Again, we come to senior officers - after being promoted, holding senior billets, and commanding ships - ushered out for "loss of confidence in their ability to command". Tell me again that this is not a purge of people who don't agree with this BS.
To get equity in outcomes you must discriminate in favor of some folks (they are willing to admit this), AND discriminate against other folks (this anti-male, anti-white/asian bias never makes it to paper)
It is telling that while negative personal knowledge cannot be provided by members, but must be in the official records, they are free to add positive things.
Especially damning is the guidance that:
"Board members SHOULD share their personal knowledge of the diversity of eligible officers when appropriate to the process."
So, does that mean that members should reveal that some officers under consideration might be merely "passing" as a member of a (despised but unnamed) category, but are likely member of one or all of the favored oppressed minority groups? If it must all remain secret within the tank, who would know?
It has been rumored that some people have gamed the system and committed racial block checking or cultural appropriation to burnish their brilliance.
Is there a "one drop rule" which blesses a person's eligibility to be on the good boy/girl/non-binary list, or does a single drop condemn them to the naughty list?
The entire Diversity establishment is "detrimental to good order and discipline" as well as being a hive of racism, scum and villainy. They put no ordnance on target, add no value, only cost, and are a cancer destroying our already weakened country.
If you ever have the opportunity to serve on a board at Millington be it as a member or even as an assistant recorder then do so. Then take an evening tour of the Fedex HQ in nearby Memphis and imagine what out Navy would be like if it Absolutely, Positively had to win our nation's wars.
The only way to fix these obvious problems will be to fight, and lose, a war. The survivors (if any) may be able to get back to understanding that success is what actually matters, and that "equity" is simply another word for "failure".
Again, until the FOGO address the root cause of this and fix public schools this will only get worse. It would be interesting to view officer accession rates from various areas. My bet is most urban areas with high diversity provide very few diverse candidates.
By definition, selection board members with a DEI thumb on the scale fail the “good order and discipline” requirement for any officer, much less a selection board member.
Thank you Sal. An excellent primer on how injurious the DEI commissariat is to warfighting capabilities, leadership capacity, and trust in military institutions.
Nov 16, 2023·edited Nov 16, 2023Liked by CDR Salamander
One look at that equity definition on the blue background is enough to say "as long as you are not a straight while male who speaks English, we've got your back."
• Treating immutable and morally immaterial characteristics (like ethnicity or skin color) as if they're relevant for choosing the best qualified candidates for promotion; or
• Treating voluntary behaviors (like choosing one's sexual partners or claiming to be the opposite sex) as if they're immutable characteristics, and then lumping them in with the bullet point above
Ironic how they want diversity of experience yet expect everyone to shoehorn into the same golden career path that hasn’t really changed in 80 years.
Again, we come to senior officers - after being promoted, holding senior billets, and commanding ships - ushered out for "loss of confidence in their ability to command". Tell me again that this is not a purge of people who don't agree with this BS.
Equality of opportunity
Equity of outcomes
To get equity in outcomes you must discriminate in favor of some folks (they are willing to admit this), AND discriminate against other folks (this anti-male, anti-white/asian bias never makes it to paper)
It is telling that while negative personal knowledge cannot be provided by members, but must be in the official records, they are free to add positive things.
Especially damning is the guidance that:
"Board members SHOULD share their personal knowledge of the diversity of eligible officers when appropriate to the process."
So, does that mean that members should reveal that some officers under consideration might be merely "passing" as a member of a (despised but unnamed) category, but are likely member of one or all of the favored oppressed minority groups? If it must all remain secret within the tank, who would know?
It has been rumored that some people have gamed the system and committed racial block checking or cultural appropriation to burnish their brilliance.
Is there a "one drop rule" which blesses a person's eligibility to be on the good boy/girl/non-binary list, or does a single drop condemn them to the naughty list?
The entire Diversity establishment is "detrimental to good order and discipline" as well as being a hive of racism, scum and villainy. They put no ordnance on target, add no value, only cost, and are a cancer destroying our already weakened country.
If you ever have the opportunity to serve on a board at Millington be it as a member or even as an assistant recorder then do so. Then take an evening tour of the Fedex HQ in nearby Memphis and imagine what out Navy would be like if it Absolutely, Positively had to win our nation's wars.
These highlighted sections would be a great enticement for recruiting purposes.
The only way to fix these obvious problems will be to fight, and lose, a war. The survivors (if any) may be able to get back to understanding that success is what actually matters, and that "equity" is simply another word for "failure".
Again, until the FOGO address the root cause of this and fix public schools this will only get worse. It would be interesting to view officer accession rates from various areas. My bet is most urban areas with high diversity provide very few diverse candidates.
"b. Today's Navy is composed of men and women representing dozens of different ethnic groups and literally hundreds of cultural heritages"
This is 2023 and the Navy is still allowed to use the binary "men and women"? Sheesh!
By definition, selection board members with a DEI thumb on the scale fail the “good order and discipline” requirement for any officer, much less a selection board member.
Thank you Sal. An excellent primer on how injurious the DEI commissariat is to warfighting capabilities, leadership capacity, and trust in military institutions.
One look at that equity definition on the blue background is enough to say "as long as you are not a straight while male who speaks English, we've got your back."
We wonder why we have recruiting problems.
I’d be concerned if the purpose of our military were to win wars. But that hasn’t been the purpose since 1950.
I wonder what's worse?
• Treating immutable and morally immaterial characteristics (like ethnicity or skin color) as if they're relevant for choosing the best qualified candidates for promotion; or
• Treating voluntary behaviors (like choosing one's sexual partners or claiming to be the opposite sex) as if they're immutable characteristics, and then lumping them in with the bullet point above
Excellent
Now we have it in writing, but selection by race and sex has been in place for more than 20 years.
That is how we ended up where we are today.