NOTE: I’m going to experiment with weekly posts, rather than fortnightly. I wanted to publish this post sooner rather than later in order to respond to a reader comment, plus I realized that I’ve got enough material saved up that I won’t run out for at least a few months. I am still working full-time (more than full-time, actually) so please bear with me if I can’t always maintain this pace.
In a recent post (“Where have all the soldiers gone?”), I mentioned the US military’s DEI “education” efforts in a less-than-flattering manner. Combined with my writings in “Words have meanings” and “The first Martian”, this may be painting a picture of me as a social reactionary. Which I’m not particularly concerned about—I know who I am, and it is not that—but a comment by a reader on “Where have all the soldiers gone?” made me realize that I’ve missed an opportunity to elaborate on my views about DEI, and specifically their nexus with the military’s implementation. And I may not be a social reactionary, but I am an opinionated loudmouth—so I can’t possibly miss an opportunity to elaborate on my views. Here I go!
“DEI”, of course, stands for “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion”, and it’s become a polarizing term; a weapon in the culture wars. The key points I’d like to make about it are:
There’s a big difference between “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (dei) and “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (DEI)
I support diversity
I support inclusion
I support equality, but not equity
I do not support DEI
The US government supports DEI, but not dei
DEI has zero actual interest in resolving anything
The difference between dei and DEI
Just as there is a difference between believing that “black lives matter” and supporting “Black Lives Matter”, so is there a difference between believing in the value of diversity and embracing the DEI Commissars.
DEI officials, who have sprung up all over government and industry in the last few years, are what would have been called “political officers” in the Soviet Red Army. These were individuals who held military rank equal to that of the commander of the unit to which they were assigned, who had authority to give and/or countermand orders, but whose primary education was in Marxism-Leninism—not in warfare. Their main purpose was to ensure that the soldiers didn’t do anything that ran counter to the Party’s goals. You can imagine how well this worked in the Red Army, and what wonders it did for unit effectiveness. Which is why it’s working so well in modern US society!
I support diversity
After 21 years on active duty and nine deployments (5 of them with Special Operations units), I very much believe in the value of engaging a variety of viewpoints when trying to solve a difficult problem. This diversity is particularly valuable when faced with a situation that isn’t described in the literature, as it were. A problem that doesn’t have a “by the book” solution; a problem that requires you to engage in true critical thinking and creative reasoning.
This is “diversity”: leveraging the experience, perspective, and problem-solving approach of every person in the room in order to get something done. None of us is perfect—we all have strengths and weaknesses—and turning to the team member with the right strength for a given task is how we get things done. Without getting too grandiose, this is a part of what made America successful in the first place.
Contrast with Diversity, which combats hypothetical racism with actual racism (against whites, plus Asians and Jews sometimes), hypothetical sexism with actual sexism (against men), etc. Capital-D Diversity denies equality by asserting that some groups should be given preferential treatment, while others should be artificially held back.
I support inclusion
If “diversity” is leveraging everyone in the room, then “inclusion” is ensuring that they can be in the room to begin with. There truly are very real obstacles placed before certain groups of people—some for good reason, some no longer needed, and some just plain misguided—that inclusion seeks to overcome.
For example, consider Air Force Officer Training School (OTS). This is the primary way for a college-educated civilian or enlisted servicemember to become an Air Force officer. It’s mostly academics, some leadership training, and some field training and physical fitness. Because some parts of OTS are physically demanding and potentially dangerous during pregnancy, pregnant women can’t attend OTS. This is a legitimate barrier—it exists for the safety of the mother and fetus.
A would-be Officer Trainee must obtain medical clearance; without it, one can’t even apply. The application and class assignment process can take a year or more—sometimes 18-24 months. Previously, the rules stated that a pregnant woman can’t even go through the pre-OTS physical. This meant that a woman had to choose: forego having a child until after OTS (which might mean waiting 1-2 years, possibly more if the new officer’s first assignment makes pregnancy difficult or impossible), or else get preggers but then have to postpone applying to OTS for a year or two—or even more, if there are postpartum complications that need to resolve before the pre-OTS physical.
This was a stupid and unnecessary barrier. It forced the woman to choose either pregnancy or OTS, knowing that in choosing one, she was postponing the other for years. This is not a choice—parenthood or OTS—that men ever had to make. Many women just didn’t want to postpone motherhood for that long, and the Air Force was missing out on perfectly good officer candidates as a result. Fortunately, this rule was changed, allowing pregnant or post-partum applicants to get the physical exam (receiving a conditional medical clearance), apply to OTS, and then just have a final pre-OTS checkup to make sure everything was still good. This greatly reduced the potential length of time between OTS and pregnancy by removing that unnecessary overlap.
The above is an excellent example of a barrier to service that didn’t make sense. Once removed, it boosted inclusion by bringing in more highly qualified women.
Contrast with Inclusion, which seeks to remove all barriers—even the evidence-based ones that are in place for perfectly valid reasons—and is forever chasing the First Martian. Capital-I Inclusion is opposed to both diversity and (interestingly enough) to Diversity, because Inclusion denies that there are differences between people—sometimes, fundamental and significant differences.
I do not support equity
I think I may have said this before… words have meanings.
The word used to be “equality”. This meant being equal under the law.
We now have equality under the law. Check out the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968, for starters.
The word now, however, is “equity”. What does this mean? Most dictionary definitions (see, for example, here, here, and here) reference “fairness” and/or “justice”.
The problem with “fair” or “just”, rather than “equal”, is that the first two terms are subjective. If a pie is split evenly into two halves, they are “equal”. But someone can always say that this division is not “fair”, and that “justice” requires a bigger piece of the pie.
“Equity” is a word that perniciously replaced “equality” in our public discourse. It is a word that is calculated to ensure that no argument ever truly ends—that anyone, at any time, can declare that something is not just or fair. Capital-E Equity isn’t opposed to equality per se; it just asserts that equality is irrelevant.
I do not support DEI
In case this was not clear from my earlier rants: I believe that black lives matter, as do all lives. But I do not support Black Lives Matter, because I don’t think it’s right to burn down stores in your own neighborhood or to spend donated millions on luxury homes.
Similarly, I support diversity, equality, and inclusion. I absolutely do not support DEI Commissars. They are toll collectors who slow down the progress of humankind while contributing no value in return. They are thought police who prosecute and persecute wrongthink. Insofar as there is something that is the antonym of “America”, it is “DEI”.
The US government supports DEI, but not dei
DEI in the military has many faces. Some are true believers, burning with righteous zeal. Some are cynical manipulators, leveraging the rules—whatever the rules may happen to be on any given day—to personal advantage. Some are professionals, just trying to get by and do their jobs, dutifully implementing whatever social experiment Congress is foisting on the military this week (see “Where have all the soldiers gone?”) because they are forced to do so. More than a few in this last category harbor hard feelings against such puppeteering, but they soldier on (pun intended).
Either way, the US government—and the military is a part of that government—outwardly professes undying love for DEI. Similarly, and not too long ago, the military wholeheartedly agreed that “don’t ask, don’t tell” was a wise and useful policy.
And into this, someone who genuinely believes in one or more elements of dei. The true believers will embrace you, until your faith is revealed as not being pure enough in some way. The manipulators may assume you’re one of them, but will basically ignore you unless you become a threat or a target. And the professionals (more than a few of whom are Old Schoolers) will resent you, because they’ll assume that you are one of the former two categories.
The military has no interest in true diversity: of thought, of experience. They say they do, yes; but actions speak louder. I previously bemoaned the rigid promotion system of the US military. This isn’t sour grapes from someone who can’t get promoted—after all, I made it to Colonel. But I made it despite the things I did differently, not because of them. The military had no procedure to tell it what to do with someone like me; I didn’t follow the traditional career path, and so I was on track to top out at Lieutenant Colonel. I only got back on the promotion track after I threw my hands up and jumped through the final hoop. And all the junior officers who ask me for advice on how to follow the same non-traditional path that I followed? I am forced to tell them: “you’ll have to choose between that and promotion”.
The military—thankfully!—has no interest in equity. As ossified as the promotion system is, at least it uses more or less objective merit criteria. If we ever start to promote our soldiers based on equality of outcome, or to meet demographic quotas—well, we can just close up shop and learn Mandarin, I guess…
The only component of dei that the military may be truly interested in—to their credit—is inclusion. Probably because recruiting is struggling so badly right now.
The DEI Commissars don’t actually want to solve anything
Because then they’d be out of a job!
Just like pharmaceutical companies don’t want you to work out, eat clean, and spend time outside—just treat [insert condition name] with our newest pill! Just like CA has a $4.6 billion agency to deal with homelessness—I’m sure they’re THIS close to solving the “crisis of the unsheltered”! Just like Congress doesn’t want peace in the Middle East, because then all the military contracts will dry up.
As I previously noted, the military has metamorphosed from an organization that’s optimized to fight and win wars into one that’s optimized to maintain and enlarge itself. But this is not unique to the military—it is in the nature of any bureaucracy to grow. I don’t begrudge them their nature; they are what they are. But we must recognize what this nature is, what it means, and calibrate our expectations and approaches accordingly.
We shouldn’t expect any entity to act contrary to its nature or to the incentives inherent in its environment. A military with a large bureaucratic civilian corps that doesn’t itself participate in the fighting—which is the case with the DoD)—is incentivized to start new wars and to prolong existing ones, because that’s how it gains resources and influence. An agency charged with combating homelessness is incentivized to perpetuate homelessness, lest its purpose disappear. And an office charged with propagating DEI is incentivized to perpetuate—or at least not resolve—identity-based conflict.
But wait, there’s more. In addition to the game theory argument presented above, I have a real-world example to offer.
I believe strongly in the importance of diversity and inclusion. Naively, I confused this with DEI back when the concept of DEI was first gaining traction within the military (see here for the obituary of my naïveté). I participated in town halls, joined working groups, and volunteered as a panelist during DEI discussions. I eagerly waited for my fellow participants to offer some actionable ideas for how to fix our very real problems; when no ideas emerged, I proposed some of my own.
Guess what? Nobody cared. Nobody wanted to do anything except holding more town halls and expert panel sessions.
It is certainly possible that this was because my ideas all sucked. I’ll share one of them in a later post so you can judge for yourself. But all joking and false humility aside—I’m not a total dummy and I think that my ideas had at least some merit. I presented them to four separate DEI offices at four different command echelons: 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-star (the last one being at the Department of the Air Force level), and not a single one was interested even in discussing further—let alone investing the time to give it a shot.
The components of dei—diversity, equality, and inclusion—are not only good; they are the foundation of the spirit of America. Conversely, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion are the antithesis. Know the difference and don’t make the same mistakes I did.