Avatar feed
Responses: 2
LTC Self Employed
3
3
0
(3)
Comment
(0)
MAJ Dale E. Wilson, Ph.D.
MAJ Dale E. Wilson, Ph.D.
12 mo
Don't hold your breath . . .
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
MSG Thomas Currie
1
1
0
Edited 12 mo ago
Funny thing, in the mid-1960's the Army completely removed race from military records (we didn't have photos in the personnel records then). The idea was to make all Army processes (promotion, assignment, schooling, etc) colorblind. It worked, but not the way people thought it should.

Once assignments were completely colorblind, the racial composition of units became effectively random. That is exactly as it should be -- but it is NOT what anyone wanted -- because random does not mean that every unit will be 60% White, 19% Hispanic, 12% Black, 6% Asian, 3% Other. Random really means random! Which means some units might end up being all white, or mostly black, or any other combination that doesn't precisely match the racial composition of the general public or of the army.

In the late 1960's the Army put race back into everyone's military records so they could ensure that processes were "balanced" to make everything "fair" because somehow being completely colorblind wasn't fair enough for the bean counters. Being completely colorblind gave the Army equal opportunity but they quickly found that equal opportunity does not ensure equal outcomes. In 1969 the Army made numerous specific by name unit assignments (which were much more specific than usual) to ensure that each unit had the proper number of each racial group in the proper positions.
(1)
Comment
(0)
MAJ Dale E. Wilson, Ph.D.
MAJ Dale E. Wilson, Ph.D.
12 mo
Thanks for sharing. I'm sure most of us serving during that era have similar experiences.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close