<p>EDITORIAL:</a> High seas segregation - Washington Times</p>
<p>Right or Wrong, this is pretty standard practive in the HR depts of the civilian business world.</p>
<p>So what. Sin is always preferable to high-road behavior. But that doesn’t make it right. </p>
<p>This is such a gross miscarriage of the foundations, values, and traditions of the U.S. military services that have been bastions of pay-and-promotion for performance …not politics, not class, not creed, not color, not where you came from or from whom. </p>
<p>No mo, bro. </p>
<p>At least none need wonder from whence this pathetic mandate comes. So much for courage and honor among the minions doing his dirty work. </p>
<p>Next up: which side of the plate …</p>
<p>"In summary and to repeat again for emphasis - at the highest levels of our uniformed leadership, there is a desire to hold subordinate leaders accountable if they do not rank, career manage, and detail officers by a process defined by discrimination on the basis of race and ethnicity.</p>
<p>What started out as good intentions turned to tragedy, then farce, and finally racism. Welcome to the post-post-racial Navy."</p>
<p>From [CDR</a> Salamander: Diversity Thursday](<a href=“http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2010/07/diversity-thursday_29.html]CDR”>CDR Salamander: Diversity Thursday)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Surely you aren’t comparing the strongest military force in the world to the civilian human resource departments.</p>
<p>No, just merely stating an observation from 30 plus years in the corporate business world…the emphasis on “diversity” at the higher levels of corporate leadership has been going on in the US for quite some time now–its hardly surprising that its happening in the military as well----especially given that both the US civilian and US military worlds were pretty heavily segregated in the not so distant past. Like I said, right or wrong, Im just not surprised. The military is just reflecting our society as a whole—we seem to always find a way to create an injustice while trying to right a wrong. Again, I didnt say I agreed with what the navy is doing, just that its not some crazy notion in a vacuum—its pretty standard practice in the big business world here in the US. And yes, I am comparing HR departments in the corporate world to the personnel decisions in the US military—they are both sides on the same coin. Dont be naieve to think that some of the same personal biases, prejudices, expectations, and “gut feelings” arent slid in with the “objective” factors and reports when a subject is considered for either high rank or a senior executive position in our world.</p>
<p>Is it right? no, not really . Is it happening? yes, because the greater fear is that if nothing at all is done, we will end up segregated (again) at the top of our corporate and military ladders, despite our best intentions to be color blind. I dont like the position, but its pretty real outside the military, I would be surprised if its not inside it as well.</p>
<p>While I dont agree in affirmative action programs, take a look at the number of minority flags there are and you’ll see why the Navy implemented this policy. This constant debate over the right or wrong aspects of these programs is questionable because rarely any good comes out of it and nobody has any constructive solutions.</p>
<p>
Very true. </p>
<p>This incentive was apparently created to simply track “front runner” minorities and ensure that their career path selections are compatible with further promotion. What is the big deal? </p>
<p>First off we must examine why a minority O-6 has a substantially lesser chance, approximately 20%-25%, than his majority peer of being selected for flag rank. Why is there a “glass ceiling” and what can be done to correct it? In my opinion, it all boils down to only two possibilities. First, minority flag selectees are not as capable as their majority brethren. I cannot buy this. First off, to make O-6, one pretty much has to be a “water walker” from day one. Secondly, if this were truly the issue, there would be an effort to improve the quality of the raw material input. While the blog ‘pundits’ say it is actually decreasing, which I do not buy, I see no signs of an attempt to improve it. The second issue is that minorities have not had the opportunities since commissioning that has been afforded their majority peers. Analysis of the results of any and all selections boards should readily confirm this. Since the current directive addresses this possible inequity, I feel that unequal career paths may be the true issue.</p>
<p>How could this imbalance happen? First off, if there is truly the perception of a “glass ceiling”, perhaps minorities are not even requesting the career enhancing billets. As a general rule, the more career enhancing a billet, the greater the challenge and the more the sacrifice. Why, if there is no career enhancing reward, submit oneself to the ’pressure cooker’ at sea environment of a CarGru staff when one can have a cushy shore duty job?</p>
<p>Secondly , perhaps they are unable to ‘manipulate’ the system effectively and receive the mandatory assistance in order to ensure that they receive optimum assignments at each and every set of orders. This is where valued trusted advice comes into play. Each individual is ultimately responsible for his orders. He must interact and negotiate with the assignment detailer. How does he know that he is making the correct decision? In the Navy a very complex mentor/prot</p>
<p>I’m dizzy from the SONG72 spin. </p>
<p>Using racial discrimination today to make amends for racial discrimination in the past = racism. </p>
<p>You cannot elevate, boost, augment, or otherwise unfairly discriminate to increase the promotions of diverse candidates without reducing, decreasing, minimizing, and unfairly discriminating to limit the promotions of non-diverse candidates.</p>
<p>Period.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How about making promotion decisions based on competence, capability, education, training, and proficiency - without considering race as a major factor in that decision?</p>
<p>Because that’s not how it works: in the military or in the civilan world. Or in the Academy world. Or anywhere. </p>
<p>Politics, friends, mentors, associations [oh, he’s a fraternity (Academy) brother of mine), kissing ass, and any number of factors “other” than competence, capability, education, training, and proficiency go into being selected for senior management positions.</p>
<p>It’s not a static, numerical, objective world. That’s just the way it is.</p>
<p>So you’re OK with race being used as a criteria for promotion?</p>
<p>Luigi, I think you’re dizzy because you didnt read what he had to say which is spot on. Like SONG72 said, when this program started it was designed to track and mentor minority officers and to steer them in the right direction for upward mobility. It was never designed to give anyone bonus points at a promotion board. </p>
<p>The one thing that I disagree with SONG72’s assessment is that “water walkers” are the ones who make O-6. I used to think that was true, but after I did my tour at the Pentagon, I realized that rank is a factor of three things in this order - 1. need 2. timing 3. skill. Frankly, I’ve met a lot of boobs who make O-6 in every branch of the service and the military promotes them simply because they stuck around and they haven’t gotten in trouble. The military is having trouble keeping the good O-5’s to stay as O-6 because they’re already eligible for a retirement and can get better pay, better hours, better positions, and all without the military sacrifice in comparable civilian jobs. This is another manning problem the military needs to address.</p>
<p>I digress… my point here Luigi is that you dont really seem to have anything worthwhile to say about this other than showing that you’re pretty good at beating a dead horse. As Bill said - That’s the way it is.</p>
<p>
Okay, you caught me. A gross generalization to gloss over an area to which I feel is inconsequential to this particular discussion. However, it does bring up an invaluable, and probably the most difficult, attribute of a good mentor, which is to convince the young charger that he isn’t charging quite as fast as need be and he should occassionally get out of the cockpit doing fun stuff and work on that boring subspeciality for which with his timing there will be a real need when his cockpit days are over. A surprising number of O-5s, and subsequently O-6s, make it this way. Hence many of your boobs. But they know more about procurement, computers, IT, and a few other boring areas than we will ever care to know.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Many more people than just Luigi59 disagree with an official policy to discriminate on the basis of race.</p>
<p>If it was wrong to do it “back then” why is it right to do it now?</p>
<p>The sun will come up tomorrow, couples will argue about money and sex, and employees will be judged on “intangibles.”</p>
<p>Two people apply for a job, one is an Academy graduate the other is not. Similar backgrounds otherwise. Interviewer is an Academy grad. Take bets on who gets hired.
Friend o fmine is an attorney w/ Customer and Border Patrol. He said hiring is weighted (as in additional points AUTOMATICALLY given) to veterans.</p>
<p>Race as one of the criteria by which a person is judged? Yeah, why not? Its not, typically, the sole measure of a person (and I don’t think the military is u sing it as one either). BUT, there is reason to believe that some persons (typically under-represented minorities) can use the assistance that is regularly given to those who’s father was an Admiral or who’s mother was an under-secretary of Defense or who’s uncle is a senator. [And those are not usually minorities.]</p>
<p>“I realized that rank is a factor of three things in this order - 1. need 2. timing 3. skill. Frankly, I’ve met a lot of boobs who make O-6 in every branch of the service and the military promotes them simply because they stuck around and they haven’t gotten in trouble.”</p>
<p>At least one-half of success [maybe more] is a matter of luck and timing. And “luck” as to assignments, timing, need, etc. is often a function of meeting the right person at the right time. Meeting that person who is going to look after your career in some form and fashion. I suspect this list formalizes the “mentoring” needed for a succesful career. </p>
<p>Don’t like it? Tough. You’re not going to do anything about changing it other than whine on some anonymous internet forum anyway.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why not? 
</p>
<p>Let’s try…because it’s illegal? </p>
<p>Ever hear of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the 14th Amendment? :rolleyes:</p>
<hr>
<p>Read what Senator James Webb wrote in the Wall Street Journal last week:
*"Where should we go from here? Beyond our continuing obligation to assist those African-Americans still in need, government-directed diversity programs should end.</p>
<p>Nondiscrimination laws should be applied equally among all citizens, including those who happen to be white. The need for inclusiveness in our society is undeniable and irreversible, both in our markets and in our communities. Our government should be in the business of enabling opportunity for all, not in picking winners. It can do so by ensuring that artificial distinctions such as race do not determine outcomes.*</p>
<p>Too bad Roughead disagrees.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You can call it whining - I’ll call it “making sure that non-diverse USNA candidates know exactly what they’re up against if they plan on a Naval officer’s career” - butting heads with an artificially created roadblock based on their (lack of) skin color.</p>
<p>Ever hear of Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 US 306 (2003)? </p>
<p>Nah, didn’t think so, that would require a depth of intellectual probing that is beyond the capabilities of most. Its far much easier to just throw up a bit of something that one recalls from school long ago.</p>
<p>The Syllabus of the Supreme Court (you do believe in teh SC don’t you?):</p>
<p>The University of Michigan Law School (Law School), one of the Nation’s top law schools, follows an official admissions policy that seeks to achieve student body diversity through compliance with Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 98 S.Ct. 2733, 57 L.Ed.2d 750. Focusing on students’ academic ability coupled with a flexible assessment of their talents, experiences, and potential, the policy requires admissions officials to evaluate each applicant based on all the information available in the file, including a personal statement, letters of recommendation, an essay describing how the applicant will contribute to Law School life and diversity, and the applicant’s undergraduate grade **2328 point average (GPA) and Law School Admission Test (LSAT) score.</p>
<p>Additionally, officials must look beyond grades and scores to so-called “soft variables,” such as recommenders’ enthusiasm, the quality of the undergraduate institution and the applicant’s essay, and the areas and difficulty of undergraduate course selection. The policy does not define diversity solely in terms of racial and ethnic status and does not restrict the types of diversity contributions eligible for “substantial weight,” but it does reaffirm the Law School’s commitment to diversity with special reference to the inclusion of African-American, Hispanic, and Native-American students, who otherwise might not be represented in the student body in meaningful numbers. By enrolling a “critical mass” of underrepresented minority students, the policy seeks to ensure their ability to contribute to the Law School’s character and to the legal profession.</p>
<p>When the Law School denied admission to petitioner Grutter, a white Michigan resident with a 3.8 GPA and 161 LSAT score, she filed this suit, alleging that respondents had discriminated against her on the basis of race in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981; that she was rejected because the Law School uses race as a “predominant” factor, giving applicants belonging to certain minority groups a significantly greater chance of admission than students with similar credentials from disfavored racial groups; and that respondents had no compelling interest to justify that use of race. </p>
<p>The District Court found the Law School’s use of race as an admissions factor unlawful. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that Justice Powell’s opinion in Bakke was binding precedent establishing diversity as a compelling state interest, and that the Law School’s use of race was narrowly tailored because race was merely a “potential ‘plus’ factor” and because the Law School’s program was virtually identical to the Harvard admissions program described approvingly by Justice Powell and appended to his Bakke opinion.</p>
<p>Held: The Law School’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body is not prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause, Title VI, or § 1981. Pp. 2335-2347.</p>
<p>“Compelling Interest” “Narrowly Tailored” is not prohibited by “Equal Protection Clause.” These are all law of the land concepts that require something more than a basic regurgitation of teh Constitution.</p>
<p>There is no “roadblock” based on the lack of skin color. That is just verbal vomit.
I don’t know enough about this alleged list [and you don’t either] to really say, but it sure seems that all the Navy is trying to do is identify minority officers, the careers of which should be tracked carefully.<br>
Webb [assuming the quote is accurate] described the situation well and sadly at the same time:</p>
<p>Our government should be in the business of enabling opportunity for all, not in picking winners</p>
<p>The government [The navy] IS enabling opportunity for ALL. INCLUDING minorities, who don’t have the resources that others might have, by helping them with their careers. </p>
<p>Now the second part “not picking winners.” Well, unfortunately, he is corect about that also. The government does a great job of not picking winners; they don’t convince winners to stay. [See comments above about O-6s just being those who hang around long enough.] So, maybe this is way to convince more winners to stick around.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wrong, according to the email in the article. </p>
<p>If what you are stating is true, the Admiral would have asked for the names of ALL of the “best and brightest” candidates, not just the minority candidates.</p>
<p>CNO has no interest whatsoever in promoting, advancing, or mentoring the careers of “non-diverse” officers, clearly only the ones who check the approriate box on the “race category” sheet.</p>
<p>In your SCOTUS research (which requires a depth of intellectual probing just shy of a trained organ grinder monkey - google search is so hard isn’t it? :rolleyes: ) did you happen to come across ***Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pe</p>
<p>Dictum is not law. There are many famous quotes within the concurring or disenting opinions that don’t comport with the law.</p>
<p>The Law School’s [substitute “Navy”] narrowly tailored use of race in admissions [substitute “promotional”] decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational [“societal”] benefits that flow from a diverse student body [“officer body”] is not prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause,</p>
<p>The LAW is that, after being “strictly scrutinized,” such racial considerations may be consistent with a compelling interest. A list that only seeks to identify promising minority officers would like be found to be a narrowly tailored use of race. [After all, “the list” doesn’t GUARANTEE anything as far as we know; which isn’t squat.]</p>
<p>You are confusing HOW a court examines these questions [“strictly”] with the STANDARD is applies: whether the process is narrowly tailored to further a compelling interest.</p>
<p>Your confusion is expected. That is all. Keep on harumphing and blowing and windbagging all you like.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And you keep your head in the sand like a good little ostrich.</p>