2 ms·
It's not an issue because of that. The author was implying that the military isn't diverse enough, even though the branches of the military work to ensure they
by dx87 6y ago
It's not an issue because of that. The author was implying that the military isn't diverse enough, even though the branches of the military work to ensure they have at least a certain percentage of their forces as minorities.
- Jtsummers 6y ago> The author was implying that the military isn't diverse enough They didn’t imply it. They were pretty explicit. Their concern is that despite the diversity of the military overall it is not reflected at the top.
- dx87 6y ago"The top" of the military is very small, and considering the majority of the military is white anyway, it's expected that it'd be mostly white. Anecdotally, I saw much more diverse leadership in the military than I've ever seen in the civilian sector, probably because no matter your background, everyone starts at the bottom in the military.
- recursivecaveat 6y agoIs that unexpected? To be secretary of the navy or commander of the marine corps one has to be ~60 with a commission date in the early 80s. In 2060 the 2020 level of diversity in lieutenants should be reflected at the top.
- take_a_breath 6y ago==In 2060 the 2020 level of diversity in lieutenants should be reflected at the top.== Your embedded assumption is that today’s lieutenant diversity reflects the overall military’s diversity of 1980. Is this true?
- recursivecaveat 6y agoI am sure the top will not be as diverse as the bottom for centuries due to systemic biases in the promotion process and correlation with other symptoms of inequality. My point is just that you should temper your expectations about responsive change in the end of such a long assembly line.