Posted on Sep 11, 2014
Lack of minority officers leading Army combat units? How do you respond to this article?
85.7K
562
309
17
15
2
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."
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."
Officers
Diversity
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 104
6
6
0
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/
"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...
(6)
(0)
6
6
0
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.
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.
(6)
(0)
COL Vincent Stoneking
LTC (Join to see) I think your last paragraph has it.
In a system based (largely) on volunteerism and individual choice, the only way you change the makeup at the top, if that is desired, is to change 1) the makeup at the bottom, 2) individual choices along the way. It is fair to note that any changes based on the above will take a fairly long time to cause pervasive changes in the force (How long does it take for your average pre-commissionee to get their first star?)
I would support non-quota based ways of influencing #1 above. I think there has been some good discussion about that. I would be willing, depending on the details, to support influencing #2 above - to an extent. The thing about people having free will is that they don't always do what the social planner thinks they should.
The one thing the Army has going for it over almost any other organization I can think of is that it is perceived as a meritocracy. It is less than perfectly so, but that is the perception. I would not do anything that would lessen that perception. I fully expect that combat arms branches will continue to be the main feeders for future generations of generals.
In a system based (largely) on volunteerism and individual choice, the only way you change the makeup at the top, if that is desired, is to change 1) the makeup at the bottom, 2) individual choices along the way. It is fair to note that any changes based on the above will take a fairly long time to cause pervasive changes in the force (How long does it take for your average pre-commissionee to get their first star?)
I would support non-quota based ways of influencing #1 above. I think there has been some good discussion about that. I would be willing, depending on the details, to support influencing #2 above - to an extent. The thing about people having free will is that they don't always do what the social planner thinks they should.
The one thing the Army has going for it over almost any other organization I can think of is that it is perceived as a meritocracy. It is less than perfectly so, but that is the perception. I would not do anything that would lessen that perception. I fully expect that combat arms branches will continue to be the main feeders for future generations of generals.
(1)
(0)
PO2 (Join to see)
i want to know why a system has to evaluate itself based on demographics instead of qualification. any officer or NCO is evaluated and given authority because of their training and rank not race,creed,color,or religion just because mainstream media has an equality problem doesnt mean the military does.
(0)
(0)
MSG Karl Arrington
Other than educating the public on what's available in the Army, I'm not sure what the Army can do to increase black participation/inclusion into field grade ranks. I've read some great suggestions, although I have to agree that forced re-branching into combat arms would create a storm of dissent. I tend to think at the end of the day the original poster answered his own question. Blacks as a group do not overwhelmingly choose combat arms for various reasons. I thought of my experience as a black man enlisting into the Infantry, then thought since 1982 when I came in, things had certainly changed. Then I read 1LT (P) Faried's post and saw that things had not changed all that much. I echo a similar experience. My parents realized that I had to make my own decisions, but would rather I chose something other than Infantry. When I arrived at Ft. Benning, I was one of about 20 other blacks in a 240 man OSUT company. About 5 or 6 of us went on to Airborne School and the others kidded us about that. I've had a few black commanders and they were very good. I think I was lucky in that regard as I have observed a couple in other units that weren't, but I've seen that in non-minority officers also. Another thought would be to show/educate blacks on how combat arms service can transfer into marketable skills in the civilian sector, though I'm not sure how well it would be received.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Mr. Turner, I think the answer is simple. If "all [people] are created equal," which we implicitly believe, then we would expect them to achieve proportional representation in every field. With the exception of GEN Shinseki, the history of Chiefs of Staff of the Army is full of white men. It is obvious why women aren't represented there (though they should be); they haven't had the opportunities to rise through the system that leads to that position. But why not racial demographics? There have been black four-star Generals (GEN Ward is a poor example due to misconduct), but no CSAs. The Navy is even worse at racial representation in the CNO position. If the races, or other minority groups, are not being proportionally represented, then the system appears to be biased against them.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
Those who have the drive, the motivation and the hooah heart sign up for these job...plain and simple.
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
(5)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Wow, my statement was based on just looking right and left. I had no idea the disparity was *that* glaring. But if just about half of all blacks are concentrated in Force Sustainment, then I will reiterate that it is a circular problem (or as my G2 likes to say, "a self-licking ice cream cone"). People join branches where they have connections and already know people...even if they kind of know they will never work with them directly once they are in, it is still a touch point. In Bosnia, I worked with MI types and I came in whole-heartedly committed to MI. I really don't think someone could have told me anything to get me to change my mind (other than if I hadn't made it high enough on the OML to pick it).
Edited to add: I was very strongly warned that MI was extremely white and that as a black female I could never hope to be taken seriously. I had to be willing to overlook that "advice" and drive on. For others, it would be a major deterrence.
Edited to add: I was very strongly warned that MI was extremely white and that as a black female I could never hope to be taken seriously. I had to be willing to overlook that "advice" and drive on. For others, it would be a major deterrence.
(3)
(0)
SGT Patrick Crouch
There is also a cultural difference. All in all, combat arms are not "practical" professions, but instead ones that look like they could be "fun"(well, okay, blowing crap up for a living, hell yeah that's fun...to a point..), whereas admin, or logisitics is very practical, and directly apply to work on the outside.
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
SGT Patrick Crouch - and I have to fix what you blow up!!! Just kidding! As I see it, people generally lean towards what they feel comfortable with. If you want some thing bad enough you strive for it. If it means that much to you or find people who can help you become proficient enough to succeed.
(2)
(0)
PVT (Join to see)
So what the above graphic depicts is that minorities are over-represented in the Army versus the general population. Now, what's the problem? More representation = more opportunities for promotions, RIFs, etc. Why micro-manage which MOSs have which minorities? Scratching my head over this.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
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.
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.
(5)
(0)
4
4
0
Only way I can react: what the hell does skin color/ethnic background have to do with leadership?
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
CPT (Join to see)
A Soldier in my OCS class took to referring to "dark green" and "light green" anytime race issues came up.
(3)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
CPT (Join to see) I suppose he was referring to races. I would think that is a bit odd. I mean about Tan soldiers?
(0)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Cpl Peter Martuneac - When we were at Forecast School at Chanute, the Marines were ordered not to fail. Of course the Navy could not allow for a Marine to do better and us Air Force guys assumed we were naturally smarter. Aw perceptions! The smartest guy was a reserve Air Force guy with two masters in physics. Different areas. Our washout rate was over 55%.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
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 :-)
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
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.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
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.
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.
(4)
(0)
SFC Mario Rodriquez
In all my years as a Combat Engineer this has more to do with choice of career branch rather than some diabolical plot by the Army. I remember thinking how Infantry units had more white soldiers, officers and NCOs over some of the support units. At one time Special Ops units were and maybe still are dominated by whites. There is nothing sinister going on, just choices of the officer corps. Not everyone what to lead a unit into combat when it is so easy to bring up the rear. It is all about choice.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
To clarify, but I felt I was clear, I 100% get that individuals are making this choice. There is no plot. There is no conspiracy. But the idea that is an entirely free choice is unclear. I do not think we have the data to dissect whether people had all of the facts, then made a reasoned, clear-headed choice, or if, like everyone else, they made their decisions based on emotions, or stories from buddies, or well, however everyone else did it. I knew what MI was when I picked it, but my alternates were largely just guesses. At MIBOLC I talked to a frustrated (white male) classmate who was beginning to realize that he was not going to be running around Europe in a tux - no lie, he thought he was going to be James Bond. He got out after his service obligation was up.
So, if blacks looking at the military are no different than everyone else, and I would guess they aren't, just providing everyone with a better sense of career information would help the problem. Additionally, in the Army (for those that don't know), Officers do not get to entirely choose their branch. I know in the Navy, you come in branched. I don't know how AF works. Are people opting to not compete for MI/AV/IN/AR, etc slots because they don't think they will get them? Or are they not interested in the first place?
I am the LAST person who would ever advocate for forcing people into branches based on race. Imagine what the press/public would do with the headline that blacks are being forced into Combat Arms. My most recent OER says that when females integrate into IN, "make CPT Wolfer a top choice for company command." I think that was an attempt at praise, but I'll pass...by my free choice. I would not want to be ordered into that position. I also cringe at the idea of offering certain people, based solely on demographics, an incentive of some sort to pick or switch to Combat Arms (and as a separate issue, I'm not seeing an incentive that would encourage me to go IN). But back on topic, until we understand the logic behind the "free choice" it is hard to know how to address the situation. The ubiquitous shoulder shrug that I sense in some of these comments indicates a belief that there is not a problem. I think that there is. Not that minorities are immune to the group think that is lobotomizing military leadership, but they at least bring the *potential* for a different perspective, a dissenting voice, or an unorthodox advocacy. I think that is both valuable and absent, and I see that as a problem.
So, if blacks looking at the military are no different than everyone else, and I would guess they aren't, just providing everyone with a better sense of career information would help the problem. Additionally, in the Army (for those that don't know), Officers do not get to entirely choose their branch. I know in the Navy, you come in branched. I don't know how AF works. Are people opting to not compete for MI/AV/IN/AR, etc slots because they don't think they will get them? Or are they not interested in the first place?
I am the LAST person who would ever advocate for forcing people into branches based on race. Imagine what the press/public would do with the headline that blacks are being forced into Combat Arms. My most recent OER says that when females integrate into IN, "make CPT Wolfer a top choice for company command." I think that was an attempt at praise, but I'll pass...by my free choice. I would not want to be ordered into that position. I also cringe at the idea of offering certain people, based solely on demographics, an incentive of some sort to pick or switch to Combat Arms (and as a separate issue, I'm not seeing an incentive that would encourage me to go IN). But back on topic, until we understand the logic behind the "free choice" it is hard to know how to address the situation. The ubiquitous shoulder shrug that I sense in some of these comments indicates a belief that there is not a problem. I think that there is. Not that minorities are immune to the group think that is lobotomizing military leadership, but they at least bring the *potential* for a different perspective, a dissenting voice, or an unorthodox advocacy. I think that is both valuable and absent, and I see that as a problem.
(6)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google