EO and DEI

 

            I joined the Army in 1982 as the Army was reinventing and rebuilding itself from the post-Vietnam chaos. One of the challenges we faced was creating a force that somehow represented American society…demographically. Now as a private, this largely passed over my head. I was most focused on keeping the sergeants happy and avoiding interaction with officers altogether. Eventually I earned a commission, and this issue became one of many that I worried about. Truthfully, it was fairly far down on the list. Other items, maintenance, weapons qualification…and cleaning…, physical fitness, and paperwork filled most of my days; however, this issue did have significant impact on my world, namely as Equal Opportunity, normally referred to as EO.

            The EO program and all its subsidiary components was the Army’s plan to protect various minorities and to ensure that the force better represented the American demographic as a whole. For most of us, especially the white us, the EO program was fairly innocuous. It did not influence our daily lives. As an officer, I interacted with the EO program as a portion of the IG and other inspections. I also had an EO NCO in all my units who helped me make sure that I treated everyone evenhandedly. Rarely, I would have to answer an EO complaint. Fortunately for me, all those complaints against me were unfounded, though the investigation process could be intimidating. The Army used EO complaints and periodic EO briefings to help educate and improve the force. Though these efforts were not perfect, they helped us discard some old and rather bad habits. The EO program also influenced promotions, and here is where many complained.

            I was a young lieutenant when the Soviet Union collapsed, and the cold war wound down. The Army went through a series of reductions, shedding thousands of soldiers, NCOs, and officers. In many ways it was a daunting time professionally. Many friends, excellent officers and NCOs, found their careers cut short by the downsizing. In this atmosphere it was quite easy to blame EO. Though I do not know the exact mechanisms, I do have some knowledge of how the Army pursued creating a force that was demographically aligned with the American population.

            When the Army had a board for promotion or retention, the board would first determine all those administratively eligible for promotion. From that very large pool of highly qualified individuals the Army would then develop an order of merit list. In some ways this could be a bit arbitrary, but it was based on performance in general and in certain key positions, company commander, platoon leader, and the like. Once that list was created the Army would scrub it for demographic concerns. And this is where things get a bit sticky. Is it fair to move someone down on the order of merit list to elevate someone else based on race or gender? If we were talking about elevating an unqualified or lessor qualified individual over a more qualified one that would be problematic; but, such was not the case. The Army started with a very large pool of highly qualified individuals and sought to fill positions in a way that reflected our nation. Awaiting those board results was nerve wracking, but that was part of the process. The result of all those angst inducing machinations? The Army developed a highly professional force that well represented our nation.

            Sometimes when a board did not go your way, which happened to me, the temptation would be great to blame the EO process instead of your performance. The temptation to abandon cooperating and helping peers was also great. In one battalion that I served in our commander sensed a growing disunity and competition between the lieutenants. He gathered us all into a room and gave us this bit of very good advice.

            “Your fellow lieutenants are not your competition. You are only competing against yourself. If you strive to be the best officer that you can be and pull together as a team, then promotions and retention will take care of themselves.”

            It was excellent advice and helped build teamwork in the unit. As I remember, all the lieutenants in that room made captain and I knew several that made the exulted rank of colonel. But his true point was to avoid blaming others for our own lackadaisical attitude towards professionalism. This is the siren song of railing against EO, DEI, or any other program designed to help make the workforce more representative.

            Through its efforts the Army shed its post-Vietnam problems and emerged as a force which valued professionalism, afforded all members opportunities for advancement, and resembled the nation demographically. Did it always work? No, no organization, plan, or program is perfect. Later when I commanded a recruiting company, I learned even more about how this worked.

            As a recruiting company commander, my professional career hung on meeting monthly enlistment goals. These goals varied and were always hard to meet. While I met the raw numbers on a regular basis, I only mission-boxed once, recruiting speak for meeting all the numbers and categories assigned. I received regular reports on the demographics of my enlistees. The number-crunchers at Fort Knox, USAREC HQ, measured my success against the demographics of my company area. Truthfully, I never worried too much about the exact demographics as I struggled to meet the raw numbers. But I did find the data interesting. One area that I always failed in was enlisting wealthy white males. Rich kids just are not that interested in a life of service. They have many options. The Army understood the importance of a force that reflected the nation as a whole and how that enhanced unit cohesion. DEI and its predecessor EO worked to build a viable, vibrant, and strong organization.

            We do best as an Army, an organization, indeed as a nation when we strive to include all members of society. This comes with challenges as there are members of our society that find proximity to others uncomfortable. We all feel most relaxed around people who are like us. Most of my friends look kind of like me…old white guys. But it is those friends who think differently that add color and character to my life. And so it was in the Army.

            Though we all wore BDUs and “bled green” as it were, our differences brought vitality to the organization. My comrades from differing backgrounds brought different skills to the table. They often had a different way of solving a given problem. We were better for our eclectic character. I always found “Joint” (multi-service) and “Combined” (multi-national) operations challenging and invigorating. It is the same in society.

            We need not retreat from DEI and EO. These programs do not solve all problems, but they are a step in the right direction. Our country will thrive the most when people know that they are evaluated on the content of their character and abilities and not some arbitrary standard of sameness. All members of society have something to offer, and we need to do our best to open doors for their participation.

Deeds Inform Trust

 

            I’ve been reading a variety of posts and memes encouraging me to take a wait and see attitude towards the tactics of ICE rounding up all manner of aliens. ICE, under the direction of the administration, not only raids numerous workplaces, but also camps in the government buildings where immigration courts meet and detains or arrests individuals when they come in for scheduled court appearances. They are casting as large a net as possible in order to meet the stated administration goal of deporting more undocumented aliens than President Eisenhower. Their efforts and tactics have caused a considerable stir across the nation, and significant demonstrations in Los Angeles and New York. Some question the legality of detaining someone while they are attending a court ordered meeting as part of their process. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of men and women are being asked to wait and see while in custody.

            The idea of waiting and seeing implies a certain level of trust in the administration to properly work the system, to respect the concept of due process. Many of the memes and other postings claim that an undocumented alien does not deserve due process, which is untrue according to our legal system. In fact, due process enables us to verify a person’s legal status and take the appropriate action, whether that be release or deportation. Due process enables us to protect the innocent and hold the guilty accountable for their actions. We’ve long taken the stance that someone is innocent until proven guilty, and this is why I’m uncomfortable with the wait and see recommendation.

            Our administration has shown itself very willing to discard due process. They have already deported American citizens, adults and children. This callous attitude toward due process and human rights does not warrant my trust. Their willingness to deport citizens without cause, other than being brown and in the wrong place and wrong time, has eroded my trust. They must take steps to show that they understand due process and the roles of the judiciary, the executive, and the legislative branches. When they have trampled on due process, they have infringed upon the role of the judiciary. This lack of respect for the constitutional roles of government concerns me greatly. What is to stop them from detaining and then deporting me?

            This cavalier attitude towards due process and other civil liberties has eroded trust, and the administration needs to take appropriate measures to rebuild that trust. This does not mean that they need to give up on their stated goals; they just need to move the levers of government according to the Constitution and laws of the land. A population which does not trust its government will soon feel adrift and unattached. In this time, we need to work together to address the multitude of challenges that lay before us. This is not a partisan issue. It is an issue of good leadership and strength of character; both of which seem in short supply these days.

Budgets Speak

 

            Each month Christy and I engage in a small, but important, ritual. She sits down and sorts out the details of our budget. We set goals together, but she handles the heavy lifting of developing the detailed plan. She records it on a card and gives it to me. Then I fulfill my portion of the Robinson Budgetary Process, better known as the RBP. I go online and move money and pay bills via the internet. It is a small part, but it is my part, and I enjoy doing it. If you were to examine them, those cards speak loudly about our priorities as a couple.

            Peruse those cards and you will get a good picture of what we think is important. On each card you will find house and auto payments. Since we live on a dirt road that is frequently covered in snow during the winter and Christy often drives to Lubbock by herself, I support the expense of a good all-wheel-drive car. You will find out which charities we support and from that data glean a bit about where our heart lies. What we do with our share of this world’s resources says a lot about our morality. We are among the blessed who enjoy more resources than we need. And truth be told, for most Americans that is the case. Oh, we may get ourselves into such a situation that every dollar is spoken for; but, that is more due to our rapacious appetite than our actual physical needs. Just as our budgetary plans reveal what is important to us, our nation’s budget reveals our corporate priorities.

            A scan of the most recent budget proposals from the House of Representatives and the White House says much about what we consider important. Evidently, we consider providing tax relief to the wealthiest much more important than taking care of the most vulnerable in our society. Despite our protestations regarding deficit spending, we’re quite willing to add another trillion or so to the national debt to fund tax relief for the wealthiest and defense industries. We do not mind cutting out support for women, infants, and children. Medicaid designed to ensure that weakest among us do not go without basic healthcare is less important than a new weapons system…or two…or three. Protecting the environment, something we all depend on, does not rate very highly in our estimation, nor does improving our infrastructure, another thing we all depend upon. Our draconian reductions to the USAID budget send a very clear message to the world.

            We just do not care about those who suffer. All foreign aid consumed 1.17% of the budget in 2023.¹ Despite this rather parsimonious effort, our current administration has gone to great lengths to not only eradicate those funds, it has also sought to shutter the USAID department. These actions speak loudly concerning our priorities. They tell the world that we just do not care about those who suffer. We have no interest in the problems that they face. We cannot really justify these reductions as part of a plan to address the problems of our own people since we’re cutting what we spend to help our own population or poor families.

            If we want to be a nation known for our compassionate care for those who are less off, we must be willing to adjust our budget to reflect that. Contrary to popular belief, most taxpayers in the U.S. enjoy a lower tax rate than most of the rest of the world.² We think we’re highly taxed; however, an examination of the data shows otherwise. We also like to think that current government programs transfer wealth from the top to the bottom. Again, the data shows that is not the case.³ If we want to make judicious decisions regarding the construction of our budget, we must do so from an informed perspective.

            We must carefully think through our societal goals and the budgetary decisions that support those goals. For those of us who have the means, will we willingly allocate the funds needed to help the less off, or will we simply hoard our blessings to satiate our own desires. I believe that there are adequate resources to enable us to enjoy a high standard of living while helping those who are less off. After all, all of us have received help of some sort or another in our journey. We should willingly help those who are less well off. While we make lofty sounding pronouncements about concern for those less fortunate, our budget speaks more loudly. We wring our hands and spill much ink over a national debt; however, our budget shows that we do not really care. We like to believe that our economic system enables people to move from poverty to middle class; yet, our budget erects or strengthens barriers to such transitions. We talk about protecting the American Farmer, while we eviscerate the mechanisms and programs that support rural life. Our words paint one picture while our actions seek to erase that reality.

            If we want to live in a nation which fosters the spread of democracy, shows compassion for the weakest, and builds a thriving middle class, we must address our budget. Future generations will well understand our hypocrisy. They will read our words and evaluate them by our actions. I suspect that they will find us wanting in moral courage and strength of character.

           

1. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/02/06/what-the-data-says-about-us-foreign-aid/

2.  https://www.worlddata.info/income-taxes.php

3.  https://www.epi.org/explorer/international

Free Speech Anyone?

 

            Free speech is a tricky thing. I enjoy free speech when it is mine. After all, I’m a reasonable guy who always thinks things through carefully. Ask any of my friends…shoot you can even ask my wife and kids. They will tell you that I always say things that are worth listening to. Right?

            One of the things that I discovered as a soldier was that I had given up a certain amount of my free speech. Army Regulations prohibited me from speaking out against the President, members of congress, Army leadership, and other members of the government. And should you think these were empty unenforced rules, I had a fellow officer and friend cashiered for attending a political rally in uniform. There was no discussion, no appeals, no second chances. He was summarily dismissed from the service. If this sounds harsh, remember that as soldiers we serve all presidents, no matter the party and no matter our personal political inclinations. So as a soldier, I had to always remember that I needed to be circumspect in the words that I let slip from my lips. So as someone who’s had to self-censor, I’ve watched the ongoing battle of wills between President Trump and certain schools with great interest. After all, this is fundamentally about freedom of speech. Do not be fooled by various proclamations and news reports. At its core, this conflict is about free speech and its exercise.

            President Trump and many others in the Republican (MAGA) Party find fault with higher education in general and the Ivy League specifically. They make grandiose claims about these universities being totally devoted to liberalism. With grave speech they trot out a seemingly endless parade of examples of how far out of mainstream thought these schools are. They also provide many examples of how more conservative students are hounded and abused by their professors and fellow students. And while such behavior is unacceptable, it does not represent the student experience as a whole. Again, this is a battle over free speech. While it is true that the academic world is predominantly liberal; it is not one vast sea of blue with only the occasional island of red. A dispassionate examination of the data reveals a more complex picture. Any university worthy of the name university seeks to broaden its ideological makeup. A diverse faculty and student population leads to a vibrant and thriving educational institution. This diversity supports the academic ideal.

            In a clash of ideas free speech enables competing ideas a full voice. Ideally each side provides the idea and supports it with data. Unfortunately, in this method one of the ideas is found wanting and rejected, leaving the rejected side feeling…well, rejected. None of us like losing. The bitter sting of defeat should lead us to introspection and reexamination of our logic and data.

            The academic world is built on this principle. Someone develops an idea, does the appropriate research, develops their argument, and then presents their proposal for examination by recognized experts in their field. If their idea survives then it is accepted into the cannon. One of the keystone components of this system is a dedication to the truth, no matter where it leads. Unfortunately for many, their proposals do not pass muster and are discarded. If that is the case then one must revisit your idea and evidence, seeking the means to strengthen your case. This rigorous competition leads to a fuller understanding of our world and how we best interact with it, which is why the actions of our current administration in relation to the university world concerns me.

            The administration seeks to shape the academic world through various types of coercion. These tactics include cutting off all government support, denying foreign students visas, and dictating university policy. Of course, the government may deny a specific grant application for pursuit in an area it does not support; but, to simply cut off all funding is the tactic of a bully and will have a deleterious effect on important other research efforts. All of these are an unacceptable intrusion into the academic world.

            Our nation has built a constellation of universities which draw the brightest students from around the world. As a nation and culture, we profit greatly from this system. We should not tear it down simply because of a perceived liberal bias. If we want to change the university world, we must engage it in the realm of ideas. To coerce a university into submission through such oppressive tactics transforms it from an educational institution into a propaganda arm of the government, an organization not to be trusted. To continue to pursue this process is to demean the academic freedom and free speech. The current administration takes umbrage at the criticism coming from the academic community, which it feels is unfair. Perhaps some of the criticism is unfair. The solution lies not in persecution but in academic engagement.

Memes Rarely Communicate (Or Posting Responsibly)

 

            As a teacher of English at both the High School and College level, I often lectured my students concerning the meaning of words and the need to choose their words carefully. Words have very specific meanings and when communicating we must invest the time required to identify, select, and use the word that carries the exact meaning we desire. Clearly communicating a position or concept takes time and effort; both things most of us find in short supply. This is why we often resort to using Memes. These pictures coupled with a few short, often sarcastic, phrases attempt to communicate large ideas or policies with one hasty viewing. Many memes are simply humorous and highly successful in generating a chuckle, occasionally even a belly laugh. Often these humorous memes take advantage incongruencies or congruencies of the English language. I do not fault those memes. What I find distressing are those memes which abuse the language, especially in word choice.

            Often those who compose memes sling about words such as “Marxist,” “Fascist,” “Communist,” “terrorist,” “radical,” “reactionary,” and others. These words do not truly communicate. Rather, they inflame. Sometimes I do not think we want to communicate or convince. We just enjoy stirring things up. I often see such things shared under the line, “Watch how ______ owns the libs/conservatives.” We let our political inclinations and intellectual laziness guide our word choice. And in our current cultural and political milieu this tends to separate instead of illuminating or bringing together. We often employ words that we would find nearly impossible to define with any accuracy, especially political words. We use them to shore up our own bona fides within our circle or to provoke those who we disagree with.

            Such practices are intellectually dishonest and do not serve the nation well. Currently, we desperately need to find common ground. Instead of using social media platforms to communicate ideas and build consensus, we’re deepening the chasm which separates the various constituencies that make up our political landscape. At a time when we need to come together, we’re pulling apart. This is due in large part to the reckless way we use social media, embracing the relative anonymity of the internet world.

            Most of us do not create the meme, we just “share” it. In our minds this puts some distance between us and the offended. When taken to task for our intellectual dishonesty, we blame the offended. “Well, you just have thin skin.” We ridicule others for being “easily triggered.” As if that somehow absolves us from our coarse, rude, or dishonest behavior. Often memes, especially the political ones, traffic in lies and fabrications. The creator makes the casual assumption that the reader either is ignorant of the facts or is unwilling to make the effort to verify. When we share these kinds of memes we share in the lie and the resultant cultural chaos. Simply passing it off as a joke, after all they shouldn’t be so easily offended, does not absolve us of our guilt. We are responsible for how we use available media.

            Scripture reminds us that “to whom much is given, much is expected,” Luke 12:48. The modern internet is a tremendous resource. With it I can communicate near instantaneously with people around the globe. I can conduct legitimate research into any subject my mind can conceive. With my smart-phone I can access and share data any time and almost any place. Sadly, this astounding capability also enable me to spread lies and disinformation just as easily. For those of us who are Christians, are we truly comfortable with how we use this tool? Do we glorify the Lord and further the spread of His kingdom through our postings and sharings? For those of us who do not claim the name of Christ, how will our children, grandchildren, and other future generations judge our behaviors? Are we improving things or are we contributing to the chaotic erosion of things that are good and meaningful in our culture? Perhaps if we thought a bit more about the veracity and potential impact of our postings we might hesitate before hitting post, send, or like. Are we moving our society, culture, nation, and neighborhood in a good direction? Have we carefully considered our word choice? Do we even think, or are we simply enjoying the momentary rush of being sarcastic? These are questions we ought to consider as we navigate this brave new digital landscape.

A Hat or A Plane?

 

            As a retired Army Officer, I often sport a hat emblazoned with U.S. Army Retired. I like wearing it. After all, I spent twenty-seven years as a soldier, NCO, and officer. Due to our current cultural climate, many people stop and thank me for my service, to which I reply, “It was my honor and privilege to serve.” And it was.

            Not everyone can serve, and many who start a career shipwreck their service on a variety of different shoals, drug use, DWI, excessive debt, and a variety of other improprieties. Serving our nation in the military is a privilege. Sometimes a person’s behavior limits or curtails the privilege to serve. Among the behaviors is accepting a gift, or emolument. Marriam-Webster defines emolument as: the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites. Interestingly the older meaning of emolument is an advantage.

            Most of the time, this does not figure in an officer’s career. But as a member of the Signal Corps, this played a fairly significant role in my career. As a Signal Officer, I constantly dealt with contractors. I oversaw contractors in the fulfillment of their contract. I worked with contractors seeking to renew their contract. I also worked with contractors seeking to procure a contract for equipment and services. Due to this role, I attended numerous training sessions and briefings concerning how to interact with contractors, and in all of them we were warned about accepting gifts, or emoluments, from contractors. The general rule of thumb was that if the price of the gift exceeded the price of a baseball cap, I could not accept it. Regularly I had to graciously refuse a gift, once a contractor offered to take me and my wife on a nice golf outing in Germany. But most of the time they knew the rules and acted accordingly. We had to ensure that we did not even give the appearance of inappropriate behavior; which makes the President considering accepting the Qatari offer of a 747 rather stunning.

            Article II, Section 1, Clause 7, better known as the emoluments clause, states: The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them. As reported, the Qatari gift of the 747 would go from Air Force One to the Presidential Library and be available for President Trump’s personal use after he leaves office. It is hard for me to accept the idea that somehow this is akin to picking up a put in golf. Even some in his own party are very uncomfortable with such blatant disregard for the constitution.

            President Clinton allowed generous donners to sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom and appropriately endured a lengthy investigation. Our leaders must not allow even the whiff of impropriety to cloud their ability to discharge the duties of their office. For our president to even consider accepting such a “gift” calls into question his judgement regarding any other transaction with the Qatari government. It also erodes trust in his decision-making process for all other transactions.

            It is a privilege to serve, and we need leaders who understand that concept and willingly embrace the stringent nature of public service. Public office should not be considered an opportunity to enrich oneself at the expense of propriety, the voters, and trust in our national institutions. Congress needs to step in and investigate. If we allow the president to flout the constitution, how can we hold others accountable to the same document and standard. If we enable such behavior, we enable institutionalized graft and corruption.

How could we then look at junior officers and tell them, “Do not accept anything more expensive than a baseball cap?”

Due Process Part II

 

            As a young private in the Army, I felt that my rights were often trampled on, and they were. As a soldier, you give up many rights. I found that I could not say anything that came to my mind. I could not wear my hair as long as I liked, nor could I grow a beard. My moustache had to conform to what someone else thought was appropriate. My sergeants told me what to wear and what to do. Someone off in the deep dark bowls of PERSCOM (Personnel Support Command) told me where to live. I endured all of these constraints in order to say I was a soldier. But one of the few rights I still enjoyed was due process.

Once when I was in trouble, I was hauled in front of my company commander. The first thing that he did was to read me my rights. Knowing that I had behaved badly, we’ll not go into the details here, I threw myself on his mercy. He, in turn, handed me over to the 1SG for extra duty. I learned my lesson and did not make the same mistake again. But, had I desired, he would have provided me with a lawyer to give me counsel. Later in my  soldierly career as a commander, I periodically read my troops their rights and afforded them due process. Sometimes, I knew the end from the beginning. I knew my troops; however, I always allowed the process to play out. It was important to do so. After all, just having the power did not excuse abusing it.

One of President Trump’s campaign promises was to round up and deport undocumented immigrants. He now pursues the fulfillment of that promise with great vigor. In his haste, he willingly tramples on due process and civil rights.

“We cannot give everyone a trial, because to do so would take, without exaggeration, 200 years.” President Trump on Truth Social

One of the challenges of living in a civilized law-abiding society is that it is often inconvenient and takes time and effort. After all, it is much simpler to form a posse and then string-‘em-up. Why bother with the process of a trial? Sadly, group think rarely provides good answers to difficult questions. Though imperfect, the judicial process provides the best protection for individuals and society. In any culture, the weak need protection from the strong. As President Truman said,

“The guilty as well as the innocent are entitled to due process of law. They are entitled to a fair trial. They are entitled to counsel. They are entitled to fair treatment from the police. The law enforcement officer has the same duty as the citizen-indeed, he has a higher duty-to abide by the letter and spirit of our Constitution and laws. You yourselves must be careful to obey the letter of the law. You yourselves must be intellectually honest in the enforcement of the law.” Harry S. Truman

When we discard due process, the weak innocent fall victim to haste and animus. This is the case with a two-year-old girl known in court papers only as V.M.L. Her mother, a citizen of Honduras was deported. Her father, a U.S. citizen sought to keep his daughter, another U.S. citizen, here. Again, in its haste, the Trump Administration has deported someone who had every right to remain in our nation, this time a citizen. As a nation we have the responsibility to protect the weakest among us.

“Never violate a woman, nor harm a child. Do not lie, cheat or steal. These things are for lesser men. Protect the weak against the evil [and] strong. And never allow thoughts of gain to lead you into the pursuit of evil.” David Gemmell

            A two-year-old girl poses no threat to our nation. We do not know about her mother as she was denied due process, that messy and inconvenient thing. But that process is what protects all of us, the strong as well as the weak. We must speak up for the weakest in our society. Our strength as a nation does not flow from our weapons, manufacturing prowess, or large bank accounts. It flows from our willingness to shoulder the burden of doing the right thing, even when it is inconvenient. We claim to be a law-abiding nation whose legal system is founded upon Judeo-Christian morality. We need to remember this passage from Proverbs, a great book of wisdom:

“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.” – Proverbs 31:8-9