"USAF promoted Diversity over Defense" Topic

In another bold move to undermine mission readiness, the "leadership" of the USAF have decided that Diversity is their most important recruiting goal.

"…inside our cockpits is where we have the greatest disparities and opportunities for improvement. In all, 86 percent of our aviators are white males. Less than 3 percent of our fighter pilots are females."

And in order to get there, the USAF has eliminated prior flight training as a "plus" on pilot selection. They found that such training favored applicants who could afford private flight lessons. It has also announced that it intends to reduce the number of white officers from 80% to 67.5%.

Air Force and Space Force leaders this month laid out a new vision for more diversity in the officer corps, aiming to boost the proportion of minority airmen and guardians in fields traditionally staffed by white men.

According to the memo, the Department of the Air Force wants its future officer applicants to total:

67.5% white (down from the 2014 goal of 80%)
13% Black/African American (up from 10%)
10% Asian (up from 8%)
7% multiracial (no previous goal set)
1.5% American Indian/Native Alaskan (up from 1%)
1% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (no change)

At what point will this political maneuvering by our top brass to curry favor with the current admin be abandoned in favor of actual force readiness? And how many of our young men and women will have to die at the hands of an adversary that values victory over virtue signaling for that to happen?

link

link

Sickening. There are those on here who support this administration. I would like one of them to explain what good this does in regard to actual warfighting.

Some/many ARE doing anything and everything to weaken our country at a time of rising danger.

This is extremely dangerous AND treasonous.

I hope those advocating for this and implementing such changes will be held to account both in civilian and criminal courts.

Only merit and appropriate experience should be considered for applicants.

Alas, the commercial airline industry is also at risk for this too, since from what I've read, "equity" is being pushed there also, instead of seeking to select and hire the most qualified applicants with the greatest skills for both pilots AND air traffic controllers.

Think about that the next time you fly commercial, if you dare.

It's easy to trigger the outrage button of some, huh?

How about we understand what this is really about. Targeting under-tapped areas for recruitment, not lowering end qualifications.

As your article states:
"These goals are aspirational … and will not be used in any manner that undermines our merit-based processes,"

Do these generals choose their physicians based upon equity? If not, I wish they would start.

As if non-white people who have had prior flight training are suddenly going to start appearing in droves.

Reminds me of a local university a few years ago that was just all giddy that the percentage of non-white students increased two years in a row. The reality was the NUMBER of non-white students stayed the same, but the university was hemorrhaging white students at a stunning rate.

SB, why the politics? POTUS is a plotting against the US? Same for the AF commanders? They are currying favor for what?

IMO, the real issue is that merit and natural ability should be the qualifiers and I would guess that if they had really been doing that all theses years we would not be 86 % white pilots. It's a special skill as you well know, and we could use more than a few paths to proving your worth as a candidate. There are phenoms in every group.

"Anything and everything to weaken our country." I am seeing this…nowhere. I do see people with different ideas about improving things and I don't always agree. I don't like woke training but the AF better finally figure out an honest path for advancement. 86 % is telling me that we are not getting all the best people regardless of skin color or gender. And the best is the one and only goal.

There are maybe 100 army brigades and we recently doubled the number of black brigade commanders to two. How do you think the 20% in the ranks would do if they knew there was a chance for them to get there too? Yes that's what is does for war fighting. It supports cohesion.

Get the best people. Period. This means giving opportunities to people who are clearly not able to find a way to advance on merit. 86% white pilots? Gimme a break. I don't buy the inference that white guys make the best pilots. My father owed his life to the Tuskeegee airmen, the best of the best, and they couldn't get served in a mess hall of whites on occasion.

I am sure you want the best, not just mostly white, people to find their way to the top and inspire all the other diverse ranks to strive to advance and excel. Improve cohesion and morale, performance, recruitment, and positive images of the services as a career choice with a pathway to success for all.

Nobody likes social engineering on behalf of any group. Give everybody an equal chance and you will find the best. And you can ditch woke training for good.

"Nobody likes social engineering on behalf of any group'. And yet here we are.

"Anything and everything to weaken our country." I am seeing this…nowhere.

You're not looking hard enough.

reduce the number of white officers from 80% to 67.5%.

"reduce the number of officers from 80% to 67.5%." There, I fixed it for them, provided we're talking about Colonels and up.

"How about we understand what this is really about….. not lowering end qualifications".

Apparently, you are NOT up to date on actions to do just that. Applicants ARE being given favoritism even if/when they are less qualified, and lack the required skills to do the job(s).

More qualified and capable applicants ARE being ignored and/or NOT admitted/hired/promoted in order to implement these ridiculous policies.

I'm all for helping the poor, but it needs to be across the board and NOT just for just some ethnic groups, which is racist.

Some under-represented groups (Asians) ARE being even disqualified for some colleges and training, since their test scores and grades are TOO high.

More Bogymen , the stuff that get you guys in a twist.

Yes, good point about Colonels and up. Top heavy with generals. But maybe one of the black brigade commanders would have to go.

Stryderg, where should I look? Remember, I said people were doing things differently and I did not agree. These people are trying to make things better even if they may make a mess of things. So starting at the top, I should look harder and I will see certain people working at every opportunity on a deliberate effort to weaken and undermine the country? What are they specifically doing and why? Results directly attributed to these deliberate actions? Full context? I am open to issues. I disagree with the leadership myself, but I don't see the intent to destroy us.

Leveling the playing field is not a threat. The only way to get rid of woke training and social engineering is to walk the walk on equal opportunity based solely and entirely on merit. I don't want some guy with the best reflexes and potential flying skills in the service in a low skill position.

so no surprise

"…in order to get there, the USAF has eliminated prior flight training as a "plus" on pilot selection."

Eliminating prior flight training as a plus in the selection process is a lowering of standards. We are hiring truck drivers but you don't need a drivers license.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek

Wow all this consternation……. Sounds familiar……. Oh…Yea Executive Order 9981, July 26, 1948.

Secretary of the Army Kenneth Royall going so far as to state in 1949 that the army "was not an instrument for social evolution."

One of my primary assignments as senior officer in the US Navy was to oversee post-graduate Navy officer recruiting from 2008 to 2014 (Bush and Obama administrations) for Engineers with graduate degrees (144X Engineering Duty Officers). The goal was to recruit in ~2010 so that the future racial demographic in 2040 would reflect the likely racial mix in 2040. (This also would facilitate creating a pool of future Captains for potential selection to Flag that would likely result in more non-white male Flag officers than today.) This is especially hard to do in the Engineering field due to demographics.

To do that, we needed to increase the pool of qualified applicants to include folks that were not seeking a commission or folks that the Navy had previously neglected to consider. At the time, the extreme bias was to recruit from a select set of schools where non-academy officers had contacts (typically their alma mater which officers would visit on recruiting trips). We started transforming the mix of applicants to include more females and broader mix of folks with non-white race or ethnicity by including schools that were not on the older visit list. We worked with the officer recruiters across the nation to start visiting schools where NROTC units did not exist. We also sent non-white male officers to these non-traditional sources to explain to candidates what serving in the Navy was all about.

The standards remained the same, but the pool of qualified applicants expanded. In fact, by expanding the set of applicants, the general overall quality of the accessions improved. There was not an ounce of wokeness, favoritism, racism, or any other "ism" involved in the process. It was just founded in good business sense. I know this since I personally approved everyone we selected and rejected, before submitting their packages to the Navy's commissioning board.

Some of the finest Naval officers I have served with in terms of ability, courage, honor, and commitment came from these efforts. In fact, many of these served in Iraq and Afghanistan with distinction.

I know how the Navy does it from personal experience. Maybe it would be worthwhile for someone to talk to a USAF recruiter to understand their process and goals.

Thank you for the soapbox, I am giving orders to expose my flanks for the swarm of inbound torpedoes that are no doubt headed my way.

Thank you for this Pict. This is how it's done….And thank you for your service. I'll take one flank for you.

Sirilun,
Yeah, there is all that, but some folks just like to be outraged about pretty much anything these days………..

Give everybody an equal chance and you will find the best. And you can ditch woke training for good.

Stop trying to insert logic & reason. When you can just play the race, sex, religion, etc. card. Which seems to be the standard today too often.

Sounds familiar……. Oh…Yea Executive Order 9981, July 26, 1948.

That was 1948. Things were different back then. My experience was most of the men in my Plt were Black then Hispanic. Many were good troopers. Color/race, etc., has nothing to do with it … it's about competence, etc.

As I have said before, as we see here in some of the comments, etc. Is some try to put today's standards, mores, etc. on yesterday's culture, etc. 1948 was not that long ago but yet much has changed since then.

E.g., FWIW – My Father, who was a WWII Vet, told me when he was a child the KKK were burning crosses in Italian American Roman Catholics' yards. Yes, in NE Ohio. My family is Italian Roman Catholics. But Americans first …

BTW FWIW – Catholics are some in the minority of Christians
sects in the USA. From the link:
Religion in the United States (2020)[1]

Protestant (42%)
Catholic (21%)
Mormon (2%)
Orthodox (0.5%)
Unaffiliated (18%)
Atheist (5%)
Agnostic (6%)
Jewish (1%)
Muslim (1%)
Hindu (1%)
Buddhist (1%)
Other religion (1%)
Unanswered (1%)

link So, should that be taken into consideration when getting promoted, being hired, getting a pay raise, etc. ? Of course not, that is a ridiculous notion. No hyperbole intended.

Yes, these cross burnings my Father told me about took place in the early 20th Century OH, USA. So, I'm pretty sure many things have changed since then … No wait … I'm sure of it.

Bottom line I want the best trained and capable troops in my Plt & Co. It was my, my PLt SGT & Sqd Ldrs jobs to make the happen. Or the most capable flying the aircraft we are in, providing medical assistance, leading the Bn & Bde I'm a part of, etc., etc. Competency & capabilities should not be based on anything but that … Competency & capabilities. And Generally Nothing else.

@Silurian

How about we understand what this is really about. Targeting under-tapped areas for recruitment, not lowering end qualifications.

Nope. That's not what they are doing. They have explicitly created and stated racist recruiting goals, and the fastest way to get there is to turn away qualified applicants based on their skin color. As stated. So if you've busted your tail, done well in school, have shown the initiative to arrange private flight school -- if you're the wrong skin color you won't be selected. In the article the USAF also seems to worry that Caucasians and Asians are over-represented in the service.

@Tortorella

SB, why the politics? POTUS is a plotting against the US? Same for the AF commanders? They are currying favor for what?

For advancement and survival with the current Admin and senior officers who are fetishizing DIE.

Get the best people. Period. This means giving opportunities to people who are clearly not able to find a way to advance on merit. 86% white pilots? Gimme a break. I don't buy the inference that white guys make the best pilots.

Hmmm…you want the best period, but then reject people based on their skin color. Which is it? 75% of well paid NBA athletes and 70% of well paid NFL athletes are black. Is that racialism or do we see a lot of young black athletes with the skills, moxie and drive to make it to professional sports? Just because you see a skill cluster among a certain skin color group doesn't automatically make it racist.

So what is it about white and asian kids and flying? Is some of it economics – that they can afford flying lessons? News flash, most can't unless the kid works or the parents take out loan. Are there social/class factors involved -- are more kids from middle class backgrounds likely to be exposed to and like math and science, which is important grounding for being a pilot?

So rather than state explicit racialist goals, as LostPict described, why not push for JROTC or USAF sponsored classes, summer flying programs and the like that can expose kids of other backgrounds to the idea of being a pilot. Lift kids up instead of pushing some down? Maybe we also have a problem with our school system, which is also fetishizing DIE at the expense of quality education.

Or is that too much work? Is it easier to set a quota, and then fill the quota?

I'm ok as long as they do not reduce white retired officers……..

"Stop trying to insert logic & reason. When you can just play the race, sex, religion, etc. card. Which seems to be the standard today too often"

As tiring as seeing complaints about woke, CRT, 1619 every time something comes up several members here dislike.

Seriously, they're not firing the white men to make room, they're just saying that prior small plane experience, which has little to do with flying the cool toys, shouldn't be a plus to the applications as that results in white men being disproportionately overrepresented. Not because they're the best but they could afford private pilot training. Losing that means more chances for finding excellent pilots who aren't necessarily JUST white men. They still have to pass pilot training or they have to sit while better pilots fly.

I would like to add, that if you think an idea is bad, don't just call it woke and kills readiness. Please, explain how it's a bad idea and how it affects readiness in a concrete manner.

There is no "which is it".

So is private flight training an asset or not? If prior experience cuts down on training time or is a factor in a "better pilot" should that be disqualified or not? If they feel it has no bearing on being a pilot I would like to know b/c it seems it would be at least beneficial.

I came into the US Navy as an aviation officer candidate in the 80s (like in Officer and a Gentleman), but ended up a skimmer due to a latent vision problem. Back then the pilot focused requirements were that you pass a timed spatial orientation test, pass a general aviation knowledge test, pass a flight physical, and pass a check ride in the Navy's T-34 trainer where they took you through the Navy's standard acrobatics course with barrel rolls, Immelmann, power dives, spins, stalls, etc. (this was a good test of nerves and tolerance to air sickness – not a disqualifier if you could stomach it). Assuming you passed these and met the other commissioning requirements, you could be selected. At the time, the Navy had zero interest in basic private pilot training (as opposed to commercial licenses). The recruiter compared flying a piper versus a Tomcat as the equivalent of your daily commute to the Indy 500.

OBTW, my training battalion of 80 office candidates had 79 white candidates and 1 black candidate. Our Marine Drill Instructor rode him so hard that he was the first candidate to DOR.

Well of course there'll be some advantage, I guess. But there's also no doubt that's those applicants with prior experience are not representative of the population as a whole. So long as the training gets everyone to a certain point why add something on the application that might deter certain people from continuing (being given, perhaps, the impression that they would be passed over at that point).
The crux of the issue is, is everyone that is passed through at the end qualified enough? By all means fail as many as it takes along the way and don't lower standards, but don't throw in an implied deterrent right at step one. It'll come up during further interviews.
My father-in-law had absolutely no experience before signing up for Vietnam. Came away a decorated fixed wing and chopper pilot. Dirt poor and ignorant (he'd forgive me…), a question like that would probably have put him off.

I would like to add, that if you think an idea is bad, don't just call it woke and kills readiness. Please, explain how it's a bad idea and how it affects readiness in a concrete manner.

As always everyone is entitled to an opinion. Whether some like it or not. But you missed point as many do, who don't see woke, CRT, etc. has little to do with military readiness, etc. Let me make this clear. And I thought I did in my posts … Let's review …

As I posted … Competency & capabilities should not be based on anything but that … Competency & capabilities. And Generally Nothing else.

I don't care what your race, sex, religion, etc. is … CAN ONE DO THE JOB ? Based on capabilities, etc. … Not anything else …

What is wrong with that ? Let me quote : "Please, explain how it's a bad idea and how it affects readiness in a concrete manner." …

Anything that wastes time like woke, CRT, etc. gets in the way of training time and assets. Again, as a former Rifle PL and Mech Co Cdr. that was my experience. Fortunately, we did not have to deal wokeness, CRT, etc. WE just had a lot to do getting our troops ready for a conflict. Was that your experience Gorburov or anyone else ?

"Nope. That's not what they are doing. They have explicitly created and stated racist recruiting goals, and the fastest way to get there is to turn away qualified applicants based on their skin color."

I don't think you understand the first article you linked to, and are perhaps going with the skewed interpretation of your second article. Maybe you could show me exactly where the official policy will be to 'turn away' qualified applicants of a certain color.
And an understanding of changing percentages and proportions is required to realize that a gradual transition from 80% white down to 67.5% doesn't mean a sudden axing, or forcing out, of those personnel. Are you wanting to keep it at that level?

"Competency & capabilities should not be based on anything but that"

I don't think anyone here would disagree with you on that Legion 4.
The whole issue is: lets see what talent we can find in under-tapped portions of the population.

Agreed … as long as they are capable of doing the job. Regardless of anything else. Which it seems again we see otherwise today in some cases it appears.

As long as they have "talent" … and that is the only box to check … I'm all for it.

Find the best qualified … period …

I WOULD think that previous experience 'should' be a plus. BUT…
If someone 'learns to drive' a car, tutored by an experienced parent… a driving instructor may do a lot of things differently. It is THAT instruction that gets you through the test as it is geared towards it.
The previous experience may be much more beneficial, eventually… tearing round a disused airfield or skidding on ice… but 'bad habits' may become ingrained… and may need to be 'unlearned' to qualify. Afterwards… ! lol.

As for 'woke'…
For myself, I think that the more experience, the better and race should not be an issue… have the best… BUT, if flying experience means potentially good are effectively blocked from application? Well, there 'may' be 'some' point. But… the 'inverted' racism of seeking to 'improve' ratios of personnel of ethnic groups is just wrong.

The challenge for military recruiting is two-fold, historically most military recruits come from about 5% of the US population called "legacy families". These are folks that have a generational history of serving in the military. The shift in US demographics is reducing the pool of legacy families since these tend to be primarily white. The chart below shows how racial demographics are projected to shift from 2012 to 2060. The chart below shows the dramatic change in the non-Hispanic white population.

If you continue to fish in a dwindling pond, you are going to be less successful. A metric for planning more successful fishing trips is how many fish you plan to catch from other ponds in the future. In all cases, you are only allowed to keep fish that meet the legal requirements (i.e., qualified).

I have beaten this fish enough. There are plenty of stupid things done in the name of racial justice. This is not one. If we continue to recruit in the manner of the past, we will INTENTIONALLY harm our national defense. Lincoln faced a similar challenge when he was starting to run out of qualified white union soldiers. His solution was simple and he won the war.

Remember Lt. Kara S. Hultgreen USN. RIP. Promoted beyond her capabilities.

+1 Lost Pict. This helps understand the consequences of doing nothing about this issue.

It would probably help if a certain minority group would address their broken and dysfunctional culture. Studying hard, getting good grades, and not blaming someone else for your problems is considered "acting white" and being an "Uncle Tom". Instead, their role models are sports figures and drug dealers/rappers. Even the ones who are more successful in my experience, tend to blame racism for their problems, not themselves. So its no wonder successful applicants from that racial group tend to be fewer in number – they don't come along with the skills, mentality, and academic qualifications necessary to be a pilot or other highly educated service member.

To go beyond that would require I get political, which I am trying to stay away from. :)

Lostpict +1 And thank you for your service.

FWIW … all the minority soldiers & officers I served with for the most part were good at what they did. In some cases very good. Many of those officers I considered friends and comrades. And vis versa. E.g. one of my best buddies was an Airborne Ranger named Martinez.

Many Army units of all branches have many minorities in their ranks. Everybody did their job. And the few who did not regardless of race, etc. were "corrected" etc. The Army is not Summer Church Camp. And it's not a democracy … But generally, it all comes together, it is synergistic and works.

My observations, for what its worth:

Our society is currently obsessed with 'diversity, inclusion, and equity.' There's no need to discuss where this philosophy came from, but we should look to where its headed.

The people that ascribe to this philosophy believe that diversity means different skin colors is a primary concern. It should not be. If you have four people of different races and they all think the same thing, there isn't any diversity there. Having different skin colors in this scenario adds nothing to your organization.

This has led to people being put into important positions not because of their abilities, but because they have certain desirable physical traits or can mouth the correct buzz words. In the private sector this has led to several major, and spectacular, failures; Marvel movies regularly flop now, Star Wars doesn't have a new movie scheduled for the next two years, Disney, which owns both those properties, has lost 50% of its stock price in the last two years, Netflix, HBO Max, and Amazon Prime are all hurting, etc.

In the private sector this isn't a big deal, capitalism works great in these situations. The badly run companies fail and new ones will rise to replace them. However, this should be avoided at all costs in government. Especially in certain sectors. We can't afford to have incompetent generals defending this country. On a more localized level I always use the same example.

If your child was being held hostage in a failed bank robbery who do you want the police to send to talk to the bad guys? Do you want the best negotiator they have, or the best minority negotiator?

Just my thoughts.

Clearly our point here has been finding the best no matter what color and widening the pool of candidates to improve overall quantity. Merit is the only credential needed. This is fair and benefits everyone.

If I ask for the best negotiator, any race or gender is fine with me. I don't want the best white negotiator or the best minority one, I just want the best one.

We either agree that there is an equal amount of talent to be found amongst all ethnicities. Or we don't…

Assuming we do, it would seem foolish not to seek it out among those ethnicities that are under-represented in, this case, the AF. Lowering standards is not the issue.

This is clearly the idea in this case (regardless of other controversial initiatives). Those disagreeing are either misunderstanding, fearing something more nefarious is at work (which I certainly hope (trust?) is not the case), or are happy to keep certain percentages low. Am I missing something?

No., Silurian.

We either agree that there is an equal amount of talent to be found amongst all ethnicities.

Again, race, ethnicity, etc. has nothing to do with the individual's talent, capabilities, etc. IMO – "All men(or women) are created equal." … It's what that happens afterwards that makes the difference. Or not …

"Am I missing something?"

I would argue that you are. The Air Force is not arguing that we should widen the area where we search for candidates, they are arguing that the demographics of the officer corps should match those of the country. In other words if there are too many white men that qualify for a commission that's too bad, we'll bypass them for people less qualified. Skin color becomes the deciding factor, which is illegal. From the article above:

"The directive aims to create a "force more representative of our nation," the memo said. Ultimately, bringing in a broader range of perspectives can foster the new ideas and skills needed to accomplish military missions, they said."

Nothing about getting qualified people, it's about diversity. If our military and political leaders insist on putting skin color before ability than we will lose lives.

"Foster new ideas and skills to accomplish military missions" sounds like it's about getting qualified people. One the surface, just using numbers and ratios by race does not sound right, but we are thinking way beyond that.

And if our military doesn't expand its effective recruiting base for qualified individuals, we won't have the best we can get. We won't even be average as we are struggling to find qualified people of any color. This is not about denying white people their rights by bypassing them, it's about a level playing field based on merit.
You have to be able to prove the system is fair. Looking at our brigade commanders or pilots, I am not convinced we have done that. What would a young black recruit candidate conclude about his chances of commanding anything or becoming a combat pilot after looking at the actual status quo right now?

Look at LostPict's posts again. We have to be thinking two steps ahead if we want to stay ahead.

.

If our military and political leaders insist on putting skin color before ability than we will lose lives.

That would be the logical assumption. However, not a lot of logic going around these days in the higher ups US leadership.

As I have said it should have nothing to do with race, sex, etc. but capabilities. Can they do the job ?

Dn Jackson. I think you need to read the article again.
It specifically states they want to widen the pool of applicants by encouraging a wider diversity to apply, so that "gradually" the officer ratios may reflect the population as a whole and new talent be discovered. NOWHERE does it say they will bypass any applicants based upon the color of their skin. And again, it SPECIFICALLY states merit based.

If I'm missing something perhaps actual links to these racist policies can be supplied. Actual official links, not individual interpretations.

Yes, we'll lose lives if skin color is put before ability – which would be abhorrent. But regardless of what some people seem to want to be reading, that is NOT the case.

Silurian, I agree. This is how I saw it, but if I am wrong I want to know.

Change the requirement and day "If you are gay, you need not apply". What would the response be?

As far as officers, if they can win, can they lead troops and win, can they get as many back safely from war as is possible and still win. Those are the most important qualifications.

Subject: Air Force Academy promotes fellowship that bans ‘cisgender' men: ‘This program isn't for you' | Fox News


link

35th , I don't even know what some of those gender categories mean. But this is not a fair and balanced source of info, IMO.

I do not believe for a second that the AF is focused on this "instead of the military threats our country faces" after reading this. The implication that the AF is derelict in its duties is an insult to the Academy and the service.

"Reporting"on this does not include a single response from the private fellowship sponsors or the AF.

Now getting letters from home is a tradition we must defend with outrage? "Consider using" is not an order. This guy is clearly running a campaign for re-election on this stuff.
Where are the facts? Info on the funding, data on the impact, who is applying?

This is not journalism: "It's a little worrying that we have more briefs about D&I than briefs about foreign adversaries, emerging technologies or current events across the world," the cadet said", with no context, proof, or response from other stakeholders. A single cadet said this. Allegedly.

There is a story in all this. But this is Fox telling everyone to get angry, using half a story. IMO they owe the service an apology. I may not agree with the AF on how they are handling diversity, but I am offended by the concluding implications that this is all the AF is thinking about. Fox doesn't believe this either.