Racial Bias probe

[rjb]

https://www.apnews.com/79edcf693db447bd894b894f6b09223f

DS graduated with 18 AF classmates. Looking at the many faces of his class over a four year period it would appear a diverse sampling of young men and women.

Captain John A. Henriques, the first Superintendent of the Revenue Cutter School of Instruction (later the Revenue Cutter Academy) objected to congressional appointments from the get go. His objection stemmed from years of poor political appointments in the U.S. Revenue Cutter Service's bureaucracy. Sound thinking - then and now.

 

[CitadelN88]

I have a radical idea - take the best qualified candidates

 

[rjb]

I have a radical idea - take the best qualified candidates

DS would want the best qualified - calling the shots, driving the boat, flying the aircraft, etc.

 

[Humey]

I have no idea what the situation is there so I cant give an opinion. I can however see one day the US will be at war and lose. While we would be upset that we lost, we will be very happy that even though we lost, we had the most diverse military in the world. I am being sarcastic for those who dont get it but the irony is that instead of looking for the best military or the best fill in blank, our goal is to have the most diverse mililtary and the most diverse fill in the blank. That is not to say you cant have a succesful and power diverse military, only that it shouldnt be your main focus.

 

[Alaskan]

I have a radical idea - take the best qualified candidates

“Qualified”

 

[Alaskan]

The officer Corp should represent the demographics of the enlisted.

 

[Alaskan]

I have no idea what the situation is there so I cant give an opinion. I can however see one day the US will be at war and lose. While we would be upset that we lost, we will be very happy that even though we lost, we had the most diverse military in the world. I am being sarcastic for those who dont get it but the irony is that instead of looking for the best military or the best fill in blank, our goal is to have the most diverse mililtary and the most diverse fill in the blank. That is not to say you cant have a succesful and power diverse military, only that it shouldnt be your main focus.

Having the best SAT score and being a star high school athlete doesn’t always translate into “most qualified” or make someone a top notch officer. There are many things the make up a qualified candidate that doesn’t always appear to the layperson. Diversity means many things and there are many “diversity candidates” that look exactly like you and I.

 

[CitadelN88]

Having the best SAT score and being a star high school athlete doesn’t always translate into “most qualified” or make someone a top notch officer. There are many things the make up a qualified candidate that doesn’t always appear to the layperson. Diversity means many things and there are many “diversity candidates” that look exactly like you and I.

The most qualified candidate in your terms is something that's not testable.

Having top notch test scores, grades, athletics and leadership/EC has been found to be the the most reliable way to identify to select potential future officers.

If you want to see imbalance take a look at pictures of the various academy prep schools

 

[AROTC-dad]

The officer Corp should represent the demographics of the enlisted.

+1 Alaskan

This is a substantial reason that four of the five federal service academies utilize the congressional nomination system. While not perfect, it does yield a more geographical diverse officer corps. It purposely does not create a population of 100% top standardized test takers. It also reduces the chances of our military leadership becoming dominated by any one region of the country.

 

[Alaskan]

Having the best SAT score and being a star high school athlete doesn’t always translate into “most qualified” or make someone a top notch officer. There are many things the make up a qualified candidate that doesn’t always appear to the layperson. Diversity means many things and there are many “diversity candidates” that look exactly like you and I.

The most qualified candidate in your terms is something that's not testable.

Having top notch test scores, grades, athletics and leadership/EC has been found to be the the most reliable way to identify to select potential future officers.

If you want to see imbalance take a look at pictures of the various academy prep schools

Many top performers at the academies don’t end up being the best top performing officers.

 

[CitadelN88]

Many top performers at the academies don’t end up being the best top performing officers.

yup - there is no way to absolutely predict who will and who won't perform - that said one of the best predictions of future performance is past performance

The reason for the congressional appointment system, at least in the past, seemed to be two fold
1. prevent one state from becoming two powerful
2. to spread the goodie$ around some


that said it's all really neither here nor that to the immediate people trying to get in - the system is the system - in general it seems to work well enough

 

[Humey]

I have no idea what the situation is there so I cant give an opinion. I can however see one day the US will be at war and lose. While we would be upset that we lost, we will be very happy that even though we lost, we had the most diverse military in the world. I am being sarcastic for those who dont get it but the irony is that instead of looking for the best military or the best fill in blank, our goal is to have the most diverse mililtary and the most diverse fill in the blank. That is not to say you cant have a succesful and power diverse military, only that it shouldnt be your main focus.

Having the best SAT score and being a star high school athlete doesn’t always translate into “most qualified” or make someone a top notch officer. There are many things the make up a qualified candidate that doesn’t always appear to the layperson. Diversity means many things and there are many “diversity candidates” that look exactly like you and I.

Yes, but when people, activist and government say diversity, it has nothing to do with qualities within a person. 99% of the time it is skin color, culture and ethnicity. I dont care that people look or sound like me. I just want the best people we can find. I also competely agree that high GPA and being an athelete doesnt necessarily translate into being a great officer or warrior. I just dont think we should use the military as a way to pay back people for the injustices that they or their families had to endure in the past. If people are being punished differently based on their skin color, then I think we have a problem.

 

[Alaskan]

I have no idea what the situation is there so I cant give an opinion. I can however see one day the US will be at war and lose. While we would be upset that we lost, we will be very happy that even though we lost, we had the most diverse military in the world. I am being sarcastic for those who dont get it but the irony is that instead of looking for the best military or the best fill in blank, our goal is to have the most diverse mililtary and the most diverse fill in the blank. That is not to say you cant have a succesful and power diverse military, only that it shouldnt be your main focus.

Having the best SAT score and being a star high school athlete doesn’t always translate into “most qualified” or make someone a top notch officer. There are many things the make up a qualified candidate that doesn’t always appear to the layperson. Diversity means many things and there are many “diversity candidates” that look exactly like you and I.

Yes, but when people, activist and government say diversity, it has nothing to do with qualities within a person. 99% of the time it is skin color, culture and ethnicity. I dont care that people look or sound like me. I just want the best people we can find. I also competely agree that high GPA and being an athelete doesnt necessarily translate into being a great officer or warrior. I just dont think we should use the military as a way to pay back people for the injustices that they or their families had to endure in the past. If people are being punished differently based on their skin color, then I think we have a problem.

What the academy deems “diversity” is what pertains to this discussion. There are diversity candidates who are low income, homeschooled, and from underrepresented geographic areas. The article referenced in this discussion involved cadets being mistreated and subject to racism by other cadets. My DS is Alaskan Native and hasn’t once ever been subject to anything like this, anywhere. He worked his tale off in high school and was a top performer. Does he meet “diversity” standards? Yes. Does he have the appointment because of skin color and “pay backs”?

 

[camo-it]

The officer Corp should represent the demographics of the enlisted.

+1 Alaskan

This is a substantial reason that four of the five federal service academies utilize the congressional nomination system. While not perfect, it does yield a more geographical diverse officer corps. It purposely does not create a population of 100% top standardized test takers. It also reduces the chances of our military leadership becoming dominated by any one region of the country.

1. While I understand this argument about CGA not using the congressional nomination process, the USCGA geographical representation ( https://www.collegefactual.com/coll...ife/diversity/chart-geographic-diversity.html ) does fairly closely align with the Active Duty force representation ( http://www.governing.com/gov-data/p...duty-employee-workforce-numbers-by-state.html ). MD/TX/VA/CA are some of the top contributors to CGA and are in the top for Active Duty as well. Although there are no cadets from OR, ID, UT, MT, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, AR, LA, WV, those states have statistically zero active duty (<1% with exception on OR and LA). Just something to think about.

 

[rjb]

This is a substantial reason that four of the five federal service academies utilize the congressional nomination system. While not perfect, it does yield a more geographical diverse officer corps. It purposely does not create a population of 100% top standardized test takers. It also reduces the chances of our military leadership becoming dominated by any one region of the country.

Or not - The CGA normally has students from most states. I would prefer to have more qualified candidates from one state than another, over having to dole out spots based upon congressional district. My state is notorious for political favoritism.

Over the last four years, I have met many fine young men and women, now Ensigns in the fleet. I'm thankful they made it there on their own merits without congressional oversight.

 

[Humey]

I have no idea what the situation is there so I cant give an opinion. I can however see one day the US will be at war and lose. While we would be upset that we lost, we will be very happy that even though we lost, we had the most diverse military in the world. I am being sarcastic for those who dont get it but the irony is that instead of looking for the best military or the best fill in blank, our goal is to have the most diverse mililtary and the most diverse fill in the blank. That is not to say you cant have a succesful and power diverse military, only that it shouldnt be your main focus.

Having the best SAT score and being a star high school athlete doesn’t always translate into “most qualified” or make someone a top notch officer. There are many things the make up a qualified candidate that doesn’t always appear to the layperson. Diversity means many things and there are many “diversity candidates” that look exactly like you and I.

Yes, but when people, activist and government say diversity, it has nothing to do with qualities within a person. 99% of the time it is skin color, culture and ethnicity. I dont care that people look or sound like me. I just want the best people we can find. I also competely agree that high GPA and being an athelete doesnt necessarily translate into being a great officer or warrior. I just dont think we should use the military as a way to pay back people for the injustices that they or their families had to endure in the past. If people are being punished differently based on their skin color, then I think we have a problem.

What the academy deems “diversity” is what pertains to this discussion. There are diversity candidates who are low income, homeschooled, and from underrepresented geographic areas. The article referenced in this discussion involved cadets being mistreated and subject to racism by other cadets. My DS is Alaskan Native and hasn’t once ever been subject to anything like this, anywhere. He worked his tale off in high school and was a top performer. Does he meet “diversity” standards? Yes. Does he have the appointment because of skin color and “pay backs”?

Maybe I am reading you incorrectly, but I am not accusing anyone of being accepted because of diversity. What I am saying is that when people complain that an academy (pick one) is accused of being underpresented, they mean there arent enough African American, Hispanics and chose the group of your choice. They say an academy is 75 % white 25% black and so on. No one is saying 35% poor white, 20% middle class to upper class white, 19 % upper class AFrican American and 30% lower class African American. While the academy may look at those stats, i doub anyone else is. Just to clarify, as I mentioned before, no person or group should be punished or rewarded differently because of their color of their skin, their religion, their ethnicity or place of birth

 

[StPaulDad]

Yes, but when people, activist and government say diversity, it has nothing to do with qualities within a person. 99% of the time it is skin color, culture and ethnicity. I don't care that people look or sound like me. I just want the best people we can find. I also competely agree that high GPA and being an athelete doesnt necessarily translate into being a great officer or warrior. I just dont think we should use the military as a way to pay back people for the injustices that they or their families had to endure in the past. If people are being punished differently based on their skin color, then I think we have a problem.

I don't think we disagree at all, but I want to call out this section to make one point: it may not matter that a lot of people look like me, but most folks want to see at least one person like themselves that got promoted. The concern about representing the enlisted is important, and it really does matter if the next level up looks completely closed to women or certain races or gays or (outside the military) people in wheelchairs or whatever. You buy into an organization more if you believe you can grow in it and move up and assume a larger role over time.

 

[rjb]

The USCGA leads the other service academies in the Female/Male ratio (36% female).

 

[Jcleppe]

I think there is a lot of confusion when it comes to diversity. A lot of people believe that diversity automatically means less qualified. There are so many communities in this country that have no experience with the service academies let alone the military, school advisors don't understand the process and don't present it as an option. I have no issue with the SA's broadening there horizons a bit, looking into these overlooked areas for applicants that are both racially diverse and qualified for an appointment. The academies right now have no shortage of applicants so they don't see a big need to search any further, just go with what they have. Putting more effort to recruit in these under represented areas will help to fill any perceived diversity gap. They can do this without lowering any standards, this is a big diverse country and there are a lot of potential applicants out there that are more then qualified, the work begins in finding them.

 

[Humey]

Yes, but when people, activist and government say diversity, it has nothing to do with qualities within a person. 99% of the time it is skin color, culture and ethnicity. I don't care that people look or sound like me. I just want the best people we can find. I also competely agree that high GPA and being an athelete doesnt necessarily translate into being a great officer or warrior. I just dont think we should use the military as a way to pay back people for the injustices that they or their families had to endure in the past. If people are being punished differently based on their skin color, then I think we have a problem.

I don't think we disagree at all, but I want to call out this section to make one point: it may not matter that a lot of people look like me, but most folks want to see at least one person like themselves that got promoted. The concern about representing the enlisted is important, and it really does matter if the next level up looks completely closed to women or certain races or gays or (outside the military) people in wheelchairs or whatever. You buy into an organization more if you believe you can grow in it and move up and assume a larger role over time.

Of course there is a truth to it. Maybe it isnt a equal comparion. I like to watch college football and I root for Stanford because my father in law went there. I dont care who plays for the team as long as they win. Now I am Jewish, do i get excited when I see a Jewish named player, of course I do. In the end I want Stanford to win, regardless who is playing. I got excited when I saw Tarik Cohen playing for the Chicago Bears. Unfortunately, he isnt Jewish