Black Army officers struggle to climb ranks

We are not discussing the position for regional manager of White Castle but the command of thousands of military members. These military members are willing to place their very lives on the line for this great country but expects to be commanded and place in harms way by the smartest and brightest the military has to offer. anytime American lives are ordered into combat it should be by the most qualified commanders not based on a minority quote system. I would have raided the gates of hell for my commanders because I knew they were fully qualified for their position. If you promote based on quotes you destroy the trust in command and end up with a military who questions the leadership which leads to the lose of the up and coming leaders to the civilian market.

I have been a part of many Brigade combat teams. I am here to tell you that senior commanders make tactical decisions based on their knowledge and experience, not color. So saying, if combat command at higher level is your goal, choose your branch wisely. I would not want to be a part of a brigade combat team commanded by a medical or transportaion officer. That just wouldnt pass the sniff test. take it for what its worth.

I see quota selection as the opposite end of the racist spectrum, choose the top performers in their field that have the background and qualifications for what they compete for. In my field we don't swap units, we are designed to homestead based on language and cultural knowledge so in the last 12 years I have seen Officers grow through the ranks. I remember an amazing CPT commanding our selection course in 2000. He went on to become one of the best Bn S-3s, Bn and Group Commanders I have ever had. He is now a 1 star and even bridged the gap from SF to be an ADC in the 82nd. I hope his next job is to command the Regiment, oh, and he happens to be black too. Color is immaterial next to qualifications.

BG David Fleming III Hooah Sir! I have been on boards, but not at the Brigade Command Board Level.

MAJ Ryan K., your comment about treating everyone the same through blind faith of test scores is not human, its robotic. When you choose a doctor do you care who it is? I can tell you that most women will evaluate their gynecologist before choosing one. But why? If they all have medical licenses why pick one over another? Hmm, makes you think now doesn't it?

SPC Randy Torgerson, I'm no gynecological expert, but women don't choose their physician by board evaluation. They are a customer and a patient, so I think there are relevant differences.

I never said that board results should be based on blind faith. You appear to be equivocating on the meaning of "blind." The blind exam grading technique reduces the evaluation to one based on demonstrated merit, not emotion or personal bias. Do you think promotion and command boards should be based on demonstrated merit or subjective bias?

I understand that, but the general principle is the same. Choosing someone for something....... We can all give specific personal examples in this discussion but the discussion has to be generally across the board.

besides that Maj Ryan, the hospital those doctors work for were very much selected by a board of sorts. So maybe that is a better example...

SPC Randy, no one officially pointed fingers. The problem only comes up when people of the racial majority blame minorities for complaining where no complaint was made. I read the article, and it says that "The Army" and "Army Officials" are the ones who made the decision to try and racially diversify command position holders. So saying that someone should "look at their own shortcomings" is essentially blaming "minorities" for complaining or looking for an undeserved leg up, which is not the case.
And SGT Wiley, the article he references looks to be about the lack of qualified minorities, or that's what I read it as. It's about how they are failing to create those more diverse numbers using the current system. There was no talk of changing that system, only that minorities don't seem to be getting into those roles. And yes, minorities are generally less qualified for commissioned leadership roles at a higher percentage that the racial majority for many reasons. But those reasons are societal and are caused prior to enlistment. Many black youth are taught at a young age to be grateful to have even gotten a bachelor's degree, so joining the military is often not even a viable option, and even more have criminal backgrounds from youth, so enlisting for OCS is off of the table. Once enlisted, very few minorities want combat jobs (the most likely to hold senior command positions) because, honestly, many of us join with the idea that we've been shot at enough in one lifetime, and picking a job where that's a daily occurrence doesn't sound very appealing to many kids. I was one of those kids. That, along with trying to choose a job that has more technical expertise or specialty to open opportunities for the outside world, opportunities many of us never dreamed of having.

Long story short, no one is pointing fingers, no one is making excuses, and no one is devaluing your work. It's more an issue of finding out why minorities/minority officers aren't holding up in comparison, and if it's something the Army can/needs to fix. I say no. It's society, not us.

SGT (Join to see)
I understand what the article is about. What I am saying is that it doesn't matter if 82 out of 82 of those battalions are led by African American officers or 0 out of 82. What matters is the most qualified individuals are selected to feel those leadership roles. I understand that many African-Americans are believed to have a disadvantageous background PRIOR to enlisting/commissioning. Despite these backgrounds, I do not think it's the Army's responsibility to identify they were disadvantaged and subsequently provide them additional opportunities to succeed. Many people are disadvantaged not just African-Americans, and not all African-Americans ARE disadvantaged. When articles like this come out, it makes it look like the Army is taking more effort in developing the racial minority leaders in order to make the overall demographic look more favorable. This mentality assumes that Caucasians cannot be disadvantaged and we don't need to spend as much time developing them in to successful leaders. This mentality is FALSE. The Army is not responsible for your background, the are responsible for your future in the United States Army.

What I am saying is that demographics do not matter, there should be equal opportunities for EVERYONE and selection for a leadership position should be based solely on the factors that make the individual the most qualified. There are also many other demographics out there other than race, so I do not see why it is necessary to focus on one. I strongly believe that the isolation of the racial demographic is contributing to the problem, not helping it. Society and the Army need to focus on building the characteristics for leadership and success into it's citizens, so our future leaders develop the capabilities to overcome any potential disadvantages on their road to success.

"Many people are disadvantaged not just African-Americans, and not all African-Americans ARE disadvantaged." This is true, and I may have been misleading when I just mentioned African-Americans, but that's only because that's my unique perspective and I can't really offer anything close to an accurate assessment on other minorities. And no one assumes that caucasians can't be disadvantaged, (I grew up around many disadvantaged caucasians) but the issue that the army (and society as a whole) sees is the percentage of people in different races that are disadvantaged, and historically and to this day, white people have the smallest percentages. That's neither here nor there. The bottom line is actually that we're saying the same thing. I already agreed with you 100% that it's NOT the Army's job to try and fix those issues (mentioned in the long story short comment).