Donald Trump the Megathread part II - mod warnings in OP, Updated 18/03/25

I think part of the issue is that that part of the distinction between DEI and affirmative action is being lost, especially by the Republicans. DEI, unless I've utterly missed the boat in all those hours I've lost doing mandatory training (I get it twice, once from the private sector and once from the government), is more a case of, put simply, treating people with respect and including them as part of the team. As I put it to my troops, we could avoid all those wasted hours by simply following two words: "Be" and "professional".

Affirmative action, however, is a thing, and does have legislative backing. California is particularly interesting, in that the state is prohibited in the Constitution (Prop 209 of 1996, re-affirmed by Prop 16 of 2020) from doing any sort of affirmative action itself, but that doesn't mean that the State feels it need restrict itself from enforcing it on private bodies. Example: It enacted SB826 in 2018 which mandated that a certain number of persons on a corporate board be female, and AB 979 in 2020 which required a certain number of persons on a corporate board be members of a list of 'underrepresented communities'.

So the problem here becomes one of perception. Even if the two women on a five person corporate board, and the two under-represented community members on that same five-person board were appointed solely on merit by a firm which just selected the best qualified person, there would be no way of escaping the taint of the law: The possibility that they are only there to meet the requirements of the law and there is no real way of disproving it. That would be particularly the case if the two women were members of under-represented communities: AB979 allowed one individual to tick both the 979 and 826 boxes. To a point, who cares, they're on the board, but that doesn't mean to say they will be respected.

This specific example is somewhat academic given the two laws were subsequently suspended after State courts ruled them unConstitutional (The Federal suit is still in the appeals process), but is an excellent example of the policies which the Republicans are claiming to oppose, even if they mislabel them.

That's just affirmative action, though, and the definition of exactly what does and doesn't trigger the Trump administration's DEI concerns seems a little squishy. DEI and Equal Opportunity initiatives are not the same, the former is now gone yet the latter is fine. The military is a particularly visible target of it, yet it seems inconsistent. Any consideration with race, gender, etc is supposedly to be deleted, and you may recall a bit of a kerfluffle when a number of web pages on historical personages were taken down pending review. Some were apparently modified. The Air Force's page on MG Jeannie Leavitt, for example, simply states her career in the same manner as any other officer. That she was the first female fighter pilot in the air force isn't mentioned. On the other hand, the Air Force's page on the Tuskegee Airmen gets as far as nine words in before stating that they were black. Frankly, I'm not entirely sure what the real-world effects are of the DEI-deletion EO and, honestly, I've not lost many minutes with the ramifications of them.

Of course I'm affected by them.

I command a unit of 400 soldiers. I am responsible, by regulation, for everything which happens in it, whether I am aware of it or not. If there are issues which result in discord, lack of trust or inefficiency within the unit, ramifications are far beyond hurt feelings and loss of productivity, people can die. Whether I am aware of problems or not, those problems can result in my being relieved under the great military catch-all of "loss of confidence in ability to command" given the multiple anonymous reporting options available to troops which don't even go through me or my command.

I am well motivated to keep on top of things, even before my own moral/professional compass comes into the equation.

But let's go down this path.

Educate me. How are my black, female, hispanic, homosexual, Mennonite, Michiganite, Irish etc soldiers being negatively affected by the removal of DEI based concepts in practice, especially in a manner which has somehow escaped my notice? I can think of only one case: My female scout troopers who, being in a designated combat job, now have to meet the same physical standards as males, which I think most people will find reasonable (The standards are also, IMO, a bit low, but that's a related topic. When they were harder about five years ago, politicians complained not enough women were passing). Those suffering from gender dysphoria (I don't have any known) are indeed being affected but that's the result of a different EO, not the one related to DEI.

Equal employment opportunity is mandated by regulation and policy. Our promotion boards don't even use photographs any more (they were used to verify attention to detail by examining the uniform). Actions like disrespect, hazing, hostile work environment etc regardless of whether they are grounded on DEI-recognised characteristics or just simple dislike of the person are at the very least actions 'detrimental to the good order and discipline of the unit' and I and my subordinate commanders have the disciplinary authorities to do something about it which are far in excess of what a private sector manager may be able to do. This week I had a new muslim trooper use the process to request religious accommodation for him to wear a beard, even though his particular sect specifically authorises him to shave for military purposes; that process has not been removed.

What do you know that I don't on this subject, given our different situations? What is an action, authority, regulation or process you think is missing and required which existed in the military six months ago, but does not exist today, and why do you think it necessary? The Army's DEI plan from 2023 is here, for comparison. How much of that relates to regulation and authority which enforces equal and fair treatment? https://web.archive.org/web/20240621193208/https%3A//api.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/2023/06/05/f2c4e305/aps-mip-chapter-7-advance-diversity-equity-inclusion-and-accessibility.pdf

DEI initiatives are not useless. I'm believe they have particular effect with regards public perception and recruiting, and indeed, that does seem to be the majority discussion on the loss of it, at least from people who know what they're talking about. IMO a similar effect can be obtained if we simply convince people, by our actions, that the Army is a place where we don't care about your skin color, by what name you call "god" or what gender your partner is. But I can't retrain a sexist, racist, or homophobe soldier by an hour of mandatory DEI briefs a year. I can influence their actions by setting a personal example, and constrain their actions by the disciplinary and career control authorities available to me, and those abilities have not changed.