, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lieutenant General Henry Doctor, Jr. was the Commanding General, 2nd Infantry Division, Eighth United States Army, based in the Republic of Korea (South Korea). His last assignment was as an Inspector General of the U.S. Army.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 15 at 2014 1:33 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 15 Sep 2014 01:33:15 -0400

SFC A.M. Drake - I think at a point and time there was a need for affirmative action, if anything to demonstrate capability. I have my ideas as to why and generally avoid overly generalized comments using the racism as a catch-all for every problem. But I would like to know why too. There may be good answers but would like to know what they may be.

And as far as affirmative action, the concept should always introduction and education. If a person wishes they can achieve what they want if they apply themselves (even with help/mentoring). David Robinson is a perfect example and there are others. So, I would like to know what you are asking and I do not think there is necessarily racial reasons but perhaps seeing if more and blacks would love certain career paths.

Let me know what you find out or even your take on this.
Larry

Response by Sgt Packy Flickinger made Sep 15 at 2014 3:51 AM

Sgt Packy Flickinger — Mon, 15 Sep 2014 03:51:18 -0400

To be an officer one must have a college degree. I've read studies that states the percentage of minorities obtaining college degrees is low.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 15 at 2014 7:45 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 15 Sep 2014 07:45:23 -0400

This response will probably be taken out of context but it has factual merit. When I was a recruiter I noticed a trend in applicants choosing certain fields. Obviously female applicants were narrowed to certain non-combat fields back then but I noticed a very large amount of, and I hate the term, minority applicants choosing sustainment fields.
Were they being coached by friends and peers to select certain career fields? Probably, but ultimately it came down to ASVAB scores and other required qualifications. In my recruiting zone certain groups traditionally scored lower and therefore weren't eligible for certain fields. Several that did obtain the needed scores were found ineligible due to other criteria.
I actually remember a person coming in for an interview stating they " wanted a career where they were in no danger, worked inside and didn't get too dirty". I pointed across the street to McDonalds but they didn't find that funny.
BLUF: People choose the field they want to work in and if the promotions are slower that is their own fault.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 15 at 2014 11:55 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 15 Sep 2014 11:55:53 -0400

I noticed something, looking at an article on this issue yesterday: the primary distinction between officer and enlisted is a 4-year college degree. Only about 1% of the U.S. population is both African American and has a 4-year degree, yet 10% of Army officers are African American with, I'd bet in about every case, a 4-year degree. Based on that, I disagree with the basic premise that African Americans are underrepresented among officers.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 15 at 2014 1:12 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 15 Sep 2014 13:12:08 -0400

I don't see this as such a dire issue, in reality the apparent lack of minority officers in charge of combat Mos or any MOS is not due to some EO drop. This seems to be a case of creating a problem where there isn't one. In the next change of command or so the numbers will flex like they always do.

Response by SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 15 at 2014 1:38 PM

SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 15 Sep 2014 13:38:07 -0400

I don't give a (bleep) what color skin people have.
I do care about the content of their character and competency.

Response by SGT Mike Young made Sep 15 at 2014 2:38 PM

SGT Mike Young — Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:38:25 -0400

I find it odd that we're even having this conversation.
The racism charge has been raised before about combat arms.
In particular when, during the Vietnam era, blacks represented a higher percentage of the combat arms than they did as a percentage of the population as a whole.
Which is it?
Back then, it's a racist system when the draft era places minorities in direct combat roles and they're more likely to get killed.
But now, it's racist when minorities are apparently (statistically) self segregating themselves into non-direct combat roles and the Army doesn't attempt to aggressively recruit them into jobs where they're more likely to get killed.
So it's racist against minorities that whites are volunteering for and comprising the over whelming majority of combat arms and special operations forces personnel?
Read that twice and let the stupidity of it sink in for a bit.
I'm really confused..... I thought this was an all volunteer force and that we want only the best qualified people, who volunteer to lead, regardless of "what" or "who" they are.... to lead our warriors at the tip of the spear?
"Mad-Max" Ex-Infantry NCO, Scout and Medic (Yes, I had three MOS)

Response by MAJ(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 15 at 2014 3:06 PM

MAJ(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 15 Sep 2014 15:06:39 -0400

If it is true that African American Officers are simply choosing branches outside of Combat Arms and it is something that the Army wants to change, the Army should do what the business world do and market Combat Arms jobs to the African American community. There are marketing firms that do this well in the commercial world. There are also probably some Advanced Civil Schooling MBA Graduates kicking around the Army somewhere. Sounds like a good TDY assignment in DC for some lucky individuals to work on.

Response by SFC Jeff L. made Sep 15 at 2014 3:52 PM

SFC Jeff L. — Mon, 15 Sep 2014 15:52:47 -0400

I am wondering why this is a topic of discussion at all. If, as has been stated previously, this is not an EO/Racism issue, then why is it an issue? The answer, in my opinion, is that it is intended to instigate racial contention where none, or very little, exists. If it truly is just a matter of coincidence or observable trends then why is it news? What is the author's intent?

It seems pretty straight-forward. Black enlistees tend toward support and combat-support MOSs. If that's the case then they will naturally be under-represented in terms of leadership roles in combat skills, and over-represented in CS/support skills. The representation goes both ways - combat skills will have fewer promotions, but fewer RIFs too. CS and support skills will see more promotions and more RIFs.

Response by CW5 Sam R. Baker made Sep 15 at 2014 4:30 PM

CW5 Sam R. Baker — Mon, 15 Sep 2014 16:30:33 -0400

When I was a younger Soldier wearing Warrant Officer Candidate (WOC) rank at Fort Rucker, Alabama, the subject came up in our academics in 1993 about aviation. The question posed to us then much as it is now was that aviation (flight school) is composed primarily of Caucasian males and not of female and other ethnic groups. I cannot state the actual statistics, but the concern was the perception that the branch was racial based upon who was already there and not the applications being received.

The Army cannot force Soldiers into a branch or field not of their choosing. Simply put, we did not have the candidates submitting packets from the population. Regardless of the recruiting, EO and other balancing programs, the pool of volunteers has to be there. It is a volunteer Department of Defense and anyone can enlist for the branch/service of their choosing, the occupational skill set they so desire as long as they are qualified.

My best comment can be from my platoon sergeant (SSG Dunlap) back in 1987. He always said to me, "Private Baker, I am a green man"; He had black skin, but I have always upheld his analogy, it wears on me well.

In closing, the Army motto of the past is still its best, "Be all you can be" and the Army in my humble opinion allows it to be just that.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 15 at 2014 5:53 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 15 Sep 2014 17:53:20 -0400

I saw this on Army Times. The thing I would focus on is the "why infantry". In the article it talked about how many African American Officers choose combat support or combat service support branches.

Many choose these units because of the development of skills that will help them in the civilian world, and an easier path for higher rank.

Now I'm an infantry officer. I chose infantry going from 74D (chemical) to 11B (enlisted infantry) to 11A (officer infantry) because that is what I wanted to do. I enjoy being in the woods, shooting, and military strategy and tactics. Now my civilian career mirrors more Signal and I get many people wanting me to go Signal being my degree is electrical engineering.

There are challenges to choosing the Infantry field being black. But go off into the civilian world into an area where your not represented in great numbers and you will deal with the similar issues.

Others have done it before. General Colin Powell is a great example. I would say to read his autobiography and learn from the examples he has given.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 15 at 2014 6:47 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 15 Sep 2014 18:47:29 -0400

Upon reading most of the comments in this thread, the word "choice" comes up quite a bit when in fact, many Officers did not have a choice. When I submitted by packet for OCS back in 2009, I was automatically branched by HRC. Prior service personnel did not have choice of branch back then.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 15 at 2014 10:46 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 15 Sep 2014 22:46:19 -0400

As a leader and Combat Arms guy…….I don't care what color my Officers, fellow NCO's or Enlisted are.

The only thing I care about are they professional and know their job. This obsession with skin color, sexual preference, gender is IMHO a bunch of "bull-pucky". The Army is about merit and skill. You ether rise to a certain level or you don't.

I have seen some favoritism based on color in the Army from those of white and black decent. It goes both ways and its BS. But racism is never going to be 100% eliminated from humanity. We just have to deal with it. The more we obsess over it, it just gives an excuse for mediocrity. "I didn't get promoted because I'm___________ (insert whatever here)", when they didn't get promoted because they sucked at their job. A stellar performer will rise to the top no matter what color they are.

I have worked for, led, mentored, sweated with, froze with and been scared to death with some fine Americans of every color and race. We are all green on the outside and bleed red to me.

Maybe we don't have enough left handed, Hungarian speaking officers of Chinese ancestry as combat leaders ether? IMHO we need to come together and start worrying about all those gents hanging out in Iraq who would cut our heads off with a dull blade.

They don't give two farts in a whirlwind what color we are. They want a battle…..

Response by COL Charles Williams made Sep 16 at 2014 12:32 AM

COL Charles Williams — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 00:32:13 -0400

Let's forget about best qualified... and figure out the ratio by race, and then apportion command slots solely based on the demographics. Who cares if the best qualified officers are leading our combat units. This is all about sharing and being fair. Enough with this crap. Do your best, and get the best jobs; simple. As a white guy, I could never complain I didn't get the command I wanted because I was white... In my 33 years I saw idiots, black and white get commands... heck, they probably thought the same of me. This is not about race, color, creed, national origin, sex, branch, or fairness... This is about who is best qualified to command, regardless of what they look like. Stop the insanity with White Privilege and minorities are not getting their fair share.... If equality is what we really wanted, it would not be about fairness, it would best qualified (period).

Response by COL Charles Williams made Sep 16 at 2014 12:33 AM

COL Charles Williams — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 00:33:49 -0400

Stop!!!!

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 16 at 2014 7:40 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 07:40:40 -0400

I think the largest problem with this article is that race was brought into it in the first place. Leadership and positions of leadership are not a race issue. It's an issue of having the right man or woman for the job, regardless of race. You do not pick and choose who you want in certain positions based on race. You can't just say, we don't have enough Hispanic officers leading infantry units. Lets put some in those positions. When you start playing the race ratio game you lose. The bottom line is you take the best person for the job. An officer's (or NCO's) race has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the military. The leadership capabilities of that individual are what affects effectiveness. I think for the most part, we in the military have moved beyond race and become more colorblind than even the country as a whole. Sadly, the media will never believe it or see it that way.

Response by CPO Greg Frazho made Sep 16 at 2014 12:23 PM

CPO Greg Frazho — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 12:23:56 -0400

That was an extremely in depth analysis of a complex problem. Actually, maybe it's not so complex. The story made the point and I agree with it: all service members of all branches need mentors. I used to think that was a bunch of corporate bullshit about 15 years ago. I no longer feel that way at all. As it said, your mentor doesn't have to look like you, or you like him or her. As long as you have one, it yields huge dividends whether or not you stay for one enlistment, one tour of duty or make a career of it.

Response by 1SG Harold Piet made Sep 16 at 2014 3:28 PM

1SG Harold Piet — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 15:28:44 -0400

Stop talking about the problems and start talking solutions, I served with some very good soldiers of all racial backgrounds and also served with some Sorry soldiers of all backgrounds, we need to focus on "team" not the army of one, I never had a bad team. I got rid of soldiers that did not want to perform and didn't give a rats a$$ if they were from north south white pink black or anything else. My soldiers worked hard, played hard and were always respected.

Response by SFC Clark Adams made Sep 16 at 2014 7:12 PM

SFC Clark Adams — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 19:12:28 -0400

The bottom line is the well educated Black people who could be successful officers in the military are the same people that businesses are seeking. The historical placement of Black officers has been in the logistical elements of the Army. These Logisticians and Administrative officers gain skills that make them attractive to business so they have an even greater tendency to leave the military. The Combat Arms Branches sit at the top of the food chain and for junior officers there is a significant amount of demands that border on dog eat dog activities to advance. In my three years in a rifle battalion back in the 70's I encountered two Captains who were Black and only one Black Infantry Second Lieutenant. That 2LT BTW is now GEN Loyd Austin!The Scout Platoon Leader is recognized as the premier LT in the battalion , yet I've never seen a Black Scout Platoon Leader, along with a Black Bn S-3.
I encountered a good number of Black Medical Service Corps officers during my service in medical units and virtually no Black Aviators while in an Attack Helicopter battalions.At the direction of DA my son who is an Infantry Major who was transferred from the Operational tract to become an Operational Research Analyst after successfully commanding a Cavalry Troop as a Captain. The Squadron XO was the only other Black officer in his unit at that time. I think this issue is being overplayed in the sense that the Army decides in which Branch officers serve and if it wants greater representation of Blacks in the Combat Arms, it should assign them to those branches. These officers should be properly mentored and motivated to remain in the service as Combat Arms officers and not be involuntarily shunted off to other duties.

Response by 1SG Joseph Kelly made Sep 16 at 2014 7:26 PM

1SG Joseph Kelly — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 19:26:06 -0400

Becoming an officer is voluntary. Individuals who do not choose this career path don't get to complain.
I have seen many officers across all range of minority, the majority will tell you that all fields are open to all.
There are those who want to stir the pot.
Carry on

Response by COL Charles Williams made Sep 16 at 2014 11:15 PM

COL Charles Williams — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 23:15:29 -0400

This was my actual response SFC Drake. "Let's forget about best qualified... and figure out the ratio by race, and then apportion command slots solely based on the demographics. Who cares if the best qualified officers are leading our combat units. This is all about sharing and being fair. Enough with this crap. Do your best, and get the best jobs; simple. As a white guy, I could never complain I didn't get the command I wanted because I was white... In my 33 years I saw idiots, black and white get commands... heck, they probably thought the same of me. This is about best qualified, not race, color, creed, sex, national origin, or branch...

Response by Cpl Robert Masi made Sep 17 at 2014 9:55 AM

Cpl Robert Masi — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 09:55:58 -0400

There is clear and blatant racism in this article...and I think it's funny that they say the Military is a Representation of America and it's values.......That's not true at all. The Military are the people that put differences aside and fight for a common good. That's not the case in America. In fact, they spend all their time identifying themselves on how they are different, and self segregate. And that seems to be what's going on with the Officers.
Part of that started with the repeal of DADT...now people are going around saying they are a Gay-Marine, or Gay-Airman....that opens the gates of self segregation....Now we'll be like the civs...I'm not a Marine, I'm a African-American-MexiCali-Marine.

....give me a break with that nonsense. The PC Liberal and Democrat Weakness Culture is starting to get it's grips on the Military.
It's breaking down the standards...because it's not fair the standards to join are so high (I'm looking at you Females Marines)...and it's making softer minded individuals that start looking at things as "That's Not Fair", or "That hurts my Feelings".

Response by CW3 Robert Brazas made Sep 17 at 2014 11:34 AM

CW3 Robert Brazas — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 11:34:07 -0400

The story says the leadership has a plan, I hope so. I just hope the plan doesn't include assigning or promoting officers beyond their skill level. As a junior Warrant Officer I was in a battalion that received a change of command just prior to deploying for Desert Storm. The new Bn Cdr told all of us in his fist briefing to us, that he was well aware that he would not be a LTC or a Commander if he wasn't black. He then went on to prove over the next 18 months why he was totally unqualified for command. This doesn't do anyone any favors, and endangers the solders and the mission.

Response by CH (CPT) Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 17 at 2014 1:57 PM

CH (CPT) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:57:24 -0400

Those who have the drive, the motivation and the hooah heart sign up for these job...plain and simple.

Response by SrA Andrew Morel made Sep 17 at 2014 4:10 PM

SrA Andrew Morel — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 16:10:25 -0400

I will tell you this for a fact!! My son Just graduated Basic Training and is off to AIT in FT Lee. He was a Platoon Sgt 1st Class the entire time. He was also a squad leader. When we visited him at Family day at Ft. Jackson. He told me horror Stories about the Chain of Command with in the Army. I was temped to write a letter to the Commander but decided not to make waves. It appears there is NO (ZERO) respect for officers from the NCO ranks within the ARMY. Comments would be made in front of the SITs when a Company commander would walk away. His rank was a Capt. How when they go through training and see this would they want to assume any command when there is a break down in training so egregious like this one. The Army needs to take a close look at its training and the respect its training its recruits to when it comes to CoC. When I served in the Air Force this type of stuff never happened. When I was going through Combat School at Ft. Dix it wasnt like that back then either.

Response by Cpl Dean Peterson made Sep 17 at 2014 4:38 PM

Cpl Dean Peterson — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 16:38:46 -0400

What does skin color have to do with this?
Answer; Absolutely F'n nothing!

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 17 at 2014 5:37 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 17:37:22 -0400

You title your comment with "minority officers" then continue to discuss only black officers as if no other minority exists. If we want to discuss minorities or diversity we need to include others besides just blacks. Does it really threaten the Army's effectiveness and disconnect it from American society because there is a lack of only black officers?

How effective an NCO or Officer is in leading and taking care of Soldiers is a matter of character and the heart, not who is the face or poster child of an organization. We have mascots for that. Do we want leaders or PR representatives? To be frank, the only thing that I have seen when it comes to matters of race is the forming of cliques. Blacks with blacks, whites with whites, hispanics with hispanics and Asians... well, there just aren't very many of us. Cliques defeat the very purpose and intent of diversity. So really, I find it to be a non-issue of what race is an officer and what race is in command. What matters are the core values of the individual and their competency that makes the Army effective.

What do you think are the tangible impacts of race on Army effectiveness that you claim?

Response by COL James Stevens Roach made Sep 18 at 2014 8:08 AM

COL James Stevens Roach — Thu, 18 Sep 2014 08:08:51 -0400

Just as we should not exclude individuals from any position because of their race, we should also not pick individuals for any position because of their race. The logical selection criteria should always be the individual's abililty to successfully do the job. And it takes about 18-20 years of hard work and study to prepare yourself to be the Battalion Commander in any branch of the Military. Competence in the military is measured in Mission Effectiveness and in number of lives lost. There are lives on the line, and better the Commander's competence the fewer lives lost.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 18 at 2014 10:19 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 18 Sep 2014 10:19:08 -0400

Being an Army veteran I noticed the lack of black soldiers in combat arms jobs. I think this is more a personal choice for those soldiers rather than racism on the part of the Army or recruiters. That is their choice to be able to enlist in the job they choose.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 18 at 2014 3:28 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 18 Sep 2014 15:28:15 -0400

I have to back up what CPT Wolfer stated. I have been in Command of a Cavalry Squadron for over 1.5 years now and I have had only one black officer in the Squadron during that time. If they don't start here, they can't get to the top. We need diversity in the officer corps. We don't need to go waving it around and enforcing affirmative action, but we need a representation of the people of the United States.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 18 at 2014 3:54 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 18 Sep 2014 15:54:02 -0400

As a service member and a grunt for a 3 year period of my career I didn't see many ethnicities other than Caucasian and Hispanic in the CAV. Not to say there weren’t others, I served next to Black, Asian and Native Americans just to name a few. In combat arms there really isn’t color so much as brotherhood. I am enlisted but have family and friends that choose the Commissioned officer path, like enlisted personnel, they to have a choice to make upon entry into the ARMY, if we are short of “minorities” within combat related career fields, who’s to blame? The ARMY, I think not, each and every individual makes that choice for his or herself. As many of you know, a test is taken for aptitude, to determine which career field(s) would best suit the individual and ARMY. We’re all subject to the same standards and have taken this test prior to enlistment of military service. So my opinion is very simple, if you want to know why there isn’t more “minorities” in combat arm career fields, simply poll the officers that meet the criteria and compile that information into an article, I’d be glad to read and find out what the top 10 responses are. In addition, why are we even looking into the color aspect instead of user our intelligence to do more good in our part of the world? Since we’re on the topic, I would ask that people look into the ARMY supply system and do the math, come up with some ethnicity ratios for that career field and do an article on that. I’ll bet you’ll find some of those officers you were looking for. Thanks

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 18 at 2014 5:27 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 18 Sep 2014 17:27:03 -0400

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 18 at 2014 8:27 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 18 Sep 2014 20:27:42 -0400

I wonder why the author chose to focus on Combat Arms. Combat Arms is not for everyone, enlisted or officer. If the author wanted to take a look at what I think would be a more interesting issue, it would be why is the Army percentage of minority officers more than double that of the other services (except the Navy, the Army has 4% more minority officers than the Navy).

Not saying that the issue may need to be looked at, in 2013 the Army did decrease in total minority officers by 1%, from 27% to 26% overall.

In looking at grades O7 thru O-10, Army 13.4%, Navy 8.10%, USMC 12.4, USAF 5.9%. Why shouldn't the disparity between the Navy/AF to USA/USMC be more of an issue. Why did he select the issue of Army-Combat Arms.

If Officers want to go Combat Arms, they have to work hard enough in the USMA, OCS, ROTC, etc to earn their top choices. Lets not base their decisions on their race, lets base it on their desire to be all they want to be.

Let's not create an issue where the Army will try to fix a problem that just may not be a problem. WE have to many un-fixed issues out there already.

I'm no genius or statistical rocket scientist, however, I know Soldiers. So, I hope the real concern will be in keeping the best/most qualified Officers leading Soldiers, Bn, Bde, Div, etc and not create some quota system that does otherwise. Soldiers could care less what race or nationality "Good" Leaders are! And Rightly so!

Response by CDR Robert Gore made Sep 18 at 2014 9:38 PM

CDR Robert Gore — Thu, 18 Sep 2014 21:38:15 -0400

Who came up with the "fact" that diversity makes us a better military? Diversity of what? Skin color? I don't care about skin color and the whole point of the equal rights movement was that we shouldn't care. We would be better served if the energy used in discussions like this were instead used to discuss tactics, leadership, etc. If blacks want to chose the fields they do, let them, and if that affects the percentage of leadership they represent, so what? Suck it up and move on. And you know what else, I really don't think our countrymen will want a representative sample of women in combat arms. Imagine that wave hitting Omaha Beach.

As for being drawn to a unit in which your family served, that is referred to as the regimental concept, as I recall. It was a central element in rebuilding the military in the Reagan years and sought to overcome major negative morale issues surrounding the Vietnam war. That is why today that you see whole units rather than individuals rotated in theater as was the case in Vietnam. We have looked at this wheel and decided that family continuity in units is a good thing. Let's not reinvent it. When we overthink these things, we get Robert McNamara. Let's not do that again.

Response by SSG Joseph Herbert made Sep 19 at 2014 12:34 PM

SSG Joseph Herbert — Fri, 19 Sep 2014 12:34:57 -0400

Social Diversity is not, or at least, should not be an issue herein. The effectiveness of the Force is an issue, and it has nothing to do with ethnicity. In the thirty years I spent in the service, I met excellent officers of all ethnicities and genders, I met an equal number who had extreme difficulty walking and chewing gum.
The problem being discussed is endemic of the crisis in Pk-12 Education, fewer persons from areas with large ethnically diverse populations are able to qualify for the Service Academies and Reserve Officer Training Corps Programs, while simultaneously reduced revenues have stifled the in-service Officer Candidate Training Programs.
The result is predictable, a return to the 1800's ethnically, where only well-to-do individuals from good schools are the predominant source for Officer Training Programs.

Response by MSG Tim Gray made Sep 19 at 2014 2:22 PM

MSG Tim Gray — Fri, 19 Sep 2014 14:22:05 -0400

That is some of the stupidest shit I have ever heard! How does that affect military readiness? Better yet, how does it degrade capability? Just because you say some officers and sociologists said it does, well that doesn't speak truth to nothing. Are you just trolling here, or do you have a valid point that can be substantiated?

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 19 at 2014 4:05 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 19 Sep 2014 16:05:52 -0400

I recall back in 2006 when I enlisted, my recruiter only offered signal to me. Gave me the old "college money ploy" and it worked. I'm sure it had everything to do with the location of the nearest armory and not some strange type of discrimination.

Fast forward to 2013: during cadet accessions males were giving the "privilege" to choose two combat branches out of our first three. Naturally I chose to stick to my roots and place signal first followed by armor, then infantry as my next choice.

I was selected for infantry and I can honestly say I'm ok with that. It is an honor to serve in any capacity as an support or combat officer.

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made Sep 20 at 2014 10:18 AM

COL Vincent Stoneking — Sat, 20 Sep 2014 10:18:08 -0400

Another viewpoint. A cogent article, whether you agree with its conclusions or not, assuming you can ignore its spelling errors. The comments are ... the comments. And highlight why discussions are better here than elsewhere.

Edit: Doh! I forgot the link!! http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/09/18/dont_blame_my_army_for_the_lack_of_black_officers_in_combat_commands

Don’t blame my Army for the lack of black officers in combat commands

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 20 at 2014 12:09 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 20 Sep 2014 12:09:02 -0400

SFC Drake, do you seriously think that "threatens the Army's effectiveness, disconnects it from American society and deprives black officers of the principal route to top Army posts?" Did you know that Eisenhower was a MAJ for 16 years, and basically was a logistics man?
It is all about assignments and choices of the officers themselves. American Population has about 13.2% Blacks, the percentage of black officers is not that far off. I don't think that the percentage of blacks in infantry matches their responding military population, they are heavily in the support commands. Why don't you complain about the lack of Hispanics in the military? 13.2% in the military, vs. 17% of the population. Please tell me, which of the 25 BDE commanders (whites) would you replace for incompetence and name me the black officer you think is better?

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 20 at 2014 12:32 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 20 Sep 2014 12:32:43 -0400

Here is a nice article for you all to read...

Don’t blame my Army for the lack of black officers in combat commands

Response by MSG Michiel Moland made Sep 20 at 2014 4:11 PM

MSG Michiel Moland — Sat, 20 Sep 2014 16:11:56 -0400

For me I see a lot of change, "The more things change, the more they stay the same" SFC Drake, your serving for 28yrs in America's Army, I thank you, I started back in 1971 put out at 60, 2012. 40yrs. In the 70" we had two America's service, all were the same. It was White and minority's. [plus bed wetter, Donald Duck (Navy), Girl scout, Passion fruit & fairy. we were all train to hate them.] Ask a Marine how many types of Marines are there? (Dark & light) The Army Air Corps minority officers Most stated were the best. Let's get back to making the future, It should be change for the better, not the color, who rich or rank, but for all.

Response by CPT Mike M. made Sep 20 at 2014 8:04 PM

CPT Mike M. — Sat, 20 Sep 2014 20:04:26 -0400

As long as we keep bringing attention to ethnic divides, there will be ethnic divides. Quickest way in my opinion to get rid of views like that would be to just stop talking about it. I'm not saying that if someone legitimately does or says something racist that they shouldn't be dealt with. I'm merely saying that we shouldn't keep giving undue attention to topics that don't have any significant meaning.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 20 at 2014 9:17 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 20 Sep 2014 21:17:49 -0400

I originally enlisted in 1973 in the Infantry (Vietnam was still on for those too young to know this), at the time there was a heavy concentration of enlisted minorities in my field. I did see some minority Officers but not many. The common complaint that I heard from fellow Soldiers was America was placing minorities in Combat Arms to be targets in combat. The other complaint was our job didn't prepare you for any comparable civilian position. After 5 years in the Infantry, I tore an Achilles tendon and changed to an MOS in combat service support. Over the years and having served in numerous locations and positions, I have seen the pendulum swing the other way where as the article points out, many minorities are seeking military positions that will lead to a well paying civilian job. My question is the same as many who posted here, what is the purpose of the article? Do we have a large number of minorities who are enlisting or commissioning that had their hearts set on combat arms and was denied the opportunity to be in this field? Do we want the military to try steering minorities into combat arms once again and risk the appearance of an ulterior motive other than a possibility of promotion?

Response by LTC Joseph Gross made Sep 21 at 2014 11:23 AM

LTC Joseph Gross — Sun, 21 Sep 2014 11:23:21 -0400

I attended CAS3 back in 97 or so. My small group instructor was a black LTC in the MP Corps. This study had just come out back then, we do this ever five years or so, and he had an informed decision on it. Minorities of every type do not choose to serve in Combat Arms because by and large they see the military as a way forward or a stepping stone to a larger future. They would prefer a job in logistics or even MP and Intelligence where they can see the next step in the civilian world. At the time they were much more likely than their white counterparts to leave after their initial term of service.

There is nothing wrong with this. And it is not the business of the Army to fix societies problems. It is also not the business of the Army to "reflect society"! And it doesn't matter how often we repeat that phrase. Our job is to defend society. Anything that weakens that position is antithetical to the military and should be stamped out!

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 21 at 2014 2:01 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 21 Sep 2014 14:01:34 -0400

Maybe we should look at professional sports like basketball and football and force more diversity, regardless of what positions people sign up for or their actual ability.

The military has led the charge on many fronts and EO is no exception. So much so that major corporations have looked at the military model as the standard to follow.

The same people that write the article insinuating some type of racial bias are the same ones who accused the military of sending all the minorities to the front lines during OIF I. All false and all in the effort to stir the pot for an agenda not for real progress.

Response by MSG Mitch Dowler made Sep 22 at 2014 5:07 PM

MSG Mitch Dowler — Mon, 22 Sep 2014 17:07:53 -0400

The headline refers to minority officers but the story itself refers to black officers. There is an advantage within combat arms and getting promoted to the highest ranks. There is also an advantage in choosing non combat arms fields in that the experience applies more to civilian career applications. There is also the advantage that deployments may be less frequent and more comfortable. I don't see any disadvantage for the Army because there is no problem finding willing and effective leaders.

There are cultural differences between the races and the sexes. I don't believe these cultural differences and tendencies should be viewed as problems. We have the most effective fighting forces when everyone finds the niche they fit best and are assigned accordingly.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 14 at 2014 9:53 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Oct 2014 09:53:18 -0400

I actually feel offended by this article. I thought we had moved beyond racism in this country (or at least in the Army) with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the "I have a dream speech." The whole premise was to judge people based on the content of their character, not the color of their skin. I believe I've been true to that.

From what I've heard about the boards is that they are quite diverse and no one person can influence the whole group. That tells me that even if there was a racist person on the board (promotion or separation) that there would not be a way for that person to really inject his/her racist views into the board process.

I read the article below about the Chief of Staff saying that a lack of black officers in the combat arms is a problem and that they were disproportionately cut by the separation board. As much as I disagree with the manner in which that board was conducted, I cannot believe that the board made racist decisions. I believe the Chief of Staff is searching for a problem that doesn't necessarily exist. I think the separation board looked at the content of every officer's record (for up to 60 seconds) and made a decision. I don't think it was based on skin color. If it was, then the problem lays with the board process.

Yes, diversity in the ranks is good - it brings different viewpoints and different methods to achieving results. It also reflects the diversity of the country.

Was the board racist? I highly doubt it. The board would have to consist of one type of people for that to happen, and I don't think that's likely in the current board process.

Is there a way to bring more diversity into the combat arms branches? This will be based on the recruiters and the interest of the candidates - and, of course, the commissioning board (needs of the Army).

While I am on the "soapbox," I think a better way of conducting these boards is by MOS. 11A competes against 11A, 25A competes against 25A, and so on. That way the Army can be assured that the right number of a particular MOS is getting promoted or separated. I think the way it works now is all combat arms is competing against each other, but that leads to the possibility of promoting too many of one MOS at the expense of another.

Sorry for ranting, but when I read that article I had all those thoughts I felt should be expressed somehow. In short, I don't think the boards are racist, and I don't think the Army as a whole is racist. There may be some pockets here and there, but I don't see how the boards can be compromised in that way. I think the collection of racial statistics in boards is a problem if the results are based on the content of the records. Collecting racial/gender statistics opens the door for affirmative action which I don't think is needed in today's Army. I think the Army is more fair than any other organization on Earth.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 31 at 2014 6:43 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 31 Oct 2014 18:43:17 -0400

Only way I can react: what the hell does skin color/ethnic background have to do with leadership?

Response by 1LT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 31 at 2014 8:11 PM

1LT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 31 Oct 2014 20:11:44 -0400

Just as CPT Wolfer ... ..al l minority officers I know choose other branches besides combat. my reasoning was what is there to do after the military with combat experience? Because we can't do this job forever. Longevity benefits from picking other branches besides combat there are not only useful to the military but the civilian world as Well. It's a difference of making close to a 6 figure job in Logistics, intelligence, and Etc. verse s choosing combat arms and getting lucky and possibly working for government entities outside of law enforcement. My own father who was combat arms for 22 active years told me if you plan on staying in the military take a branch or mos as enlisted that will benefit you when you get out and combat arms isn't high on the list

Response by 1SG Steven Stankovich made Nov 1 at 2014 2:12 PM

1SG Steven Stankovich — Sat, 01 Nov 2014 14:12:01 -0400

I may be simplifying this, but aren't we part of an all volunteer force? If we are part of an all volunteer force, then aren't any demographics collected going to be "skewed" by the fact that it is an all volunteer population? And if the demographics collected are "skewed" because we are part of an all volunteer force, then connecting the dots or lines between color/race/creed/etc would be irrelevant because we are part of an all volunteer force?

"Skewed" is not be the right adjective to use here, but yinz guys get my drift, right?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 1 at 2014 4:57 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 01 Nov 2014 16:57:27 -0400

I am against any of those articles that creates negative ideas about our military. We have and are the greatest organization in the world. Everyone that wears the uniform is my brother and my sisters in arms where i am willing to fight with and die for regardless of where they are from.

Response by SSG Joseph Herbert made Nov 1 at 2014 7:16 PM

SSG Joseph Herbert — Sat, 01 Nov 2014 19:16:48 -0400

This has no bearing on warfigiting, any effective military units' functionality must be based solely on training, skills, and knowledge. Anyone who considers ethnicity, gender, or personal lifestyles in the equation has no business in the business of war.

Response by SFC Anthony Pittore made Nov 2 at 2014 4:06 PM

SFC Anthony Pittore — Sun, 02 Nov 2014 16:06:14 -0500

Combat knows no color race nationality or religion. Only the best should lead men into combat. Political correctness will get you killed every time.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 3 at 2014 12:26 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 03 Nov 2014 12:26:49 -0500

I'll report my findings when I graduate IBOLC in a few months...

Response by Cpl Robert Masi made Nov 3 at 2014 12:45 PM

Cpl Robert Masi — Mon, 03 Nov 2014 12:45:32 -0500

When people say 'there is a lack of ABC group in a XYZ position' in anything, what they are really saying is 'I made up an imaginary figure in my head that I deem acceptable, and because reality doesn't match up to my imaginary number, I think there needs to be change'.
-And that gets people killed. Because then there are quotas. And quotas mean substandard leaders. Now there is a big push for women in high military positions. Not because it's believed that they can do the job better (or at all), but because there is a quota to fill....Hell, they get in with a technicality with the lower standards to join, why not put them in a position where they make decisions that get people killed? Welcome to the New Military. The DoD are the policy makers, and they are the same cowards that are quick to appease the Politically Correct Liberals and Democrats....It hasn't worked out in the civilian world, why not try it where it matters, where life and death are on the line?
-It's the same in the business world. Many times, Quality people don't get hired because companies need to reach quotas. So what happens is that companies hire token candidates. Who essentially are a drain. My father used to complain about that when he had a high position at a Global Company. The laws forced his hand to hire substandard employees. And he had to put up with their bullsh*t because they knew he couldn't fire them, they'd just sue by calling the race card.
.....honestly, I'd hate to be a token employee, or military leader. I couldn't live with knowing that the only reason I got somewhere is because of my skin color, or gender. I'd feel pretty pathetic. But not everyone thinks like me I've noticed.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 3 at 2014 4:37 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 03 Nov 2014 16:37:15 -0500

Thought provoking article SFC A.M. Drake. I served with CPT Private RallyPoint Member in the 1-17 FAR and deployed with him to Afghanistan. He is smart as hell, was one of the best officers in the BN, and I'd like to hear more from him on this topic. Minority groups are definitley under-represented in the combat arms. I think the article and CPT Private RallyPoint Member are correct in that minority groups tend to favor "transferable skills" when entering the Army. It reminds me of an annecdote from the documentary Korrengal. One of the few African-American NCOs was talking about how it felt to be a minority in the company. He said something along the lines of "Most black men don't wan't to jump out of airplanes and get shot at," but that everyone would have his back in a firefight and vise versa (paraphrasing). I really do think it starts with an individuals motivation for joining in the first place. Is it to develop transferable skills marketable in the business world, or do you want to "jump out of airplanes and get shot at?" I was looking at some academic studies about this very topic last week while helping my girlfriend study for her masters degree in social work. Minorities primarily join the military to get educational opportunities and transferable skills. Logistics units and support roles have more of these opportunities than combat arms. So how do you get more minorites into the upper ranks of the combat arms branches? I guess you need to motivate them to join in order to "jump out of airplanes and shoot people."

Response by SSG Tim Everett made Nov 4 at 2014 11:46 AM

SSG Tim Everett — Tue, 04 Nov 2014 11:46:29 -0500

Dunno if this has already been said, but if we start practicing civilian-style EO hiring procedures where we shuffle minorities into a spot so that we can say [hyperbole example] "We have 50% white guys and 50% black guys in our Infantry Officer corps!" then we have a problem. Should be the best qualified for the job, period. There is no colour in the Army except Army Green.

And we probably need to do more to recruit the ideal candidates, of any ethnicity, that we want. Make it attractive, make a publicity blast, things like that. Oh, and funny recruiting commercials. Everyone likes comedy.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 11 at 2014 7:40 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 11 Nov 2014 07:40:47 -0500

Here we go again. WorldNetDaily published this story this morning about a West Point Professor saying the Army is "too white." I don't think it makes any bit of difference. I maintain that everyone in the Army is green and that color is irrelevant. But these stories persist in coming out.

I don't think it matters what color an officer is. The main question is can that person lead the Troops? Can that person fit and win the Nation's wars? Color is irrelevant in that respect.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 24 at 2015 11:48 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 24 Jan 2015 23:48:54 -0500

How many black officers are eligible for these positions? How many black officers are there at the O-6 rank, period?

One also wonders...is the lack of black officers overall reflective of the reduced rates in college attendance? In which case, what is the best way to improve the numbers...more ROTC scholarships? More targeted recruiting at historic black colleges? An improved process to promoted enlisted personnel to officers?

OR...bear with me here...should we select officers based on their performance rather than based on race? Potentially even getting rid of the Army standard of sending a picture along with the records (the Air Force does records-only promotions, accompanied by a recommendation from the senior rater in the chain...from O-3 to O-4, the senior rater is typically an O-6).

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 11 at 2015 9:24 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 21:24:46 -0500

My first question is this.....Are minority officers even seeking those leadership positions?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 11 at 2015 11:38 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:38:57 -0500

Personally, I don't care what skin color my leaders have so long as they are competent. I'm tired of diversity for the sake of diversity. Let the best person of any sex, color, creed, faith lead without looking at the demographics. Melting pot not a salad. The strongest metals are alloys not plated metals.

Response by SSG Jason Neumann made Feb 12 at 2015 10:11 AM

SSG Jason Neumann — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 10:11:50 -0500

I would have to say, who chose their career field? Did someone make the decision for them? If they want positions, please do like most people do.....gain the information, pursue the correct path and perform better than the current position. Gaining the next position higher, in my opinion is make a name for yourself.

Now, I do have friends that are in and well, they are perfectly happy doing what they want to do. Some don't like going on 25 mi footmarches, or carrying heavy rucks for unknown distances. Some even have a plan....yup a plan, for the future. In logistics, you can get pretty amazing careers; medical positions and so on. I would have to say, in my own opinion, I chose Infantry. Not anyone else, nor was I brainwashed or a gun to my head to make a decision. I also, had a plan for after the military which would be in Law Enforcement. Most departments, will likely hire Combat Arms personnel.

I am not too savvy on how officer roles or positions are attained. I do know they can be switched into a different MOS if not performing, but I am sure there is a process for that; the same goes for enlisted personnel.

Just thoughts of my own. People chose their own paths. If your on the side-lines warming the bench..... that bench will be nice and toasty.

Response by LTC Andrew Loeb made Feb 13 at 2015 8:52 AM

LTC Andrew Loeb — Fri, 13 Feb 2015 08:52:51 -0500

I can't speak on statistics or figures, but as a commissioning source that produced over 115 2LTs in the last 4 years the vast majority of minorities(Asian, Black, and Pacific Islander) approximately 14 Cadets in this program chose Combat Service Support or Combat Support units as their primary branch choice. Most choices revolved around transferable skills to corporate America in logistics, supply, and project management. I certainly don't discourage combat arms choices, but if a Cadet is making a solid decision and career plan I can't dissuade him/her from that choice.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 17 at 2015 9:32 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 17 Feb 2015 21:32:13 -0500

We need to release this obsession with race, gender, sexual orientation and refocus on professionalism, knowledge and the ability to lead, coach, teach and mentor soldiers.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 17 at 2015 9:36 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 17 Feb 2015 21:36:22 -0500

We need to release this obsession with race, gender, sexual orientation and refocus on professionalism, knowledge and the ability to lead, coach teach and mentor soldiers.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 17 at 2015 9:47 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 17 Feb 2015 21:47:03 -0500

Lack of quality officers is a more serious issue.

Response by SPC Benjamin Vaillancourt made May 30 at 2015 12:19 PM

SPC Benjamin Vaillancourt — Sat, 30 May 2015 12:19:43 -0400

This is untrue. As for enlisted ranks, whites are not even the majority, and black officers may make up a small portion of a select few occupational specialties, but the officer ranks as a whole are quite diverse. This is a one sided, propaganda driven article.

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Jul 27 at 2015 7:13 PM

CW3 Kevin Storm — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 19:13:34 -0400

I can't say how offensive this article is. I have Commanders of every race creed and most religions. Some were good, a few great, and few , well let say they are no longer in the service. That said skin color had nothing to do with it. So why did the article show the disparity in being non black and trying to get into logistics or signal?

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 17 at 2015 7:10 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 17 Sep 2015 19:10:22 -0400

in my experience there has been a lacK of interest overall based on the preponderance of evidence that I observed while assigned to the 3rd INF (TOG). Now, granted this was many years ago, but most (that I incountered) do not see combat arms as most desireable. Choosing instead combat support for their career endeavors. Perhaps the answer is the selection process at ROTC and West Point. The Army should have mechanism in place to pick more minorities during these ascensions.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 16 at 2015 5:53 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:53:28 -0500

Fewer than 10% of the Army's active duty officers are black. According to current govt statistics, there are 45.7 million blacks in the US. Of those, 4.58 million hold college degrees. 10.02% of blacks hold college degrees. You have to have a college degree to be an officer. 10% have degrees, ~10% are officers. I fail to see why this should come as a surprise to anyone.

FWIW, 2 of my last 3 BDE commanders (O6) were black. 3 of my last 4 DCOs (O5) were black. 33% of our branch chiefs (O6) are black. I would estimate that almost half of the officers in my current unit are black. When I was a PL, of the 3 PLs in my battery, I was the only one who was not black. I don't know where they get these numbers from, but if my experience is any indication, there must be an awful lot of units out there with all white officers. Because over the course of my career, there have been way more than 10% black officers in my units.