Wow. This one went in a very unexpected direction…
You’re surprised that Brett’s dunking on Chuck? Are you new here?Wow. This one went in a very unexpected direction…
Fair point. I just didn’t see them getting their >30yo medals out of the closet.You’re surprised that Brett’s dunking on Chuck? Are you new here?
That's a pretty simplistic and needlessly confrontational summation of what's actually a very nuanced and well-researched article. I didn't read anything there that said the Marine Corps "wasn't playing nice." In fact, the article specifically says racial hostility and tensions are not the issue, but communication recruiting, and perhaps a bit of empathy are.Regardless of the airframe, it appears you guys aren’t playing nice.
Lighten up bro, just a joking intro - although the numbers across the services are pretty bad.That's a pretty simplistic and needlessly confrontational summation of what's actually a very nuanced and well-researched article. I didn't read anything there that said the Marine Corps "wasn't playing nice." In fact, the article specifically says racial hostility and tensions are not the issue, but communication recruiting, and perhaps a bit of empathy are.
Honestly, I'm tired of hearing about this issue. The services have seeked and boosted their efforts to recruit "diverse" recruits and officers for decades. There are no barriers to entry.Lighten up bro, just a joking intro - although the numbers across the services are pretty bad.
And I agree. I fully embrace that the services are doing what they can but the metrics (when placed against other news stories) just look bad.Honestly, I'm tired of hearing about this issue. The services have seeked and boosted their efforts to recruit "diverse" recruits and officers for decades. There are no barriers to entry.
I've flown and trained with great/average/shitty (white, black, Hispanic, Jewish, male, female) pilots. But hey, I was just a helo guy in the Marines.
How many Filipino-American fighter pilots are there? Does there need to be a representative cohort of every type in every platform? I would argue, no. Just my opinion.
IMO, diversity is best achieved when every opportunity exists for any person from any walk of life who meets the standards to participate in an organization. The doors are open, and naturally letting the diversity happen, vs. mandating it with some sort of force seems to be the best way of handling it. That’s not to say that seeking out certain groups in recruiting is a bad strategy.Honestly, I'm tired of hearing about this issue. The services have seeked and boosted their efforts to recruit "diverse" recruits and officers for decades. There are no barriers to entry.
I've flown and trained with great/average/shitty (white, black, Hispanic, Jewish, male, female) pilots. But hey, I was just a helo guy in the Marines.
How many Filipino-American fighter pilots are there? Does there need to be a representative cohort of every type in every platform? I would argue, no. Just my opinion.
The doors are open, and naturally letting the diversity happen, vs. mandating it with some sort of force seems to be the best way of handling it. That’s not to say that seeking out certain groups in recruiting is a bad strategy.
I'm in total agreement with you.
The one anecdote I have is from administratively running an O-5 command selection board (a fucking nightmare ?), is that at the end after the slate was voted on (bc there was a diversity precept to the 0-6's and GO's on the board), the 2 star head of the board was beaming (while briefing his superior) that he had met the diversity goal. When, instead, it should have been a celebration of the Marine Corp's ability to attract, recruit, and retain quality officers from all walks of life.
Not saying that there's no need for more outreach efforts, but I think the WaPo article is a little slanted.
While that may be some people’s perception, we don’t have selection quotas (that would be against policy and the law), we have goals, which is different.I just think that objectively speaking, when a diversity quota becomes a top priority in selection for anything, it sends a troubling message of “Individuals who are selected are not exclusively picked based on merit.”
While that may be some people’s perception, we don’t have selection quotas (that would be against policy and the law), we have goals, which is different.
Prove me, and the DoD policy, wrong.You kept a straight face when you typed this right?