Politically Correct, do you speak PC?

There is a way to speak out the truth while being PC. The issue is, when something is brought down upon someone in a harsh way, that individual is less likely to listen. If it is explained in a way that a person understands, it works better.

CSM from how it was said, it appears that West Point does have 'quotas' and to cover themselves they reworded it. Every establishment, if you will, wants to look good in the eye of society and one way they do that is ensuring they have diversity in all aspects.

CSM Hayden, I get your point. And in reality, the answer seems to be yes. A quota per se is a definite number. A goal might be a percentage with a number that might vary according to the pool. But the effect is the same. But let's say the Army needs more Infantrymen in higher ranks of command and among CSMs, simply because there are more new positions. So the Army sets a goal or a quota to move up enough people to fill those ranks. What is the difference if mission driven? Other branches won't like it, to be sure. Yet it happens among branches more often that we know to adjust the force.

Politically correct confuses me all the time. What's the point in being PC if I have to ask what the heck you are trying to say?

Pure doublespeak, CSM Charles Hayden Passed 7/29/2025.

I do believe in tact, but I try my very best not to bite my tongue just because it might hurt some assholes feelings. In times like these my tongue would be chewed to pieces! LOL

Although I agree with you on principle CSM Charles Hayden Passed 7/29/2025, the issue is a little more complex.

If we are always selecting the same type of people for the same roles, we will never evolve as an organization.

As an example, ignoring race, gender, religion, etc, and looking only at functional lines. What billets and schools 'must' an Officer go through if they want to become 'Head of Service' or an Enlisted to become 'Senior Enlisted Adviser'?

20 years ago, we probably could have said near the exact path, and if either of them didn't start with Infantry, you were out of the running for Army/Marines.

Having the same the same path means experiences are generally the same. Not exactly the same, but for the most part pretty close.

Now, when we look at that through the lens of Racial, Religious, and Gender Diversity, the parallels are similar.

You never want quotas. But you want qualified people with varying experiences, because that's what let's organizations change with the times. Setting goals seems counter-intuitive, but in reality it's not because it means that the military is acting as a true meritocracy if it is meeting them (without 'enforcing' them). When you enforce them, it becomes a quota. When you set them, it's just a metric to be measured against like any other piece of data.

The problem is using or interpreting the metric badly, which can happen.

I know it may be a little picky... But there is a difference.

Goals are something you strive for, with little or no consequences if you fail. Quotas have consequences attached for failure or benefits attached for success.

Eligible because she meets all the standard or because... of the social
Engineering. That they need a female to fill the E-7 regardless if SSG Bustshisbuttworkjng is more qualified years service, TIG.. spotless record.. ect..

The truth is sometimes difficult, often unwelcome and rarely PC. To say nothing when something is wrong is to be complicit. We must speak the truth in love. Know the facts and don't get swept up in "what ifs". Situational ethics is a deceitful persons way off circumventing truth.