Unintentional Bias

You cannot require order while at the same time do nothing to squelch disorder. - how fitting for our current times. 

This would be like taking out 1/4 of a dam and being surprised that what was once a lake is now a stream. Sliding back the cap of a coffee mug while holding it upside down and being astonished that your liquid gold is now splattered across the floor. What is more valued today, Truth or opinion/perspective? 

Is our focus perspective or is our focus truth? This goes back to our general culture valuing empathy much more than sympathy.

Calling something a Bias that is actually a standard being upheld will expediently lead to lower standards and a less capable Corps. 

Over the course of the last few years, the Marine Corps has begun implementing education on a topic called, "unintentional bias". I could not help but find several points of contention with the material briefed.

Unintentional Bias is defined as a bias that is not purposeful, it exists innately within you as a result of a particular upbringing, life experiences, and worldview. It is an inherent inclination to a particular thing. As an organization the Marine Corps is no stranger to bias, in fact, one of our common slogans in officership is to "have a bias for action". I would cede that some biases can present themselves negatively, but no bias purely based on its existence is necessarily a bad thing, it is what we do with it that makes it negative or positive. 

The briefer stated that the numbers present in the Marine Corps alone are evidence that we are biased as an organization. She was referencing the fact that 64% of Marines are white, and 8% percent are female. I feel slightly strange even typing the statics out - I joined the Marines, and everyone else I know joined the Marines, to win our Nation's battles, end of the story. The last time I took an index, the color of my skin had nothing to do with my ability to close with and destroy. Why make diversity in the statics a major goal of the Marine Corps if it has no effect on the ability of the Marine Corps to carry out its mission? If there was something in place that hindered a particular subset from joining the Marine Corps then I could agree a problem exists, but any citizen is just as able to put themselves against the entry standards as the next. Equality of Opportunity exits, Outcome does not have to be equal. Especially if standards have to be dropped in order to do so. 

I have a very personal connection to maintaining Marine Corps standards. When joining I was denied twice for an out of regulation Tattoo. My Tattoo was too long and if I wanted the chance to be a Marine I would have to get rid of it. Where is the backlash against the Marine Corps discriminating against people with tattoos? The fact is that I had no right to be a Marine, it was a privilege and if I wanted that privilege I would have to change something to be able to fit the standard. Sadly that standard would not have applied to me if I was a minority or a female. Plenty of people who fall into those categories had no issues getting waivers for things much more detrimental to service than a simple inch of tattooed skin. This scenario highlights an instance where a suspected bias was overcompensated for to the detriment of qualified individuals. 

Where does this idea that someone is "owed" the right to serve in the military come from? Let alone the Marine Corps. No one has the "right" to be a Marine. That is something that is earned if an individual is able to meet the standard, which by the way applies (should) to everyone equally. If the new idea is that all diversity metrics in the Marines have to level out what we will see is an organization that is vastly unprepared to own the battlespace all for the sake of meeting an esoteric metric. A law deeming that Marijuana use is illegal is not a biased or discriminatory law. It applies to me just as much as it applies to my neighbor who smokes Marijuana. Just because he is found to be breaking the law does not make him a victim of discrimination, only one of his poor choices. In the same way a PFT standard, a hike standard, a standard for carrying weight, shooting a target, dragging a body, is not a biased standard as it applies to me just as much as it does to an unfit individual. (unless of course, you are a female - then you can do vastly worse and still be just as if not more eligible for the same position - But that is a conversation for another time.) The point is that for equality of outcome to be achieved the only solution is to either lower standards or reject qualified individuals to make room for unqualified but diversified individuals, all culminating in a less lethal Marine Corps. 

I first believe there is no bias in the Marine Corps as an institution against Minorities or Females, unless of course individuals fitting those criteria do not meet the standard in which case I am glad the Marine Corps is biased against unfit individuals. The ability for me to come home to my family at the end of the day depends on it. As does yours. 

Citing the numbers does nothing except to highlight the number of individuals from different backgrounds who were able to meet the standards or had the desire to do so, and should not be used in any way to create policy. The only number that should matter is the number of qualified Marines - neither our weapons nor the enemies' care about diversity metrics. They affect flesh, and we all bleed the same. 

Upholding a standard has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried.  - A play on Chesterton's quote about Christianity. Much the same, those things in life that are difficult - truly difficult, requiring sacrifice - usually do not appeal to the masses over the course of time.