Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Donald Trump the Megathread part II - Mod Warning added to OP 10/1/26
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Those excerpts are basically policy statements and broad approaches, some of which are put into practice by regulation or law and directly affect the operations of units in the Army (If they are not put into practice by regulation or written instruction, they don't happen at the unit level). I've been asking you for the actual effect of the change on Joe. You've still not answered it, you've answered a different question which is important to you, but not what I've asked.
I am, by regulation, required to conduct anonymous (though a centralised Army system) command climate surveys to, as the DEI document put it, "gain feedback on the success of current programs and initiatives while simultaneously providing Soldiers and DA Civilians a mechanism to identify potential issues" (amongst other methods). I am, by regulation, required "to ensure professional development opportunities extend across the Army." And so on. Not only do those regulations remain in force, they pre-date anyone talking about DEI because they affect more than just DEI things despite being a component of a DEI policy. Though an alarming number of soldiers report seeing examples of racism or sexual harassment, it's to be noted that those figures are substantially lower than the percentages reporting it in the national population from which the military is drawn. The needle is already moving in the right direction.
However, to answer your direct question. There haven't been many improvements as a result. We get an hour back in our year. Presumably a bunch of personnel, contractors and dollars are no longer doing DEI things and are now doing other things. Maybe they moved across the hallway to the SHARP or EEO offices. That's about it. Hardly a monumental effect.
But the thing about dog whistles, as you termed it, is that they tend to make much ado about nothing. There haven't been many detrimental effects as a result either. We have not lost any regulations, unit events, programs of instruction (barring that one hour which we have both agreed is fairly useless), nor has unequal, discriminatory, or even discomforting behaviour suddenly become permitted, even by loophole. Leaders are still tasked and equipped to keep their organisations as effective as possible, regardless of if the issue is called "DEI" or not the effects are still the same and must be addressed. We lost a good few man-hours as suddenly everyone was scrambling to review publications and programs of instruction for DEI-related material, but even that wasn't a total loss as it was the first time in years that the military was mandated to look at everything, and it turned out they found a bunch of stuff entirely unrelated to DEI which was out-dated or contradictory.
The one part of that policy document which I think did have merit in addition to what we are doing anyway (and which I've already ackowledged) is the part about outreach and recruitment, which itself doesn't affect what happens in the unit since, by that point, they have already been reached and recruited (and it seems to be working. Whites are under-represented in the military. Women form thrice the ratio of soldiers in the US than in Ireland). However, I posit that a similar effect of making the military appealing can be achieved by walking the walk and having a culture where the only things which are relevant are the rank on the chest and the capability of the person wearing it. That reputation would achieve even better results than outreach.
I have no problem with your chainsaw idea, though I don't see how it affects DEI (unless the person cut is the one making the DEI powerpoints), but in fairness, Hegseth apparently doesn't have a problem with it either.
2 -
Advertisement
-
