The Army’s Unequal Opportunity Program

What is the mission of the United States Army? The most overused answer is to “kill people and break things.” While simplistic, that is their purpose. Sure, over the years and depending on the philosophies of the Commander-in-Chief serving, that mission has morphed into peacekeeping and disaster relief and security.

But for the men and women serving, they are not only serving at the convenience of the President and his subordinates, but also political correctness and sometimes reverse racism.

According to the Army’s “Unit Equal Opportunity Training Guide”,

This country was founded on the basic values of freedom, dignity, respect, and opportunity for all. In an ongoing struggle to ensure that these rights are enjoyed by all citizens, we must continue to educate ourselves and our soldiers on the importance of equal opportunity (EO). Through this education we can better appreciate the cultural diversity that has helped make this country great. Through education we can create an environment in which soldiers can excel.

Here we go with those liberal, touchy, feely buzzwords: “cultural diversity”. Most of us know what happens when we toss these words around. Common sense gets tossed out the window and assumptions as to the thoughts and motives of others are made; some on fact and some on myth.

Let’s explore one of those myths.

We’ve heard many a civil rights activist, parroted by “cultural diversity” advocates relay the sentiment that (for example) black people can’t be racist because they have no power. Tell that to Reginald Denny on the corner of Florence and Normandie, and I’ll get to specifics on this later.

But for now, it appears that the Army has accepted that notion, written it into their Equal Opportunity regulations, and instead of concentrating on skills that will keep our men and women alive in the battlefield, supervisors are also being taught how to make sure all in the unit get along, and the materials used are complete with commentary that can be challenged.

For example, in Lesson 31 of the Equal Opportunity Representative Course (“White-American Experience’), it in part reads,

The founders of the Republic dedicated the United States to the highest ideals of brotherhood. Yet, we know that the same men who saw a disparity between the ideals of democracy and convict and indentured labor, condoned slavery.

If one were to attend your average college diversity class, complete with beret-wearing professors, that would probably have been one of the first things taught. However, some may disagree.

Frederick Douglass, the escaped former slave, self-taught author and editor, and leading abolitionist orator, challenged the Rochester Ladies Anti-Slavery Society on July 5, 1852, in Rochester, New York…

Take the Constitution according to its plain reading. I defy the presentation of a single pro-slavery clause in it. Interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a glorious liberty document.

Frederick Douglass argued “that the document forbade slavery and enshrined the colorblind principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence, including the ‘self-evident’ truths that ‘all men are created equal’ and born in possession of ‘unalienable Rights.’ Look to the language of the Constitution”, he said, and “it will be found to contain principles and purposes, entirely hostile to the existence of slavery.”

So, using such ideas as the basis for training Armed Forces personnel is doomed to exacerbating racism, especially once you start with false premises. Then again, since when have the liberal professoriate ever told the truth when it comes to race, and who is Frederick Douglass to challenge what they know as truth?

Of course, unit cohesion is a necessity in any of our service branches, but “cultural diversity” programs such as the Army’s is laced with liberal gobbledygook.

Our nation and our military look different than it has in the past. At the same time, as we traveled through the 90s and now into the new millennium, we find a world that demands new ways of interaction and understanding. As previously stated the melting pot has become passé and ineffective. Indeed we stand at a new doorway filled with all shapes, sizes, and colors of people. The more we are faced with this diversity, the more the analogy of the melting pot, where diversity is lost to assimilation, becomes unattractive and inappropriate.

Now, who was it that taught us all America was this great “melting pot” and we should all embrace this concept? Illegal alien advocates use that argument to this day. Now the Army is saying that the concept has become “passé” and “ineffective”? Since when, and why?

More troubling is that this program, instead of healing racial wounds, is opening up new ones.

A soldier in an Equal Opportunity training program, now serving overseas, sent me the following…

“After hours and numerous vignettes that dealt with so many types of discrimination, prejudice, and racist behavior, not one vignette portrayed a minority Soldier as being the perpetrator toward a white Soldier. At the end of the class, the instructor asked if we had any questions. Reluctantly, I raised my hand. I asked the instructor why all the vignettes dealt with white Soldier perpetrators and minority victims. Several students laughed and made crude remarks about my question but the instructor had an answer. With conviction she proclaimed something to the effect, ‘All the vignettes dealt with white perpetrators and minority victims because minorities cannot be racist; minorities do not have the power to be racist.'”

Without rehashing numerous examples of “hate crimes” perpetrated to this day, to say minorities cannot be racist because they have no power is flat out wrong, that is unless your aim is to keep them in the victim class.

An “African American female Sergeant First Class” Equal Opportunity Program instructor has the power to be as racist as she wanted to her students, and possibly get away with it, because of the physical power structure of the United States Army. It all depends on what your definition of “power” is.

A black man holding a cinderblock over the head of a white man could be considered in a position of “power”, every much as would be the case if the situation were in reverse.

The soldier continued,

“Like many other Soldiers in the class, I was stunned by her statement. I had never heard such rubbish. I was raised in Austin, Texas by my Mexican-American stepfather. We lived in a predominately Mexican neighborhood and I was educated in a predominately black high school. During that time, I heard many outrageous claims but never one quite as contemptible as hers. I wanted to learn more but the instructor did not elaborate on her answer, and we moved on to a different class. For years, I reflected on that class but I knew that, as a white Soldier, I was not allowed to discuss this issue with anyone. On the contrary, I understood that I was supposed to accept the idea that I am innately racist because of the color of my white skin.”

It’s simply shocking that this is what the Army is teaching. As I asked before, is this supposed to heal racial wounds or open them further?

According to the soldier, the annual refresher training for the Equal Opportunity Representative Course, located on the equal opportunity websites of many brigades, divisions, and higher headquarters units,

“is replete with examples of how the Army’s Equal Opportunity Program advocates the idea that minorities are powerless and that only white people can practice discrimination, be prejudicial, and be racist. The course actually defines the term ‘individual racism’ this way:

“A person’s prejudicial belief and discriminatory behavior against certain groups because of their race or skin color. Personal or individual racism is motivated by a belief or assumption of superiority or inferiority based on skin color or some other physical trait associated with race. Generally, minorities, who lack power and institutional support, cannot practice racism.”

Well, here’s where I make the point.

This soldier met with his Equal Opportunity trainer.

“I asked why there were no examples of minority antagonists in any of the Army’s Equal Opportunity Program’s publications and as expected, she said that minorities could not be racist because they do not have power; only white people can be racist. Her demeanor became increasingly confrontational. She asked me how long I had been in the Army and I replied, ‘Over 13 years.’ She then asked me a question I will never forget. ‘Do you want to throw away your 13-year career?'”

Seems to me like this black woman, who DID have power, was using it to her advantage, and if the situation were reversed, would be screaming bloody racism all the way to Good Morning America.

To be fair, I contacted the Sergeant First Class in question and asked her if she believed, as the class materials reflect, that blacks cannot be racist because they have no power….

Mr. Parks,

I have no idea where you got that information. I would never have said that however, I may have quoted something students whom I have had in my classes have said during the courses we teach. This usually comes out during one of the exercises or during racism/sexism classes. I know better than to make such a statement.

She later added,

“I have absolutely no problem speaking to you however, my counterparts and I have a job to do in preparing individuals to be change agents for their units.”

“Change agents”…?

“We cannot complete that assignment without testing them or trying to bring out of them the very thing they hide daily. The worst place in the world for your personal issues with racism, sexism or any other kind of ism or discrimination is outside of the classroom. The classroom is a safe zone. If the student has issues that need to be addressed, the classroom is the place to do it. ‘What goes on in the classroom stays, in the classroom’ at least that is the premise. You don’t want to have those issues come out on your job or anywhere else. If this statement was said during the class, then it was for the students to rebut the issue. It was not to be used against the instructor. I hope this helps.”

“It was not to be used against the instructor.”

With all due respect (coming from someone with authority over students) that sounds kind of weak, especially coming from someone who asked that very inquiring soldier if by pursuing this he was willing to “throw away your 13-year career?”

As someone who understands the military’s unofficial policy of “shit rolling down hill”, subordinates questioning the motives of superiors has always been fraught with peril. However, rules are supposed to be fair. Some of us have long argued that the introduction of political correctness would have adverse results on those who serve.

Don’t get me wrong. There ARE bigots in every walk of life, but in an institution where your life could be on the line every day, the last thing the United States military should be doing is looking for racism where it’s not (see: Jesse Jackson) and using debatable information to make the case.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice addresses unfair treatment, but putting fear into the minds of soldiers who ask legitimate questions is wrong. Threatening their careers is wrong. If superior officers have more fear of the appearance of racism in their ranks, not because of the threat to unit cohesion, but of politically correct blow back, then the enemy is one up on us.

And the United States military need consult all sides when instituting service-wide policy and not just rely on those who scream the loudest, and when you think about, “loathe” the military in the first place. Eradicating intolerance from the Armed Forces may not be their primary objective.

Destroying the military from within may be.

11 Responses

  1. The B&R Christmas Eve Skim | Black & Right

    […] cards won’t go to local veterans due to policy Army: Don’t say Christmas Flashback: The Army’s Unequal Opportunity Program Keeping our soldiers sensitive Vets Return to Streets to Reach the Homeless Homeless? During a […]

    Reply
  2. jimmylewis

    ” … that is unless your aim is to keep them in the victim class.” Spot On!!!!!!

    In the limited three months that I have faithfully been following your blog … this has to be (out of the many great articles) the absolute best that I’ve read. Incredible Job Bob!!!

    I would love to see Reuters, AP, Drudge, among others, pick this up or place a link to it. I know, I know … I’m not holding my breath.

    I applaud you … and I’m standing!!!

    Jimmy Lewis
    SCS, Michigan
    Blog: http://rougerevival.blogspot.com/

    Reply
  3. Kushin Los

    In the short time I was in the Navy myself, I was told by the ship’s shrink that I, being a white man, was going to be the bad guy in every argument with a non white/male. This was after an altercation that I knew where I was the one attacked for just wanting to get to my locker in berthing. There is more to it mind you and the guy and I never went to blows afterwords, but here I was being tolf that even though I was capable of seeing things from his viewpoint on the matter that I would never have the right to be angry.

    Up until then I had always felt guilty about being angry, it as then I learned that I had every right to be angry though not to let it control me. In other words, I repudiated her statements and I think I’m better for it.

    Reply
  4. John Galt

    My grammar could have been better in the last post, and my capitalization sucked as well. I was getting steadily more pissed as I wrote that and by the time I got to the end, my proofreading was not what it should have been. =(

    Reply
  5. John Galt

    As a 19 year career Navy Chief, I have not only seen this kind of stuff before, but I have been subjected to it myself. I must continually remind myself that any case where a dispute arises between a white male and a female, or a white sailor and a black one, the white male will ALWAYS be presumed guilty until he proves himself innocent. This is almost impossible to do, as the litmus for whether an incident occured is by regulation, purely subjective; as the only proof that ‘discrimination’ occured is whether the aggrieved servicemember “felt” that it had.
    If you are accused you WILL be raked over the coals, (because the CO’s don’t want even a whisper that they allow these incidents to go unreported/unpunished) and will have to attend some sort of “diversity training” to ensure that you are more ‘sensitive to the feelings of minorities’.
    In fact, did I not have anonymity on this board, I would be expecting to get a flame from somewhere that I am “airing our dirty laundry in public” shortly followed by an inquisition as to how/why I could possibly think this is true.
    The fact of the matter is that, again by regulation, all commands in the DoD are REQUIRED to submit to the SECDEF’s office an annual breakdown of all advancements, awards, and punishments that have been distributed through the command, broken down by race. This has a chilling effect on truly equitable award distibution, advancement and punishment because the CO’s are paranoid that the data will make them look bad. as a result, there truly is a 2-tier system of justice in the DoD, where a white guy will get fried over stuff that a female or black can be reasonably sure of skating off from, especially if the ratios don’t meet the racial litmus test.
    This is one of the reasons that DoD members tend to vote republican, as most of us detest the social meddling that liberal administrations force on the military in their attempts to use us as their own little social laboratory and/or playground.
    See the OPNAV 5354.1E enclosure 1 section 24, Enclosure 2 section 2a. The “reasonable person standard” as described is almost always used to browbeat the accused white male into admitting that even though he did think he was being offensive, that he was insensitive to the “institutionalized racism” he inherited from society/friends/family etc. and that he is therefor in need of deprogramming in a diversity workshop. these workshops are usually contracted out to a local college, and the one I attended when I was a PO1 was “facilitated” by a black woman with a HUGE chip on her shoulder. I kept my head down and mumbled my way through the class, as if I did not “pass” the class, I was told that disciplinary action would be forthcoming.
    It is heartening to know that some of my brothers and sisters on the outside see what is happening in the DoD though.

    Reply
  6. Cameron

    This is an infuriating article on many levels. The military is one of the last, best examples we have of a true melting pot and I don’t like the idea of it being destroyed in the name of fake diversity.

    Reply
  7. Kushin Los

    I only read bits and pieces of this (I was still working out in my head all the things that pissed me off over some of the other posts), but does give anyone else here the feeling that the armed forces are going to get a political officer to ensure everyone follows the rules? Like they had in Soviet Russia?

    Reply
  8. tv2112

    PC has unfortunately embedded itself into the military to the core. In fact we had a memo come down today in reference to what we can and can’t call the ENEMY as to not offend them. How utterly stupid is it to worry about offending somebody you are trying to kill. If the ENEMY was not trying to kill us, than maybe I would be worried about offending said ENEMY!

    Reply
  9. Hoss

    Maybe the left should start working on getting rid of that whole ranking system. Why not obtain consensus before soldiers act on anything; that way everybody has a say in what happens, and nobody has their feelings hurt/self-esteem bruised because someone else has more “power” than they do.

    We deserve everything we get. We keep letting the candy-asses water everything down so that the meritocracy is completely obliterated in order to serve the average (or aggrieved). It keeps getting worse with our schools, the government, and now the military. God help us when the PC is in complete control of our nation’s security. Another institution being destroyed without a shot being fired; seems to be a fairly common theme in this country, doesn’t it.

    Reply
  10. ChicagoRay

    That’s one hellacious post Mr Parks, quite informative and accurate as usual.

    Fine work here informing about the military’s new deadly practice of kow towing to PC interests that now begin to put the soldiers in more harms way right here at home and on base as well as in the field. This country has gone mad in it’s ridiculous attempts to create the liberal Utopian living and breathing land of milk and honey. May God bless America, all the branches of our fine Military, & their colorless members and families who protect us and our freedoms here and now everywhere day in and day out.

    Reply
  11. carolinagirl

    I am so proud that my sons are Marines – a Marine is a Marine is a Marine – no questions – no favoritism – they are Marines

    Semper Fi

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.