Diversity AFI

[brickhistory]

This Irish American will love special treatment. We were so oppressed in the beginning of this country. Look it up.

Actually, I've found it more practical to look down when dealing with the drunken, passed out Irish.

Plus they scare the horses...

[arg]

So, will there be an Operational Diversity Management(ODM) form in the mission folder along with the ORM form?

[StoleIt]

So, will there be an Operational Diversity Management(ODM) form in the mission folder along with the ORM form?

As a scheduler I can see it now: This flight crew is too monochromatic...throw someone else in. Or 95% of all sorties are flown by males...why is that? Maybe because there are only 5% G codes in the squadron...

[pcola]

Diversity in the military:

Anything else is for snaps.

[joe1234]

I believe this policy has the potential to undermine mission effectiveness. This was the whole point the O-6 was upset about. If we are so concerned about color, ethnicity and sex in the makeup of our force structure and not focused on hiring/selecting the best, our strength as a militay force will decrease. This may not be on the radar of most troops, but I am telling you, this has the potential to weaken us as a fighting force. This should concern all of us as an Americans and specifically us currently serving.

Undermine mission effectiveness, weaken us as a fighting force. You're spouting a lot of hyperbole, but it's empty words. Nobody seems that particularly concerned about color, ethnicity, and sex except for you, your O-6, and maybe a couple of guys in the Pentagon who got tasked with writing an AFI that really has no teeth or power to speak of. What in this reg, specifically, is heralding the destruction of the most powerful military force in the world?

Because it reeeeaaaallly sounds like you're some dude who created an account a week ago trying to get everybody spun up about something completely benign.

[Guest CannonCrashPad]

I think you're not focusing enough on your primary job from the fact that you found, read, and want to discuss this AFI.

I think you're a mouth breather careerist who has the conceptual and intellectual capacity of a Jerry Springer audience member. When people talk about "shit floats to the top," I think of your posts. In short, you suck. Please STFU.

[10percenttruth]

I think you're a mouth breather careerist who has the conceptual and intellectual capacity of a Jerry Springer audience member. When people talk about "shit floats to the top," I think of your posts. In short, you suck. Please STFU.

Irony: calling someone a careerist for focusing on the mission instead of "shit floats to the top" queep regs.

[TreeA10]

Undermine mission effectiveness, weaken us as a fighting force. You're spouting a lot of hyperbole, but it's empty words. Nobody seems that particularly concerned about color, ethnicity, and sex except for you, your O-6, and maybe a couple of guys in the Pentagon who got tasked with writing an AFI that really has no teeth or power to speak of. What in this reg, specifically, is heralding the destruction of the most powerful military force in the world?

Because it reeeeaaaallly sounds like you're some dude who created an account a week ago trying to get everybody spun up about something completely benign.

Nobody concerned about color, ethnicity, or sex??? You have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Here is some history for you. Back in the mid 90s, the O-4/5/6 promotion boards were given the following instructions: "Special consideration should be given to women and minorities for possible past discrimination." Think about that for a second. Genetics as the deciding factor and not actual discrimination but possible discrimination with the penalty being imposed on those that didn't commit any discrimination. Can't remember all the numbers but I do remember the O-4 board had a 94% promotion rate for minority women with a 73% promotion rate overall. Several lawsuits were filed but the O-6s, all white guys, were the only ones that had enough damaging data to cause the AF to settle out of court.

Nobody cares? A lot of people care and have no problem throwing the sex/race card to get what they want, combat effectiveness be damned.

Edited April 24, 2013 by TreeA10

[SocialD]

Undermine mission effectiveness, weaken us as a fighting force. You're spouting a lot of hyperbole, but it's empty words. Nobody seems that particularly concerned about color, ethnicity, and sex except for you, your O-6, and maybe a couple of guys in the Pentagon who got tasked with writing an AFI that really has no teeth or power to speak of.

Ya, the AF cares so little that they created a website, and a reg. Have you looked around?

http://www.af.mil/diversity.asp

I think you're a mouth breather careerist who has the conceptual and intellectual capacity of a Jerry Springer audience member. When people talk about "shit floats to the top," I think of your posts. In short, you suck. Please STFU.

Ya, because a careerist would ever tell someone to go study anything related to their real job...fllying. They're more likely to tell them to read stupid ass regs like this!

[joe1234]

Ya, the AF cares so little that they created a website, and a reg. Have you looked around?

http://www.af.mil/diversity.asp

Ya, because a careerist would ever tell someone to go study anything related to their real job...fllying. They're more likely to tell them to read stupid ass regs like this!

Holy shit, the AIR FORCE created a WEBSITE? And a REG? Clearly these are unprecedented actions that can only mean the immediate worldwide deployment of thousands of diversity kommissars that will start shutting down bases and shooting women and children. Maybe we need to start burying jets in the dirt to save them like the Iraqis did so that we can keep the diversity office from coming and destroying them all!

Nobody concerned about color, ethnicity, or sex??? You have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Here is some history for you. Back in the mid 90s, the O-4/5/6 promotion boards were given the following instructions: "Special consideration should be given to women and minorities for possible past discrimination." Think about that for a second. Genetics as the deciding factor and not actual discrimination but possible discrimination with the penalty being imposed on those that didn't commit any discrimination. Can't remember all the numbers but I do remember the O-4 board had a 94% promotion rate for minority women with a 73% promotion rate overall. Several lawsuits were filed but the O-6s, all white guys, were the only ones that had enough damaging data to cause the AF to settle out of court.

Nobody cares? A lot of people care and have no problem throwing the sex/race card to get what they want, combat effectiveness be damned.

That was a great anecdote from roughly 20 years ago. I really enjoy these history lessons. However, since anecdotes from what a random guy kinda remembers what it was like 20 years ago is completely irrelevant to this issue today, so I'm sure you'll forgive me for using actual real facts to make my point.

http://diversity.defense.gov/Resources/Commission/docs/Issue%20Papers/Paper%2045%20-%20Officer%20Promotion%20by%20Race%20Ethnicity%20and%20Gender.pdf

Ironic how this comes from the "diversity department" or whatever. Anyway, they clearly found no correlation whatsoever between officer promotions and race. In fact, whites outperformed minorities in almost every category. But I really do like how everyone's instant reaction is to become the victim to an perceived, yet imaginary slight. And yes, I'm sure it was so terrible 20 years ago, but using numbers from 20 years ago to make a point today regarding discrimination is about as illogical as using numbers from the mid 70s to make a point about racial discrimination in the mid 90s. Yet here you are, doing that right now.

Oh, who am I kidding, logic and facts have no place here. Bring on the ad hominems and hyperbole. It's all anyone really has left to argue with.

p.s. I think it's hilarious we're talking about a diversity reg harming combat effectiveness in the middle of a one of a kind budget sequestration that is actually harming combat effectiveness.

[morenoj135]

Holy shit, the AIR FORCE created a WEBSITE? And a REG? Clearly these are unprecedented actions that can only mean the immediate worldwide deployment of thousands of diversity kommissars that will start shutting down bases and shooting women and children. Maybe we need to start burying jets in the dirt to save them like the Iraqis did so that we can keep the diversity office from coming and destroying them all!

That was a great anecdote from roughly 20 years ago. I really enjoy these history lessons. However, since anecdotes from what a random guy kinda remembers what it was like 20 years ago is completely irrelevant to this issue today, so I'm sure you'll forgive me for using actual real facts to make my point.

http://diversity.def...nd%20Gender.pdf

Ironic how this comes from the "diversity department" or whatever. Anyway, they clearly found no correlation whatsoever between officer promotions and race. In fact, whites outperformed minorities in almost every category. But I really do like how everyone's instant reaction is to become the victim to an perceived, yet imaginary slight. And yes, I'm sure it was so terrible 20 years ago, but using numbers from 20 years ago to make a point today regarding discrimination is about as illogical as using numbers from the mid 70s to make a point about racial discrimination in the mid 90s. Yet here you are, doing that right now.

Oh, who am I kidding, logic and facts have no place here. Bring on the ad hominems and hyperbole. It's all anyone really has left to argue with.

p.s. I think it's hilarious we're talking about a diversity reg harming combat effectiveness in the middle of a one of a kind budget sequestration that is actually harming combat effectiveness.

Shack!! This mess is just like the uniform changes of the early 90's they were meant to distract you from the real issue; then it was a RIF today a dismal budget. Don't be distracted by the bright light.

[Patriot359]

I did create an account a week ago, but I am not trying to rile anyone up; this is just a discussion. Why are we even talking about Race, Sex or Ethnicity in the military? Aren't we supposed to be all blue, as in Air Force Blue? Why are we focusing on White, Black, male, female, etc when it does not matter in completing the mission? Diversity based on race, sex and ethnicity does not bring people together, but creates animosity and division. The Air Force constantly tells us we are all one team and that race, sex and ethnicity does not matter, but then turns around and has a Diversity regulation and advertises that Diversity is mission critical. At the very best it is confusing and at the very worst it can divide our troops along lines of race, ethnicity, sex etc. The very fact people are getting a little heated with this topic may indicate that Diversity is maybe impacting ops more than we would like to admit.

[SocialD]

Holy shit, the AIR FORCE created a WEBSITE? And a REG? Clearly these are unprecedented actions that can only mean the immediate worldwide deployment of thousands of diversity kommissars that will start shutting down bases and shooting women and children. Maybe we need to start burying jets in the dirt to save them like the Iraqis did so that we can keep the diversity office from coming and destroying them all!

Talk about hyperbole! You said, no one cares about this, when clearly they do. I'm not arguing that it's destroying mission effectiveness.

[TnkrToad]

That was a great anecdote from roughly 20 years ago. I really enjoy these history lessons. However, since anecdotes from what a random guy kinda remembers what it was like 20 years ago is completely irrelevant to this issue today.

Took about 69 seconds to find the following: From Promo boards from 1989 to 2012 (not exactly ancient history): O-6: Male 44%/Female 50% promoted. O-5: Male 67%/Female 71% promoted. I didn't bother trying to crunch the ethnicity numbers, but whether you buy into the virtues of gender diversity or not, sure looks like Big Blue has been making a concerted effort over many years to promote females at higher rates than their male peers. Take it for what it's worth; all data came from the AFPC Static Reports website.

[HeloDude]

Took about 69 seconds to find the following: From Promo boards from 1989 to 2012 (not exactly ancient history): O-6: Male 44%/Female 50% promoted. O-5: Male 67%/Female 71% promoted. I didn't bother trying to crunch the ethnicity numbers, but whether you buy into the virtues of gender diversity or not, sure looks like Big Blue has been making a concerted effort over many years to promote females at higher rates than their male peers. Take it for what it's worth; all data came from the AFPC Static Reports website.

Stop being so sexist...everybody knows we would have defeated the Japanese and Germans in 1/4 the time if we had more women serving in the ranks...especially the infantry and armor forces.

[airdawg83]

Took about 69 seconds to find the following: From Promo boards from 1989 to 2012 (not exactly ancient history): O-6: Male 44%/Female 50% promoted. O-5: Male 67%/Female 71% promoted. I didn't bother trying to crunch the ethnicity numbers, but whether you buy into the virtues of gender diversity or not, sure looks like Big Blue has been making a concerted effort over many years to promote females at higher rates than their male peers. Take it for what it's worth; all data came from the AFPC Static Reports website.

How many of each gender were up for promotion? I suspect that the number of females eligible was significantly lower so those percentages aren't really that telling. Also the difference is only 6% and 4% for the respective boards which isn't all that compelling either.

[disgruntledemployee]

Who the fuck cares about all this????

I mean do any of you really really care about any of this noise??? So what if a shoe made an AFI. So what if another shoe made a website. I ain't gonna waste my time on it.

So to the thead starter (I don't care to scroll to find your name), go troll elsewhere. I don't care about diversity. I care about getting the job done with the most capable people and that is how I go about my job.

Out

[TnkrToad]

How many of each gender were up for promotion? I suspect that the number of females eligible was significantly lower so those percentages aren't really that telling. Also the difference is only 6% and 4% for the respective boards which isn't all that compelling either.

I'm talking percentages, not raw numbers, so I don't understand why you find the number of females vs. males irrelevant. I'd get your point if I'd just taken a one-year snapshot, but I'm talking the aggregated results of 24 year groups' worth of promo boards. Bottom line, a female O-4 has a 20% greater chance of making O-6 than a male. It's basic math. Seems pretty significant to me.

Out

[nsplayr]

It's not basic math...there are a whole host of factors you're potentially not considering, which airdawg is trying to point out. You may be absolutely correct in that gender is a statistically significant factor in AF promotion, but you have no way of knowing that for certain without more data. I would even tend to agree that gender plays a factor in promotion due to the political nature of promotion at the senior leader level. However, playing devil's advocate...

What percentage of eligibles are female? If say it's 19% for instance...the data for that 19% is less telling than the data for the other 81% of officers who are male because of the differences in raw numbers. Raw numbers matter when considering whether something is statistically significant or not.

What career fields are we talking? I'm sure you're aware that promotion percentages vary sometimes widely among career fields. Follow up to that...

What percentage of female officers are line officers vs non-line? Let's say for instance that 45% of female officers are non-line, don't you think that would significantly alter their promotion figures due to differences in line vs non-line career fields and the way and rate at which they promote?

What percentage of officers were essentially self-eliminators for the next rank due to UIF? You'll probably never know this data-point, but even just look at the DUI delta between genders...how many of those non-promoted Majors or Lt Colonels for example weren't promoted because they got a career-ending DUI? And that's only only such factor that can take you out of the running for more rank.

These are all questions that would go into a details analysis of the question, "Does gender affect promotion among AF officers?" Maybe some shoe or pissed off pilot for that matter, can write an ACSC thesis on it. We have very little of the necessary data, have not put a lot of actual thought into this, and are pretty much basing our opinions (including my own) on speculation.

My closing argument, your honor, is who the F cares? Be a strong swimmer, have a touch of good luck and timing, bloom where you're planted, don't worry about the rest. If you really think having a different gender will help you on a badly-needed promotion I hear there is surgery for that type of thing...

I find it hilarious that some Colonel is bitching about how a diversity AFI is taking focus off the mission and blaming leadership for that loss of focus, and even further that one of his underlings thinks its important enough to start a thread about it on BO.net. If an O-6 is taking time out of everyone's day to have meetings saying "senior leadership has lost focus on the mission" and uses as evidence the existence of an obscure diversity AFI, he is literally part of the exact problem he is supposedly concerned with.

Edit to add: 3300 posts is a nice round number...back to my sabbatical

Edited April 25, 2013 by nsplayr

[HeloDude]

TL/DR...good to see you posting again.

[TnkrToad]

It's not basic math...there are a whole host of factors you're potentially not considering, which airdawg is trying to point out. You may be absolutely correct in that gender is a statistically significant factor in AF promotion, but you have no way of knowing that for certain without more data.

FYSA:

- The numbers quoted were for Line Officers only

- The data is from O-5 & O-6 boards starting in '89, meaning that the commissioning year groups we're talking about are from those starting in the mid-70s & early 60s, respectively--when females had fewer opportunities to enter career fields that should make one promotable to higher ranks

- Makes sense to me that the oppressed female minorities from the early year groups that didn't have the same career opportunities as those entering today should have brought the average way down, but that didn't happen

My conclusions:

- If female line officers had higher promotion rates during a time when they were prevented from pursuing combat-oriented roles that they can now, then it reasonably follows that, given their greater career opportunities, we should see even greater disparities in promotion rates between genders going forward

- Sure, the evidence is anecdotal . . . I'd love if someone on this forum with better knowledge, rather than counter-speculation, would chime in with better data to prove or disprove my general impression

- The whole DUI/UIF thing wouldn't seem to influence the results that much for O-5 & O-6 boards. I might buy what you're selling if we were talking promo to O-2, O-3 or even O-4, but most morons/malcontents from both genders have been weeded out by the time the O-5 boards roll around

- In my experience, I've not found females to be qualitatively, on average 20%, better than their male counterparts--at least in and around the communities I've served

- Even after making allowance for "known unknowns" and "unknown unknowns", it still seems to me that there's still an AF institutional bias that results in females being promoted at higher rates than males

This isn't about my career; I'm just trying to figure out 1) Why (in my perception at least) Big Blue is favoring gender over mission accomplishment in promotion decisions, and if this is in fact intentional, and 2) Why Big Blue won't acknowledge that this is the policy

Any true insights from A1 types/more senior folks on this forum would be much appreciated. Further counter-speculation is pointless. Edited for grammar

Edited April 25, 2013 by TnkrToad

[joe1234]

Talk about hyperbole! You said, no one cares about this, when clearly they do. I'm not arguing that it's destroying mission effectiveness.

My bad. Somebody in the world seems to care. Let me revise my earlier statement to "nobody who actually matters cares about this".

I did create an account a week ago, but I am not trying to rile anyone up; this is just a discussion. Why are we even talking about Race, Sex or Ethnicity in the military?

We're talking about it because you created a fucking thread about it. You might possibly be the world's most oblivious hypocrite.

The Air Force constantly tells us we are all one team and that race, sex and ethnicity does not matter, but then turns around and has a Diversity regulation and advertises that Diversity is mission critical.

The Air Force also says proper uniform wear is mission critical. And sexual assault prevention is mission critical. And getting a degree from TUI is mission critical. The Air Force says a lot of things because there's like 300,000 fucking people in the Air Force, and some guy can get task with writing a reg that says _____ is mission critical.

At the very best it is confusing and at the very worst it can divide our troops along lines of race, ethnicity, sex etc. The very fact people are getting a little heated with this topic may indicate that Diversity is maybe impacting ops more than we would like to admit.

I don't know about you, but somehow my base has managed to weather the storm of diversity regs and manages to continue generating and flying sorties without incident. Is your base having a race war that's grounding jets that the rest of us don't know about?

I'll be honest, I really don't give a shit about this topic. But I just can't help but skewer terrible arguments. It's like dropping blood into a shark tank.

[BitteEinBit]

The Air Force doesn't really care about diversity. It only cares that you drink the blue kool aid and think the way they want you to think. Anyone out of line is RIFd, retired or hidden as to not bring new and different ideas to the masses.

The Air Force defines diversity as (among other things): educational background, work experience, cultural knowledge? If that were the case, it would promote/retain those with AADs at the same rate as those without. It would promote/retain those who flew the line three assignments in a row at the same rate it does those who hid on staff and exec tours instead of deploying. It would promote/retain those who have deployed around the world experienceing different cultures at the same rate as those who managed to homestead their entire careers working joint staff at the Pentagon or Forces Command. The Air Force doesn't do these things. The promotion/retention statistics tell a different story. The Air Force promotes/retains those who fit a specific model. It has little to do with actual diversity and more to do with the appearance of diversity. I look at it as "group think" in color. They just managed to get different races, genders, sexual orientations on board so as to "look" diverse...but if everyone thinks the same way, it isn't diversity.

I'm with Disgruntledemployee on this one....I care more about getting the mission done than I do about making sure we have a rainbow of fruit flavors trying to look good getting it done half-assedly. I don't care what the racial, gender or cultural mix of the group is, I only care that I have the best of the best getting it done...and that doesn't necessarily mean the guy with two Master's degrees and three Christmas party planning leads under his belt.

[farva]

I could be wrong, but I believe diversity is an old, old wooden ship used during the Civil War era.

[Champ Kind]

It's ridiculous that there is a diversity reg.

Can we just leave it at that?

Edited April 26, 2013 by Champ Kind