What's wrong with the Air Force?

[HeloDude]

Quote

“The composition of flight squadrons needs to reflect the entire U.S. population, he said. Squadrons today, particularly fighter squadrons, are still mostly composed of white males, something that must change to reflect the country's demographics, he added.”

It's a good thing that I serve in a professional organization that only judges people on their merit and not the color of their skin...

 

[Craftsman]

So that’s the reason why the pacaf commander and amc commander got picked not because of their merits? Diversity. 

[BashiChuni]

What an incredibly stupid thing to say as a general officer. 

“Needs to reflect” and “must change” are insane statements. 

Diversity for diversity’s sake gives zero benefit 

[FUSEPLUG]

They'll continue to make these statements, and I'll continue to give less and less of a fuck about what I do in the Air Force.

[MDDieselPilot]

14 hours ago, isuguy1234 said:

I also noted this quote..........

"We have asked them to do a lot over 25 years," said Gen. Mike Holmes, head of Air Combat Command. He spoke during a panel addressing the service's pilot shortage at the Air Force Association Air, Space and Cyber conference.

 

HEAD!!  who said head?!?!.................

 

Speaking of community, remember when it was killed?  Quote from a few previous bros, "I used to do these things and sing these songs, but now I forbid you!"

Yea.. Gen Holmes is pretty far detached from most of us.  He's a dyed in the wool military dude who doesn't compute that not everyone wants what he has.  In Jan '18, I heard him try to convince a bunch of WIC dudes to stay in with the reasoning that they would get great experiences on 365 deployments that they wouldn't otherwise get...

Edited September 20, 2018 by MDDieselPilot

[LookieRookie]

What ever happened to diversity of thought/experience versus  diversity of skin color/genitalia

[HossHarris]

16 minutes ago, LookieRookie said:

What ever happened to diversity of thought/experience versus  diversity of skin color/genitalia

That ship sailed long ago. 

 

And its much much worse in the civilian world. 

[Chuck17]

I think we all need to remember that those statements were essentially made under duress - at AFA - and saying anything other than what he said would have been met with dismissal. 

To the point, we need to diversify thought and expertise, background and education. Not necessarily parts or skin color. If you want that, you have to build that - which starts with recruiting. The service recruited a white male majority pilot force - it always has, because for 70+ years that’s who flew - and we can’t point the finger anywhere but ourselves. Want to change it? You have to grow it.

 All that was poorly wrapped into what was said at ATA - because some people can think on their feet and some can’t...

Chucks, Ducks and Adders don’t give a damn about skin color or what parts you have.

Chuck

edits: clarity

Edited September 21, 2018 by Chuck17

[pawnman]

36 minutes ago, Chuck17 said:

I think we all need to remember that those statements were essentially made under duress - at AFA - and saying anything other than what he said would have been met with dismissal. 

To the point, we need to diversify thought and expertise, background and education. Not necessarily parts or skin color. If you want that, you have to build that - which starts with recruiting. The service recruited a white male majority pilot force - it always has, because for 70+ years that’s who flew - and we can’t point the finger anywhere but ourselves. Want to change it? You have to grow it.

 All that was poorly wrapped into what was said at ATA - because some people can think on their feet and some can’t...

Chucks, Ducks and Adders don’t give a damn about skin color or what parts you have.

Chuck

edits: clarity

There's something to be said about reaching out to historically under-represented communities and trying to instill an interest in flying and aircraft early.  Getting the local Girl Scout troop a tour of your sim or aircraft, sponsoring minority groups to come out to the airshow, etc.  The point is to increase the diversity in the people who apply for the program, not to weed out straight white males to inflate the numbers.

[tac airlifter]

2 hours ago, Chuck17 said:

I think we all need to remember that those statements were essentially made under duress - at AFA - and saying anything other than what he said would have been met with dismissal. 

To the point, we need to diversify thought and expertise, background and education. 

For your first point, if I’m paraphrasing correctly- “he’s saying something dumb but he has to, otherwise he’ll be dismissed” is illogical.  He should say the truth, and if the truth gets him dismissed then get dismissed.  Am I misinterpreting you chuck?  You usually say smart things, but excusing senior leaders for saying dumb shit by reasoning that ‘they have to’ is intellectual rubbish and enabling bankrupt leadership.

 To your second point, that we must diversify thought and experience,  I will disagree he was talking about ideological diversity. He mentioned there are too many white males so he was obviously wanting to diversify me out of the squadron.  But I’m also curious why diversity is so sought after as an objective and why you think we need to diversify.  Is there some proof that more diverse militaries are more lethal and more prone to success?   I missed the ‘diversity as a decisive advantage’ chapters in Sun Tzu and Clausewitz. If diversity of skin color = battlefield success I’m interested in the evidence.  

[Jaded]

42 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

If diversity of skin color = battlefield success I’m interested in the evidence.  

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/ruchikatulshyan/2015/01/30/racially-diverse-companies-outperform-industry-norms-by-30/amp/

More generally, do you believe that America is the best country in the world? Do you think it's a coincidence that it's also the most ethnically diverse? 

[Prozac]

The military, like the government, works best when it’s made up of the people. Not just the predominantly Southern, conservative, white male people (though that’s what many seem to be most comfortable surrounding themselves with), but a true cross section of the American populace. That will help our communities begin reconnecting with their military.  I absolutely agree with Chuck’s “grow diversity” sentiment. This doesn’t necessarily mean promoting based on ethnicity/race/gender (although I admit this does happen). But recruiting from a broader cross section is certainly a worthy goal. 

[tac airlifter]

1 hour ago, Jaded said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/ruchikatulshyan/2015/01/30/racially-diverse-companies-outperform-industry-norms-by-30/amp/

More generally, do you believe that America is the best country in the world? Do you think it's a coincidence that it's also the most ethnically diverse? 

I asked for evidence of battlefield success attributed to diversity, you gave me a study on business.  Invalid answer.  

 What makes you think America is the most ethnically diverse country in the world?  Google says we’re in the middle.

 

[IDALPHA]

1 hour ago, Prozac said:

The military, like the government, works best when it’s made up of the people. Not just the predominantly Southern, conservative, white male people (though that’s what many seem to be most comfortable surrounding themselves with), but a true cross section of the American populace. That will help our communities begin reconnecting with their military.  I absolutely agree with Chuck’s “grow diversity” sentiment. This doesn’t necessarily mean promoting based on ethnicity/race/gender (although I admit this does happen). But recruiting from a broader cross section is certainly a worthy goal. 

The Draft would accomplish this.... Problem solved with retention too right??

A conversation about diversity would be great when the organization itself isn’t coming apart at the seams.... Priorities.

[matmacwc]

i don’t care if they are mother Fukin green, I want the best as my wingman, quit playing silly pigment games.

[jazzdude]

Both the Roman and Mongolian empires has diverse militaries, and were successful in their times. The Tuskegee airmen proved African Americans can do more in the military than previously assumed.

Maybe it doesn't make sense at a tactical level, say at a squadron, but matters at a strategic level. At the tactical level, we can train most people regardless of their background to be effective. However, are we missing a huge pool of potential recruits, and if so, why? Are then unintentional (hopefully we've routed out any intentional) biases that make for lower recruiting or promotion rates from certain groups? What about operating around the world, and being able to draw on people that have already been exposed to that culture and it's cultural assumptions for what they value to help guide strategy?

It can be perceived as dangerous if the military is comprised of a small subset of the population, and could lead to a resentment between both groups (military vs civilian).

People have long argued that like promotes like-what if there's an unintentional bias within leadership that holds back certain groups independent of their ability? It doesn't have to be overt, something as stupid as giving out small tasks that end up building trust in that subordinate that leads to other bigger opportunities. Even if you take race out of the mix, these biases can be frustrating. It's why it seems the people who do the Christmas party and AF Ball seem to get a leg up on strats and opportunities-it builds trust in their leadership that they can get things done, even if it has no bearing on the mission. And that trust is what leads to other more important responsibilities/opportunities, ahead of peers that might be better but have been given no opportunities to show their talent our build that trust with leadership.

Military meritocracy is held up as a truth, but we all know at some level it's not really true. Luck and timing have a lot to do with a successful military career. If you're never given small opportunities to excel at, you're never given bigger responsibilities.

That being said, I don't believe in quotas. But if there are large differences, one has to wonder why.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[Prozac]

2 hours ago, IDALPHA said:

The Draft would accomplish this.... Problem solved with retention too right??

A conversation about diversity would be great when the organization itself isn’t coming apart at the seams.... Priorities.

I’m all in for mandatory service. A little discipline and exposure to people from outside one’s core social network can only be good things. That’s another discussion though. Your second point is taken and I don’t doubt the enormity of the problems facing the AF right now. 

[Chuck17]

On 9/21/2018 at 8:46 AM, tac airlifter said:

For your first point, if I’m paraphrasing correctly- “he’s saying something dumb but he has to, otherwise he’ll be dismissed” is illogical.  He should say the truth, and if the truth gets him dismissed then get dismissed.  Am I misinterpreting you chuck?  You usually say smart things, but excusing senior leaders for saying dumb shit by reasoning that ‘they have to’ is intellectual rubbish and enabling bankrupt leadership.

 To your second point, that we must diversify thought and experience,  I will disagree he was talking about ideological diversity. He mentioned there are too many white males so he was obviously wanting to diversify me out of the squadron.  But I’m also curious why diversity is so sought after as an objective and why you think we need to diversify.  Is there some proof that more diverse militaries are more lethal and more prone to success?   I missed the ‘diversity as a decisive advantage’ chapters in Sun Tzu and Clausewitz. If diversity of skin color = battlefield success I’m interested in the evidence.  

It’s illogical, or you just don’t like it? Come on man...

I’m saying that this SECAF would castrate anyone who doesn’t carry the diversity message, and old man Holmes toed the line. Questions?

Right or wrong (no matter how poorly delivered) he has a point. I’ve been in homogenous MPCs and OPTs (by MWS/Service) and seen the shitshow firsthand. And I’ve been in those more diverse in background and experience and seen things get brought up that leadership was missing. That’s all the evidence I need. YMMV. You wanna get hung up on skin color or sex parts just because leadership is, that’s on you. 

Want diversity of background, ethnicity, wealth, education? Then grow it. In the meantime, we need to continue building the best replacements we can, regardless of who they were or are - so long as theyre the best. 

Nobody gives a damn about skin color when the balloon goes up. 

Chuck

Edited December 30, 2022 by Chuck17

[fueL2Fight]

10 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

I asked for evidence of battlefield success attributed to diversity, you gave me a study on business.  Invalid answer. 

https://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/28/world/fg-bombs-vision28

This has always been intriguing to me. While diversity is not just cultural diversity, cultural diversity is an obvious way to quantify and check for it.

[war007afa]

We draw from an all-volunteer force.  Unless you can show me statistically where MEPS has made a habit of turning people away due to their skin color, religion, or sex (wherein we'd definitely have a problem), tell me where the Air Force is culpable in recruiting only a certain demographic.  There may be multiple cultural norms or perceived perks in place which made military service much more palatable to one ethnicity or another, but these are all individuals deciding to sign on the line.

If we go to a draft and specifically target minorities under the guise of creating a more diverse force, well, good luck with that optic.

The minute we start recruiting specifically in the mindset of giving preferential treatment towards ANY gender, race, religion, background, education, creed, etc., we're no worse than the days before segregation, even if the intent of this is to "diversify our force".  The same holds true if the service is showing anyone the door based on an attempt at shaping the force towards some sort of quota.

At the end of the day, service, promotion, and retention should all be based on merit and capacity to hack the mission.  Strip away any indicators on all records as to where a person comes from and let their bullets do the talking. 

[jazzdude]

  There may be multiple cultural norms or perceived perks in place which made military service much more palatable to one ethnicity or another, but these are all individuals deciding to sign on the line.

So do we just accept the norms are there and do nothing to change them? What about integrating minorities into combat units in WWII? Or allowing female combat pilots? Just 2 examples of over coming social norms and the status quo. Like it or not, our military has been very progressive socially, especially in the last century.

  Strip away any indicators on all records as to where a person comes from and let their bullets do the talking. 

Yeah, because the OPR/EPR system is great at differentiating between people outside a bottom line strat, and there is no need for a secret decoder ring to figure out how everyone stacks up.

Sent from my SM-T700 using Tapatalk

[war007afa]

19 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

So do we just accept the norms are there and do nothing to change them? What about integrating minorities into combat units in WWII? Or allowing female combat pilots? Just 2 examples of over coming social norms and the status quo. Like it or not, our military has been very progressive socially, especially in the last century.
 

 

You're going to single-handedly change society and what drives people to serve?  I think we're talking past each other.  I'm talking about what drives people to serve, not the environment they're serving in.  Whereas there is a linkage, what makes someone sign on the line varies by background, whether that be a path to citizenship, a lineage of military service, or any of a laundry list of reasons people show up to talk to someone wearing recruiter badge.

 

22 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

Yeah, because the OPR/EPR system is great at differentiating between people outside a bottom line strat, and there is no need for a secret decoder ring to figure out how everyone stacks up.

 

Not sure how this has anything to do with how the demographic of an individual should have nothing to do with their capability to serve or their quality of service.

[jazzdude]

Here's the point I'm trying to make. It doesn't matter who is sitting next to me in the jet or who is on my wing, I just want them to be well trained and proficient in the mission. Diversity doesn't matter there-I don't care as long as they can hack the mission. However, as a service, we should care about diversity because it helps expose cultural assumptions and blind spots, which can affect both retention and recruiting.

Maybe people don't show up to the recruiters office because they just don't understand the military, or have misconceptions about military service. Or that there are many ways to serve as well as paths to service. I didn't find out about ROTC until my academy interviewer mentioned that as another path to become an officer and a pilot, and that was as an Army brat. Many civilians I've met are surprised that I'm a military pilot, since I wear glasses, as they thought you could only be a pilot with uncorrected 20/20 vision. It's also increasingly likely that prior have never met anybody in the military, and have no frame of reference for what it means to serve outside of what they see on the news or in media. So why not reach out to those people?

If we are only bringing in one group of people within our recruiting pool, they WILL change the culture of our military, as they will bring with them cultural norms and biases with them. It'll be a slow change, but it will change.

The environment people serve in is absolutely relevant to recruiting, and retention. It feeds into those conceptions about what military service is like. This also goes beyond just diversity.

What I was getting at with my OPR comment is that they don't matter: if you aren't on the HPO list, you're probably not going to get very far, no matter what you do or how good you are. If you are on the list, well, just don't do anything to embarrass your sponsor.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[TreeA10]

I think the managed diversity thing has been tried before.  "Special consideration should be given to women and minorities for possible past discrimination" is a direct quote of a directive given to promotion boards in the mid-90s. The subsequent lawsuits signaled it was a bad idea.

[pawnman]

11 hours ago, war007afa said:

We draw from an all-volunteer force.  Unless you can show me statistically where MEPS has made a habit of turning people away due to their skin color, religion, or sex (wherein we'd definitely have a problem), tell me where the Air Force is culpable in recruiting only a certain demographic.  There may be multiple cultural norms or perceived perks in place which made military service much more palatable to one ethnicity or another, but these are all individuals deciding to sign on the line.

If we go to a draft and specifically target minorities under the guise of creating a more diverse force, well, good luck with that optic.

The minute we start recruiting specifically in the mindset of giving preferential treatment towards ANY gender, race, religion, background, education, creed, etc., we're no worse than the days before segregation, even if the intent of this is to "diversify our force".  The same holds true if the service is showing anyone the door based on an attempt at shaping the force towards some sort of quota.

At the end of the day, service, promotion, and retention should all be based on merit and capacity to hack the mission.  Strip away any indicators on all records as to where a person comes from and let their bullets do the talking. 

It's not necessarily about excluding them on purpose.  It's about presenting the Air Force and flight training as an option to communities that don't usually hear that kind of thing, and hoping a few of them get interested.  It's easy for a white boy from the suburbs of an Air Force base to get into the idea of joining to be a pilot.  It may be harder for a girl who, even in 2018, still hears "That's a man's job" or "model airplanes are boy's toys".  Similarly, in communities that are historically less educated, we can reach into those communities and show them the types of opportunities that exist for those willing to get an education.  We may even reach the point where, similar to what the Air Force does with lawyers and doctors, we start paying for high school candidates with a high aptitude for flight to get an undergraduate degree (aside from the highly competitive USAFA process).
I'm with you.  The idea that we should weed out white men because "we have to many" or that we should promote minorities "to increase representation" is just terrible reasoning all the way around.  I'm saying that we can do things to increase the number of minorities entering the service, giving us a greater number to pull from to fill those leadership positions/cockpits/etc.