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.