Subtle bias at work?

SFC Michael Hasbun — Sat, 31 Oct 2015 10:35:14 -0400

This doesn't make sense to me. Drawdowns are supposed to target the worst of us. Is the author suggesting that women and minorities are the worst of us? There seems to be some subconscious bias and assumptions here...

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/10/31/drawdown-could-threaten-force-diversity-report-says/74759848/

Response by PO1 Tony Holland made Oct 31 at 2015 10:48 AM

PO1 Tony Holland — Sat, 31 Oct 2015 10:48:13 -0400

It's always easier to fall back on seniority than to make the hard decisions based on merit or needs of the service.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Oct 31 at 2015 11:23 AM

CAPT Kevin B. — Sat, 31 Oct 2015 11:23:18 -0400

I've been involved with several drawdowns in my career. They essentially are how much of this designater and that designater can we shed with the least pain; keeping a spread of grades so you don't create a hole that lasts 15 years. Then there was essentially a continuation board on steroids that looked at the bottom of the bell curve in performance and started drawing lines. Any consideration of race, gender, etc. was strictly prohibited just as it is when you do promotion boards. So what the author suggests would be tossing better performers if there is a "problem" which creates more problems. We got that kind of problem in the past when good women nurses weren't making O-4 as there were so many male only FMF billets out there. The system wised up correcting that.

A coworker of mine was a fail to select to O-5 minority. I'm familiar with the process at the time as I sat boards after his experience. Minorities and women who were below the cut records were reviewed by the whole board against the lowest record above the cut. Then there was a separate briefing to SECNAV on that topic alone. That process was essentially eliminated in my later boards as the boards were shown to be doing their job without bias towards women and minorities so the extra layer was dropped. The sad part as it related to my coworker that I never had the chops to tell him was during his time the Board not only said NO but HELL NO. He didn't need to know the dynamic.

Other communities may have different results. Our staff corps brings a lot of great kid engineers and architects on board and I was always pained to see good ones sent home at the O-4 board because of the numbers restrictions. We sent good enlisted Seabees home too. Bottom line: folk who fixate on the "mix" tend to overlook the consequences.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 31 at 2015 12:39 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 31 Oct 2015 12:39:00 -0400

So to paraphrase the author, women and minorities are dumber (lower AFQT scores) and have worse fitness scores, so we should put in some other factors in order to ensure a "diverse force". Here and I thought the military was here to fight the nation's wars. Turns out, we are really here to promote diversity.
First off, this is a not-very-thinly-veiled attempt to suggest standards not be the determining factor in force reductions, and that minorities and women should have special consideration. That fails the very test that they would like to apply - that everyone is treated the same regardless of gender, race, etc.
Secondly, Rand Corp suggesting that minorities are somehow less capable and thus disproportionally affected by QMP and other force reduction systems may or may not be statistically true, but smacks of racism.
I think any separation board action should be completely blind, maybe going so far as using initials or last four SSNs to prevent a name from giving away race or gender. Then we'll see how it goes. If it still comes out disproportionate to the force demographics, then the issue is not bias but rather societal in nature. By the time a Soldier has been in the Army for fifteen years, you aren't going to fix the fact their education wasn't up to par or that they have done things that got them subject to UCMJ. It just is.
The standard should be the standard, no matter what you look like.

Response by SMSgt Thor Merich made Oct 31 at 2015 5:04 PM

SMSgt Thor Merich — Sat, 31 Oct 2015 17:04:12 -0400

This is a horrible study and the worst kind of political correctness. Since when does where you fall on the color or sex spectrum matter? If an organization has to draw down (do less with more), its vital to retain the best folks. Regardless of sex or race. The best people period! Anything less is discriminatory in its nature. I am not sure what Rand is trying to accomplish with this report as federal law prohibits what they are suggesting.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 31 at 2015 5:15 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 31 Oct 2015 17:15:41 -0400

Firstly- nothing eats at me more than this diversity BS. I'm not talking about the EO program, racism, sexism, or other closed minded prejudice bullshit. I'm talking about the seemingly interest to have that targeted "make up" of a force. Due to the unique business our organization conducts, the most important factor shouldn't be "oh do we have the proper ration of males to females to minority groups for the job" and instead it should be "do we have the right persons for the job!"

Now are they so quick to want to have a conversation about targeting sexes and minority due to drawdowns but the same people didn't seem to give a dam when told cutting dual military BAH and SM pay and benefits would uniquely target females in the military and do drastic damage to our female enlisted numbers? Where was their interest then?

But I'm not subject matter expert on force demographics, just a man that rants on.