High Seas Segregation

Really, it doesn’t matter how many of us are offended or how many of us think it is discriminatory or even racist. All that matters is what Navy leadership thinks and they think that it is a mandatory program. This is not some politically correct idea dreamed up by the CNO one night when he was unable to sleep. For years exit interviews and surveys along with general surveys have shown it to be a problem. The Navy cannot retain quality minorities. Since the situation has not been improving, and since it has become a significant problem, new measures were needed. Mentorship takes many forms. For someone contemplating leaving the service, they must weigh their options. When they see no one above them of a comparable race or gender, it sends a signal. Not a positive signal. This new policy simply is an attempt to level the playing field, to give every one an equal chance. If this is already happening, there will be no differences. It will bring no changes. If there was indeed a problem, things will improve. I think we should be offended or even perhaps consider it discriminatory or racist to criticize this initiative.
 
For years exit interviews and surveys along with general surveys have shown it to be a problem. The Navy cannot retain quality minorities.Since the situation has not been improving, and since it has become a significant problem, new measures were needed
Click to expand...

Not meant in an antagonistic way, but please post the stats that back up your opinion.

Heck, I want the Navy to post their stats to back up their position regarding the issue.

Before we start throwing accusations, let's get the numbers and stats to defend our stances.

For those who defend or oppose step up and prove your point from a numerical value of how minorities are affected.

I for one will sit back, watch and make a determination based on statistical values and not personal beliefs regarding if minorities need the extra edge for promotion purposes. If you say 10% of the Navy are minorities, but only 20% are promoted while 75% are promoted, than I will question why the disparity. If you say 10% are minority and 80% are promoted when the rate is 75% for promotion, I have to say you lose.

Run numbers, not emotions. SHOW THE STATS! Promotion rate is a STAT! I think most people are forgetting that more goes into promotion than skin color.
 
Last edited:
Mongo said:
For someone contemplating leaving the service, they must weigh their options. When they see no one above them of a comparable race or gender, it sends a signal. Not a positive signal. This new policy simply is an attempt to level the playing field, to give every one an equal chance.
Click to expand...

But it doesn't give everyone an equal chance, nor does it level the playing field.

It gives diverse candidates an edge and slants the playing field to favor them, not to equalize them.

HUGE difference.

For a white male officer candidate contemplating Navy service, when they see promotion selections being made on the basis of race that's not a positive signal either.

These "mentoring" or "fast track" decisions do not occur in a vacuum. There are a finite number of promotions each year. To "enhance" or fast track or promote minority candidates comes at the expense of someone - - white males.

Pima said:
I think most people are forgetting that more goes into promotion than skin color.
Click to expand...

Of course, but should it be a factor at all? To favor the diverse candidate over the white male is discrimination.

Using discrimination against white males today, to make up for discrimination in the past, is racism.

"Our government should be in the business of enabling
opportunity for all, not in picking winners. It can do so
by ensuring that artificial distinctions such as race
do not determine outcomes."
James Webb
 
Luigi,

I never said I disagree with your stance. There are many people who believe that the white male will soon become the URM. That will be very interesting to see, how it will float when the caucasian population in the US becomes the minority.

It is incredible to see Jim Webb, a democrat, coming out and saying he believes Affirmative Action is in essence no longer needed.
 
That's why the armed forces need to emphasize to ALL members, from DAY 1, that they do not care what race, color, or sex you are. This way they won't be "TRYING" to retain minorities. They need to be trying to retain the most qualified individuals with the most to offer the service and their country. The more they play the politically correct game, the more they perpetuate racism and discrimination. If the services make it clear that black, white, hispanic, male, female, christian, jewish, etc... doesn't matter to the department of defense; then maybe the service members will stop allowing it to become an issue. Maybe the black captain won't mind that he's being mentored by a white, hispanic, or female officer. The ONLY reason minority issues matter, is because the military/DOD/Government MAKE IT MATTER.
 
kp2001 said:
all they have to do is look at your official photo in your record (which by the way was discontinued and then restarted in 2007, I wonder why???? :cool: )
Click to expand...
When I sat on a Naval Reserve 05 promotion board in 2001 minority officer records were stamped 'MINORITY'. Female records were stamped 'FEMALE'.. I'm not sure if it's still that way.

I did see one minority officer record without the stamp. I thought it was inadvertently left off, but as it turned out, he had asked BUPERS that his record not be marked.
 
I think that if I was a minority, it would offend me. It would make me feel like I wasn't good enough to compete with the white guys and needed special treatment. I'm a female, and I always hate it when people treat me differently because I'm a female.
 
I believe that today's young people are a bit different than in my day. It seems more important to them to see people who "look like them" in leadership roles to prove they can make it.
Click to expand...

With all of my body, I hope that your perception is incorrect.
Click to expand...

I should have clarified this to say that the "minority" (female, black, hispanic, gay) young people with whom I work seem to want this. They want to see a woman, black, etc. in a leadership position in their organization to prove that it's possible. When they don't, they begin to suspect there may be discrimination at work and are likely to move to "greener" pastures. Unfortunately, that can lead to a vicious cycle.

Not sure about WMs, as there are obviously plenty of WMs in leadership in almost any organization. That said, I find WMs somewhat divided -- some are very willing to be "mentored" by a female whereas others still gravitate toward males. However, this is merely anecdotal -- not sure if it is true in most professions in the US.

One of the problems the military is facing is that, if you're a talented minority (just as if you're a talented non-minority), the world can largely be at your door. When you're coming up on the end of your commitment, there are SO many opportunities outside of the military that (at least appear to) pay better, offer more time at home, mean you won't be going of to war. etc. Hard to say no.

If the military can do something to show talented minorities the potential inside the military such that they are more likely to stay, that's a good thing -- just as it's a good thing that talented WMs stay. I suspect there has been less of that going on historically for "diverse" young officers, for any number of non-nefarious reasons.

One thing about promotion boards. In my day (about a decade before KP's), they told us that one of the reasons the USN stamped minority records is that minorities often were "forced" into certain "non-desirable" assignments, such as recruiting. Thus, while their white colleagues were sucking up to future mentors at the primo shore billets, minorities often were assigned to recruiting jobs which were considered "cushy" and, quite honestly, dead-ends for many WMs. Tagging minority records allowed promotion boards to consider this when making decisions.
 
Morgan, I agree as a woman, I would be offended, but let's be honest, women do use their XX genes for their own personal benefit, they just don't realize it.

If you are a woman you are allowed lower stats for physical testing. In essence, you are allowing the military to say you are weaker and need/require a form of favoritism. I am not saying this is right or wrong, however, I am saying it does exist within the military currently.

In the end, the person that is in a disadvantage with the military is the caucasian male. He is the only one that doesn't get any "free passes" based on his genetic make-up, something he never had any control over to start with.

I am curious, about what will be next, leadership saying when DADT is repealed that homosexuals should be given special attention because of diversity issues?

I think PC has become an integral part within the system, I am just not sure that being PC does more good than harm to the troops.
 
As a retired Naval Officer that has worked with most designators, I can say that this was constant throughout my career. It was well understood that White Males that were initially selected but in the bottom 10% of a selection board were very much at risk when the final tally was posted. I saw it all the time, just subtle comments like, "how did he/she get passed over" and "how in the world did that person get selected"? We all knew who was a "Quota" and who was passed over because they were on the "bubble". You really fealt bad for the ones that worked their entire career and were sent home because of a "quota". So, let's just come right out and say it, we have minority "Quotas" in the military and they are promoted as such. If you are White and Male, you just have to be that much better, work that much harder and accept the more difficult assignments and greater family seperation. Accept it and move forward, as wrong as it may seem, that is what the leadership has determined is the priority. We are and always have been the test bed for social engineering anyway, why stop now?
 
usna1985 said:
I should have clarified this to say that the "minority" (female, black, hispanic, gay) young people with whom I work seem to want this. They want to see a woman, black, etc. in a leadership position in their organization to prove that it's possible. When they don't, they begin to suspect there may be discrimination at work and are likely to move to "greener" pastures. Unfortunately, that can lead to a vicious cycle.
..........
If the military can do something to show talented minorities the potential inside the military such that they are more likely to stay, that's a good thing -- just as it's a good thing that talented WMs stay. I suspect there has been less of that going on historically for "diverse" young officers, for any number of non-nefarious reasons.
Click to expand...

I guess these minorities don't "RECOGNIZE" that the highest rank in the military "Command In Chief", happens to be a minority. Then again, I guess being president of the united states and commander in chief of the military doesn't really count.

While it is no secret that I did not vote for Obama; I was excited because I really thought it would help with racial perceptions in the country. Especially among minorities who had been taught by older generations that blacks would never be given a fair chance. Well, so much for that idea. And now, the military simply wants to continue to promote discrimination, racism, and prejudice. GOOD SHOW!!!!!
 
Cwark said:
As a retired Naval Officer that has worked with most designators, I can say that this was constant throughout my career. It was well understood that White Males that were initially selected but in the bottom 10% of a selection board were very much at risk when the final tally was posted. I saw it all the time, just subtle comments like, "how did he/she get passed over" and "how in the world did that person get selected"? We all knew who was a "Quota" and who was passed over because they were on the "bubble".
Click to expand...

Interesting observation. So, when you saw one who made it and one who didn't, first off how did you know they were in the bottom 10% of the selection group? I would think that unless one had observed their entire career, it would be based on their own opinions of themselves, which we all know can vary widely. Or perhaps, based on a snapshop of their performance level when you were assigned to the same unit to which they were assigned and were able to observe them. I think we can both agree that the selection boards have much more information than either of the two possible scenarios for your speculation.

My own observations have been that those for whom we ask the question, "How did they get passed over?" when all evidence indicates otherwise, have a skeleton in the closet somewhere which everyone but old fitness reports has forgotten about. From O-5, and possibly O-4 and up, one bad comment, if significant enough, on one single fitness report can kill a promotion. And they do.
 
Last edited:
Mongo said:
From O-5, and possibly O-4 and up, one bad comment, if significant enough, on one single fitness report can kill a promotion.
Click to expand...

And under the new Gary Roughead Navy mandate, so can checking "White" in the race box.

Discrimination in favor of one race = discrimination against another.

You cannot gloss over it, you cannot sugar coat it, you cannot ignore it - to give the edge in a promotion decision to a "diverse" candidate on the basis of race is racism.

Zero-sum game

Definition - Situation or interaction in which one participant's gains result only from another's equivalent losses.
 
Mongo, you are correct, one could build a scenario to answer and/or justify almost any situation. And, you are also correct, if you are not there at the board, you will never know for certain the details. But, all I was trying to say is that over the years, knowing many that have been part of selection boards, knowing many that have been promoted and many that have been passed over, following careers and serving alongside many, there is a good chance that the patterns are not only coincidence. And now we have direction from the CNO that states what was “assumed” to exist, but now it is put in writing and will be policy. What will be the unintended consequences of this path? It seems that color really does matter.
 
From what I can read of the CNO's message( as opposed to the commentary afterwards)- some of you are slaying a straw dragon that you have named prejudice/ racism. But when you look at what ADM Roughhead has said as opposed to what the Washington Times and CDR Salamander's blogs have pontificated about "What this means" - his directive doesn't seem so insidious to me. Roughhead's directive is to identify and track the progression of high potential officers of minority status to ensure that they are not overlooked. HE is not saying that underperforming officers are going to get a pass. HE's not saying that being "white" is to be put in a lower category- he is calling for a special emphasis to ensure that high performers- who are identified as such- don't get lost in the jumble. If Roughhead's memo says more than that- please quote that would you because I don't see it.

Reality is that there are a pretty high percentage of senior leaders who got in that position because they attracted the attention of, and benefited from, the mentorship of senior leaders early in their careers- mentorship which kept them in the right promotion track, and kept them from pulling the rip cord to pursue other options when faced with the inevitable competing civilian offer at the 6- 10 year mark (and if you don't think that is a concern - go read Fortune Magazine's story of a couple of months ago about the recruiting effort by Corporate America to secure hi potential junior officers- an effort which is doubly aggressive toward minority and female officers as everyone is looking to broaden the makeup of their management. )


Clearly none of you who are shocked and appalled by his interest in finding, retaining and mentoring high potential minority officers work for Fortune 500 companies as you would recognize virtually the identical language from the leadership of most of those companies in identifying high potential under represented minority and female talent early on to make sure that they receive the same type of visibility that has long been given to the graduates of the "right" schools; the "right MBA programs" and possessing the right appearance. I'm no fan of promoting folks who are less qualified but who are the right background- it's wrong and it's illegal to boot and it's bad for the service. But I don't think that Adm Roughhead is saying that- OR implying that either. I do think that he is making a prudent effort to ensure that the highest potential officers all receive the benefit of visbility and mentorship and guidance - even if they don't look the same or have the same background as the current senior leadership.
 
Maybe the corrective action should be to have records presented that only reference the individual, by SSN. This way sex, race, color, etc... wouldn't have any say so in the equation. Based on assignments, you could find good mentors. Promotions and assignments would be based on past performance and absolutely nothing else. That's the way it should be.

Should my son be penalized, possibly, not getting a particular assignment or promotion, simply because he's a blond hair, blue eyed, male, with a german last name???

If a minority is indeed a fast burner and has high potential, then their record should say so. Shouldn't matter if they are a minority or not. To say that you want to track the progression of high potential minority officers, simply means that if you don't "track" this group, that they will be overlooked simply because they are minorities. In other words, the promotion and assignment boards/personnel are racist and will hold it against these individuals. If this isn't the truth, then the individual's records will demonstrate who is a high potential officer. "Minority or not".
 
I don’t think there are any indications in the promulgation of this edict that would indicate that the selection boards or the assignment detailers are not doing their jobs properly. The only thing I can see that this directive addresses is that minorities are not coming to selection boards with experience commensurate with their majority peers and that minority selection is consequently below par. The individuals themselves are 'owners' of their careers and they do not have the assets available to properly guide their careers. Bupers is going to assist them in the short run.

To accomplish an increase in the competitiveness of minorities, better career assignments is warranted. For the Navy it is critical that the individual himself work in close coordination with the assignment detailer, collectively arriving at an acceptable set of orders. The detailer knows what is available and also the general level of performance of the individual. The individual knows what he wants, his career aspirations, and what he feels will better help him achieve these aspirations. Detailers are not manned sufficiently nor are they trained to be career counselors. They are there simply to fill billets. This is where mentors become all important, to assist the individual informally to achieve the best possible results based on all his goals. This mandate implies that this mentoring system is not working for minorities. To assist them is a necessary but stop gap measure until sufficient minorities can arrive in the senior officer ranks so the system can work as it is intended. There is no office at Bupers which has sufficient manning to be as effective as the private informal mentoring program now in effect.
 
Last edited:
Mongo; I truly agree with your last post. My only question/concern would be about the mentoring system. Your implication is that either:
1) Minorities DON'T HAVE mentors. (Somehow because they are a minority, and no one wants to be their mentor) or:
2) That minorities can ONLY be mentored effectively by someone else who is ALSO a minority.

I disagree with both of these possibilities. I believe that any young officer can find a mentor; and that the mentor can be very effective in helping this individual progress in their career without them being the same sex, race, or skin color. That is my whole contention.
 
Mentoring is about building a rapport and guiding someone in their career.
Rapport - relationship - one of mutual trust and emotional affinity.

It's pretty well known that building a rapport with someone with whom you have a commonality is easier than one who does not.
This does not also apply to race of course, but applies to gender, socio-economic background, marital status, parental status and geography. These are all intangibles and all may have an affect on one's career.

When mentoring, it's important to develop a rapport with those whom you mentor. Identifying common characteristics is one way to match a mentor with those whom will benefit from being a mentor. Being a good mentor is much more than giving career advice. It is understanding perspective and all the factors that affect one's career both on the job and off the job.
Likewise, if a certain cohort is not taking advantage of career moves - it's important to identify the barriers and provide good counsel and guidance to improve retention. This applies not only to "minorities" but other cohort as well; i.e. women with children etc.
 
It also applies to the majority. That's all fine and dandy, but then we return to reality. Billeting is not focussed on finding a perfect mentor for everyone. "We need a black, single female to mentor this black single female. You sent me a married hispanic male, this is never going to work. The U.S. Navy will come to grinding halt."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top