Old Soldiers Want a Rainbow In the Arsenal
By Courtland Milloy
Wednesday, April 2, 2003; Page B01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6407-2003Apr1.html
The way the retired military officers made their case for affirmative action, you'd think that no one would dare argue against it -- for fear of coming off as unsupportive of the troops, if not downright unpatriotic.
"Based on decades of experience," the generals and admirals wrote, "a highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps educated and trained to command our nation's racially diverse enlisted ranks is essential to the military's ability to fulfill its principal mission to provide national security."
A little more than 50 years after President Harry S. Truman ended racial segregation in the armed services, the officers noted, the military's use of "limited race-conscious recruiting and admissions policies" remains the only way to remedy past discrimination and ensure an effective fighting force. Their argument, put forth in a Supreme Court brief supporting efforts by the University of Michigan to diversify its student body, was unequivocal: "The rules should not be changed."
The retired officers joining the brief included Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, commander of Allied Forces during the Persian Gulf War; Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, Gen. Hugh Shelton and Adm. William J. Crowe, all former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and Maj. Gen. Charles F. Bolden, the Marine Corps's first African American astronaut and commander of two space shuttle missions.
If these officers were asking for more weapons to defend America, their assessment would be taken very seriously. As much weight should be given to their assertion that a racially integrated education system and a racially diverse officer corps are essential to national security. They spoke up because a system that serves the nation well is being challenged by a couple of white students who believe that a few blacks got a break at their expense.
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Michigan case to determine whether the methods used by the school to diversify its student body violate the Constitution.
The armed forces have wrangled with integration for years, and the military is light years ahead of the rest of America when it comes to diversity. Few understand better than our military leaders what is at stake.
"The crisis that mandated aggressive integration of the officer corps in the service academies and in ROTC programs is a microcosm of what exists in our society at large, albeit with potentially more severe consequences to our nation's welfare," the retired officers wrote.
By "severe consequences," they obviously meant the inability of a disunited military to wage war and defend the homeland effectively. But racial injustice has a high price wherever it is found in society, as American history has shown.
In moving toward a solution, the military first took a hard look at itself. For instance, according to the officers' brief, in 1962, when tens of thousands of African Americans were in the armed forces, only 1.6 percent of all commissioned officers were black. By the end of the Vietnam War, in 1975, only 3 percent of Army officers were black.
"African-American troops, who rarely saw members of their own race in command positions, lost confidence in the military as an institution," the retired officers wrote. "White officers were simply unaware of the intense African-American dissatisfaction with job assignments and the perceived lack of respect."
Life in the military has a way of causing such tensions to surface rather dramatically, often through racial violence; within, say, a corporation or civilian bureaucracy, the racial fuse burns much slower. But the outcome is inevitably the same: a less-than-effective workforce, if not a self-destructive one.
Today, about 8.8 percent of military officers are black, and blacks make up 21 percent of the military's enlisted personnel -- a substantial gap despite much improvement.
So the struggle continues, with "no race-neutral alternative that will fulfill the military's, and thus the nation's, compelling national security need for a cohesive military led by a diverse officer corps of the highest quality to serve and protect the country," as the officers put it.
Who could possibly be against that -- and not just for the military but for America as a whole?
By Courtland Milloy
Wednesday, April 2, 2003; Page B01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6407-2003Apr1.html
The way the retired military officers made their case for affirmative action, you'd think that no one would dare argue against it -- for fear of coming off as unsupportive of the troops, if not downright unpatriotic.
"Based on decades of experience," the generals and admirals wrote, "a highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps educated and trained to command our nation's racially diverse enlisted ranks is essential to the military's ability to fulfill its principal mission to provide national security."
A little more than 50 years after President Harry S. Truman ended racial segregation in the armed services, the officers noted, the military's use of "limited race-conscious recruiting and admissions policies" remains the only way to remedy past discrimination and ensure an effective fighting force. Their argument, put forth in a Supreme Court brief supporting efforts by the University of Michigan to diversify its student body, was unequivocal: "The rules should not be changed."
The retired officers joining the brief included Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, commander of Allied Forces during the Persian Gulf War; Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, Gen. Hugh Shelton and Adm. William J. Crowe, all former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and Maj. Gen. Charles F. Bolden, the Marine Corps's first African American astronaut and commander of two space shuttle missions.
If these officers were asking for more weapons to defend America, their assessment would be taken very seriously. As much weight should be given to their assertion that a racially integrated education system and a racially diverse officer corps are essential to national security. They spoke up because a system that serves the nation well is being challenged by a couple of white students who believe that a few blacks got a break at their expense.
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Michigan case to determine whether the methods used by the school to diversify its student body violate the Constitution.
The armed forces have wrangled with integration for years, and the military is light years ahead of the rest of America when it comes to diversity. Few understand better than our military leaders what is at stake.
"The crisis that mandated aggressive integration of the officer corps in the service academies and in ROTC programs is a microcosm of what exists in our society at large, albeit with potentially more severe consequences to our nation's welfare," the retired officers wrote.
By "severe consequences," they obviously meant the inability of a disunited military to wage war and defend the homeland effectively. But racial injustice has a high price wherever it is found in society, as American history has shown.
In moving toward a solution, the military first took a hard look at itself. For instance, according to the officers' brief, in 1962, when tens of thousands of African Americans were in the armed forces, only 1.6 percent of all commissioned officers were black. By the end of the Vietnam War, in 1975, only 3 percent of Army officers were black.
"African-American troops, who rarely saw members of their own race in command positions, lost confidence in the military as an institution," the retired officers wrote. "White officers were simply unaware of the intense African-American dissatisfaction with job assignments and the perceived lack of respect."
Life in the military has a way of causing such tensions to surface rather dramatically, often through racial violence; within, say, a corporation or civilian bureaucracy, the racial fuse burns much slower. But the outcome is inevitably the same: a less-than-effective workforce, if not a self-destructive one.
Today, about 8.8 percent of military officers are black, and blacks make up 21 percent of the military's enlisted personnel -- a substantial gap despite much improvement.
So the struggle continues, with "no race-neutral alternative that will fulfill the military's, and thus the nation's, compelling national security need for a cohesive military led by a diverse officer corps of the highest quality to serve and protect the country," as the officers put it.
Who could possibly be against that -- and not just for the military but for America as a whole?
