January 5, 2025 • 29 mins
Can diversity in military education strengthen national security? Join us as we explore the groundbreaking federal court ruling that upholds the Naval Academy's race-conscious admissions policy. This decision is not just a bureaucratic victory but a significant stride towards ensuring that our armed forces reflect the rich diversity of the nation they serve. As we dissect the heated debates surrounding this ruling, we challenge the intentions behind removing race and gender from admissions criteria and question the motivations of groups like Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) who seek to eliminate these considerations. With personal insights and connections to the military, we argue for the importance of inclusive policies that allow anyone—regardless of race, gender, or background—to defend their country and contribute to its security.
CONTINUED LEARNING
- Judge upholds use of race in Naval Academy admissions (Navy Times)
- Federal Judge Upholds Racial Preferences in Naval Academy Admissions (New York Times)
- Naval Academy can consider race in admissions, federal judge rules (Washington Post)
Stay With Us
- Watch and Subscribe to The E Word on YouTube.
- Follow Karen on LinkedIn and learn more at Colossal Work.
- Follow Brittany on LinkedIn and learn more at BND Consulting Group.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Karen McFarlane (00:01):
Hey Brittany, hey Karen, how are you?
I'm good.
Hi Mina.
You know, she says hi Love itLove it.
Hi to all our listeners,Welcome back to the E-Word.
Yes, and today we're going totalk about some.
(00:22):
I'm going to say breaking news,right, Because this just came
out about an hour ago.
So you know, in alltransparency, we haven't had a
lot of time to digest it, sowe're going to digest it right
now with all of you.
I love it.
Brittany S. Hale (00:37):
I'm learning alongside everyone listening, so
that'll be fun, all right.
Karen McFarlane (00:43):
So this article from Politico just came out,
title of which is Federal JudgePreserves Naval Academy's
Race-Conscious Admissions, whichintrigued me because obviously
we've been hearing a lot about,you know, this pullback on
(01:04):
admissions and other DEI effortsand we've talked a lot about
that.
So this is an interesting twistin the preservation of it.
So I'm just going to read apart of the article just to get
us all up to speed.
Held the US Naval Academy'sconsideration of race and
admissions, arguing thatpursuing diversity in the
(01:27):
military is a national securityinterest.
That sounds like a big deal tome.
The ruling is an early blow toStudents for Fair Admissions'
latest attempt to extend thescope of its Supreme Court win
against Harvard University andthe University of North Carolina
(01:48):
at Chapel Hill that gutted theuse of race in college
admissions.
The ruling also comes while theNaval Academy's admissions
process is underway for its nextclass.
Judge Richard Bennett emphasizedin his ruling of the academy is
quote distinct from a civilianuniversity end quote because its
mission is to prepare itsstudents to become officers in
(02:10):
the military.
He also said that while race isconsidered an admissions, the
academy does not have racialquotas or engage in racial
balancing and race is not adeterminative factor in its
process.
And race is not a determinativefactor in its process.
And I'll just read this one,the last part.
I mean there's more, butBennett added that the academy
(02:31):
proved its national securityinterest is measurable and its
admissions program is narrowlytailored.
He also said the court defersto the executive branch on
military personnel decisions.
So what are your initialthoughts in hearing that
(02:55):
diversity is in our nationalsecurity's interest?
Brittany S. Hale (03:02):
Yes, yes, I would say.
(03:29):
Looking at the demographics ofthe United States, it would, in
my view, make sense to havemilitary officers and personnel
from a variety of backgrounds,and you would want people from a
variety of backgrounds to havea vested interest in the
continuity of the safety of thecountry in which they reside.
So, um, I don't.
I don't understand thechallenge, especially since it
seems like the judge is sayingthat race is not necessarily a
(03:49):
determinative factor and itdoesn't seem that people of any
background are being rejectedfrom the Naval Academy solely on
race.
I should also note that I havequite a few members of my family
(04:11):
who are in the military or haveretired from the military.
A cousin of mine is a proudretired Naval officer, so I
admit my bias there, but I it's.
It's a bizarre suit to me.
Karen McFarlane (04:32):
Well, you know, the suits were bizarre from the
very beginning, right.
But it ended up passing passingmustard on the Supreme court
level, and I should note thearticle goes on to say that the
SFFA, who is fighting for raceto be a non-determinant factor,
is still going to pursue it.
(04:53):
Right, they're going to go tothe Fourth US Circuit Court of
Appeals and then, if they'reunsuccessful there, they'll of
course go to the US SupremeCourt.
Brittany S. Hale (05:04):
To what aim?
What is the goal?
Karen McFarlane (05:08):
The goal is to eliminate race from the equation
, um, although the judge isbasically, like you just said,
saying it's not a huge part ofthe equation, um, so Right.
(05:34):
So they say, ok, great, we'renot considering race and their
admittance numbers continue toin the military.
I don't know Right, but it kindof feels that way and I don't
know what the point of that is.
(05:55):
Right, like you just talkedabout diaspora, people in the
United States who have equalability, okay, and you know, I
feel like anyone who, almostanyone who, wants to raise their
hand to serve and put theirlife on the line for this
country, irrespective of skintone, which is just skin tone,
(06:23):
okay, right, it's about how muchmelanin a person has, right, um
, for the most part, I mean.
I know there's other factors.
Why would we want to say no Tothat?
But I also don't understandsome of the arguments that are
being put forth for some of thecabinet candidates who are
(06:45):
against women in the military.
Right, women have proventhemselves to be stellar,
stellar, okay, in all capacities, right, and yet there is this
(07:06):
odd conclusion that they don'tbelong there.
Brittany S. Hale (07:11):
Yeah, and I guess I would want to understand
what is the conclusion.
What is the goal of excludingpeople solely based on
appearance, from, as you said,serving their country?
And from my perspective, itwould not make sense to exclude
(07:34):
people from the opportunity toserve, from the opportunity to
pursue opportunity, and whollyexclude them from the university
space, higher education, theworkforce, government.
(07:54):
What are the alternatives andwhat do you expect people to do?
And how do you expect people tohave a vested interest in the
continuity of this nation?
Karen McFarlane (08:14):
I don't know I this is confusing to us, right,
because it makes no sense in ourworld, right?
I mean, gender doesn't matter,you know, skin tone doesn't
matter, appearance doesn'tmatter, even your sexual
orientation doesn't matter,right?
(08:36):
Again, I'm no expert in thisarea, but it's about the desire
to serve your country, beingable to follow certain
procedures and rules andregulations, follow directions,
right, it's about honor andvalor.
And if I'm playing devil'sadvocate, which I really don't
(08:58):
even want to, right, I guessthere's a different definition
of honor in certain people'sminds, right?
And I don't, again, I don'tunderstand that I can define it,
but that's the only place thatI see that they can kind of sink
(09:19):
their teeth into is if we havea differing view of what service
and honor means, because peoplecan do the job irrespective of
all those attributes.
So it has to be something moreinternal, intrinsically internal
to the psyche around theindividual something more
(09:42):
intrinsically internal to thepsyche around the individual.
Brittany S. Hale (09:51):
Yeah, and that's.
I guess that's the concern.
So I just wanted to look up thedemographics of the military
and so I see a few differentthings.
The first thing that came up,of course, was for the army, so
of course I just want to makethat distinction between the
army and the Navy.
0.6% are white, non-Hispanicpeople you have about 20.3% are
(10:23):
black non-Hispanic, 17.6% asHispanic, 6.9% as Asian or
Pacific Islander, 0.9% asAmerican Indian or Alaskan
native, Native and 0.8% asunknown or other.
So if I look at the US Navy, Interms of the US Navy for active
(11:08):
duty members, it looks like68.8% identify as white.
Karen McFarlane (11:18):
And approximately one-third of
active duty membersself-identify with a racial
minority group Got it, and Iwonder what those numbers?
Brittany S. Hale (11:23):
look like for the Naval Academy.
So with the Naval Institutethey have.
You know they produced aproceeding.
It's called there's a diversitygap in the war room.
And they said, as of 2022,24.5% of the Navy's officer
(11:50):
corps was comprised of racialminorities, with 9.6% being
Hispanic or Latino, and thatcompares to about 39.5% and
19.1% of the sailors being ofthe same background.
Karen McFarlane (12:04):
Sounds like there's a gap.
Brittany S. Hale (12:06):
It sounds like there's a gap, and I mean this
is on the US Naval Institutesite.
Trust is the foundation onwhich leadership is built, I
agree, and a hallmark ofeffective units.
A culture of trust is essential, not only within the wardroom,
but also between officers andthe sailors and Marines they
(12:31):
lead.
It's vital to the success ofthe Navy and Marine Corps
mission.
Disparities in demographicrepresentation between the
officer corps and enlistedpersonnel could hamper that
trust.
Social science researchsuggests that trust can be
negatively affected by racialincongruencies, and they cite an
(12:54):
article going back to 1981,that noted a history of unfair
treatment because BlackAmericans were less likely to
trust white Americans andinstitutions perceived as
favoring the dominant culture.
And they then jumped forward toa 2021 study that also found
(13:18):
minority students continue todevelop mistrust of white
professors.
And so the overarching goal,and something they actually said
it would be foolish to assumethat their fleet is immune to
interracial mistrust.
That affects other aspects ofUS society, I find it
(13:40):
fascinating.
Karen McFarlane (13:43):
I mean, that's very self-explanatory and I'm
going to add something to thattoo.
So there's the internal aspectof it.
But the military engages withlots of different cultures and
societies, yes, yes, many ofwhich, probably most of which,
okay are of so-called minoritypopulations, right, and so if, a
(14:15):
they're not well-versed andtrained in how to engage with
these different societies andcultures, that's problematic.
In how to engage with thesedifferent societies and cultures
, that's problematic.
B if they don't have people whoare either from or descended
from or I'll even go so far asto say, look like in some cases
right People from thesedifferent cultures and societies
(14:38):
, then I would think that itwould erode their ability to
fully complete their, whatevertheir mission is, or just to
cultivate relationships orunderstand the dynamics between
the US and other populations.
Right, that's that diversity ofthought and experience that
(15:02):
everyone touts, that they want,but sometimes that comes from,
you know.
You know, in integrating andengaging all sorts of different
populations that are non-US butalso non-white, right, and so
(15:24):
you have that internal aspectand that external aspect and the
cultural competencies that haveto come from being part of the
military and how that infuses inour society and other societies
.
So I think it's very complexand not focusing on diversity
would be problematic and, Ithink, supports that assertion
(15:47):
that it is in support of ournational security interests
Again, not being expert in that,but it just seems to make
common sense Exactly.
Brittany S. Hale (16:00):
Because you hit the nail on the head, what
is the racial minority makeup inthe United States is the global
majority around the world.
It's incredibly important thatthis is something that's
(16:23):
addressed and dealt with.
I mean, even on the US NavalInstitute article, they point
out the US Naval Academy andthey said you know, that's one
of three primary paths to acommission, and it says that the
racial and ethnic backgroundsof the roughly 1,000 freshly
minted has a significant bearingon the demographic makeup of
(16:47):
the officer corps and thatdiversity should be supported at
every level, includingapplication, encouraging people
who are racial minorities tocontinue to achieve the academic
success.
Because, again, thatundercurrent is that these
(17:10):
people are somehow undeserving.
Where that's not the case,these people are successful and
they're also encouraged to applyfor leadership roles that they
historically have not beenafforded.
Because a rising tide lifts, allboats are occupying these
(17:41):
spaces.
The better it is for morale,the better it is to build trust
internally and, to your point,you know, perhaps even
externally.
So again, again, I ask thatquestion what are they hoping to
achieve?
What do they, what do they wantout of this?
(18:02):
You know, if I'm, if I'm,making an effort to assume
positive intent, it's stillunclear for me to understand
what the end goal is.
Karen McFarlane (18:20):
And I think, whether we agree or disagree,
right, that not everyone haslike a sinister agenda, right,
they truly believe in whatthey're doing is that when
(18:44):
stripping away these things, itdoesn't come with a solution
that you know supports theoriginal intent of why these
programs were put into place.
So that's my concern.
It's like stripping them awaywithout consequence, right?
Oh well, we just have to figureout a different way.
(19:06):
Now, you know, people areinnovative, they're creative,
right, they often need to be,and often a challenge needs to
be put in front of them for themto solve it, solve for it,
right, and change isuncomfortable.
So you know I'm.
Change is uncomfortable.
(19:30):
So you know I have confidence inthe people that care about the
original intent, right, andsolving for some of the
historical inequity, thatthey're going to find ways,
either you know, silently or outloud, to continue to make the
proper corrections.
But I would love to hear aboutthem, right, and I would even
(19:50):
love if these groups that arefighting to you know, ensure, at
the end of the day I mean, thisis what they're talking about
ensure that race is not a factor, right, it doesn't have to be
considered a factor, that youknow they come with solutions,
but it doesn't seem to be thecase.
So that's my main concern, andso I guess that the answer to
(20:14):
the question to what end?
Is to make sure that race isnot a factor, right?
I'm going to try to answer thatquestion with that type of
answer, but it still leaves alot of gaps, and that's the
tricky and scary part at thesame time.
Brittany S. Hale (20:31):
Right, Because then we're asking well, what
next Race is no longer a factor,and then are we going to say
gender should no longer be afactor and you know everything
else, which, to your point?
It would be nice, we agree.
It would be lovely.
We could receive people andperceive their talents and their
(20:57):
capabilities, regardless of howthey present, who they love,
where they live, how they speak.
All of that would be wonderful.
However, history and presentday shows us that that's not
(21:21):
where we're at.
Yeah, and so if we want to getthere I understand and respect
we have different ideas aboutwhere to get there, but it seems
that a lot of these people areeven reluctant to.
It seems kind ofcounterintuitive because they're
they're reluctant to discussthe differences made when it
(21:47):
comes to race and gender andability and gender expression
and all of that.
They're reluctant toacknowledge all of the systemic
barriers put up.
And at the same time, they don'twant race or any of these
things to be a factor to beconsidered.
Yeah, so it seemscounterintuitive yeah, I'm
(22:11):
articulating that correctly, buthopefully no, you, you,
absolutely they're.
Karen McFarlane (22:16):
It's willful, um, it seems very willful that
they want to ignore theimportant hard aspects of you
know what this all means Like ifthey were to do two things
simultaneously like one, have areal think tank, right, that was
(22:39):
really about solving theseideas, bringing that diversity
of thought together, right, andexamining how we can heal the
country from its past atrocitiesbecause that's what they are
atrocities, right, that stillreverberate in society today,
(23:02):
while simultaneously changinglegislation.
While simultaneously changinglegislation.
Maybe I can get behind that,right, but they're not doing
that, or at least we don't seethat, we don't hear about that.
So that's what makes it, youknow, quite frankly, scary and
icky, you know.
And when you hear these ideasabout the, you know, from the
(23:24):
new administration, it feelslike going backwards and
ignoring the things that areright in our face or changing
the narrative around them.
So I just don't know, I'm notconfident, but I am hopeful, I
(23:50):
still remain hopeful and thisruling, you know, I think, is a
big deal.
I hope it doesn't go unnoticed,because the message that it
sends is very powerful, becausethe message that it sends is
very powerful, and I hope thatcorporations pick up on it.
You know, at the end of the dayit's about, from a corporate
(24:25):
perspective, what's in the bestinterest of your organization,
your customers, right, youremployees, your shareholders.
And if you take the lens thatthe naval academy has taken and
obviously, this judge, how doesyour calculus change when you're
considering ensuring that youhave equitable practices within
your organization and thedynamics that flow out of that?
And and I guess the big part istoo is measuring and proving
(24:53):
that, which has always been achallenge right?
for organizations, and maybethat's Much less the government
you know, yeah, and maybe thatneeds to be the focus in some
new way, right, Like maybe themetrics that we were using
weren't enough.
I'm not going to say maybe themetrics we were using were not
(25:18):
enough because they weren'tconvincing, right To make the
solid case for a lot of theseorganizations that have pulled
back on their practices.
Maybe the companies that aredoing it really well need to be
more vocal and share how they'redoing it and why it's working
(25:40):
for them.
A lot of maybes in that, butyou know there are things that
we could do and now we're justbeing pushed to do them.
A lot of maybes in that, butyou know there's there, there
are things that we could do andnow we're just being pushed to
do them in a different way.
Brittany S. Hale (25:52):
It's working for your organization.
Reach out.
Karen McFarlane (25:55):
We want to hear from you Exactly.
And I want to say, on a serious,non-serious front, right, I
watch this show called Lioness,okay, and it's based on like a
real story.
So Lioness is about a specialops team I think they're in the
(26:15):
Marines right that werestationed in Iran and
Afghanistan, and they're women,mostly women, okay, and in the
show the main character is ZoeZaldana, so she's Afro Latina,
right, and there are otherLatino women in the show as well
(26:38):
, as you know, great supportingcharacters.
Of course, there's NicoleKidman also, so she's always
great to watch.
Brittany S. Hale (26:45):
But my point being is it is showing Nicole
Kidman, isn't it?
Karen McFarlane (26:48):
Yes, yes, and oh, morgan Freeman is in it as
well, okay, so he's always worthwatching.
But my point here is that it'sbased on a true story and it's
showing the impact and thetalent that women have in the
military, particularly in veryspecial, unique roles right
(27:14):
Special forces, right Specialops, and the impact they have on
our country and which often,you know especially, I guess, in
these special groups right,they're not touted because it's
part of national security, so wedon't get to hear about all
this stuff all the time becausewe can't Right, um, and so that
also does a disservice to peopleunderstanding the impact that
(27:36):
women and minorities can have.
But, um, I encourage people towatch it, just just get a
different perspective.
It's not just all fantasy andit's actually really great
television in terms of how it'swritten and how it's acted.
You know there's some greattalents in there, so plug.
Brittany S. Hale (28:01):
Pay us Prime Pay us.
Karen McFarlane (28:05):
And if you guys are watching out there, let me
know your thoughts.
I would love to hear them.
We're on season two right nowand I'm sure it's gonna come
back for season three becauseit's so good, oh, wow yeah.
Brittany S. Hale (28:17):
so I think I think our lesson here is just
let let people be patriots, letpeople serve.
Karen McFarlane (28:25):
I like that I like that you know who is
determining what patriotismmeans and what it does not mean.
Right, yes, who can raise theirhand for that and who cannot?
Right who?
Brittany S. Hale (28:42):
can serve.
Let people be.
Karen McFarlane (28:44):
Let just let people be.
That's all we're asking.
I guess we'll see what's tocome as the SFFA continues to
fight, but this is a good one towatch, to see where it goes.
Brittany S. Hale (28:59):
Agreed, agreed .
Karen McFarlane (29:01):
All right.
Well, I guess that's our lessonfor this week.
Brittany S. Hale (29:05):
Thank you agreed, all right.
Well, I guess that's our lessonfor this week.
Karen McFarlane (29:07):
Thank you so until next time I'll see you
then, britney, bye.
Hey Brittany, hey Karen, how are you?
I'm good.
Hi Mina.
You know, she says hi Love itLove it.
Hi to all our listeners,Welcome back to the E-Word.
Yes, and today we're going totalk about some.
(00:22):
I'm going to say breaking news,right, Because this just came
out about an hour ago.
So you know, in alltransparency, we haven't had a
lot of time to digest it, sowe're going to digest it right
now with all of you.
I love it.
Brittany S. Hale (00:37):
I'm learning alongside everyone listening, so
that'll be fun, all right.
Karen McFarlane (00:43):
So this article from Politico just came out,
title of which is Federal JudgePreserves Naval Academy's
Race-Conscious Admissions, whichintrigued me because obviously
we've been hearing a lot about,you know, this pullback on
(01:04):
admissions and other DEI effortsand we've talked a lot about
that.
So this is an interesting twistin the preservation of it.
So I'm just going to read apart of the article just to get
us all up to speed.
Held the US Naval Academy'sconsideration of race and
admissions, arguing thatpursuing diversity in the
(01:27):
military is a national securityinterest.
That sounds like a big deal tome.
The ruling is an early blow toStudents for Fair Admissions'
latest attempt to extend thescope of its Supreme Court win
against Harvard University andthe University of North Carolina
(01:48):
at Chapel Hill that gutted theuse of race in college
admissions.
The ruling also comes while theNaval Academy's admissions
process is underway for its nextclass.
Judge Richard Bennett emphasizedin his ruling of the academy is
quote distinct from a civilianuniversity end quote because its
mission is to prepare itsstudents to become officers in
(02:10):
the military.
He also said that while race isconsidered an admissions, the
academy does not have racialquotas or engage in racial
balancing and race is not adeterminative factor in its
process.
And race is not a determinativefactor in its process.
And I'll just read this one,the last part.
I mean there's more, butBennett added that the academy
(02:31):
proved its national securityinterest is measurable and its
admissions program is narrowlytailored.
He also said the court defersto the executive branch on
military personnel decisions.
So what are your initialthoughts in hearing that
(02:55):
diversity is in our nationalsecurity's interest?
Brittany S. Hale (03:02):
Yes, yes, I would say.
(03:29):
Looking at the demographics ofthe United States, it would, in
my view, make sense to havemilitary officers and personnel
from a variety of backgrounds,and you would want people from a
variety of backgrounds to havea vested interest in the
continuity of the safety of thecountry in which they reside.
So, um, I don't.
I don't understand thechallenge, especially since it
seems like the judge is sayingthat race is not necessarily a
(03:49):
determinative factor and itdoesn't seem that people of any
background are being rejectedfrom the Naval Academy solely on
race.
I should also note that I havequite a few members of my family
(04:11):
who are in the military or haveretired from the military.
A cousin of mine is a proudretired Naval officer, so I
admit my bias there, but I it's.
It's a bizarre suit to me.
Karen McFarlane (04:32):
Well, you know, the suits were bizarre from the
very beginning, right.
But it ended up passing passingmustard on the Supreme court
level, and I should note thearticle goes on to say that the
SFFA, who is fighting for raceto be a non-determinant factor,
is still going to pursue it.
(04:53):
Right, they're going to go tothe Fourth US Circuit Court of
Appeals and then, if they'reunsuccessful there, they'll of
course go to the US SupremeCourt.
Brittany S. Hale (05:04):
To what aim?
What is the goal?
Karen McFarlane (05:08):
The goal is to eliminate race from the equation
, um, although the judge isbasically, like you just said,
saying it's not a huge part ofthe equation, um, so Right.
(05:34):
So they say, ok, great, we'renot considering race and their
admittance numbers continue toin the military.
I don't know Right, but it kindof feels that way and I don't
know what the point of that is.
(05:55):
Right, like you just talkedabout diaspora, people in the
United States who have equalability, okay, and you know, I
feel like anyone who, almostanyone who, wants to raise their
hand to serve and put theirlife on the line for this
country, irrespective of skintone, which is just skin tone,
(06:23):
okay, right, it's about how muchmelanin a person has, right, um
, for the most part, I mean.
I know there's other factors.
Why would we want to say no Tothat?
But I also don't understandsome of the arguments that are
being put forth for some of thecabinet candidates who are
(06:45):
against women in the military.
Right, women have proventhemselves to be stellar,
stellar, okay, in all capacities, right, and yet there is this
(07:06):
odd conclusion that they don'tbelong there.
Brittany S. Hale (07:11):
Yeah, and I guess I would want to understand
what is the conclusion.
What is the goal of excludingpeople solely based on
appearance, from, as you said,serving their country?
And from my perspective, itwould not make sense to exclude
(07:34):
people from the opportunity toserve, from the opportunity to
pursue opportunity, and whollyexclude them from the university
space, higher education, theworkforce, government.
(07:54):
What are the alternatives andwhat do you expect people to do?
And how do you expect people tohave a vested interest in the
continuity of this nation?
Karen McFarlane (08:14):
I don't know I this is confusing to us, right,
because it makes no sense in ourworld, right?
I mean, gender doesn't matter,you know, skin tone doesn't
matter, appearance doesn'tmatter, even your sexual
orientation doesn't matter,right?
(08:36):
Again, I'm no expert in thisarea, but it's about the desire
to serve your country, beingable to follow certain
procedures and rules andregulations, follow directions,
right, it's about honor andvalor.
And if I'm playing devil'sadvocate, which I really don't
(08:58):
even want to, right, I guessthere's a different definition
of honor in certain people'sminds, right?
And I don't, again, I don'tunderstand that I can define it,
but that's the only place thatI see that they can kind of sink
(09:19):
their teeth into is if we havea differing view of what service
and honor means, because peoplecan do the job irrespective of
all those attributes.
So it has to be something moreinternal, intrinsically internal
to the psyche around theindividual something more
(09:42):
intrinsically internal to thepsyche around the individual.
Brittany S. Hale (09:51):
Yeah, and that's.
I guess that's the concern.
So I just wanted to look up thedemographics of the military
and so I see a few differentthings.
The first thing that came up,of course, was for the army, so
of course I just want to makethat distinction between the
army and the Navy.
0.6% are white, non-Hispanicpeople you have about 20.3% are
(10:23):
black non-Hispanic, 17.6% asHispanic, 6.9% as Asian or
Pacific Islander, 0.9% asAmerican Indian or Alaskan
native, Native and 0.8% asunknown or other.
So if I look at the US Navy, Interms of the US Navy for active
(11:08):
duty members, it looks like68.8% identify as white.
Karen McFarlane (11:18):
And approximately one-third of
active duty membersself-identify with a racial
minority group Got it, and Iwonder what those numbers?
Brittany S. Hale (11:23):
look like for the Naval Academy.
So with the Naval Institutethey have.
You know they produced aproceeding.
It's called there's a diversitygap in the war room.
And they said, as of 2022,24.5% of the Navy's officer
(11:50):
corps was comprised of racialminorities, with 9.6% being
Hispanic or Latino, and thatcompares to about 39.5% and
19.1% of the sailors being ofthe same background.
Karen McFarlane (12:04):
Sounds like there's a gap.
Brittany S. Hale (12:06):
It sounds like there's a gap, and I mean this
is on the US Naval Institutesite.
Trust is the foundation onwhich leadership is built, I
agree, and a hallmark ofeffective units.
A culture of trust is essential, not only within the wardroom,
but also between officers andthe sailors and Marines they
(12:31):
lead.
It's vital to the success ofthe Navy and Marine Corps
mission.
Disparities in demographicrepresentation between the
officer corps and enlistedpersonnel could hamper that
trust.
Social science researchsuggests that trust can be
negatively affected by racialincongruencies, and they cite an
(12:54):
article going back to 1981,that noted a history of unfair
treatment because BlackAmericans were less likely to
trust white Americans andinstitutions perceived as
favoring the dominant culture.
And they then jumped forward toa 2021 study that also found
(13:18):
minority students continue todevelop mistrust of white
professors.
And so the overarching goal,and something they actually said
it would be foolish to assumethat their fleet is immune to
interracial mistrust.
That affects other aspects ofUS society, I find it
(13:40):
fascinating.
Karen McFarlane (13:43):
I mean, that's very self-explanatory and I'm
going to add something to thattoo.
So there's the internal aspectof it.
But the military engages withlots of different cultures and
societies, yes, yes, many ofwhich, probably most of which,
okay are of so-called minoritypopulations, right, and so if, a
(14:15):
they're not well-versed andtrained in how to engage with
these different societies andcultures, that's problematic.
In how to engage with thesedifferent societies and cultures
, that's problematic.
B if they don't have people whoare either from or descended
from or I'll even go so far asto say, look like in some cases
right People from thesedifferent cultures and societies
(14:38):
, then I would think that itwould erode their ability to
fully complete their, whatevertheir mission is, or just to
cultivate relationships orunderstand the dynamics between
the US and other populations.
Right, that's that diversity ofthought and experience that
(15:02):
everyone touts, that they want,but sometimes that comes from,
you know.
You know, in integrating andengaging all sorts of different
populations that are non-US butalso non-white, right, and so
(15:24):
you have that internal aspectand that external aspect and the
cultural competencies that haveto come from being part of the
military and how that infuses inour society and other societies
.
So I think it's very complexand not focusing on diversity
would be problematic and, Ithink, supports that assertion
(15:47):
that it is in support of ournational security interests
Again, not being expert in that,but it just seems to make
common sense Exactly.
Brittany S. Hale (16:00):
Because you hit the nail on the head, what
is the racial minority makeup inthe United States is the global
majority around the world.
It's incredibly important thatthis is something that's
(16:23):
addressed and dealt with.
I mean, even on the US NavalInstitute article, they point
out the US Naval Academy andthey said you know, that's one
of three primary paths to acommission, and it says that the
racial and ethnic backgroundsof the roughly 1,000 freshly
minted has a significant bearingon the demographic makeup of
(16:47):
the officer corps and thatdiversity should be supported at
every level, includingapplication, encouraging people
who are racial minorities tocontinue to achieve the academic
success.
Because, again, thatundercurrent is that these
(17:10):
people are somehow undeserving.
Where that's not the case,these people are successful and
they're also encouraged to applyfor leadership roles that they
historically have not beenafforded.
Because a rising tide lifts, allboats are occupying these
(17:41):
spaces.
The better it is for morale,the better it is to build trust
internally and, to your point,you know, perhaps even
externally.
So again, again, I ask thatquestion what are they hoping to
achieve?
What do they, what do they wantout of this?
(18:02):
You know, if I'm, if I'm,making an effort to assume
positive intent, it's stillunclear for me to understand
what the end goal is.
Karen McFarlane (18:20):
And I think, whether we agree or disagree,
right, that not everyone haslike a sinister agenda, right,
they truly believe in whatthey're doing is that when
(18:44):
stripping away these things, itdoesn't come with a solution
that you know supports theoriginal intent of why these
programs were put into place.
So that's my concern.
It's like stripping them awaywithout consequence, right?
Oh well, we just have to figureout a different way.
(19:06):
Now, you know, people areinnovative, they're creative,
right, they often need to be,and often a challenge needs to
be put in front of them for themto solve it, solve for it,
right, and change isuncomfortable.
So you know I'm.
Change is uncomfortable.
(19:30):
So you know I have confidence inthe people that care about the
original intent, right, andsolving for some of the
historical inequity, thatthey're going to find ways,
either you know, silently or outloud, to continue to make the
proper corrections.
But I would love to hear aboutthem, right, and I would even
(19:50):
love if these groups that arefighting to you know, ensure, at
the end of the day I mean, thisis what they're talking about
ensure that race is not a factor, right, it doesn't have to be
considered a factor, that youknow they come with solutions,
but it doesn't seem to be thecase.
So that's my main concern, andso I guess that the answer to
(20:14):
the question to what end?
Is to make sure that race isnot a factor, right?
I'm going to try to answer thatquestion with that type of
answer, but it still leaves alot of gaps, and that's the
tricky and scary part at thesame time.
Brittany S. Hale (20:31):
Right, Because then we're asking well, what
next Race is no longer a factor,and then are we going to say
gender should no longer be afactor and you know everything
else, which, to your point?
It would be nice, we agree.
It would be lovely.
We could receive people andperceive their talents and their
(20:57):
capabilities, regardless of howthey present, who they love,
where they live, how they speak.
All of that would be wonderful.
However, history and presentday shows us that that's not
(21:21):
where we're at.
Yeah, and so if we want to getthere I understand and respect
we have different ideas aboutwhere to get there, but it seems
that a lot of these people areeven reluctant to.
It seems kind ofcounterintuitive because they're
they're reluctant to discussthe differences made when it
(21:47):
comes to race and gender andability and gender expression
and all of that.
They're reluctant toacknowledge all of the systemic
barriers put up.
And at the same time, they don'twant race or any of these
things to be a factor to beconsidered.
Yeah, so it seemscounterintuitive yeah, I'm
(22:11):
articulating that correctly, buthopefully no, you, you,
absolutely they're.
Karen McFarlane (22:16):
It's willful, um, it seems very willful that
they want to ignore theimportant hard aspects of you
know what this all means Like ifthey were to do two things
simultaneously like one, have areal think tank, right, that was
(22:39):
really about solving theseideas, bringing that diversity
of thought together, right, andexamining how we can heal the
country from its past atrocitiesbecause that's what they are
atrocities, right, that stillreverberate in society today,
(23:02):
while simultaneously changinglegislation.
While simultaneously changinglegislation.
Maybe I can get behind that,right, but they're not doing
that, or at least we don't seethat, we don't hear about that.
So that's what makes it, youknow, quite frankly, scary and
icky, you know.
And when you hear these ideasabout the, you know, from the
(23:24):
new administration, it feelslike going backwards and
ignoring the things that areright in our face or changing
the narrative around them.
So I just don't know, I'm notconfident, but I am hopeful, I
(23:50):
still remain hopeful and thisruling, you know, I think, is a
big deal.
I hope it doesn't go unnoticed,because the message that it
sends is very powerful, becausethe message that it sends is
very powerful, and I hope thatcorporations pick up on it.
You know, at the end of the dayit's about, from a corporate
(24:25):
perspective, what's in the bestinterest of your organization,
your customers, right, youremployees, your shareholders.
And if you take the lens thatthe naval academy has taken and
obviously, this judge, how doesyour calculus change when you're
considering ensuring that youhave equitable practices within
your organization and thedynamics that flow out of that?
And and I guess the big part istoo is measuring and proving
(24:53):
that, which has always been achallenge right?
for organizations, and maybethat's Much less the government
you know, yeah, and maybe thatneeds to be the focus in some
new way, right, Like maybe themetrics that we were using
weren't enough.
I'm not going to say maybe themetrics we were using were not
(25:18):
enough because they weren'tconvincing, right To make the
solid case for a lot of theseorganizations that have pulled
back on their practices.
Maybe the companies that aredoing it really well need to be
more vocal and share how they'redoing it and why it's working
(25:40):
for them.
A lot of maybes in that, butyou know there are things that
we could do and now we're justbeing pushed to do them.
A lot of maybes in that, butyou know there's there, there
are things that we could do andnow we're just being pushed to
do them in a different way.
Brittany S. Hale (25:52):
It's working for your organization.
Reach out.
Karen McFarlane (25:55):
We want to hear from you Exactly.
And I want to say, on a serious,non-serious front, right, I
watch this show called Lioness,okay, and it's based on like a
real story.
So Lioness is about a specialops team I think they're in the
(26:15):
Marines right that werestationed in Iran and
Afghanistan, and they're women,mostly women, okay, and in the
show the main character is ZoeZaldana, so she's Afro Latina,
right, and there are otherLatino women in the show as well
(26:38):
, as you know, great supportingcharacters.
Of course, there's NicoleKidman also, so she's always
great to watch.
Brittany S. Hale (26:45):
But my point being is it is showing Nicole
Kidman, isn't it?
Karen McFarlane (26:48):
Yes, yes, and oh, morgan Freeman is in it as
well, okay, so he's always worthwatching.
But my point here is that it'sbased on a true story and it's
showing the impact and thetalent that women have in the
military, particularly in veryspecial, unique roles right
(27:14):
Special forces, right Specialops, and the impact they have on
our country and which often,you know especially, I guess, in
these special groups right,they're not touted because it's
part of national security, so wedon't get to hear about all
this stuff all the time becausewe can't Right, um, and so that
also does a disservice to peopleunderstanding the impact that
(27:36):
women and minorities can have.
But, um, I encourage people towatch it, just just get a
different perspective.
It's not just all fantasy andit's actually really great
television in terms of how it'swritten and how it's acted.
You know there's some greattalents in there, so plug.
Brittany S. Hale (28:01):
Pay us Prime Pay us.
Karen McFarlane (28:05):
And if you guys are watching out there, let me
know your thoughts.
I would love to hear them.
We're on season two right nowand I'm sure it's gonna come
back for season three becauseit's so good, oh, wow yeah.
Brittany S. Hale (28:17):
so I think I think our lesson here is just
let let people be patriots, letpeople serve.
Karen McFarlane (28:25):
I like that I like that you know who is
determining what patriotismmeans and what it does not mean.
Right, yes, who can raise theirhand for that and who cannot?
Right who?
Brittany S. Hale (28:42):
can serve.
Let people be.
Karen McFarlane (28:44):
Let just let people be.
That's all we're asking.
I guess we'll see what's tocome as the SFFA continues to
fight, but this is a good one towatch, to see where it goes.
Brittany S. Hale (28:59):
Agreed, agreed .
Karen McFarlane (29:01):
All right.
Well, I guess that's our lessonfor this week.
Brittany S. Hale (29:05):
Thank you agreed, all right.
Well, I guess that's our lessonfor this week.
Karen McFarlane (29:07):
Thank you so until next time I'll see you
then, britney, bye.
Popular Podcasts
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club
Welcome to Bookmarked by Reese’s Book Club — the podcast where great stories, bold women, and irresistible conversations collide! Hosted by award-winning journalist Danielle Robay, each week new episodes balance thoughtful literary insight with the fervor of buzzy book trends, pop culture and more. Bookmarked brings together celebrities, tastemakers, influencers and authors from Reese's Book Club and beyond to share stories that transcend the page. Pull up a chair. You’re not just listening — you’re part of the conversation.