United States Army Center for Military History Strategic Plan, 2012-2017

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online United States Army Center for Military History Strategic Plan, 2012-2017 file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with United States Army Center for Military History Strategic Plan, 2012-2017 book. Happy reading United States Army Center for Military History Strategic Plan, 2012-2017 Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF United States Army Center for Military History Strategic Plan, 2012-2017 at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF United States Army Center for Military History Strategic Plan, 2012-2017 Pocket Guide.

Stay Informed

RAND reports present research findings and objective analysis that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity. Permission is given to duplicate this electronic document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete.

Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes. The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Research Questions How can the Department of Defense DoD create an enduring accountability system that will drive the significant changes across DoD that are needed to move toward its new vision for diversity? What should the timeline be for accomplishing these goals, actions, and initiatives? On June 26, , in the U.

Supreme Court case United States v. Windsor , the Court held that Section 3 of DOMA restricting federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to heterosexual unions was unconstitutional.

Office of Diversity and Inclusion - Special Staff - The National Guard

Under the new policy, same-sex military couples married before or on June 26, , were entitled to benefits and entitlements with an effective date of June 26; for same-sex couples married after June 26, their effective date of benefits and entitlements would be the actual date of marriage. On June 26, , the Supreme Court, in the case Obergefell v. Hodges , decided that same-sex couples had the fundamental right to marry under the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.

While DOD had already recognized same-sex marriage for the purpose of military benefits, the Supreme Court's decision allowed marriages of same-sex military couples to be recognized in states that previously had banned these types of marriages. However, not all states have in place nondiscrimination laws that protect individuals from discrimination based on sexual orientation. The military does not track or report data on the number of gay or bisexual servicemembers in the military.

In addition, the U. Census Bureau does not collect data on sexual orientation, sexual behavior, or attraction. A demographic study estimated that among the U. On December 18, , then-Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Department of Justice would take the position in litigation that the protection of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of extends to claims of discrimination based on an individual's gender identity, including transgender status.

The medical definition of transgender is applied to individuals who do not identify or conform to their physical gender at birth and this may include, but is not limited to, those who self-identify as transgender, transsexual, gender-queer, gender nonconforming, or cross-gender. The American Psychiatric Association classifies this condition as gender dysphoria. However, some with gender dysphoria may merely seek social or legal recognition of gender identity.

Until June 30, , DOD treated the physical and psychological aspects of transgender conditions as disqualifying conditions for new accessions and grounds for the discharge of existing servicemembers. The first policy effectively banned entry into service of those who have undergone sex reassignment surgery and those who have a psychiatric history of the conditions listed above. In the case of military discharges, while DOD policies allow ed for existing servicemembers to be administratively separated for psychiatric disorders, they did not require that the servicemember be separated.

The DOD policy authorized the discharge of the servicemember only if the mental health provider's diagnosis "concludes that the disorder is so severe that the member's ability to function effectively in the military environment is significantly impaired. At the same time, he issued two directives:. On June 30, , then-Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter announced that "transgender Americans may serve openly, and they can no longer be discharged or otherwise separated from the military just for being transgender. In , DOD began training and promulgated an implementation handbook designed to assist commanders, transgender servicemembers, peers, and others.

The handbook addresses specific scenarios related to, inter alia, physical standards, privacy and cohabitation, and overseas assignment considerations. However, in a June 30, , memo, then-Defense Secretary James Mattis delayed the decision to accept transgender recruits, stating that the additional time would be used to, "evaluate more carefully the impact of such accessions on readiness and lethality.

The President also directed a halt to all DOD or DHS spending on sex reassignment surgeries "except to the extent necessary to protect the health of an individual who has already begun a course of treatment to reassign his or her sex. In the interim, the President delegated decisions about transgender service, as such:. The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall determine how to address transgender individuals currently serving in the United States military. On August 29, Secretary of Defense James Mattis announced that for the time being, " current policy with respect to currently serving servicemembers will remain in place.

The policies and procedures set forth in DODI The memorandum also designated a Central Coordination Cell under the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to provide advice and assistance to the military departments, services, and commanders on implementing the interim guidance.

On February 22, , Secretary Mattis submitted the results of an internal DOD study with his policy recommendations to the President:. In response to the policy shifts, several lawsuits were filed against the government on behalf of existing transgender servicemembers and transgender individuals who would like to enlist. It also disqualifies individuals with a history of gender dysphoria unless they were stable in their biological sex for 36 consecutive months prior to applying for admission into the armed aervices.

Those individuals in the service who initially seek military medical care after the effective date of the policy may receive counseling for gender dysphoria, and may be retained without a waiver if 1 a military medical provider has determined that gender transition is not medically necessary to protect the health of the individual; and 2 the member is willing and able to adhere to all applicable standards associated with his or her biological sex. Those with a diagnosis of gender dysphoria may be separated through the Disability Evaluation System or administratively separated for conditions that interfere with assignments or performance of duty or if they are "unable or unwilling to adhere to all applicable standards, including the standards associated with their biological sex.

These individuals will receive an exemption and may continue to serve, receive necessary treatment, and conform to the standards of their preferred gender. According to DOD, these exemptions include those with enlistment contracts or in commissioning programs before the effective date. Table Secretary Carter announces review of policies on transgender service, and raised decision authority for administrative discharges to the Undersecretary level. Secretary Carter announces that transgender members may serve openly, can no longer be discharged or otherwise separated from the military just for being transgender, and plans to start allowing new transgender recruits by July 1, President Trump issues memorandum to the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security outlining plans to revert back to pre transgender discharge policies by March Secretary Mattis provides memorandum for the President recommending policies that would disqualify transgender individuals for military service, except under certain conditions.

Supreme Court grants Justice Department request to allow the government to enforce transgender policies while lawsuits continue to be heard in lower courts. Acting Deputy Secretary of Defense releases new policy memorandum implementing the February 22, , recommended policies, effective April 12, There is a lack of reliable data on the number of transgender individuals in the military and in the general population.

DOD does not collect data on servicemembers who identify as transgender, nor does the U. Census Bureau or the U. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Some estimates based on survey data suggest that transgender individuals make up between 0. Since the founding of the United States, individuals of all religions were allowed to serve in the military and in some cases allowed not to serve as a conscientious objector on the grounds of sincere religious beliefs.

In cases where religious practices might conflict with other regulations, servicemembers may request religious accommodation. Regulations specify five main areas where servicemembers might request religious accommodation. Accommodation requests are handled by commanders at the unit level See Table 11 for Military Department-level policies.

DOD instructs military leaders to approve requests for religious accommodation unless accommodation would have an adverse effect on, "[ The Armed Forces also has a Chaplain Corps consisting of uniformed clergy that have been endorsed by a recognized ecclesiastical endorsing agency of the chaplain's faith or denomination as being suitable to serve in the military.

Although military chaplains may be of different faith traditions e. Public law requires chaplains to conduct appropriate religious services for personnel at the command to which they are assigned at least once on each Sunday. Every Airman is free to practice the religion of their choice or subscribe to no religious belief at all.

You should confidently practice your own beliefs while respecting others whose viewpoints differ from your own. Every Airman also has the right to individual expressions of sincerely held beliefs, to include conscience, moral principles or religious beliefs, unless those expressions would have an adverse impact on military readiness, unit cohesion, good order, discipline, health and safety, or mission accomplishment. Leaders at all levels must balance constitutional protections for their own free exercise of religion, including individual expressions of religious beliefs, and the constitutional prohibition against governmental establishment of religion.

They must ensure their words and actions cannot reasonably be construed to be officially endorsing or disapproving of, or extending preferential treatment for any faith, belief, or absence of belief. DON policy is to accommodate the doctrinal or traditional observances of the religious faith practiced by individual members when these doctrines or observances will not have an adverse impact on military readiness, individual or unit readiness, unit cohesion, health, safety, discipline, or mission accomplishment.

During a servicemember's career in the DON, he or she will be exposed to a wide variety of religious expressions from both chaplains and other servicemembers. It is DON policy to foster mutual respect for diverse religious expressions, which includes accommodating as many of them as possible at the command level.

The Army places a high value on the rights of its Soldiers to observe tenets of their respective religions or to observe no religion at all. All requests for accommodation of religious practices will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Each request must be considered based on its unique facts; the nature of the requested religious accommodation; the effect of approval or denial on the Soldier's exercise of religion; and the effect of approval or denial on military necessity. Accommodation of a Soldier's religious practices must be examined against military necessity and cannot be guaranteed at all times.

Religious diversity in the military is broadly representative of the U. This breakdown is consistent with the religious makeup of the U. Figure 6. Religious Diversity in the Active Duty Force. In the past, Congress has used its constitutional authority to establish criteria and standards that must be met for individuals to be recruited into the military, to advance through promotion, and to be separated or retired from military service. Throughout the history of the armed services, Congress has established some of these criteria based on demographic characteristics such as race, gender, and sexual orientation.

Recent legislative efforts have focused on improving the reporting of demographic diversity data for recruitment, retention and promotion of servicemembers; developing and improving processes for managing, reporting and responding to harassment and discrimination; and ongoing oversight of the integration of women into combat occupations and unit assignments.

In terms of diversity in leadership and effectiveness, some studies have shown that diversity in top management teams has a positive impact on organizational strategic and performance outcomes. As noted in regard to the Vietnam Era,. African American troops, who rarely saw members of their own race in command positions, lost confidence in the military as an institution. Despite increases in demographic diversity in the Armed Forces over the past few decades, some have raised the concern that racial and gender diversity among senior leadership positions and the officer corps in general do not reflect the enlisted troops they lead and the nation they serve.

The commission made 20 recommendations for improving diversity and inclusion and many have been implemented by subsequent law and policy changes. This NDAA provision also stated that DOD's corps of senior officers and enlisted should, "reflect the diverse population of the United States eligible to serve in the armed forces, including gender specific, racial, and ethnic populations. Section a f. Many believe that data reporting helps Congress monitor progress on diversity goals and prevent undue discrimination against historically underrepresented groups.

Others argue that although quotas are discouraged, the emphasis on data collection and reporting exerts pressure on military leaders to meet informal promotion and retention targets by race or gender. They argue that this pressure puts the military's merit-based system at risk if demographics are weighted more heavily than performance in promotion decisions. Developing a continuous pipeline of diverse senior leaders depends at least in part on recruitment, retention, and promotion of an equally diverse officer corps.

The U. In , females in the U. As discussed in previous sections, enrollments also depend on propensity for military service which is lower for women than for men. Female Enrollment at Service Academies. Service Academy and U. Some have raised concerns about discrimination against or favoritism toward different demographic minorities at the academies.

Another form of potential discrimination is gender discrimination or sexual harassment. Since FY, Congress has required an annual report on sexual harassment and sexual violence at the military service academies. While there was little change in gender discrimination for men from the previous year, prevalence rates for sexual harassment went up across all three academies.

Sexual harassment includes two types of unwanted behavior: sexually hostile work environment and sexual quid pro quo. The House Report H. Results varied by academy; however, in general the study found lower graduation rates for black and Hispanic officer candidates relative to their white counterparts, while Asian candidates had higher or similar graduation rates. The study also found that graduation rates for racial minorities were higher than graduation rates for minorities at other elite civilian universities.

For women the opposite was true. These studies analyzed results from and ; changes implemented by the service academies following those reviews aim to create a more favorable environment for racial minorities and women. Congress may conduct further reviews to understand demographic diversity from other commissioning sources or consider policies or programs e. In recent years, Congress has had an interest in DOD's management of discrimination and harassment claims, particularly in the area of sexual harassment.

Before , DOD did not track or report sexual harassment or other forms of harassment or discrimination complaint data in any systematic way. Recent legislation has also formalized and enhanced the requirement for command climate assessments. Section b of the FY NDAA required that a command climate assessment be conducted within days of an officer assuming command and at least annually thereafter.

This provision also required an assessment of commanders' responses to allegations of sexual harassment and assault. Section requires that the results of command climate assessments are provided to the relevant individual commander and to the next higher level of command, and that performance evaluations of commanders indicate whether or not the commander had conducted the required assessment.

Section requires Secretaries of the military departments to verify and track the compliance of commanding officers in conducting organizational climate assessments. Section expresses the sense of Congress that— 1 commanding officers in the Armed Forces are responsible for establishing a command climate in which sexual assault allegations are properly managed and fairly evaluated and in which a victim can report criminal activity, including sexual assault, without fear of retaliation, including ostracism and group pressure from other members of the command; 2 the failure of commanding officers to maintain such a command climate is an appropriate basis for relief from their command positions; and 3 senior officers should evaluate subordinate commanding officers on their performance in establishing a command climate as described in paragraph 1 during the regular periodic counseling and performance appraisal process prescribed by the Armed Force concerned for inclusion in the systems of records maintained and used for assignment and promotion selection boards.

Congress has also expressed concern about DOD's organization for and management of sexual harassment cases.

Others note that there are very different reporting processes and legal implications for sexual assault a criminal offense and sexual harassment and aver that the oversight of sexual harassment complaints should remain functionally separate. A RAND report on oversight of problematic behaviors found that ODMEO, as a policy-oriented office, is "not adequately resourced to actively oversee service policy compliance and implementation, and lacked a sexual harassment strategic plan.

In addition, the authors cautioned against organizational changes intended to consolidate OSD policymaking authority under a single office, noting the potential to "weaken existing program initiatives that have demonstrated positive results. There are no laws prohibiting transgender individuals or those with gender dysphoria from serving in the military.

Site-wide navigation

However, due to recent policy changes, members who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria or seek to transition socially, medically, or surgically after April 12, , may be subject to certain restrictions and discharge under new rules. Some in Congress have proposed legislation that would prohibit involuntary separation, denial of reenlistment or continuation of servicemembers on the basis gender identity.

Some express concerns that these issues could affect unit cohesion in yet unforeseen ways. Generally, existing evidence from foreign militaries with policies allowing transgender service has not shown adverse effects on cohesion. Nevertheless, in these militaries, there were some reported incidences of initial resistance or hostility towards transgender personnel. Others have noted that there are potentially significant medical costs associated with providing care for transgender individuals.

Some have noted that sex reassignment surgeries may actually provide valuable experience to military surgeons who may be called on to provide reconstructive operations on troops with genitourinary injuries sustained in combat. Other advocacy groups and medical professionals have expressed concern that the new DOD policy allowing involuntary separation for those diagnosed with gender dysphoria would cause some servicemembers to avoid seeking care, perhaps escalating risks for those members with comorbid conditions like depression.

Although the Department of Veterans Affairs VA also does not fund sex reassignment surgery, the VA does provide medically necessary care to intersex and transgender veterans including, "hormonal therapy, mental health care, pre-operative evaluation, and medically necessary post-operative and long-term care following sex reassignment surgery.

Beyond the cost of medical treatment, some opponents also argue that allowing individuals diagnosed with or being treated for gender dysphoria to continue serving may affect readiness in terms of deployability or workdays lost in order to receive medical treatment. Others have suggested that a transgender servicemember's health might be at risk if the individual requires specialized medical treatments or therapies that are not easily accessible in remote assignments.

  • Alexander Gallo – Combating Terrorism Center at West Point.
  • El Espiritu Santo en Usted (Spanish Edition)!
  • Office of Diversity and Inclusion - Special Staff - The National Guard;
  • Detangling the Web: A Screenshot of U.S. Government Cyber Activity;
  • Human Relations Toolkit | Key Topics!
  • Through My Eyes - Adventures in Bali.
  • Alexander Gallo?

Proponents of allowing transgender individuals to serve point out that other medical conditions e. DOD officials have defended the new transgender accession policy by noting that for entry into the military, there are certain medical standards that must be met. For example, a history of conditions such as Attention Deficit Disorder, or bariatric surgery e. Opponents of DOD's April policy limiting the service of transgender personnel suggest that this could affect unit readiness and personnel costs in other ways.

Some argue that this policy would shrink the recruiting pool by turning away candidates meeting all other qualifications for service. Some have also pointed to the considerable investment the Services have made in recruiting and training existing servicemembers. Discharging members who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria following the April policy change could leave some units with skill gaps. The impact of these potential gaps has not yet been analyzed, largely due to a lack of data on the actual number of transgender servicemembers, their occupational specialties, unit assignments, or deployment status.

Congress may choose to defer decision or action, or delegate authority to DOD for policies and regulations regarding accession, separation, and health care for servicemembers diagnosed with gender dysphoria or those who are discharged for reasons related to failure to comply with standards associated with their biological sex.

Alternatively, Congress may choose to draft legislation affecting Administration policy under its authority to make laws governing the Armed Forces. In its oversight role, Congress could also monitor the implementation of DOD's new policies, the effect on the careers of transgender servicemembers who are grandfathered into the pre policy, and any associated impacts on cost, readiness, and unit cohesion.

There has been recent interest in Congress regarding rights of conscience and religious accommodations for servicemembers and chaplains in the military. The NDAA provision also required that the resulting report identify the frequency of incidents involving conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs of a servicemember. The resulting report found a total of incidents between and or chaplains regarding religious rights of conscience. These changes include reviewing the feasibility of timelines for approval of religious accommodation requests, allowing religious accommodation waivers to remain in effect until revoked, and establishing a working group to review data collection efforts.

This report has focused on demographic aspects of diversity that are considered protected classes under DOD's MEO policy. Nevertheless, generating a diverse force that is "reflective of the Nation" may require consideration of a broader set of demographic characteristics, for example, geography, socioeconomic status, and family ties. These measurable characteristics may also serve as proxies for less tangible aspects of diversity like culture or cognitive diversity. Data suggest that there are imbalances in the geographical distribution of recruits.

The South contributes more new recruits per capita than any other region of the United States. While every Member of Congress is likely to have servicemembers and veterans in his or her district, some may have a greater concentration of military-connected constituents.

Urban Combat: Fighting Positions

Thus, legislative priorities related to defense manpower, pay, and benefits can also vary depending on the size of local constituencies. Figure 7. Notes: This figure depicts geographic population data generally eligible for recruitment age with the geographic distribution of recruit enlisted accessions. The representation ratio compares a state's accession share to the state's share of the U.

For example, Virginia was home to 2. Civilian population data is derived from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Population Survey for year-old non-institutional civilians. Socioeconomic diversity, often measured by household income, has been a concern since the advent of the all-volunteer force, with some suggesting that the poor might be disproportionately represented in a volunteer military. Nevertheless, recent data indicate that a majority of recruits come from households in the middle quintile ranges. In FY, recruits from the bottom quintile of households lower income were generally underrepresented in the military, with the exception of the Army see Figure 8.

Figure 8. Notes: Information applies to the census tract reported by individual accessions who report a home of record in the 50 states or the District of Columbia and who were matched to a census tract. The median census tract income ranges used in this table represent the income quintiles for all U. Finally, recent research has also shown that a family connection to the military is one of the highest predictors for propensity to serve. While it is not unusual for children to follow their parents' example in other occupational fields, some have raised concerns about this trend in the military and its potential to skew the recruiting pool and promulgate "a separate group of citizens who are both responsible for and bear the burdens of military service.

Over time, the federal government has taken actions to build a more diverse and representative military workforce in parallel with efforts to diversify the federal civilian workforce. Today's U. Armed Forces have a higher percentage of women and racial minorities in service and in leadership roles than at any time in history. In addition, policies, processes, training and structures have been put into place to monitor and reduce instances of discrimination and to improve and expand upon military equal opportunity.

This has led some to ask if there is still more to be done to promote diversity, inclusiveness and equal opportunity in the military, and others to question whether the military has gone too far in some cases. Proponents of expanding diversity initiatives contend that a more diverse force has the potential to be a better performing and more efficient force. They point out that the nature of modern warfare has been shifting, requiring a range of new skills and competencies, and that these skills have to be developed from a shrinking pool of eligible candidates. Those who advocate for continued focus on equal opportunity initiatives in the military contend that historically underrepresented or discriminated-against demographic groups are still at a disadvantage, particularly in their ability to ascend to the highest leadership positions.

Proponents of equal opportunity protections argue that if the military is to remain competitive with private sector employers in recruiting a skilled workforce, DOD should offer the same level of rights and protections as civilian employers. In addition, some argue that even though equal protections may exist in policy, more needs to be done to ensure that servicemembers do not experience discrimination or ostracism on the basis of gender, religious beliefs, or sexual orientation. Some are concerned about how diversity and equal opportunity initiatives might be implemented and whether they could harm military effectiveness.

Some feel that diversity initiatives such as actual or perceived quotas could hurt the military's merit-based system. Others contend that a military that is representative of the nation should also reflect the social and cultural norms of the nation. They argue that the popular will for social change should be the driving factor for DOD policies.

Meanwhile, others express concerns that that the inclusion of some demographic groups is antithetical to military culture and could affect unit cohesion, morale, and readiness—particularly in elite combat units. In terms of equal opportunity, some point out that the military's mission is unique and, therefore, protections that apply in the civilian workplace are not relevant in the military context. They contend that eligibility for military service or certain occupations within the military necessitates some exclusion based on these special demands.

These are among the issues Congress may face as it exercises its oversight role and establishes the evolutions in standards needed for the U. Armed Forces of the 21 st century. Will Mackey provided data analysis support and Jamie Hutchinson provided graphic support to this report. The commission did not address issues related to the service of openly gay men and women as that topic was being addressed by the DOD Comprehensive Review Working Group.

This report does not provide extensive information on policies and programs for DOD civilian personnel, or for U. Coast Guard uniformed personnel who are operating under the Department of Homeland Security. O'Brien, Lauren T. Quinetta M. Oliver, Laurel W. Oliver et al. Evans, Charles R. Rostker, Bernard D. The distinction between these two lines of cohesion has become increasingly common in academic literature over the past two decades. These definitions are derived from definitions in Rostker, Bernard D.

Ahronson, Arni and James E. Over time, this argument has been used to advocate against integrated military units with regard to race, gender, and sexual orientation. See for example, U. In the past, training pipelines and in some instances units were segregated by race and gender. As of the Marine Corps has separated men and women for portions of basic training. See review of the literature in, Richard, Orlando C. See review of the literature in, Jehn, Karen A. Thatcher, Sherry M. Ferguson, Melissa J. Evans, Col. Charles M.

Armor, David J. However, the individual Military Departments have in the past announced recruiting and accession targets. This report focuses only on diversity and equal opportunity policies for uniformed servicemembers, not DOD civilian employees. The Americans with Disabilities Act of P.

For Federal employees the Rehabilitation Act of P. The President has authority under 10 U. This authority is delegated by executive order to the Secretary of Defense.

Implementation of the DoD Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan

Cronk, Terri, M. These programs and activities shall be free from social, personal, or institutional barriers that prevent people from rising to the highest level of responsibility possible. Section b of the National Defense Authorization Act NDAA for Fiscal Year required the Secretary of Defense to report on substantiated incidents of sexual harassment that involve members of the Armed Forces including identifying cases in which a member is accused of multiple incidents of sexual harassment. Approximately 5, black soldiers served in the Revolutionary War. MacGregor, Morris, J.

The units created were the 9 th and 10 th Cavalry and the 38 th , 39 th , 40 th , and 41 st Infantry. In March of , as part of reduction-in-strength measures, Congress combined the four infantry regiments into just two regiments the 24 th and 25 th. There was confusion as to whether these other minorities should be classified as "white" or "colored" and some may have appeared on either of the draft calls depending on local interpretations.

Shenk, Gerald E. Binkin, Martin et al. However, black Marines were still restricted to certain assignments until Until there were 10 states with large black populations and no black soldiers in their National Guard units and the Army Reserve maintained six all-black units. Letter from President John F. Kennedy to Gerhard A. Gesell, June 22, The commission found that promotion boards were made up of primarily white officers, and black officers made up a very small percentage of the total officer corps.

The military traditionally did not offer on-base schools, but where it was available it was desegregated. This was one of the commission's most controversial recommendations and was seen by some critics as a threat to civil liberties and state sovereignty.

Account Options

During congressional debate, Rep. Durwood G. Hall of Missouri stated, "The recommendations made in the report and in the directive indicate a narrowness of vision which, in seeing only the civil rights issue, has blinded itself to the question of whether it is proper to use the Armed Forces to enforce moral or social, rather than a legal, issue in the civilian sector.

Some argue that McNamara did not go far enough in adopting the Gesell Commission's recommendations, particularly those relating to DOD internal processes for monitoring race relations and holding leaders accountable for command climate. Title VII of this law "Equal Employment Opportunity," did not apply to the employment of uniformed military personnel.

Between and , Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara initiated "Project ," which was intended to bring low-aptitude men out of poverty through military training and service. Inductees under this program were called "New Standards Men" reflecting the lowering of qualification standards on entrance examinations and requirements. This commission was stablished on July 2, by Executive Order CRS has been unable to locate similar data for Christensen, Don, Col. The term Hispanic broadly refers to peoples, nations, and cultures that have a historical link to Spain as expressed through language, culture, or tradition.

Lim, Nelson, Louis T. Mariano, and Amy G. The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Research Questions How can the Department of Defense DoD create an enduring accountability system that will drive the significant changes across DoD that are needed to move toward its new vision for diversity?

What should the timeline be for accomplishing these goals, actions, and initiatives? A Framework for Change Through Accountability, Built on the Three Pillars of Compliance, Communication, and Coordination Department of Defense DoD leaders must be held accountable, and hold others accountable, for moving the organization toward its diversity vision. This accountability system must be enduring, as DoD is a large organization characterized by constant change and frequent turnover in leadership, and it must cover the Total Force, i.

Compliance is the first pillar of an enduring accountability framework: If there are no clear and enforced rules about who is responsible for upholding diversity and inclusion-related policies and procedures, or for tracking metrics and meeting interim goals, then it is unlikely that DoD will make significant progress toward its long-term goals for diversity and inclusion.

Metrics that quantify demographic representation, describe organizational diversity climates, focus on processes, and locate organizational barriers are key components of this pillar.

United States Army Center for Military History Strategic Plan, 2012-2017 United States Army Center for Military History Strategic Plan, 2012-2017
United States Army Center for Military History Strategic Plan, 2012-2017 United States Army Center for Military History Strategic Plan, 2012-2017
United States Army Center for Military History Strategic Plan, 2012-2017 United States Army Center for Military History Strategic Plan, 2012-2017
United States Army Center for Military History Strategic Plan, 2012-2017 United States Army Center for Military History Strategic Plan, 2012-2017
United States Army Center for Military History Strategic Plan, 2012-2017 United States Army Center for Military History Strategic Plan, 2012-2017
United States Army Center for Military History Strategic Plan, 2012-2017 United States Army Center for Military History Strategic Plan, 2012-2017
United States Army Center for Military History Strategic Plan, 2012-2017 United States Army Center for Military History Strategic Plan, 2012-2017

Related United States Army Center for Military History Strategic Plan, 2012-2017

Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved