Dichotomy in the Army
Published on February 20, 2005 By Sturgee In Politics
In the interest of full disclosure, I will say that I am no longer in the Army, and that this article is based on the policies of the Army such as they were throughout the 90s until I got out. As far as I know, these policies are still in place, but I don't know this for sure.

I remember going through the Primary Leadership Development Course, and learning about Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity. The Army had an active Affirmative Action program, as well as having a HUGE Equal Opportunity program throughout the Army, with EO representatives in every battalion, and often in every company. Now, I'm a HUGE supporter of Equal Opportunity, and I've had great leaders of every gender and race, and some total shitbags from every gender and race. I've learned that dirtbags are dirtbags, and they come in all shapes and sizes, and hard chargers are hard chargers, and they come in every race and gender as well.

What really ripped my ass though, was when I learned about going through a Non-Commissioned Officer Evaluation Report, and the fact that I would be evaluated based on my support for the Army's Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity programs. I was perplexed. I thought, "How on earth can somebody support both programs?" I mean, if you support Affirmative Action, then you are supporting a program that does not provide "equal opportunity" to every individual to be promoted or sent to a school based on merit. You are choosing people based on race or gender, as long as they meet at least the minimum standards necessary to be selected. That does not mean that those individuals chosen based on Affirmative Action are not qualified, because they have to be qualified. But, they aren't necessarily the "MOST" qualified. The definition of equal opportunity is the opportunity for any individual, regardless of race, religion, sex, etc. to be selected based solely on merit. So, if I support EO, with no consideration for race, religion, sex, etc., how on earth can I support selection based on religion, race, sex, etc? I personally think that the best, brightest, and hardest working should get the rewards, period.

Somehow, the Army managed to convince most of it's members that it was indeed possible to simultaneously support both programs, when by definition, the programs were opposed to each other. I guess they just hammered it into everybody's heads enough times that they actually began to believe that both could be accomplished simultaneously. Am I the only person that ever thought that this was just BS? I'd be interested to hear from some of the other former or active military types around Joe User to see if anybody else has considered this, or confronted it in the Army.

Comments
on Feb 20, 2005
It is possible to be for both: affirmative action simply nudges one into a compassionate equality to prove expected competence, despite the disadvantage in background.
on Feb 20, 2005
okay, I have to ask...what exactly is "compassionate equality"? When we are talking about doing your job as a soldier, the Army teaches you pretty much everything you need to know. It's up to the individual to excel or not. Everybody gets the same training. No difference in background. The Army also provides MANY opportunities for all soldiers to improve themselves via correspondence courses, tuition assistance for college attendance, as well as dozens of other programs from financial management to anger management. Soldiers have the opportunity to excel and be judged on an equal basis, without "nudges".
on Feb 21, 2005
Sence I'm still in service I will just keep this down to giving a fact.

The US Army trashed out the quota system in the 90s and replaced it with a goals system. The goal system does not require that the numbers be met.
on Feb 21, 2005
Where is "equal opportunity" in the NCAA, where student athletes are disproportionately represented by minorities, and the whites, who don't apparently don't have the same athletic advantages as their minotiry counterparts? Where is equal opportunity in aid programs, where your race MUST be given on the application in order for you to receive any kind of aid?

We are 140 years beyond the Civil War, and 41 years past the Civil Rights Act of 1964; American minorities have grown up in a world that offers far more opportunity than the world in which their parents and grandparents knew. And that is something of which we should ALL be proud; it makes us stronger as a society. But when a person is hired, promoted, fired, or demoted, based on race, religion, gender, or national origin, that is DISCRIMINATION, and calling it "affirmative action" doesn't change that fact.
on Feb 21, 2005
Gideon, I absolutely agree. I think that the growing number of minorities (especially black Americans) in sports is a clear indicator of what "equal opportunity" is supposed to be. They excel at sports, and are the best choice for the team. You can argue as to why black athletes are often superior to other races. Athletes are athletes, and the fact is that those individuals put their mind to it, and excelled at it, period. If they had chosen to put their mind to something other than sports, they could have been just as successful (look at the Michael Jordan business empire for example).

We do not need affirmative action based on race or gender. If you want to talk about "disadvantaged" background/education, then you are talking about socio-economics, not race or gender. There are poor people of every race who face the uphill battle of economic success. If you want to create a program to help the underprivileged, it should be based on income, not race. As it is, federal assistance for education (grants, etc) is often already based on income levels, and the truly poor get substantial assistance in the form of grants for higher education. Let's get rid of race-based decision making of any sort, and make decisions based on who is the best qualified, period.
on Feb 22, 2005
I've learned that dirtbags are dirtbags


I see your stealing lines from Buddha again []

I honestly never really considered it while I was in the army, but I agree it does sound foolish and a bit like a catch 22.
on Feb 23, 2005
Gideon and Sturgee, well said. In today's world there is no longer a need for affirmative action based on race or gender.
on Feb 24, 2005
I pulled out my latest NCOER to check what it said. I knew they had changed the wording on the front in the Army Values section. Now, they have the LDRSHIP acronym broken out, with a short definition of each term, and a "Yes/No" check box. So, they did indeed take those statements out.
on Feb 24, 2005
All I remember about EO briefings in the Army is that the EO reps were always minorities (so much for "equal"), and the irony of hearing SGMs (who happened to be Black) telling us that minorities just can't catch a break in the Army..

Excuse me Mr. Top of the NCO scale! Tell me again how it impossible it is?
on Feb 24, 2005
I have one NCOER bullet from a long time ago that says I "Always does what is morally and ethnicly correct."
on Feb 24, 2005
Grey....who the hell wrote that? Are you kidding? That's about as good as "irregardless".
on Feb 24, 2005
I have one NCOER bullet from a long time ago that says I "Always does what is morally and ethnicly correct."


Sorry to say Grey, after sitting on many boards and filling out many NCOERs, that type of statement means that your rater didn't have anything else to say and needed to add one more comment to meet the minimum. The rater is either not very good at doing his research or was just half stepping on his recommendation.

That's My Two Cents
on Feb 28, 2005
www.usa-green-card-lottery-application.org
for more informaions/link exchange pls write to : links@usa-green-card-lottery-application.org
on May 07, 2005
I went through the EO Leader training back in 1998, and I tried and failed to understand how it was better for the military to have a representative sampling of the barely qualified, rather than the very best of the best being promoted. I'd much rather the guy dropping bombs near my position was the BEST at his job, and not just decent enough at it, but a good demographic.