>
Dr. Sheila Widnall's (Secretary of the Air Force) 
speech on views on diversity in the military.
>

>
> Keynote remarks prepared for delivery by Sheila E. Widnall,
> secretary of the Air Force, to the Spring Conference of the
> Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services, Vienna, Va.,
> April 27, 1995.
>
>      It's a pleasure to be here today to speak to this
> distinguished group. I've had many dealings with a number of you
> on the committee, and it's always refreshing to work with such
> dedicated professionals on the vital issues that make up your
> agenda.
>      On behalf of [Secretary of Defense] Dr. [William J.} Perry,
> I'd like to give a special welcome to the 16 new members of the
> committee. You have an exciting three years ahead of you and an
> opportunity to make lasting changes to the United States military
> services and the nation.
>      It's interesting that an Air Force representative can help
> kick off this Army-sponsored conference. For those of you who've
> been dealing with these issues for some time, however, it's
> actually quite natural. In fact, my presence here recognizes the
> jointness of our national defense mission and highlights the
> singleness of purpose in all our soldiers, sailors, airmen,
> Marines and Coast Guard personnel.
>      Obviously the DACOWITS [Defense Advisory Committee on Women
> in the Services] helps support that singleness of purpose. Since
> you are diverse in composition, you're attuned to recognizing
> similarities in concerns and issues, despite differences in
> individuals. In fact, I'd like to focus my remarks today on the
> management of that diversity, since it's one of your focus goals
> for the year and, incidentally, I've been spending some time on
> it lately. In a sense, the subject underscores many of the other
> issues you'll be addressing, since most are related to
> appreciating and valuing the contributions of every member of the
> team and dealing with their quality of life concerns.
>      Diversity comes with a variety of variables: race, gender,
> religion, age, socioeconomic backgrounds, national or regional
> origin. All of us have associations that define who we are. We
> have a set of understandings drawn from geography, race, religion
>> and gender. We naturally identify easily with people who are like
> us. For example, I have a natural affinity for people from my
> home territory of the Pacific Northwest, but I have never
> understood Texans!
>      Diversity is facing our reactions to differentness and the
>> discomfort it sometimes causes. It involves taking a look at why
> different holidays, practices, values or language make us feel
> threatened and build walls between us. It means looking at the
 world and our actions from someone else's perspective. According
> to George Bernard Shaw, one of the greatest comic geniuses of all
> time, the Golden Rule may have a caveat: Do not do unto others as
> you would have them do unto you; their tastes may be different!
>      Some would say that this counters the effort to be color-
> and gender-blind. That's not true at all. The notions of color-
> blind and gender-blind never did call for ignoring the reality of
> differences. They simply insisted that we not discount or
> disadvantage a person because of his or her differences. In other
> words, neither color nor gender determines a person's worth.
>      In the military we recognize that diversity management is
> becoming increasingly important as we experience changes in the
> American work force. It's even a logical extension and evolution
> of affirmative action as the work force becomes increasingly
> diverse.
>      And how much are we changing? A report published by the
> Hudson Institute called Workforce 2000 estimates that by that
> year almost two-thirds of new entrants into the work force will
> be women, and almost 30 percent will be nonwhite. This could have
> a profound effect on our recruiting, our retention and our
> readiness.
>      If people of varying backgrounds find a hostile or
 unsupportive working environment in the military services, they
> won't perform to their full potential. If they find prejudice,
> discrimination or other subtle barriers to performance, they
> won't feel like part of the team. Unit cohesion will suffer. Unit
> morale will go down. Polarization will occur. We will be creating
> work for social actions and the IG [inspector general] system and
> innumerable headaches for our commanders as well as possibly
> giving the media a field day as they find that, once again, the
> military services have failed to live up to our lofty principles.
> They will, of course, only present one side of the story -- that
> makes it more interesting. But if that happens in the military,
> we'll have failed. We'll have failed in our duties to our members
> and in our responsibilities to the American people.
>      So far we're doing pretty well. We've had our fits and
> starts, but for the most part we're a pretty good model for other
> American businesses and institutions. An interesting article in
> this week's Newsweek claims that the United States military is
> the one institution in the nation that has most successfully
> implemented affirmative action.
>      The author explains that by practicing inclusion instead of
> preference we've ensured that quality is never sacrificed for
> diversity. The importance of our mission guarantees that. He goes
> on to observe that in the military, rank is more important than
> race. In fact, rank is more important than anything.
>      William Galston, one of [President Bill] Clinton's White
> House aides who served in the military, notes that when he showed
> up for basic training there were two drill sergeants -- one black
> and one white. According to Galston, "Their race was irrelevant.
> I was equally terrified of both!"
>      In fact, the composition of the U.S. military is a statement
> about what is possible in a multiracial, multiethnic society.
> Most nations are multiracial, and many nations are divided along
> lines of race, religion or language. But when the U.S. military
> is deployed, whether for war fighting or peacekeeping, it
> displays the possibility of overcoming those sources of division.
> It shows that diversity can be a source of strength.
>      Yet as good as we are, we must be prepared for future
> challenges. The projected changes in demographics are
> substantial. Since military populations directly reflect changes
> in society, we realize we must react to this news and be ready
> for the changes. If not, we risk becoming isolated from the
> people we've sworn to defend. By welcoming the change, by
> offering a face that looks like America, diversity helps retain
> the trust of the American public.
>      Now let's talk about what this really means. Managing
> diversity does not mean changing valid expectations and standards
 for women and minorities. It simply recognizes the fact that some
> groups react differently to different situations, and we should
> try to reduce the frictions that may result.
>      It's a logical extension of the work we're doing battling
> sexual harassment, which, by the way, should in no way take a
> back seat simply because we're setting our sights today on a
> broader subject. Most of you know that I co-chair, along with
> Edwin Dorn, the undersecretary of defense for personnel and
> readiness, a task force on discrimination and sexual harassment.
> Our job was to evaluate our existing practices, establish some
> basic principles for handling complaints and recommend whatever
> changes we see fit.
>      The task force held formal meetings from May to November and
> received a series of briefings from representatives of each of
> the military departments. We heard from subject matter experts
> and advocacy groups. We reviewed over 50 documents, policy papers
> and pertinent studies. After much discussion, we came up with a
> report which, after Dr. Perry's review, will soon go to Congress.
> That report includes our findings and recommendations. Although I
> understand Mr. Dorn will give you a detailed accounting of the
> specifics, I'd like to share a few generalities with you.
>      An overarching consideration in the entire process was that
> many of the organizations in DoD are already committed to
> eliminating discrimination and sexual harassment, and they have a
> variety of programs in place. Our challenge was to keep the best
> of the current systems and fix what didn't work.
>      As we were briefed by the different service representatives,
> we came to realize that as each military service is unique, each
> service's complaint system has evolved into a unique process. We
> decided that although general principles and standards should be
> shared across service lines, the simple substitution of one
> service's system for another's would be both undesirable and
> unworkable. We refused to construct and impose one "ideal" system
> on all services, because there is no ideal system.
>      But for DoD there are two goals. The first is enhanced unit
> effectiveness, and the second is fairness to individuals. Trust,
> fairness, high morale and cohesion spell success for military
> units. The military team succeeds only when all members are
> accepted as equals. To fulfill these goals we identified several
> basic principles that are necessary for a successful equal
> opportunity system within the military. They are: first, command
> commitment and accountability; second, distinct service systems;
> third, clear and concise policies; fourth, effective training;
> and fifth, prompt, fair handling of complaints.
>      Throughout our deliberations we discussed the importance of
> leadership visibility and initiative. We recognize that without
> the unequivocal support of the commanders, recommendations of any
> task force are meaningless.
>      Our final report to DoD and the Congress will contain over
> 25 recommendations for the improvement of the services' equal
> opportunity programs and discrimination complaints systems. The
> military services are responsible for incorporating these
> standards into their existing equal opportunity systems. I'll let
> Mr. Dorn explain those requirements in detail.
>      Obviously our ideal is an organization where all members are
> valued, respected and treated fairly. Sexual harassment and
> discrimination create mistrust and destroy unity and esprit de
> corps. We need clear rules and effective programs to ensure that
> we investigate and deal with any unfair treatment.
>      Such considerations also extend more broadly to issues of
> diversity. We need to make sure our members understand that over
> the next few years the people they work for, with and supervise
> will be increasingly diverse. They must also understand that this
> is a good news story. Because what we know about diverse groups
> is good. First, they look at situations from all angles. They are
> more creative and productive. When people of varying age, race,
> values, background and training join together, they inevitably
> find innovative solutions to problems.
>      It's been said that "We don't see things as they are, we see
> them as we are." How true. And if we're all of like mind, we'll
> never see the flaws in our arguments.
>      Criticism, although sometimes painful, is extremely valuable
> for any organization. People who think alike don't criticize each
> other. John Gardner, former secretary of health, education and
> welfare, said, "In the absence of criticism, every organization
> ends up being managed for the benefit of the people who run it."
> Since diversity guarantees criticism, because of differing
> opinions and viewpoints, it fuels the vitality of an
> organization.
>      Another obvious benefit is the effect of a positive working
> environment on productivity. Service members who enjoy coming to
> work, who are relaxed instead of defensive or stressed in their
> work setting, are going to do a better job. People who feel
> valued and competent are going to be happier and perform better
> for their units.
>      They're going to commit to the organizational goals and do
> their best for the team. In that sense, diversity is a readiness
> issue. We owe it to the American people to do the very best that
> we can, to use the strengths of all our people.
>      We are finding a correlation between units that win Air
> Force and DoD unit quality awards and units that have a good
> human relations climate. In fact, if I could give military
> members a single piece of advice, it would be improve your skills
> at leading a diverse team. The impression that stays with me the
> longest after a visit to an Air Force base is how caring the
> commander and other leaders are toward all of their people and
> how proud they are of their accomplishments. Building teams is a
> way of life in the military. Bottom line is: Take care of the
> people and they will take care of the mission!
>      Diversity is also a recruiting and retention issue. If we're
> known as an organization that treats all individuals fairly, if
> our reputation is to value each member's contribution, then more
> people will want to join the military. The more applicants we
> have, the more choosy we can be about who gets in.
>      Along the same lines, service members who are valued and
> challenged are less likely to leave the service. Since they
> remain in the military longer, they increase our overall
> experience and keep us from having to recruit and train higher
> numbers of new members.
>      Finally, the best argument for diversity management is that
> it's the right thing to do. It's fair to ourselves and to the
> American people. They expect the very best from us. We will be
> creating a more open, flexible, responsive and responsible work
> environment, where people can be fulfilled, not just more
> efficient or productive. On a broader scale our efforts and
> successes will serve as an example to help solve the problems
> that plague organizations and society at large.
>      Of course, diversity is neither a new nor primarily American
> concern. Thirty-three years ago President John F. Kennedy said
> during a commencement address at American University, "If we
> cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the
> world safe for diversity."
>      And if you look around the globe today -- at Rwanda and
> Yugoslavia -- you can see that diversity is a long way from being
> safe in many areas. It's obvious that societies that cling to
> their separateness and ethnicity are far from stable. In fact,
> they're extremely unstable. They're so intolerant of other
> people's views, so afraid of outsiders, that they are willing to
> kill for their cultural identity.
>      In contrast look at the variety that makes up American
> culture. The durable types of Americans who have come from other
 places -- Anglo-Saxons, Africans, Scandinavians, French, Irish,
> Jews, Germans, Italians, Russians, Arabs, Chinese, Japanese,
> Mexicans and so many others -- are the essence of America.
>      The challenge is how to be different together. Perhaps the
> answer is in your wallet. If you pick out a coin or two, look at
> the tail side and read the motto "e pluribus unum," which means
> "out of many, one." What's so special about America is the idea
> that people of many kinds and colors can govern themselves
> without deciding in advance which type may hold any particular
> public office.
>      In too many countries there is still a fundamental
> assumption that one group or section of the population is
> anointed to be in charge. Yet in the United States during the
> 20th century we've elected an Irish Catholic as president, chosen
> several Jewish Supreme Court justices, and racially and
> "genderly" integrated the armed forces and its civilian
> leadership, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
> and the secretary of the Air Force.
>      So I applaud your focus on diversity as an issue for 1995.
> As I said before, in a sense that focus underscores most of your
> other concerns for the year. They are all somehow related to
> treating each other with respect and dignity, dealing with
> quality of life concerns and appreciating and valuing the
> contributions of every member of the team.
>      In closing, I salute all of you as members of this important
> committee. It's a powerful tool and a valuable resource for
> feedback and change within the military services. You should feel
> proud and privileged to have been selected to serve. ...
>
> Published for internal information use by the American Forces
> Information Service, a field activity of the Office of the
> Assistant to the Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs),
> Washington, D.C. Parenthetical entries are speaker/author notes;
> bracketed entries are editorial notes. This material is in the
> public domain and may be reprinted without permission. Defense
> Issues is available on the Internet via the World Wide Web at
> http://www.dtic.dla.mil/defenselink/pubs/di_index.html.
 --