Of all the things this nation's flag officers have done to harm the nation or its armed forces, or for that matter race relations specifically, these amicus curiae briefs have to be amongst the most venal of sins. The most objectionable part of their actions are probably, as you note, the unsolicited and unnecessary participation of the flag officer corps in this controversy. Particularly from retirees that either are not expressing the official views of the service, or that are doing so allowing the current flag officers to express their views without taking official responsibility for it.
Our Generals and Admirals are very naughty, but that can’t be a surprise after Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, dozens of failed weapons programs costing trillions of dollars over many decades, and complicity in the Russia election interference hoaxes. Their desire to have a number of black, brown, and yellow warrant and commissioned officers to command and control US forces in rough proportion to the racial balance in the enlisted ranks, and much more importantly, to liaison with and spy on foreign militaries that ain’t white is pretty reasonable of one grants them the benefit of the presumption of good faith.
Affirmative action could help in all these things. The part where all this breaks down of course—aside from extending the presumption of good faith—is that the present military is pushing not just affirmative action, but DEI initiatives, which teach that white and/or male, heterosexual officers are inherently suspect and discriminating against all other service members.
While, yes, this ideology is a natural outgrowth of affirmative action, the disparate impact doctrine, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, more fundamentally, it is a product of the modern American university.
What good would it do to have SCOTUS abolish affirmative action, and the United States military cashier every flag officer that wrote briefs in favor of keeping it, when the military continues to require every commission first receive a degree from an institution that will invariably require each of its graduates to have pledged allegiance to some form of DEI and critical race theory? Not to mention radical gender theory?
In short, I am in radical agreement with you, but would beg to bring to your attention the fact that the problem is far more deeply ingrained than you have written about hitherto.
I witnessed race-based advancements while on active duty and it infuriated me. Hard-working, qualified individuals were passed up for candidates solely based on the color of their skin. Diversity does not make us stronger. Diversity, in a sense, makes us weaker. Diversity causes others to not work as hard as others, and the other half doesn't work as hard because they know regardless of how hard they work they will never be selected.
May this ruling be as historic as Heller.
A well-written VFM amicus brief. That was nicely done.
Dear CDR Salamander,
Of all the things this nation's flag officers have done to harm the nation or its armed forces, or for that matter race relations specifically, these amicus curiae briefs have to be amongst the most venal of sins. The most objectionable part of their actions are probably, as you note, the unsolicited and unnecessary participation of the flag officer corps in this controversy. Particularly from retirees that either are not expressing the official views of the service, or that are doing so allowing the current flag officers to express their views without taking official responsibility for it.
Our Generals and Admirals are very naughty, but that can’t be a surprise after Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, dozens of failed weapons programs costing trillions of dollars over many decades, and complicity in the Russia election interference hoaxes. Their desire to have a number of black, brown, and yellow warrant and commissioned officers to command and control US forces in rough proportion to the racial balance in the enlisted ranks, and much more importantly, to liaison with and spy on foreign militaries that ain’t white is pretty reasonable of one grants them the benefit of the presumption of good faith.
Affirmative action could help in all these things. The part where all this breaks down of course—aside from extending the presumption of good faith—is that the present military is pushing not just affirmative action, but DEI initiatives, which teach that white and/or male, heterosexual officers are inherently suspect and discriminating against all other service members.
While, yes, this ideology is a natural outgrowth of affirmative action, the disparate impact doctrine, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, more fundamentally, it is a product of the modern American university.
What good would it do to have SCOTUS abolish affirmative action, and the United States military cashier every flag officer that wrote briefs in favor of keeping it, when the military continues to require every commission first receive a degree from an institution that will invariably require each of its graduates to have pledged allegiance to some form of DEI and critical race theory? Not to mention radical gender theory?
In short, I am in radical agreement with you, but would beg to bring to your attention the fact that the problem is far more deeply ingrained than you have written about hitherto.
V/r,
Mark
I witnessed race-based advancements while on active duty and it infuriated me. Hard-working, qualified individuals were passed up for candidates solely based on the color of their skin. Diversity does not make us stronger. Diversity, in a sense, makes us weaker. Diversity causes others to not work as hard as others, and the other half doesn't work as hard because they know regardless of how hard they work they will never be selected.