In your considered view, how is diversity an ethical matter? How does diversity contribute to national power and purpose? In your personal experience and/or learned understanding, do more diverse groupings of people support better decision-making processes or outcomes? Finally, what role do you see the national security community playing in helping the U

Subject:WritingPrice:19.89 Bought3

Share With

• In your considered view, how is diversity an ethical matter? How does diversity contribute to national power and purpose?
• In your personal experience and/or learned understanding, do more diverse groupings of people support better decision-making processes or outcomes?
• Finally, what role do you see the national security community playing in helping the U.S. form a more perfect union from its many diverse peoples?

ENSURE THAT ANY REFERENCE YOU USE IS LISTED IN APA STYLE FORMATTING Readings, Viewings & Materials Required Reading: • • • • • • • U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2020). Federal equal opportunity recruitment program (FEORP) report: Fiscal year 2018, summary statistics download. Compiled from FEORP reports. Kamarck, K. (2019, June 5). Diversity, inclusion, and equal opportunity in the armed services: Background and issues for congress. (Links to an external site.) Washington, DC: CRS Report R44321, 1-5, 12-22 (rest optional). van den Brook, T. (2020, September 3). Diversity missing in military command (Links to an external site.). USA Today. King, A. (2013). Women in combat (Links to an external site.). RUSI, 158(1), 4-11. Military Leadership Diversity Commission. (2011). From representation to inclusion: Diversity leadership for the 21st century military: Executive summary (Links to an external site.). Arlington, VA: Military Leadership Diversity Commission, 5-16 (rest optional). U.S. Department of Defense Board on Diversity and Inclusion. (2020). Recommendations to improve racial and ethnic diversity and inclusion in the U.S. military (Links to an external site.). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense, 7-11 (rest optional). Phillips, K. (2017, September 18). How diversity makes us smarter (Links to an external site.). Greater Good Magazine. Required Viewing: • • U.S. Naval Academy, Stockdale Center for Ethical Leadership. (2020). Conversations in conscientious leadership (Links to an external site.). U.S. Naval War College, Newport, RI: USNA Stockdale Center for Ethical Leadership (18:53 mins). Brookings Institution. (2019, December 18). A conversation with General Lori Robinson, the first woman to command U.S. NORTHCOM (Links to an external site.) (0:02-27:24 mins; rest optional). Diversity, Cohesion, and the Responsibility of Power Module 6 Diversity in America – The Paradox of Achieving Equality for All Opportunity, Representation and Diversity Diversity, Cohesion and Strength – The Ethical Practice of Inclusion Diversity, Cohesion and Strength – The Practical Power of Inclusion Inclusion, Power and Responsibility Lesson 1 of 5 Diversity in America – The Paradox of Achieving Equality for All “Our nation needs diverse voices around the table. Whether it is a CEO’s table, the Joint Chiefs’ table, or the cabinet of the United States, a diversity of thought, background, heritage, race, and gender all add to the capability of any leader to make a decision. It makes our nation stronger and better.” - General Lori Robinson (2020) The United States began as a country with inequality built into its Constitution, but with equality for all “men” as an aspirational vision. African Americans were “three-?fths” human for Congressional representation and the domestic political power aims of the southern states, while Native Americans were completely disenfranchised and entirely ignored, except, of course, when treated horri?cally (e.g., Cherokee “removal” and the “Trail of Tears,” a result of policy beginning in 1830). The U.S. fought a civil war in large part to overcome the worst of what it had been until then, and although the U.S. did well for a time under President Ulysses Grant’s Reconstruction efforts, in particular, there was dramatic decline in equity and inclusion beginning in the 1880s. This formal era of segregation did not really begin coming to an end until the 1950s. But, already after WWI, U.S. leaders recognized that our “values and institutions,” the U.S.’s soft power dimension, required living up to American aspirational rhetoric. Soldiers in the 369th regiment who won the Croix de Guerre for gallantry in World War I, 1919. For example, despite Woodrow Wilson’s overt racism, the U.S. conscripted approximately 380,000 African Americans into war time service, and nearly 200,000 African American service members went to France during the war. One of the most famous units was the US Army 's 93rd Combat Division, 369th Infantry Regiment (better known as the “Harlem Hell?ghters;” Gates, 2013). The two all African American combat divisions saw some 42,000 soldiers ?ght the Germans in WWI, while the Harlem Hell?ghters were chosen by the French to be the ?rst American unit to reach the Rhine River at war’s end in November 1918. Chad Williams' work demonstrated that these veterans played important roles in the postwar resiliency of the African American community to press forward with demands for civil rights, despite the hell of the “Red Summer” of 1919, and the return of widespread violence against African Americans (Williams, 2007). This violence and social unrest was seized upon by the U.S. government and news outlets like the New York Times whose headline on July 28, 1919, read: “Reds Try to Stir Negroes to Revolt.” Theodore Kornweibel summarized the result of entrenched white elite fear of lost position: “ New Crowd Negroes faced an adversary far better organized, more powerful, and more ruthless than they could ever be. The postwar months were the most militant era of African-American history until the modern civil rights period, but the political intelligence establishment born in World War I was able to block that militancy by making the maintenance of white supremacy part of the nation’s security agenda, thus legitimizing the suppression of racial activism” - (Kornweibel, 2002, p.276) Nursery school children play with a scale model of their barracks at the Tule Lake Relocation Center, Newell, California, on September 11, 1942. Japanese Americans experienced similar discrimination in WWII, and nonetheless formed two signi?cant Army combat units, the 100th Infantry Battalion and the 442nd Infantry Regiment. These two units fought the Germans and Italians in Europe and became the most decorated American units of World War II. Raised from the internment camps, these second-generation Nisei Japanese American units performed valiantly (much like the Red Tail squadrons you learned about in Module 2), but not in ignorance. They knew they that “the senior military leadership outside of their unit viewed them as expendable or cannon fodder. Nonetheless, every one of the Nisei Soldiers took up the challenge, despite their awareness of being used.” Why did they ?ght so resolutely? U.S. Army Colonel Hiraoki Morita based his analysis in veteran interviews and summarized some of his ?ndings in 1992: “ There were many reasons this unit fought as hard and as well as it did. The reasons lie in their culture, common backgrounds, values and collective training. They also lie in the clarity of purpose and a shared goal for all members of the unit. They had a mission - To win freedom for their families in internment camps and to prove their loyalty by distinguishing themselves in combat.” - (Morita, 1992, p.16) Many decades later this valor and the injustice of internment were acknowledged by the U.S. government, but not before an obvious and unsubtle understanding emerged – only those minority groups willing and able to distinguish themselves through service were likely to be able to exercise full citizenship and advancement within American society. Yet, these units were comprised of only Japanese Americans, like the 369th in WWI for African Americans; what would become of these same human aspirations when the services necessarily became integrated? What would become of aspiring minorities and reluctant whites then, and how would this affect those forces and the broader society? Lesson 2 of 5 Opportunity, Representation and Diversity President Harry Truman integrated the U.S. armed forces by executive order (No. 9881) in July 1948, and since this time, the U.S. armed forces have been one of the most successful American institutions in terms of diversity and inclusion. No other institution has seen more progress in terms of representation in the ranks. US DOD Graph Figure 3 Yet, even here we can see stalled progress at the top – informal restrictions on advancement to the highest ranks and career paths with mentors to get there etc. (see Figure 3, U.S. D.O.D. Board on Diversity and Inclusion, 2020, p. 9).For example, in the Army you often need an Armor and combat experience path, not logistics, or support services experiences; in the Navy, you need Captaincies of major vessels, not cooks, mechanics and other support occupations, which have been historically slotted to minorities. The ?gure herein from the DOD Board on Diversity and Inclusion report in your reading shows the racial composition across all U.S. Armed Forces, from the lowest rank of ensign or private, E-1, to the highest rank, O-10, of general or admiral. Of note, while Whites make up 49 percent of the lowest rank, E-1, they make up 92 percent at the highest rank, O-10. This over-representation of Whites as the ranks progress upward is mirrored by the under-representation for Blacks and Hispanics at the higher ranks. African Americans are 21 percent of the lowest rank, but only 5 percent of the highest rank, while Hispanics fall from 22 percent of the lowest rank to approximately 1 percent at the highest rank. U.S. Military Academy Graduation The mentalities and expectations that lead to these results have lingered, as the testimonies you saw from the four recent U.S. Naval Academy graduates attest to. Still, the representation in the armed services for minorities is greater than in other American institutions, such as among the leading companies -- the Fortune 500, where leadership is still held predominantly by white males. For example, whereas in the Fortune 500 less than 1 percent of top leaders are African Americans, across all branches of the military services, that share is 5 percent for the top o?cer grade, or rank (ibid, p.9). This still deviates from the population share of approximately 13 percent for African Americans, but, relatively, the armed services are better than business in top tier representation of minorities. For further information on minority representation, re-read the assigned USA Today article. You can also review the images on this page. Race and Ethnicity in Active US Military Ranks Race and Ethnicity by Military Branch Hispanic Representation in Active US Military Ranks One of the bene?ts of diversity is the difference of opinion that it can bring, the bucking of Groupthink and poor decision-making that often follows from inadequate analysis, debate and differences coming to the fore. General Eric Shinseki epitomized this when he frankly told the Congress that the successful prosecution of the war against Iraq in 2003 would require “several hundred thousand soldiers.” He was immediately rebuked by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, who argued back: “Some of the higher-end predictions that we have been hearing recently, such as the notion that it will take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to provide stability in post-Saddam (Hussein) Iraq, are wildly off the mark. It is hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in a post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself.” (Schmitt, 2003). Review the YouTube video entitled Gen. Eric Shinseki from 02-25-03 at https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=a_xchyIeCQw. While African Americans are approximately 17% of the U.S. armed forces, up from lower percentages in the Korean War era, there are still service differences, with the U.S. Navy still lagging the Army considerably. This is most marked in the special forces branches and at the highest ranks of the services. For example, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki responds to a reporter's question during a Pentagon press brie?ng on the Army beret with Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz on March 16, 2001. Shinseki was removed from his position in the aftermath of this anti-Groupthink, candid and accurate assessment, while Wolfowitz was rewarded for his many falsehoods (e.g., the Iraqis can pay for their own reconstruction from oil sales) in getting the World Bank chairmanship, as Robert McNamara had before him. Was General Shinseki’s honesty derived from his own experiences as a minority and his knowledge of Japanese Americans’ history in the armed services? The fact that he was the only minority on the Joint Chiefs of Staff as the picture at the top of this module illustrates, begs us to ask what the bene?ts are to any group in this unique national security domain, and therefore to all of us, in having more diverse people and perspectives. Perhaps minorities are more likely to position themselves against abuses of a more unthinking majority, incentivizing some others to do the same, and yielding a better overall result. One thing that is still painfully clear is that if you are alone within a group you may experience debilitating discrimination and harassment, as the suicide in Afghanistan of private Danny Chen in 2011 attests. Lesson 3 of 5 Diversity, Cohesion and Strength – The Ethical Practice of Inclusion “The pain associated with diversity can be thought of as the pain of exercise. You have to push yourself to grow your muscles. The pain, as the old saw goes, produces the gain. In just the same way, we need diversity—in teams, organizations, and society as a whole—if we are to change, grow, and innovate.” Katherine Phillips Katherine Phillips’ observation highlights that forging cohesive functioning enterprises from diverse groupings of people is not a seamless process. But, from some necessary amount of friction and perhaps just simple human awkwardness, stronger and better performing groups can be formed. Resistance and friction in interacting with “the other” is a part of the human condition, but like all important things in life, it can be overcome through training, experience and time. Tolerance and understanding also play a role in successful inclusion and cooperation among peoples. This may seem simply a noble end, but is it ethical self-interested too? In what ways is it ethical to seek more diversity in human groupings? Recall our 5 simple ethical archetypes: 1 Which action will produce the most good and do the least harm? = The Utilitarian Approach. 2 Which action respects the rights of all who have a stake in the decision? = The Rights Approach. 3 Which action treats people equally or proportionately? = The Justice Approach. 4 Which action serves the community as a whole, not just some members? = The Common Good Approach. 5 Which action leads me to act as the sort of person I should be? = The Virtue Approach. It seems self-evident that 2-5 are upheld through the conscious inclusion of diverse peoples, but what of 1, the utilitarian, performance only, ends justi?es the means ethical standard? Do diverse groups perform better than homogenous ones, do they create the greatest good at the least cost, however this might be measured? The debate about diversity ’s effect on cohesion and performance is longstanding, and has led to many conceptual caveats (e.g., task cohesion v. social cohesion; primary v. secondary group cohesion etc.). However, it is well accepted that discrimination and injustice lead to disunity and poorer performance, compared to diverse groups that achieve high cohesion. This does not mean that diversity characteristics can, or should, become the primary rationale for how to build memberships in high-performing groups. There has to be earned trust, “re?exive trust,” among group members based in shared experiences -- of rigorous training, for example, that allows people of widely different backgrounds to see each other as equally capable. This can be built through training and education, whether in the U.S. special forces that Anna Simons writes about, or the regular voluntary, yet professional, forces Anthony King writes about; or, of course, in other professional civilian environments. King explores the modern reality of professional volunteer forces well; they might not be cohesive personally, but they cohere “based on competence.” (King, 2013, p.7). They may “straight up hate each other, but they would also die for each other” due to this rigorous system of grounding everyone in professional competence. This forges the re?exive trust that then allows any diverse group to function at a higher level. The common good, justice, equal rights and virtues ethical approaches are being practiced through these efforts, but what of utilitarian power concerns? Lesson 4 of 5 Diversity, Cohesion and Strength – The Practical Power of Inclusion Female Air Force KC-10 pilot controls the aircraft during a midair refueling mission over Southwest Asia, Jan. 4, 2020. Building cohesion from competent professionalism is what allows national security institutions to bene?t from more inclusive memberships, whether it is women volunteering to ?ght in the air or infantry ranks that King focuses on, or in the policy realms of upper administrative echelons in state bureaucracies. The U.S. has done signi?cantly better at integrating women and other minorities into its national security services, but King is right to highlight others’ work on Soviet women ?ghting with high e?cacy against the Germans in WWII. Some of this ?rst-mover invention then was born of necessity, but in the U.S., minority groups have advanced on the merits of their own cases, even if this has often been a Sisyphean struggle at times. While there are many gaps here, from women being serially mistreated within a military struggling to provide safety and justice for them, to the seemingly inexorable rise in recent times of white supremacists within the military and broader institutions of the state itself. View the YouTube video entitled Mullen praises end to military gay ban at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUclZv-J6KY This is of course true of the LGBTQ community and their struggle for equitable and just treatment, from the “don’t ask don’t tell” era, repealed o?cially in 2010, to January 2021 and the executive order repealing a ban against transgender service personnel. Admiral Michael Mullen articulated the ethos of inclusivity well in 2011, and his fundamental premise is as solid as Washington’s Farewell Address: “It is fundamentally against everything we stand for as an institution to ask people to lie about who they are just to wear a uniform. We are better than that.” Lesson 5 of 5 Inclusion, Power and Responsibility For the U.S., diversity, equity and inclusion are a source of strength. They are part of the founding ethos of the nation, and a core component of the soft power of American attractiveness, bringing talent around the world to the U.S., even from hostile foreign powers, as they always have. As mentioned before in the course, Albert Einstein came here, he did not rest in the United Kingdom, but chose the U.S., as so many others have done, precisely because of the commitment to equal justice under law, pledged to every day by every school kid in the land. Army Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, the next Sec Def DOD Some of this rubs off and lasts, yielding leaders who bring more of us along to help build a better America. There are dozens of examples of wins in the intelligence community because of disaffected people laboring under authoritarian regimes who help the U.S. so that their “yearnings to breathe free” might come to pass. Developing more of the least advantaged among us, from within, can only redound to American power and interest, but it means so much more to all of us when each one of us can advance, fully and freely. General Shinseki noted this duty applicable to any leader in the security domain, but American commanders in particular: I’ve always considered myself, in addition to being the commander, the safety officer of every organization I led…That was something I could not hand off to anybody else. And the second thing I always considered myself as being was the diversity officer…Yes, there are other people who had staff responsibilities for all this, but ultimately, those two responsibilities I saw as my own, because they are consequential of good and strong leadership. (General Eric Shinseki, quoted in Military Leadership Diversity Commission, 2011, p.10). 1 1. DISCUSSION 1: J HARMON B Professor/Class, Diversity is an ethical matter in the way that no one should be denied an opportunity to do anything or be hired based on race, religion or sex. We as a country have grown so much in diversity in our military from no restrictions on race, sex, women in combat and serving on submarines, this directly contributes to national power. From the Revolutionary War to present day conflicts, women have proudly served in the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard as nurses, pilots, engineers, soldiers and other specialties (Gorbulja-Maldonado, 2020). In my personal experiences a more diverse group of individuals working as a team work very efficiently. After going through the module however and learning about the Harlem Hellfire’s and the Nisei Japanese American units and how successful and decorated they were, does it suggest that diversity may not be as big a factor for at least military units? I think the key way for the national security community to foster a more perfect union is to be what I call “color blind.” We need to give opportunities to all and promote, advance and invest in people based off of merit and qualifications. It’s kind of ironic when watching media and the public outcry of race inequality in America while literally thousands of immigrants are making a dangerous journey for themselves and their families from many different nations just to try and start a new life in this country because of all the freedoms we have! -J Harmon BRAY NEL Hello JHB and Class, Welcome to week 6. Thanks for your comments regarding this topic. I agree that diversity is important in our military and also in the civilian sector. However, when it comes to diversity in the military, how diverse do we need to be? Should diversity trump military readiness in order to meet quotas? Should the best and brightness have to take a backseat when it comes to being selected for certain positions just to satisfy appearances of equality? If not, how do we balance the force by meeting diversity and readiness challenges? What are your thoughts class? REPLY: 2 2. DISCUSSION 2: RICH A MAN Diversity is an ethical matter because it promotes equality and an improved way of life for all citizens rather than just single groups. Diversity can contribute to national power because it can improve civilmilitary relationships, promote social equality, improve innovation, and provide equal representation to our diverse American population (Kamarck, 2019). The instruments of the United States' national power are diplomacy, information, military, and economy (Farlin, 2014). Without diversity in all aspects of these pillars then we do not equally represent our citizens and our national purpose and strategy is weakened in the eyes of the diverse international community. Some research has shown that social diversity can cause an increase of discomfort, a lack of trust, less unit cohesion, and negative effects on communication within groups (Phillips, 2017). However, I strongly disagree with that based on my 20 years of military experience. I think that the failure to integrate diversity into the daily routine in the military falls onto the shoulders of leadership. Make no mistake, the United States military is a war-fighting machine and has the main goal of defending our freedom and Constitution. However, the vast majority of decisions made by leaders in the military is made outside of war time. Therefore, many decisions can be made without haste and by utilizing input from the diverse ranks that make up our fighting forces. This inclusive decisionmaking process should not be confused with those decisions that need to be made in a wartime situation, on the battlefield, or at sea while engaging with an enemy. In those instances, leaders must make ethical decisions that accomplishes the mission, minimizes casualties, and achieves the military operational goals while engaging with an enemy. Although not perfect, I think that our military forces set an example for diversity for the civilian sectors.