High Seas Segregation

[Just_A_Mom]

Of course, there won't be a perfect mentor for everyone. But by defining high quality individual with past or present barriers you can increase the chances of THEIR own success by identifying those factors that affect them. This is not about perfection.

Let's say you have a cohort of high quality upwardly rising individuals - if you randomly numbered them and drew numbers out of a hat then the chances of a person of "majority" status being paired by a mentor with whom they can develop a rapport is far greater than the opposite. Hence the definition of "majority".
By identifying folks who have or had cultural or socio barriers you can increase their chances of success by pairing them with an appropriate mentor.
This is not rocket science.

 

[Christcorp]

LITS: Exactly +1.

JAM: I know what mentoring is. And yes, commonality is important for an effective mentor. But there is no one who is going to convince me that because a person is in a minority group, that the only effective mentor that can have, must be of the same minority group. That is why racism and prejudice still exists. Because there are people who perpetuate this manner of thinking.

Anyone who thinks this way, is wrong. I rarely if ever say point blank that a person is wrong. Normally, we just differ in opinions. And I am NOT SAYING that anyone here has said that a minority can only have an effective mentor if that mentor is also a minority. I'm not saying anyone has said that. I am saying however, if anyone thinks that is a legitimate reason for tracking minorities, so that they can be linked with other minorities as mentors, then they are indeed wrong. There are so many commonalities among people, that their race, color, and sex don't have to have anything to do with it. People have been screaming for years that a person's color, race, and sex shouldn't be used against them for hiring, promotions, etc...

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Martin Luther King Jr.

Yet, we have people that want race, color, sex, etc... to actually have significance and PROMOTE that someone is different. Sorry, but it can't be both ways. And the military needs to take the lead on this matter. Don't have quotas. Don't enlist/commission assign/promote individuals because you are trying to fill slots.

 

[Mongo]

I honestly don’t know if the mentor system is working for minorities or not. What I do know, however, is that this is how the system works for the majority. And it works well. The issue is that majority selection for Flag is approximately 20%-25% greater than for minorities. Apparently the Navy feels that the reason for this difference is the disparity in the strength of career history. Why are minorities not pursuing career enhancing billet assignments? Is it lack of proper advice? Bad advice in lieu of good advice? Or simply the protégé not listening to good advice? Now that someone in Bupers is going to track these individuals individually and personally, I am most positive that the Navy will know the true reason shortly and will be able to take measures to ease the disparity in selection rates between the two groups. Something appears to be not working properly and this seems to me the least obtrusive lowest key way of looking into it and hopefully solving it.

My person opinion, which has been the theme of the entire diversity effort, is that there are not sufficient minorities to provide role model exampling and mentoring for those coming up through the ranks beneath them. It is a voluntary program. No one can force either end of the relationship. I wish I had been around to help me as effectively as I have been there to guide my son. Mentorship comes in all forms.

 

[Mongo]

JAM: I know what mentoring is. And yes, commonality is important for an effective mentor. But there is no one who is going to convince me that because a person is in a minority group, that the only effective mentor that can have, must be of the same minority group. That is why racism and prejudice still exists. Because there are people who perpetuate this manner of thinking.

Anyone who thinks this way, is wrong.

So, given the assumptions that mentorship is mandatory in developing the proper career path for a Naval Officer and that the 'test' results show a 25% disparity in the effectiveness of mentoring between that of majority recepients and minority recepients, how would you propose to close this gap?

 

[MakeItHappen]

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.

Now you're getting closer to the point. People don't naturally gravitate toward those with which they share few/none commonalities. Now add the fact that most people don't understand the difference between race and ethnicity and how that has played a polarizing role in American history through today. What you end up with is a jumbled mess which was created mostly by the "majority". And if it wasn't a monumental mess, then somebody else would be the CIC.

 

[Just_A_Mom]

But there is no one who is going to convince me that because a person is in a minority group, that the only effective mentor that can have, must be of the same minority group. That is why racism and prejudice still exists. Because there are people who perpetuate this manner of thinking.

I didnt' say the ONLY effective mentor. Of course this isn't true.
You seriously do not have to talk down to me.

This whole thing goes beyond mentoring. Mentoring is just one piece of it. It's about identifying folks who have outside influences that can affect their careers.
It has nothinig to do with judging people by the color of their skin. It is about enabling people to succeed on their own merits by assisting them to overcome some cultural and social barriers that others who have succeeded did not face.

I will attempt one more time to simplfy it for you:
Disclaimer - these numbers are all made up - they are not real but only used for example.
Let's say you have a cohort of 100 individuals all of whom have had successful 20 year careers and all of whom are at 0-5.
50% retire and 50% get promoted to 0-6. Of those who make 0-6 50% retire and 50% are promoted to O-7.
Now break down the group - if 25% of the initial O-5 group are a 'minority' but only 1% ever make O-7 then it's easy to see that there are some barriers in the way of success here. Identify these people, follow their careers and try and figure out what is standing in the way.
It could very well be that the Navy is concerned they are losing talent prematurely for some reason.
This is not about racism - it's about managing your human resources for maximum gain for the betterment of the whole organization.

 

[Mongo]

This is not about racism -

Not so sure. For those who see this as the zero-sum situation that it is, for every minority whom whom the Navy helps to ensure they reach their full potential, it is one less majority who will have the same opportunity. Pretty much the same as USNA going into historically underrepresented congressional districts to find qualified minority candidates. This seems to be the heart of Salamander et al's rants. The demise of the good old white boy network.

 

[Pima]

Is it the demise of the good old white boy system, or is it that by paying special attention to a minority, we are propagating racism and prejudices? Nobody here is saying that a well qualified officer should not be promoted, but many people are saying skin color should not be an issue or the make or break factor for promotion.

By following a model of "fast tracking" based on race or sex as a foundation for determining promotion, you create a larger problem. In the corporate world it is called the Peter Principle. Promote until they no longer can do the job properly. However, in the corporate world lives are rarely at risk like they are in the military.

 

[Luigi59]

Not so sure. For those who see this as the zero-sum situation that it is, for every minority whom whom the Navy helps to ensure they reach their full potential, it is one less majority who will have the same opportunity. Pretty much the same as USNA going into historically underrepresented congressional districts to find qualified minority candidates. This seems to be the heart of Salamander et al's rants. The demise of the good old white boy network.

Is the "good ol white boy" racism in the US Navy that pervasive?

I would have thought that kind of redneck stuff went out in the 60's.

Is the "good ol white boy racism" in the USNA still keeping minority candidates out of USNA?

What a shame that the Navy must counter past discrimination with current discrimination to solve the problems that "the good ol white boy" network, (all US Navy officers who have served in the last 40 years) created.

A sad legacy for those white officers who served in the Navy over the last 40 years or so ---according to Mongo, their racism is a scarlet letter they all wear.

Perhaps it's a case of guilt from the problems they created over the last 40 years that now has them doing the same thing again, just to a different race.

Two wrongs, but this time it's OK.

 

[Mongo]

Is the "good ol white boy" racism in the US Navy that pervasive?

I would have thought that kind of redneck stuff went out in the 60's.

Is the "good ol white boy racism" in the USNA still keeping minority candidates out of USNA?

What a shame that the Navy must counter past discrimination with current discrimination to solve the problems that "the good ol white boy" network, (all US Navy officers who have served in the last 40 years) created.

A sad legacy for those white officers who served in the Navy over the last 40 years or so ---according to Mongo, their racism is a scarlet letter they all wear.

Perhaps it's a case of guilt from the problems they created over the last 40 years that now has them doing the same thing again, just to a different race.

Two wrongs, but this time it's OK.

You completely misunderstood. My comments were directed to those who are critical of the Navy's policy. Fleming, Salamander and their ilk. Very few who apparently have served in the past or are serving now.

My apologies for not being more succinct.

 

[Luigi59]

You completely misunderstood. My comments were directed to those who are critical of the Navy's policy. Fleming, Salamander and their ilk. Very few who apparently have served in the past or are serving now.

My apologies for not being more succinct.

So everyone who disagrees with a current policy of racism and discrimination, to rectify past racism and discrimination, qualifies under a "good ol white boy" network?

Not a chance that they believe that racism is racism no matter what color it comes in, but they must be part of the "good ol' white boy" network?

Why would the CNO care about Fleming and Salamander when writing a discriminatory policy? Obviously, he is doing this to combat racism INSIDE THE US NAVY, not to taunt those who criticize it.

If such a "good ol' white boy" network exists, it's inside the US Navy, and the responsibility for it lies on those "good ol white boy" officers who served in the last 40 years.

 

[Christcorp]

I believe that this conversation is starting to head towards the real truth. And the truth, as I see it and have experienced it in the past is: There is no amount of restitution that you can do to balance or FIX any level of unfairness because of racism, prejudice, or other forms of discrimination. Attempting to try, only perpetuates said injustice. It really is that simple. The only way to correct injustices is for the future. To have a zero tolerance for discrimination, racism, and other injustices. But you don't try to "Balance" something. It is not the 27 year old O-3's fault what sort of discrimination may have occurred in the past. And if you maintain a zero tolerance for future injustices, then the 27 year old minority O-3 is not affected by the injustices of the past.

ANY type of special "attention" given to a particular person or group of people, means a lower level of attention given to someone else. Now, in team environments, including the military, it is sometimes necessary to provide additional or special attention to an individual or group of individuals. But this is generally for the good of the team. E.g. additional training. Maybe some people need extra help in learning or doing certain tasks. But this is special attention in an area that all applicable individuals have the same opportunities. Race, ethnicity, color, sex, etc... these are all attributes that aren't evenly shared among individuals. Therefor, any additional or special attention given to a person because of these attributes is counterproductive.

People can rationalize all they want. But the only way to make it even for everyone when it comes to such things as race, color, sex, etc... is to simply demand it. In a civilian society, this isn't always possible. A person's social, professional, and personal life are totally theirs to do with as they wish. The military however has the advantage of being able to control much more of your life. Professional definitely. Socially, much of it. Personally, not so much. But humans are products of their environment. If you control a person's professional and social way of thinking and behaving, their personal behavior and way of thinking will generally follow suit.

So, people can rationalize that they have to do something to "HELP" minorities progress more fairly if they want to, but they are wrong. The way you level the playing field, is to STOP treating and referring to a person as a minority. That was probably the greatest thing about being stationed overseas. The "Americans" were the minority. And it didn't matter if you were black, white, hispanic, male, female, etc... We all stuck together. Now, promote "THAT" commonality. The commonality that they are all in the military together. That they are all on the same team together. That they are all pilots, doctors, engineers, technicians, or whatever level of "Team" you're trying to build upon. But the moment you mention race, color, sex, etc.... Then that person is on a "TEAM" that I can't belong to; and they can't belong to the one I'm on.

This all started with the whole political correctness movement. That has been one of the downfalls of our society, and continues to be so. Everyone started promoting "INDIVIDUALITY". And of course the army didn't help itself a few decades ago with the "An Army of One" nonsense. I know, some say it's an acronym for "Officer, Non-comm, enlisted". Well guess what??? The 17 year old civilian, who these commercials were marketed towards, had no idea what a non-comm, officer, enlisted was. Or that it "Might" be an acronym. No, at the time, society was pushing the individual, and this went right in line with that social indoctrination. But that is just one minor example. Point is; take race, sex, color, etc... totally out of the equation, by not referring to it, printing it, having it on any paperwork, etc...; and you will FIX the problem. But as long every time you fill out some form, and it asks your race, sex, etc.... you perpetuate minority issues and concentrate on our "Differences" instead of our "Commonalities". And there is NO AMOUNT of restitution, programs, studies, etc... that can fix it. The ONLY way to fix it, is to remove reference from the society. "But a person should be proud of their individuality and heritage. We need to promote diversity"......."BULL CRAP"!!!! That hasn't worked for the last 40 years, what makes anyone think it's going to work in the future.

Anyway, that's how you fix the problem. The military has always been a social bed for societal reform. We have a system that forces people to conform. We, the military, needs to take the lead and NOT try and follow society. Let us transform our society.

 

[MakeItHappen]

I believe that this conversation is starting to head towards the real truth. And the truth, as I see it and have experienced it in the past is: There is no amount of restitution that you can do to balance or FIX any level of unfairness because of racism, prejudice, or other forms of discrimination. Attempting to try, only perpetuates said injustice. It really is that simple. The only way to correct injustices is for the future. To have a zero tolerance for discrimination, racism, and other injustices. But you don't try to "Balance" something. It is not the 27 year old O-3's fault what sort of discrimination may have occurred in the past. And if you maintain a zero tolerance for future injustices, then the 27 year old minority O-3 is not affected by the injustices of the past.

I believe SCOTUS agrees with you, but maintains that we have not reached that time yet in our nation where we can not "remedy" the sins of the past.

This all started with the whole political correctness movement.

This mess started a long, long,......long, time before PC.

 

[Christcorp]

I believe SCOTUS agrees with you, but maintains that we have not reached that time yet in our nation where we can not "remedy" the sins of the past.



This mess started a long, long,......long, time before PC.

The part of trying to "remedy" the sins of the past; started with the PC movement. That's also when the whole "ME" attitude started to be reinforced by society.

 

[LineInTheSand]

So is it based on race or is it socio-economic. Is the best way to "integrate" the minority but provide separate (but equal) mentors? I see good and bad officers in every branch, independent of color of skin.

 

[Mongo]

Navy leadership, rightfully so, sees manpower as a major challenge. Changing demographics in the 21st century will amplify this challenge. They feel that they will have to embrace new ethnic, racial, and socioeconomic groups actively to maintain the skill levels to maintain our fleet. Hence the new efforts. It is not about some ambiguous political correctness but about financial survival. They will be held accountable for the results of their actions.

When looking at all the factors that come into play when recruiting and retaining this new focus, the attractiveness of the workplace becomes a major factor. Everything from human nature to climate assessment polls to exit polls to common sense comes into play in determining that a humongous workplace from top to bottom will enhance both recruiting and retention. Hence the directives. It seems to me that finding out the real reason minority Navy Captains are not selecting for Flag and perhaps doing something about it is a rather low key method of solving a portion of this dilemma.

 

[aglages]

..Everything from human nature to climate assessment polls to exit polls to common sense comes into play in determining that a humongous workplace from top to bottom will enhance both recruiting and retention..

Did you mean humongous or homogeneous? Either will work but one is more amusing.

 

[Pima]

Since this thread is getting quite long, forgive me if this question has been posed already. What are the stats for minorities...i.e. % of minority officers to total officers? What are the stats for minority promotion rate compared to overall promotion rate for the ranks?

Is the Navy saying that the minority rate of promotion is significantly less than the avg promotion rate? Or are they saying that even though the promotion % is equal to the total promotion rate, i.e. 65% caucasian, and 65% minority get promoted, because there are less minorities within the service they want to raise the minority rate to 80%, but keep caucasian at 65%? Theoretically that can't happen because there are limited slots, thus, the caucasian rate would have to be reduced accordingly.

These are two different scenarios, one supports paying attention to minorities, the other is also known as reverse discrimination.

Rhetoric is one thing, but actual stats proving discrimination through lower promotion rates is another.

 

[Christcorp]

They feel that they will have to embrace new ethnic, racial, and socioeconomic groups actively to maintain the skill levels to maintain our fleet.

Sorry, but I just don't buy it. The services can find the qualified individuals, that can be trained to the needed skill level, from any and all ethnic, racial, and socioeconomic groups. It's not like the services get the "BEST" in the world. No matter how good a person is, there is always someone better out there. And those qualified individuals can be found in any societal sub-group. Purposely determining the outcome of an individual based on attributes that they have no control over is a disservice to them and their peers.

To believe that there isn't enough quality individuals in a particular group is prejudice in it's own right. Whether the services were made up of all white; all black; all women; all men; or any other sub-group, the military services would be able to find enough quality individuals to maintain the skill level you speak of. And once they are actually in the military, they all become part of the same socio-economic group; so that isn't an issue.

If more QUALIFIED individuals are enlisting/seeking commission than the services needs, then it makes sense to try and recruit in a manner to emulate that of the society of our country. But this thread is about EXISTING officers. That means socio-economics is not a factor. It also means that retaining those with the most potential and highest level of achievements; when all individuals can't be retained; should be done based solely on merit. Race, color, ethnicity, sex, etc... should have nothing to do with it.

 

[LineInTheSand]

Hence the new efforts. It is not about some ambiguous political correctness but about financial survival. They will be held accountable for the results of their actions.

QUOTE]

So are you implying that sociaeconomic, racial, or gender groups are not keeping pace with the qualified masses (majority), and need to be grouped separately?

I fail to see how this applied to "finacial survival". They have a bloated budget and a serious Navy identity crisis. The "blue water" Navy touts the LCS, rescue swimmers, and it's "Global Force for Good". Gone are the days of the 16" deck guns, explosions, or kills. So what finacial survival are we talking here?

Either it's good and right, and should be front and center in the public eye, or it's not. If it's underhanded or less than acceptable, I can imagine an internal memo would be the way to go. If not, DMS would seem the way to notify.