Today I point you over to a guest post via Doctrine Mat at Medium.com, Diversity: At What Cost? A MINORITY FEMALE LEADER’S PERSPECTIVE.
Read it all, but this is what is so nice about it.
It can be lonely sometimes pushing back against the officially sanctioned sectarianism as promoted by our Department of Defense. It is sad to see an organization we love encourage racial conflict and animus - to actively discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color or national origin.
How millions through tens of millions of dollars each year are spent to subsidize an otherwise unemployable cadre of spiteful, race obsessed, and bitter people in our branch of the Diversity Industry who wake up each day thinking to themselves how they can further prevent our Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, and Airmen from being one.
Then ... from down the trenches you hear a voice singing the same song, and then ... you know you are not alone;
Demographic profile goals, quotas, minority sub-groups, and diversity campaigns are counterproductive to the genuine organizational integration of minorities because — while well-intentioned — they defy logic in many ways:Amen.
- Quotas and goals are essentially a patronization of minorities. As a racial minority female, quotas stipulate that since I am incapable of earning a particular position based on my own merit or ability, I need the organization to improve my potential for success based on my gender and race.
- Quotas and goals perpetuate stereotypes: “The only reason he got that job is because he is Hispanic.”
- Quotas and goals create a perception of “equal results” as the goal instead of “equal opportunity.”
- Quotas and goals fundamentally contradict the principle of gender, sexual orientation, color, and religious “blindness” in talent management.
Instead, they do just the opposite.
- Minority sub-groups and campaigns create divisiveness by seeking celebratory attention for minority groups for nothing more than their existence in the organization.
- Minority sub-groups and campaigns undermine inclusiveness by highlighting differences that make minorities special, while simultaneously advocating for minority-blindness.
No one should be discriminated against because of gender, religion, race, or sexual orientation. Similarly, no one is any more special than another based on their gender, religion, race, or sexual orientation. It goes both ways! The act of dividing our organization into exclusive minority groups and special campaigns contradicts the ideas of inclusiveness and integration.Can she be any better? Of course she can;
To promote equality of opportunity, we should remove names, genders, religions, races, and photos from ERBs and ORBs for selection boards for promotion and nominative assignments. Candidates won’t earn the opportunity to interview if they don’t advance beyond initial minority-blind screening. If we want equality of opportunity, “minority blindness,” and the removal of alleged institutional discrimination, this is a potential method.
Lastly, and probably most importantly, the organization absolutely cannot compromise standards. The expectations of our Army are far too serious for us to allow less-qualified individuals to permeate our organization in the name of diversity. Diversity is certainly beneficial — but not beneficial enough to justify deviating from established standards. What can my fellow minorities do to promote inclusiveness and diversity appreciation in the Army? First, do your job, and do it well. Second, use appropriate channels to report discriminatory people and policies — they have no place in our Army. Third, as leaders, always be fair and impartial, and take a hard look at yourself to identify potentially discriminatory biases you hold.I could not say it better myself.