High Seas Segregation

[Mongo]

Did the demographic change/continue to change because it was forced or because it was the natural progression? Would the same apply for a service in the military?

Job's aren't easy to find for many right now, and retention is up, not to mention the fact that many services will shrink their work force. I think the "incentives" notion is of keeping people in doesn't apply as much in 2010. The incentive these days is to "have a job", which is why promotion boards have become a blood bath.

When Adm Mullen became CNO he commissioned a study to evaluate the vision of the Navy for the entire 21st century. One of the areas studied was the demographics of the recruiting base for the future. The nation is getting older and it is getting darker. The base from which the Navy has traditionally obtained the majority of its recruits is shrinkiing. Also, technical expertise requirements will increase with our future Navy. Remember that traditionally the Navy has been the whitest of the services. The conclusion was that the Navy could not survive the 21st century without expanding its recruiting base. Hence the diversity focus.

Yes, we are in the middle of a recession. No, the recession will not last forever. So no, one year does not a trend make.

If we don't be proactive on this, by the time the need shows up in the recruiting percentages, it will be too late. Our combat readiness will already have suffered irrevocable harm.

 

[Pima]

why do you have to see race or ethnicity? After all, race and ethnicity are genetic.

In the big scheme, you are correct, ethnicity is also genetic. However, are we not all Americans, do you walk around in Italy and say that is a black Italian, or an Asian Italian? Of course not, you classify Italian citizens as Italians. You don't start segregating them into skin color groups. You see them for their ethnicity, nothing more and nothing less. I don't care if Italians segregate based on race. I am not an Italian citizen. I AM AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, and to me IMHO we do more harm than good by using our skin color as a descriptor. If you are Irish, genetically you probably are fair skin and burn easily. Greek, you may have an olive pigmentation and never burn. In the end it is all pigmentation, nothing more, nothing less. Crap, our DD has her fathers ethnic background (Italian-dark hair, dark eyes and tans easily), when we lived in NC and we were shopping at a store, people would speak to her in Spanish thinking she was hispanic. She'd look at me in wonderment of "Mommy what are they saying?" No lie, I learned to say Mi Hija no habla espanol by the time she was 5. (I am sure I just slaughtered that!). In that NC area preschoolers learn spanish, and in the public school system they get 2 lessons a week in spanish starting at kinder.

Nobody wants to address the Elephant in the room, but many have skirted it..."good old white boys" is an example. That statement was meant to inflame. We all know it. It was not meant as a teaching moment. This is why I say as human beings let's stop using the color of our skin as descriptors. When you use it as a descriptor, nothing good comes from it. Why is it so hard for people to see pass skin color? It is genetic, nothing more and nothing less.

More importantly I find it interesting that defenders of this issue have yet to slam me down by showing promotion rates for minorities being out of balance compared to non-minorities.

You want to say they should do fast tracking for minorities because the in equilibrium within the service. Go for it. I will support you up, down, left and right. I will even write letters to my MOC and CS's. BUT show me the stats. Prove to me that 70% of white (for you Make it) officers get promoted while 50% of minorities are promoted.

Stop the rhetoric, and PC crap...show the numbers to prove why they want diversity. Numbers can rarely be manipulated, especially if the Navy says 68% of IZ officers were promoted.

Now I will give you one fact, fliers have a higher promotion rate. If you say that minorities are rare than I think diversity should occur from within the heirarchy. I.E. 20% of officers are AA, but only 5% in the rated field are minority, however, this is not what I am seeing as the defense for diversity.

 

[Pima]

Actually Mike, JAM just proved the point that Luigi and I are making ...it is socio economic, and the reason race is an issue is because in those areas they are in the lower socio-economic base. It isn't race, but their socio-economic standing, show me where it said race. It did state they are ineligible because of criminal records, obesity or lack of education. Correct me if I am wrong wouldn't all of those issues fall under socio-economic and NOT race?

I lived in Philly for yrs. Trust me when I say, on one side of the street you have the upper crust and the other side they are living on welfare.

Have you ever gone to South Street? It is filled with lovely high end shops, unique restaurants, now go 2 blocks left or right of South St and it changes drastically. My father was fortunate enough to fight and lose his battle with cancer at UP hospital. Great area as long as you stick to the radius of the campus, not so great when you leave the radii.

Philly is no different than NYC or DC. The people with the money don't live there, UNLESS they have a hell of a lot of money. Philly is known for City Line...guess what... City Line is not in downtown Philly. People working in DC live in MD or VA. People working in NYC live in NJ/CT. 9/11 proves that point...the majority of victims were not NY residents, they were NJ, CT and finally NY.

That stat only proves socio-economic...not race is the factor. I may have missed it, but nowhere did it mention race, nowhere did I say non-minorities were accepted at a higher rate.

Keep it to stats when you argue diversity. If you are going to post a link like this one, post one that says only white uneducated, overweight with a criminal record were deemed fit for duty, whereas minorities were deemed unfit.

Also remember, not everyone has 1st hand knowledge of Philly or any city, we can all throw articles to support our side, as a poster to defend their link they should also acknowledge how the article supports their position.

Maybe I missed something, but I didn't see race included in the article, I only saw criminal history, obesity and lack of education...something that is also known as socio-economic issues which Luigi and I are willing to support. However, we also want the acknowledgment that this is not a race issue, it is a socio-economic issue. White kids on welfare and medicaid do not have an advantage compared to minorities. Both pulled themselves up from their boot straps, but because in this situation, the white kid who fought for his spot is going to get a lesser advantage because his genetic make up.

Help and correct me to say they will get the same exact advantage; if they both came from the same neighborhood, same background and same career field within the Navy. Just explain to me how 2 boys with identical backgrounds work under this diversity program in an equal proportion. All I see is the white boy (you know the good old white boy system as Mongo stated), that lived on govt assistance like the minority boy gets his arse bit because genetically he is not a minority and THUS, the Navy won't fast track him. According to the Navy he is boffed even as an officer who pulled himself up from the boot strap because due to his skin color he doesn't warrant special attention. Screw the fact that he climbed our of the ghetto like the minorities, he's white!

Show me the fairness for that kid! Sorry, but race should not be the issue, socio-economics should!

 

[Mongo]

I think all JAM was doing was pointing out that not only are demographics changing but that individuals within the population base are also changing. Therefore, in the past if the Navy could count on 'X' number of qualified individuals per certain population size, due to changing education, fitness, and legal issues, that number will continue to get smaller. Just another reason to expand the recruiting effort into areas here to before untested.

 

[Pima]

I get that, but show me the stats. If you defend diversity why can't you support your position with stats.

Just show me that minorities are being promoted at a lower rate than others. Show me that minorities with identical backgrounds (education, financial and fitness) are being turned away at a higher rate than non-minorities,

You can't say you support diversity without saying, the past 4 yrs of 04 promotion boards, minorities were promoted at 57% rate while non-minorities were promoted at 75% to support your position.

Not one person supporting this diversity push has shown a stat to say that minorities are being promoted at a lower rate.

I am willing to say that this program should exist if you can show that minorities are being promoted at a lower rate than non-minorities, but until then all I am getting is PC rhetoric. Currently, all I am reading is rhetoric, not one person on either side has proven or dis-proven discrimination. I tend to fall with that silly adage innocent until proven guilty. In this scenario the guilt that must be proven is the "good old white boy" system is alive and well regarding promotion. (Mongo you were the one that started this white boy vs minority debate).

Verbatim...post 48 from Mongo

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

I just want to make sure that nobody can say I parsed your post.

 

[aglages]

The nation is getting older and it is getting darker. The base from which the Navy has traditionally obtained the majority of its recruits is shrinkiing.

I wonder whether you are confusing quantity with percentages. While the "base" as a percentage of the overall population may be shrinking, the quantity of QUALIFIED applicants within that "traditional" base is not. Do you have a link to the results of Admiral Mullen's study that indicated the quantity of traditional "base" recruits was decreasing? Is the Navy anticipating the need to substantially expand it's manpower requirements beyond the current staffing levels?

 

[Pima]

I am with Aglages, show stats, I get slammed left, right and center for my anecdotal info, including from you. Show stats!

Holy crap Mongo, according to you we are in the darkest hour

Yes, we are in the middle of a recession. No, the recession will not last forever. So no, one year does not a trend make.

If we don't be proactive on this, by the time the need shows up in the recruiting percentages, it will be too late. Our combat readiness will already have suffered irrevocable harm.

Now that you are done scaring the bee gee gees out of everyone, let's talk realism.

According to every economist, our unemployment rate of 9.5 will last through 11. Our high unemployment rate started to rise a couple of yrs ago, but as a teacher, I guess you were safe and didn't notice! DID you miss the fact that now unemployment benefits go to 99 weeks? Are you missing the fact that this administration is admitting it is 2 yrs, while you say 1 yr? Even if we have a quick rise in unemployment it is highly unlikely from an economic standpoint that we will get back to a 5% within the next 5 yrs. Let's do economics right now. Cap and Trade, healthcare and the economic outlook are the reasons companies are not hiring, nor will they until they trust the federal govt. We also have Bush tax cuts being repealed. 28% of homeowners are under water in their mortgage or in active foreclosure. The gulf oil crisis is going to make it worse in this category. The deficit is imploding everyday. Just this past week we heard that this administration acknowledges at least 10% of the stimulus bill didn't go to stimulating the economy.

According to you, you spent decades in the military, thus you know that there is an inverse relationship regarding the economy and military retention. If the economy is in the tank, like now, the retention rate is high. Now because the economy is in the tank, many of these AD members will have to sign on for 4,5,6 + yrs. That gives the military enough time to recruit, train AND be back at C status without a bat of an eye...or giving a bonus either! Your theory that the fat lady is warming her pipes is a very interesting theory.

 

[Mongo]

I am with Aglages, show stats, I get slammed left, right and center for my anecdotal info, including from you. Show stats!

What stats are you looking for? I don't see anything at all in the discussion to which stats would amplify anyone's position. No one is arguing that selection boards are unfair. To the best of my knowledge, they are all fair and equitable. The discussion here specifically is an initiative that CNO has taken due to the fact that minority Captains are appearing before the Admiral selection boards less prepared for selection due to previous duty assignments than the CNO feels they should be. That this concern has been voiced for several years and is just now being picked up by the press and bloggers reiterates that it really is no big deal. The only other concern I know along these lines is that minority O-4s are exiting the Navy in droves. I am sure some initiatives will be along shortly addressing this issue. The only other issue here, which again bears no statistical interpretation is the fact that the admiral selection concern is a part of the overall diversity effort. Since this is a thirty year plan to totally be placed in effect, today's economic conditions really have no bearing. We all know that cyclically the Navy will be fighting tooth and nail for these qualified individuals and the larger the selection base, the more apt the Navy is to get their fair share at a fair 'price'..

 

[Maximus]

FYI, 'Minorities" can be "Caucasians", i.e., hispanics of european descent.
If we can't get our anthropological facts straight in the context of our nation's history, then you can't really have an educated discussion on racial/ethnic relations, or for that matter USN's directives.

I always loved this troll account

 

[Christcorp]

Mongo; the more you defend Admiral Mullen, the more I believe that he is an Old Fart who is outdated and has outlived his usefulness in the Navy. Sounds like he needs to retire and let someone who isn't wrapped up in race take over. Someone of this century who can appreciate people for who they are and where the color of their skin doesn't matter. Race and color only matter in the military, because people like him won't let the military move on. Sounds like he's the real problem.

 

[Mongo]

Mongo; the more you defend Admiral Mullen, the more I believe that he is an Old Fart who is outdated and has outlived his usefulness in the Navy. Sounds like he needs to retire and let someone who isn't wrapped up in race take over. Someone of this century who can appreciate people for who they are and where the color of their skin doesn't matter. Race and color only matter in the military, because people like him won't let the military move on. Sounds like he's the real problem.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana

Somehow someone well versed in the past but with the foresight to bring the best minds available together to chart the future gives me a lot more warm fuzzies than the opinions of those on an anonymous forum who don't know enough about the subject to provide their own 'stats'.

 

[bruno]

You know folks - this has become a hugely circular argument and I don't see it progressing from here in a direction that will shed new light on this subject. I suggest that it either get put to rest at this point unless someone has something new to inject into this discussion beyond the endless repeating of mantras. It absolutely will not be allowed to slide into personal attacks on peoples motives or integrity on either side of the discussion- so please be forewarned and act accordingly.

 

[Christcorp]

In a nutshell: Restitution doesn't work. Special preference to an individual or group doesn't work. And no one is saying to be blind to the injustices of the past. Only that you don't ensure certain injustices aren't committed again, by creating NEW injustices to a different group of people. If the military wants there to be equality in the opportunities of it's members, then they have to treat their members equally. ANYTHING other than this is a form of discrimination to one group of individuals; and demeaning to another group by basically saying that you aren't equal and you need "Special Attention".

 

[MakeItHappen]

I always loved this troll account

Sorry, I can't help you with your uneducated, ignorance.


Oh what the heck, I'll try. PM me and we'll start with the letters A thru L next week.




SHUT HER DOWN CAPTAIN!