The military is not as meritocratic as what people think. Officers don’t test like enlisted personnel do.

See other link for extra reading: https://mitchellrg.com/2023/03/15/basics-of-federal-contracting-opinions-on-us-foreign-policy-and-americas-recruit-problem-by-quinton-mitchell/

Republicans on their constant quest for Culture War, as a means of brainwashing the public to hate progress as the rich get richer, our environment goes down the dumps, and capitalism is running out of things to exploit as we all live part time in toxic digital spaces, etc., are now saying that the military does not need diversity, or more specifically “diversity quotas” or “affirmative action”, and that the military should only be about meritocracy.

These Congressional discussions are in the wake of the Supreme Court banning affirmative action at certain private colleges, which has led many to think this will create precedent throughout the entire college admissions process across the county.

Still hot on their victory, Republicans seem to be operating under the mindset of “we have an inch, so we are going to take a mile” mentality. This means that they are taking any concept of diversity to bat, even if diversity is a force multiplier when it comes to national defense. By force multiplier, I mean something that gives the US military a strategic advantage and create synergies, e.g., (for example), the ability to have people from various backgrounds, the ability to have people who speak various languages which are vital for translating, the fact that foreign nations might relate more to people that look like them as opposed to seeing a bunch of white males who may be seen as colonizers or invaders, etc.

Also, Republicans like many conservatives assume that diversity is forced, i.e., that traditional minority groups are only in college, business, or the military because of crutches at the expense of white people, when many people of minority groups are in positions of power because of meritocracy, i.e., their hard work, personality, timing, how they “played the game”, etc., and not because of their identity.

Republicans have this agenda of stewing white rage, despite white people still being the majority, and many immigrant groups that are non-Anglo-Saxon, i.e., Germanic and/or Celtic groups (i.e., Northern and Central Europeans), such as Latinos still identifying as white in many cases, since Hispanic/Latino are ethnicities and not races (though we in the USA often see Latino as a different race since it’s based on a “different programming”, i.e., it is more Catholic and Spanish, rather than Germanic based and Protestant, but also Many Hispanic Latinos in the US are Mestizo, notably of Chicano heritage meaning they have partial indigenous American roots).

The interesting thing is that the military is not as meritocratic as civilians might think or how conservative veterans may explain things on “the inside” as they flaunt their military service to silence those who didn’t serve.

For example, officers don’t test for their rank as compared to enlisted personnel who must test for their rank. So how is this meritocratic?

First off, because of the Mike Rowe Dirty Work sentiment more prevalent in conservative politics that stresses that college is overrated as compared to blue-collar (working with your hands) skilled work, and adding on the fact that conservatives such as Tucker Carlson have called colleges something akin to “Communist indoctrination centers”,  I find it interesting that in order to be an officer one must have a college degree (so I guess they fail the “anti-woke” tests”?).

Secondly, that those who gain a commission as an officer in the United States military don’t have to have test for rank or promotion.

So, while conservatives attempt to gas-light the public into believing that our ever-growing progressive society is “anti-white”, especially anti-white straight Christian male, they fail to mention that officers, yes – our higher paid, college educated, quasi-fraternity like leaders – don’t have to test for rank.

Promotions are almost guaranteed until you get to certain levels, i.e., a junior enlisted officer may have different expectations as opposed to field grade (or, mid-grade) officers, general level officers, etc.

Yes, officers like enlisted must study for their career development (such as they will go to Technical Training or TDY, i.e., Tour of Duty, for advanced learning), yet when it comes to enlisted forces, they must pass courses to get pass junior enlisted to the non-commissioned officer ranks (sergeants and above depending on branch).

For example, when I was in the military, I did trainings or course work as far as my job (sometimes among officers) as means of getting certified from an apprentice to a journeyman, but when it came to promotion from E4 (Senior Airman) to E5 (Staff Sergeant) I had to test and pass (a two part exam on my job skills and another on general military history/etiquette, etc.), whereas officers simply gained rank on time, board reviews, and behavior without testing. Does that make sense?

Simply put, to do your job you need to have training, but to promote, testing on your job is required for enlisted but not for officers, even though if an officer does poorly in job course work this may be counted against them on their Officer Performance Report (OPR) but it may not hinder them from achieving rank, yet it depends on what higher ups determine. “Testing” only really becomes important once officers start needing War College level training where they learn how to command in foreign theaters, command multiple forces where some may be foreign militaries, etc., but these may not happen until you hit Major or Lt. Colonel (or, equivalent type ranks).

So, is it really meritocracy in the officer ranks? You can make it to Captain or Major and not be that bright of a person or not be battle tested, yet you made those ranks on time rather than necessary proven tested aptitude.

Separately, in the Air Force at least, a person’s Physical Testing scores aren’t factored in to rank promotions, and adding insult to injury, passing requirements for rank promotions vary form year to year, meaning some years you may need an 85% to pass, whereas others you may need a 95% to pass.

So, there’s no clear way of comparing troops, especially between officers and enlisted, let alone between enlisted and enlisted. For example, I had leaders who tested lower than what I scored on my promotion exams, and were way more out of shape (barely pass their PT tests), etc. In theory, there’s people who partied through college, did ROTC, and now are making 2.5x or more than enlisted personnel.

Ironically, and adding more insult to injury, officer promotions such as in the US Air Force as based more on achieving goals, community service, leadership activities, etc. It’s more like a corporate annual review you might see with your boss in corporate America, after you have a few quarterly or a mid-year check in.  

Officers are evaluated more on a “good ole boy” and “peer review” system, meaning that at higher levels that there might be favoritism when getting selected since you essentially interview before a board. Boards occur in enlisted ranks but often only senior enlisted ranks, yet, still enlisted personnel must test for rank.

Without saying it, you may be discriminated against such as whether you were an “Academy cadet” as opposed to an ROTC, Enlisted-to-Officer, or general commissioned officer (i.e., a person off the street with a degree who gets a commission after doing Officer Candidate School or Office Training Schools depending on branch).

So why is it like this?

The simplest answer in my opinion is that enlisted do the actual work, whereas officers are in leadership roles, so it’s not so much about knowing your job but rather ensuring your workers are doing their job. The concept of officer’s dates to medieval times when feudalism existed.  

If you want a true meritocracy you would abolish the two-tier enlisted and officer system and have promotions be based on education, testing, PT scores, interviews, communication skills, etc.