What Hegseth and Trump don’t understand about DEI and the military (original) (raw)

When I returned home for the summer after my freshman year in college, there was an invitation to see the world waiting for me on the kitchen counter. The new neighbor — a military officer who had recently taken charge of the local recruiting command — left the brochure with my parents after learning they had a son away at school. The pitch was a good one: The Navy offered a stipend every month until graduation in exchange for four years as an officer. It was everything a college kid could ask for: money today, and a job tomorrow. It wasn’t until years later, while stationed overseas, that I learned my recruitment was part of an affirmative action initiative to increase the Navy’s dismal number of Black officers.

Looking back, it should’ve been obvious. At the aptitude exam, I tested for program admission alongside several other Black college students. From the moment I was accepted until leaving for the service almost three years later, my Navy point of contact was always a young Black officer. Once in training — and under the tender care of Marine Corps drill instructors — most of the few Black aspirants there were, like me, new graduates of historically Black universities. These overlaps were not happy accidents; they were designed with the idea that success is more likely when you see people like you succeeding. It’s a proven way to attract and retain talent.

In today’s politics, though, my path to national service might be described differently: as a DEI hire in a “woke” military.

The White House signaled this reframing in a series of executive actions, including one forbidding hiring practices that take race into account, such as the sort that led to my military career.Last Friday, at a Pentagon town hall event, newly appointed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth criticized DEI for “dividing the force as opposed to uniting the force,” and said, “I think the single, dumbest phrase in military history is ‘Our diversity is our strength.’”He wrote in a Jan. 29 memo that diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives are “incompatible with the values” of the Defense Department, and that such programs must be terminated to make the military “merit-based and color-blind.”

Follow Theodore R. Johnson

While my recruitment was certainly race-based, it wasn’t discriminatory. The program was open to any undergraduate, but it was heavily marketed to Black applicants who were less likely to have connections to the service academies and officer programs. Once in training, there were no extra points for color on exams or in drills or during inspections. There were no racial preferences in formation runs, push-up positions or at the deep end of the pool during a water survival test. And after 20 years of military service, whether at sea or on an agency’s staff, it was clear that merit had not been sacrificed for diversity any more than it had been for nepotism. Why does this administration believe only one of these is incompatible with an elite fighting force?

The Defense Department’s new approach is a departure from one that sustained the world’s most capable military for decades. The U.S. defense buildup during the 1980s required new initiatives to help the all-volunteer force tap new sources of talent to fill its officer ranks. Today, racial and ethnic minorities make up nearly one-third of all service members. And while Americans’ faith in government has plummeted since the 1960s, the military remains one of the country’s most respected institutions. Even the Trump-friendly Supreme Court noted in its 2023 decision striking down affirmative action in college admissions that the practice could continue at the military academies because of their “distinct interests.”

The military’s approach to diversity might need refocusing, but the programs have been integral to readiness, innovation and the avoidance of groupthink. They can also help counter biases that service members might carry with them in uniform. I recall a colleague who bragged about earning, on the merits, his appointment as an aide to an admiral who happened to be a fellow U.S. Naval Academy alum, but also dismissed my selection for a prestigious fellowship as the result of racial preference: “You probably got it because you’re Black.” My description of the competitive process — based on qualifications, not on quotas — was no match for the stigma he associated with minority achievement.

When done properly, DEI reveals blind spots that might hinder unit cohesion and helps address misperceptions, with no sacrifice of standards. Studies have shown that interracial contact in the military reduces negative racial attitudes and increases support for policies that make opportunity more fair and accessible. President Donald Trump’s White House and Pentagon appear to believe the opposite: that racial diversity has no military value, and moreover, that being purposeful about it weakens the force and puts our security at risk. But history has proved that view to be wrong and indicative of a nation that has not learned from its past, something that diversity offices can address.

Now retired, I’m grateful for the hiring preferences for veterans and store discounts that are available to me. Access to programs such as the GI Bill and VA home loans made the American Dream attainable in ways once denied to Black veterans. No one says, “Thank you for your DEI service in our woke military” — I hear only color-blind expressions of appreciation for the sacrifices made in service to a country where race still matters. These are the markings of a good people and a strong military, both of which are improved by diversity.