Marine Recruiting achieves historic success in diversity representation

https://link.defensenews.com/click/26 [login to see] 6/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubWFyaW5lcy5taWwvTmV3cy9OZXdzLURpc3BsYXkvQXJ0aWNsZS8yODgxMjUxL21hcmluZS1yZWNydWl0aW5nLWFjaGlldmVzLWhpc3RvcmljLXN1Y2Nlc3MtaW4tZGl2ZXJzaXR5LXJlcHJlc2VudGF0aW9uLw/ [login to see] 8edb7fd6744f7cB7643f854
A word about words: Ask yourself what the word, "diversity" means. Not in the political context, but just the word hanging out by itself. I came up with "variety" as my best synonym. Now read the article. Note the line "...Greater than 35 percent of all officer candidates were diverse...". This is trying to change what the word actually means...implying that some candidates were diverse, while others were not. The logical extension of this idea would be that if 100% of USMC recruits were "people of color," then the USMC would be 100% diverse.
This is absurd, and turns the meaning of the word on its head. A 100% black or brown marine corps would be far LESS diverse than what it is today. And, skin color by itself, does not create diversity of perspective, which is what we're really seeking. Diversity of perspective enables us to get a variety of ideas when it comes to tactics and strategy...different ways to approach the objective. Diversity of skin pigmentation does almost nothing for us, as a fighting force. "People of color" is another meaningless political phrase...after all, we ALL have a color, and varying amounts of ethnic roots...we're all on the spectrum of humanity's colors, but this phrase attempts to divide us. Whenever we read articles like this, we need to reflect on the meaning of words, and whether the logical conclusion (extension of the proposed idea) would lead to an explicit inconsistency, and therefore be rejected. Practice your critical thinking skills in this post-truth age of ours.