How do you think quota-based policies affect readiness?

LTC Thomas (Tom) Jones — Mon, 25 Mar 2024 07:57:59 -0400

https://tomklingenstein.com/leaked-air-force-memo-reveals-racial-quota-system/?fbclid=IwAR1SswHtHrXHP9jzxx-YhcC5TL-rgSP44bz7OWmyCb_VZ0_E_WUadAjess4

Air Force Memo Reveals Racial Quota System

The American Military Project has uncovered an Air Force memo from 2022 in which Gen. C.Q. Brown directs the establishment of racial quotas.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 25 at 2024 9:00 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Mar 2024 09:00:54 -0400

IMHO, rank quota based on gender and/or race is not a good policy to have. I admit, there is never going to be (at least in our lifetime) a solid one-fix all. But, when you tell folks that certain genders and ranks will get billets because of what they are, instead of merit and hard work, all that will do is perpetuate the animosity and disdain. It's not solving a problem. It's keeping the problem alive.

Response by CSM William Everroad made Mar 25 at 2024 9:09 AM

CSM William Everroad — Mon, 25 Mar 2024 09:09:52 -0400

LTC Thomas (Tom) Jones, I am not generally in favor of "quota" systems. I think the military to recruit, promote, and retain based on merit.

However, given the history of bias in most of our systems, the one silver lining to quota systems is that recruiters and leaders had to learn how to recruit, promote, and retain people that were different than them, that see the world differently, and that have had different experiences.

Is this plus side worth the bending of the goal of meritocracy for the military? IMHO not really. But, the military has a long way to go to be appealing to a large swath of citizens, and learning how to communicate and close that civil-military gap might help more than having X number or percentage of recruits of Y type.

Response by SSG Bob Robertson made Mar 25 at 2024 9:30 AM

SSG Bob Robertson — Mon, 25 Mar 2024 09:30:31 -0400

There were three reasons I got out of the military in 1985 after serving 9 and 1/2 years. This was one of them. This is not a new thing. Yes, promotions back then were also based on merit, however too many people were being promoted based on diversity also. There were way too may unqualified people being promoted into leadership positions that were clueless. Today I read the Army Times newspaper and see the results. Women who are commanding officers of warships being relieved of command. I saw were there was a female CSM in an Infantry unit being accused of creating a toxic culture. Once placed in these positions it is nearly impossible to get them out without consequences. I didn't like it back then and am so sorry to see what is happening in today's military.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Mar 25 at 2024 11:16 AM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Mon, 25 Mar 2024 11:16:46 -0400

The military is no place for this D.E.I. crap. It is down to good order and discipline. In the Army a lot of the test i.e. SQT, which was a major part of getting promoted have been taken away. If you qualify, you get promoted. Just glad I am no longer in.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Mar 25 at 2024 1:47 PM

CAPT Kevin B. — Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:47:38 -0400

"Inclusion" has been a growing cancer for some time. Whenever merit, performance, capability, etc. is set aside for anything else, the effectiveness of any organization is diminished. For military, it gets more people killed. I remember the knee jerk policy days of sitting O-4 to O-6 boards where the Secretariat wanted to have convenient scapegoats (the Board). We had to take the lowest ranked selectee record and compare it to the highest rated minority, woman, etc. non selectee. A separate report had to be prepared, submitted, and approved at the Secretariat. That stuff typically added a few hours at Millington but weeks to the overall release of a promotion lists. We had an O-4 minority non select in our organization. Naturally he wanted a debrief of releasable information (not much releasable). My way of looking at this dystopian process was telling the minority not only no, but hell no. He was very bitter getting tossed from AD and that bitterness followed him through his Civil Service career as well. Boards later turned into providing an "addendum" to the report up that discussed aspects of the board pool, compared percentages, etc. Our precepts were pretty stringent on the "thou shalt nots". These boards were over 20 years ago so I'm sure many things changed.

Response by COL Dan Ruder made Mar 25 at 2024 5:37 PM

COL Dan Ruder — Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:37:07 -0400

Your question centered on readiness. Several decades ago, the DoD established quota pools, in part to address historical disparities that were under scrutiny by members of Congress. As Congress approves the DoD budget, its readiness hinges on addressing Capitol Hill's scrutiny of demographics within the DoD. This discussion surrounding quota pools is an extension of political maneuvering above and beyond the DoD. This topic is inherently a political discussion, reflected in the fact that the DoD is subordinate to civilian political leadership.

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made Mar 26 at 2024 1:19 AM

SSG Roger Ayscue — Tue, 26 Mar 2024 01:19:22 -0400

Without a doubt. These programs affect readiness and also morale. The Army sets "Goals," not "quotas," for diversity promotions. The only difference in goals and quotas is the location in Webster's.
When ANYTHING other than merit and performance is considered in promotions it is wrong. It was wrong before, it is wrong now, and it will be wrong tomorrow.

Response by SPC Matt Ovaska made Apr 26 at 2024 7:19 AM

SPC Matt Ovaska — Fri, 26 Apr 2024 07:19:25 -0400

We are not ready and it's getting worse every day. One day we will wake up. I hope I won't be around to see it happen.