Posted on Sep 11, 2014
Lack of minority officers leading Army combat units? How do you respond to this article?
85.9K
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
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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?
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?
(2)
(0)
SFC A.M. Drake
Excuse me sir, I did not write this article it appeared as stated. I just report on what current in today's news regarding the military. So do not get upset or assume something without knowing all the facts. Please inquire of the author of his intent. All I can say is wow sir with all due respect of course.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Don't misunderstand the tone of my response. It is merely a thought-provoking comment for discussion purposes. This is not a personal attack on you at all SFC Drake.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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
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
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
SFC Clark Adams
I was assigned to an Aviation BDE in the 80's and truly don't recall seeing Black aviators. Although I had a Company Commander of HHC in a Rifle Bn who was both Black and an Aviator.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I don't give a (bleep) what color skin people have.
I do care about the content of their character and competency.
I do care about the content of their character and competency.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
COL George Antochy
One of the best Generals I ever served with, MG Andrew P. Chambers 1st Cav Div, July 1982 – June 1984. Unfortunately he was the first and only African American officer that I had the great fortune to serve under during my Active Duty career.
(1)
(0)
SGT Thomas Lucken
I did forget to mention Gen. Colin Powell in all that! :-) Also, when at NTC in 90-91. Had a ADA Officer named CPT Rodney Perdue who was on my Team, CPT Perdue was a nerd from hell! Also, can't think of his name now, he was on the Bronco (Brigade) Team at the time, down to earth a great guy who lived off me for his Copenhagen! He was a CPT also, but forgotten his name over the years! Both were black.
In July 1991 when clearing, had a CPT Kim at AG, Korean descendant!
Last, had a young LT I had a chance to work with in the latter 90s, last time I saw him he was a Captain, command of HHC 1-506 at Camp Greaves, Korea..... Henry was his last name, he was originally from East ST Louis, IL.
He was a sharp guy and would suck in all the knowledge he could, he wasn't afraid to ask questions. Always wondered what happened to him, he was Infantry then!
In July 1991 when clearing, had a CPT Kim at AG, Korean descendant!
Last, had a young LT I had a chance to work with in the latter 90s, last time I saw him he was a Captain, command of HHC 1-506 at Camp Greaves, Korea..... Henry was his last name, he was originally from East ST Louis, IL.
He was a sharp guy and would suck in all the knowledge he could, he wasn't afraid to ask questions. Always wondered what happened to him, he was Infantry then!
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
COL George Antochy
This was an issue when the All-Voluntary military stood up in the '70's, hopefully we are beyond this. We went through living by statistics in the 70's and 80's. Our Military is what it is, so we should always be promoting the best qualified, based upon past performance and displayed potential, regardless of race or gender. Our Nations and our Service Members deserve the best. Time to remove race and gender from all selection criteria. That bridge was already crossed years ago. Those who look for Affirmation Action for their success should take a good look in the mirror. Those who see race and gender when making selections, should consider another career.
(1)
(0)
SFC A.M. Drake
SFC Pittore, what do you mean by get an education? all of the officers have the basic educational criteria. Please explain as I'm sure that comment was wayyyyy out in left field, however the last two are understood.
(1)
(0)
SSG Kevin McCulley
SFC A.M. Drake, I think you twitched a little too fast on that one. That is the beat drummed into all soldiers. I've heard it over and over.
(0)
(0)
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 (Join to see) 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 (Join to see) 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 (Join to see) 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.
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 (Join to see) 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 (Join to see) 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 (Join to see) 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.
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Well, sir, as you can see here, articles about race get attention and it's just the Army's turn.
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I was speaking to my CO, who is African-American, and he could see why they are saying that but doesn't see the merit in it.
I think this is something the Army times put out there just to get some publicity. Controversy sells and gets attention. I was talking to a RP staff member about this. When I write for RP I take that in mind and use it. There is no more proof than the "Saluting question." There is really nothing to the question but the views are so radical that they are polarizing the responses and it gets traction. There are really more important issues out there that really merit that much attention.
I think this is something the Army times put out there just to get some publicity. Controversy sells and gets attention. I was talking to a RP staff member about this. When I write for RP I take that in mind and use it. There is no more proof than the "Saluting question." There is really nothing to the question but the views are so radical that they are polarizing the responses and it gets traction. There are really more important issues out there that really merit that much attention.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google