Helping Black Officers Achieve Their Full Potential in the U S Military

Abstract

Not only is the problem longstanding, it has been well documented time and again without any substantive progress. In fact, the representation of senior African Americans military leaders in the U.S. armed forces has remained essentially unchanged over the past half century despite purported efforts on the part of the U.S. government to effect meaningful changes in its personnel evaluation and promotion policies. Against this backdrop, it is vitally important to identify constraints to progress in order to develop and implement policies that can help address this challenging problem. To this end, the purpose of this mixed methods study was to identify the main reasons behind the inordinate representation rates of African Americans in senior leadership positions in the U.S. armed forces today in order to formulate appropriate and timely recommendations to address this constraint in the future.

Table of Contents

Abstract ………………………………………………………………………………..

Chapter One: Introduction ………………………………………………………………..

Chapter Two: Review of Literature ………………………………………………………..

Chapter Three: Methods ………………………………………………………………..

Chapter Four: Results ………………………………………………………………..

Chapter Five: Discussion, Conclusion and Recommendations ………………………..

Why There are Few African-American Military Officers in Senior Leadership Positions

Chapter One: Introduction

Today, of the approximately 1.3 million men and women on active duty in the U.S. armed forces, fully 43%, or about 560,000 individuals, are African Americans (Cooper, 2020). At present, however, there is a stark and persistent paucity of senior leaders among these African Americans servicepeople among the more than half million servicepersons in the military. Indeed, these disparate representation rates have remained stagnated for more than a half century with little or no substantive progress having been made in reducing these disparities. Although there are some encouraging signs emanating from the White House and Pentagon at present that promise to improve the promotion opportunities for African Americans to attain top leadership positions in the future, the process requires time and some observers suggest time is no longer a luxury that the U.S. armed forces enjoy.

The purpose of this mixed methods study using a qualitative literature review and quantitative data concerning the key reasons behind the inordinate representation rates of African Americans in senior leadership positions in the U.S. armed forces at present. Providing a qualitative and quantitative analysis showing the differences in African Americans and their counter-parts, will be beneficial to address the lack of diversity in senior leadership positions. A qualitative literature review of peer-reviewed and scholarly resources together with a quantitative analysis of existing surveys will show what barriers are prohibiting African-Americans officers from reaching those senior positions. Finally, recommendations to decrease the racial imbalance in the Armed Forces will be identified.

Introduction

The experience of African Americans in the U.S. armed forces is inexorably tied to more than 350 years of slavery which began in the early 1600s and the Jim Crow era which resulted in a nadir in American racial relations during the early part of the 20th century (Kendrick, 1998). Despite these brutally challenging and dehumanizing experiences and the obstacles in their path to equality, African Americans have served with honor and distinction in every war that has been fought by the United States, including the Revolutionary War. In fact, according to Ender and his associates (2015), “Indeed, a Black, 47-year-old, runaway slave named Crispus Attucks was the first American killed by a British soldier [...] in the course of events which would lead to independence in the United States” (p. 231).

One of the especially noteworthy aspects of this early commitment by African Americans to defend the United States is the fact that they were actually exempted from the U.S. Militia Act of 1792 which mandated involuntary military construction for all males, but which was subsequently interpreted to mean that these provisions did not apply to blacks, free or otherwise (Ender et al., 2015). Nevertheless, and despite fighting against one white supremacist government on behalf of the similarly constituted United States and being treated far differently from their white counterparts, African Americans have historically served the country as members of the armed forces. In this regard, Ender et al. (2015) point out that, “Yet, in the new United States, African-Americans continued to serve in times of war — in particular, in the War of 1812, and the Mexican Wars — but their status as soldier was second class at best” (p. 231). Furthermore, and despite offers of their freedom by the embattled and struggling Confederacy if the South prevailed in the Civil War (an offer that profoundly contradicted the fundamental precepts upon which the Confederacy was founded), African Americans also played an important part on winning the Civil War. As Ender and his colleagues conclude, “Slavery ends in the United States following the American Civil War, where African-Americans made significant military contributions to the North winning the war. Estimates are that 200,000 served and 27,000 died [and] their service showed a propensity to fight for country” (2015, p. 232).

It is also important to note that despite being relegated to a second-class citizen role during the late 19th century and the first half of the 20th century, African Americans continued their tradition of military service to the country even when they were compelled to serve in segregated units. These trends, though, did help to further underscore the need for senior African American military leaders to command these segregated units, including the famed Buffalo soldiers in the Indian and Spanish American Wars. Consequently, Henry O. Flipper became the first African American graduate from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 1877 as a direct result, with another 24 blacks graduating from the academy by the fin de siècle (Ender et al., 2015).

Although race relations remained strained during the first decades of the 20th century, growing numbers of African American men and women came to regard service in the armed forces as a viable path towards greater social equality, and these views became especially pronounced following the entry of the United States into the bloody battlefields of World War I. Here again, however, despite their honorable and even heroic service to the nation, the very same African American men and women were once again relegated to a second-class citizen status once the war had been won (Ender et al., 2015).

Things began to change in more substantive ways, though, during and following America’s existential challenges in World War II. For instance, according to Ender et al., “World War II facilitated continued struggle on the part of African-Americans to serve in the military and they did so with gallantry. That effort propelled them demonstratively forward in the struggle for both military and societal integration” (p. 233). This particular struggle was resolved by Executive Order No. 9981 promulgated by President Harry S. Truman in 1948 which desegregated military units which would go on to fight the battles of the Korean and Vietnam wars. These contributions to the nation’s defense and security were responsible, at least in part, for the grudging acceptance of the Civil Rights Act and subsequent federal legislation that was designed to guarantee African Americans their fundamental constitutional civil rights.

In what can be regarded as yet another historic turning point for African Americans serving their country in the military, the percentage of blacks in the armed forces remained consistently high even after the end of conscription and the introduction of the All-Volunteer Force in 1973. Since that time, African American representation in the U.S. armed forces has consistently outpaced their representation in the general American population, a trend that continues to the present day, a trend that is examined in more depth in Chapter Four which follows below. These trends have remained fairly high despite the end of the AVF in 1973, and African American representation in the U.S. armed forces has remained higher than their corresponding representation in the general American population, a reality that further underscores their commitment to serving and protecting the nation.

Notwithstanding this lengthy track record of military service, the numbers of African Americans enlisting in the armed forces has been on the decline, most notably in the U.S. Army and Marine Corps, a trend which became evident following the cessation of hostilities in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The decline in enlistments in the U.S. Army and Marines is noteworthy because these two services are tasked with executing the ground component of warfare on land, making them the indispensable “boots on the ground” that are still required for conventional war.

Although these recent modest declines in enlistments in these two critical service branches has succeeded in bringing the representation of African Americans more in line with their overall representation in the American population, the U.S. military still provides invaluable career opportunities for many African Americans who might not be able to secure these benefits elsewhere (Segal & Thanner, 2007). In this regard, Ender et al. conclude that, “While their numbers are currently more in line with their proportional representation in the larger society, previous representation suggested both a tradition of service and patriotism, and providing the African-American community with a major path towards career development not found in the civilian economy” (p. 233). These opportunities, however, are also characterized by the fact that minorities in general and African Americans in particular consider themselves far more likely to be assigned to hazardous combat scenarios such as those witnessed in Korea and Vietnam, a perception that is further affected by ongoing reports of institutionalized racism in the armed forces over the past 30 years or so (Ender et al., 2015).

Notwithstanding the multiple benefits that accrue to individuals that serve in the armed forces, the combined effects of these negative perceptions on the part of many African Americans may help explain the current dearth of top-ranking black leaders in the U.S. military. As examined further in the literature review that follows immediately below, there have been some exceptions, most notably the assignment of retired four-star Army general Lloyd Austin as the first African American Secretary of Defense, but promotion opportunities have been bleak for the vast majority of black officers in recent years. For instance, according to Brook (2020), “The lack of Black officers in the Army’s combat commands has diminished the chances for diversity in military leadership for years to come, resulting in a nearly all-white leadership of an increasingly diverse military and nation. The Army, the largest of the armed services, has made little progress in promoting officers of color, particularly Black soldiers, to commands in the past six years” (para. 4).

This failure has made sources, of course, but much of the blame has been assigned to the former executive administration which made it a point to defend the use of the names of Confederate heroes for major military bases in the United States and reportedly even delayed the promotions of females to the rank of general for fear of offending the previous resident of the Oval Office who lacked any formal military experience whatsoever. This anti-military stance placed a further dampening effect on the promotion of African Americans during this administration, but the actual process has been long felt by active-duty personnel. For example, Brook (2020) points out that, “Black people make up 22.7% of enlisted soldiers, 16.5% of warrant officers and 11% of officers on active duty as of July [2020]. At the officer levels, this is a decrease from 21%, 18.4% and 12.6%, respectively, in 2010 [and] the stakes of fairness and equity are manifest [as well as] the military's ability to defend the nation” (2020, para. 6). In sum, African Americans in the U.S. military have faced the double-whammy of institutionalized racism combined with the political turmoil that has rocked the armed forces in recent years, and these issues are examined further below.

Chapter Two: Review of Literature

Although the history of the United States is certainly not unique with respect to longstanding institutional practices and views that are based on race, this nation does stand apart from others by virtue of having fought an enormously costly Civil War, in part in order to end slavery but also to eliminate these disparities for all time. Indeed, the original U.S. Constitution is silent with respect to race (notwithstanding so-called “three-fifths” provision that does not specify race), the Thirteenth Amendment which outlawed slavery (except for prisoners that were adjudicated in courts of competent jurisdiction) and the Fifteenth Amendment which refers to “race” and “color” in its guarantees to the right to vote.

In 1948, Executive Order 9981 desegregated the U.S. armed forces, and President Truman expected them to provide equal opportunities to all servicepersons as a result. The text of Executive Order 9981 specifically states in part that “there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed forces without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin” (Executive Order 9981, 1948). This order, issued three-quarters of a century ago, has not been fully implemented based on the historic levels of African Americans occupying positions of top leadership in the U.S. military. Some service branches besides the U.S. Army, however, have been more successful than others in achieving this idealized reality, but as the research that follows below will clearly demonstrate, racially based obstacles and challenges still confront African Americans at every turn in their military careers irrespective of their particular branch of service.

Some indication of the growing awareness – and the corresponding frustrations that have been experienced by African Americans in recent years – can be found in a study by Briscoe (2013) that notes, “Today the Army is striving to maintain the [Truman] vision by recruiting and retaining an organization reflective of the country’s diverse population. However, Black officers are underrepresented in the combat arms specifically in the Infantry, Armor, and Field Artillery branches” (para. 5). Because the U.S. Army and Marine Corps provide the overwhelming majority of the group troops that are needed to prosecute land warfare and the fact that serving in a combat role in one of these three branches have facilitated advancement to senior leadership positions, African American face yet another double whammy when it comes to gaining access to promotion opportunities. In this regard, Briscoe points out that, “This underrepresentation can be termed occupational segregation. Blacks nonparticipation in these career paths decreases the diversity in these branches and makes it difficult for Blacks to attain appropriate representation among general officers, as more than 59% of the Army’s generals are selected from the combat arms” (para. 7).

In other words, the path to equality under the law has been arduous and lengthy, but the problem of racially based disparities remains firmly in place throughout the United States today. Indeed, the results of a study by Segal and Thanner (2007) showed that even prior to the most recent dampening effects on promotions for minorities in general and African American women in particular, there had been virtually no progress in improving the representation of blacks in the U.S. military in high-level leadership positions. For instance, according to Segal and Thanner (2007), “Since the start of the All-Volunteer Force [AVF] in 1973, African Americans have served in the U.S. military, especially in the Army, in numbers greater than their percent of the population. This disproportionate representation has been especially clear among military women” (p. 48).

As noted above, enlistments of African Americans have tapered off in recent years, but there have been some corresponding increases in the accession of Hispanic enlistments. Not surprisingly, perhaps, this minority group has also experienced many of the same types of constraints to top military leadership positions as their African American counterparts. Moreover, Hispanic women have joined the armed forces at a greater rate than males, meaning that they not constitute a larger percentage of the women serving on active duty than Hispanic men during a period in American history when this minority group is becoming the majority in many parts of the country (Segal & Thanner, 2007).

It is against this backdrop that recent and current initiatives that are intended to address the longstanding problem of disparate representation of African Americans in top military leadership positions have been implemented and administered, but all such initiatives have faced many of the same constraints to progress (Segal & Thanner, 2007). For example, nearly a quarter century ago, the U.S. Congress established the Military Leadership Diversity Commission to examine diversity levels in all of the military branches of service and to identify appropriate strategies for overcoming these constraints to parity. One of the more interesting findings that emerged from this initiative was the fact that each of the service branches has a different definition of “diversity,” but many of the other findings and recommendations that were promulgated by the Commission were simply rehashes of formerly identified needs. In this regard, one disappointed observer pointed out that, “According to Clarence ‘C.J.’ Johnson, principal director of the office of diversity management and equal opportunity at the Department of Defense, not much more can be expected after two years, particularly at the senior levels” (Jones, 2010, p. 58).

In their defense, Jones (2010) does point out that even the high-powered Military Leadership Diversity Commission was unable rather than unwilling to remedy some of the problems that have contributed to the longstanding misrepresentation of African Americans in top military leadership roles. For instance, Jones (2010) notes that, “First, it takes 25 years to advance to the rank of general. But more importantly, many young African Americans don't view the military as a long-term career goal [and] focus on developing careers in four years that are marketable ‘on the outside’” (p. 59). Although African Americans are certainly not the only demographic group that has used this pragmatic approach to military service to advance their professional civilian careers, these trends to underscore the profound challenges that are faced by each of the branches of the armed forces in the early 21st century.

It is also widely recognized that certain occupations within each service branch offer greater promotion opportunities to higher-level positions compared to others, and it is little wonder that military career-minded officers of all demographic groups have taken advantage of these paths to promotion when and where they are available. In some cases, however, African Americans have not be able to gain access to the same career ladders that exist for white officers in the armed forces. In this regard, Jones (2010) points out that, “There is a strategic path that leads to higher levels of the military in positions that include Air Force pilot; infantry, battle-tested Marine and Army officers; and tactical operations across the board -- areas that women and minorities tend not to select” (p. 59).

Nonetheless, even the U.S. Department of Defense recognized the need after the creation of the Military Leadership Diversity Commission and began what may be one of the more important strategies to help improve the representation of African Americans in top military leadership positions. As Jones emphasizes, “In addition to exploring ways to expose more women and minorities to those fields, Defense is also looking at civilian businesses and organizations for clues about how to help those demographic groups advance” (2010, p. 59). In their final report, the Military Leadership Diversity Commission claimed that its final recommendations should seek to achieve three discrete but interrelated goals as follows:

1. Establish the foundation for effective diversity leadership with a definition of diversity that is congruent with the Department of Defense’s core values and vision of its future;

2. Develop future leaders who represent the face of America and are able to effectively lead a diverse workforce to maximize mission effectiveness; and,

3. Implement policies and practices that will make leaders accountable for instilling diversity leadership as a core competency of the Armed Forces (Lyles, 2011, p. 8).

The core values and vision of the Department of Defense were codified most recently on July 24, 1998 with the publication of its “Human Goals Charter” depicted in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1. U.S. Department of Defense Human Goals Charter, July 24, 1998

Source: Lyles, 2011, p. 28

The three overarching goals listed above were to be guided by the following recommendations:

1. Define diversity for a new era;

2. Build the foundation for change;

3. Ensure leadership commitment to diversity;

4. Develop future leaders;

5. Increase the pool of eligible candidates;

6. Improve outreach and recruiting strategies;

7. Eliminate barriers to career advancement;

8. Ensure continued progress;

9. Realign the organizational structure;

10. Institute a system of accountability;

11. Ensure the succession of leaders committed to diversity;

12. Systematically develop a demographically diverse leadership that reflects the public it serves and the forces it leads;

13. Pursue a broader approach to diversity that includes the range of backgrounds, skill sets, and personal attributes that are necessary to enhancing military performance. and,

14. Develop and implement robust policies and strategic metrics (Lyles, 2011, pp. 16-19).

While it is tempting to characterize some if not many of the above-listed goals as overly broad and unfocused (because they are), they do provide a useful framework in which to move the armed forces forward towards the long-term goal of achieve demographic parity for all service members in the higher echelons of leadership. Indeed, one of the more valuable lessons learned from this collaboration with the private sector has been the growing recognition concerning the value of providing young African American officers with a seasoned mentor who can help them avoid the pitfalls of military leadership while simultaneously learning how to become the best officers possible. For example, a recent case study of an African American captain conducted by Randolph found that, “Mentoring is a developmental relationship where experiences are shared between two people, one with greater experience and one with lesser experience, based on mutual trust and respect” (2018, p. 37).

The Randolph (2018) case study, though, also found that few African American officers are offered mentoring opportunities and when they do become available, it is in an informal fashion rather than being formally administered through the Army Mentoring Program due in part to a lack of awareness that this initiative is even available. Besides raising awareness of mentoring opportunities for African Americans, Randolph also recommends that Army decisionmakers taken into account the multiple “rings” in which military mentoring in general and Army mentoring in particular takes place as set forth in Table 1 below.

Table 1

“Rings” involved in military mentoring

Ring

Description

Theoretical ring

The theoretical ring consisted of three parts: Experiential

learning, organizational design, and management theory. Experiences as the key component to the Army’s and practitioner’s definitions of mentoring served as the impetus for experiential learning theory (ELT) as the theoretical framework. Included under the theoretical framework were the Army organizational design and management theories. Because the Army espouses leadership versus management, and promotes interactions with people, several theorists were used to describe how the Army operates.

Practitioner ring

This ring covers three broad categories: 1) mentoring in theory, 2) practice, and 3) with military personnel. The philosophy of mentoring has a generally accepted framework to describe the mentoring paradigm: youth, academic, workplace, and reflective phases. Academic mentoring has two corollaries useful in examining the military mentoring relationship: 1) the professor/ student mentoring relationship and 2) and mentoring of minority faculty by white faculty.

Social ring

The military reflects the larger society from which it is recruited. Society has three areas that may influence how African American Army officers receive mentoring: 1) mentoring diverse groups, 2) the quest for African American mentors, and 3) mentoring African American males. The issue of mentoring African American men is a component within diverse groups. African American men face social stigmas, transitional concerns and workplace mentoring issues. Finally, mentoring minorities in the military has two additional components: 1) generational and 2) diversity. Well documented within society and the Army are the challenges of the generation gap. The generation gap may impact how Millennial generation officers perceive and receive mentoring with the advent of the social media age and the possible benefits to minorities of

anonymity through e-mentoring.

Military mentoring ring

Exploring military mentoring provided a composite look at how mentoring occurs across the military services. Just as each service has its unique style of uniforms, customs, and traditions', mentoring has the same uniqueness. Although the Navy, Air Force, and Marines have established mandatory mentoring

programs through proclamation. The mentoring of minorities however, is addressed as a diversity issue in the Navy, Air Force, and other government agencies. In fact, only the Army Mentoring Program remains separate and distinct from the Army Diversity Management Program, nothing has changed in the Army to examine why. How mentoring for diverse groups is addressed,

may impact the recruitment, accessions, development, assessments, and retention of minority officers for the Army, and address the diversity imbalance in the Army senior officer ranks.

Army mentoring ring

To understand how the Army employs mentoring, requires understanding the role of mentoring in the Army learning and leading frameworks, and in officer education. Understanding Army mentoring also requires a deeper concept of the Army Mentoring Program. The Army uses a domains approach in acquiring knowledge and creating understanding. The Army Leader Development Model consists of three domains: 1) institutional, 2) operational, and 3) self-development. Each domain is characterized by the three components for developing leaders: 1) training, 2) education, and 3) experience. The domains occur in a dynamic environment with peer and developmental relationships as support.

Source: Adapted from Randolph, 2018

Private sector practitioners have long appreciated the importance of mentoring opportunities based in part on the above-described elements, however, and these programs are typically implemented early on in prospective leaders’ careers. As Jones (2010) concludes, “I think mentoring is a key factor that influences [military] career choices. How you talk to and encourage people to consider some of the critical military occupations. There is work to be done in that regard, and we continue to look at ideas on how to influence that” (p. 60). The fact that the U.S. Army has made a commitment to examine its approach to minority mentoring must be viewed as a positive step in the right direction, but Randolph (2018) also makes it clear that this military branch has a long way to go to catch up with some of the other service branches.

Although mentoring lags behind the other service branches in the U.S. Army at present, it is clear that it has taken mentoring seriously as a potential partial solution to its paucity of African American officers in its upper echelons. Likewise, some of the other armed forces branches have also made mentoring a cornerstone of their efforts to improve the promotion rates for African American officers. A good example of this can be seen in the efforts by the U.S. Coast Guard which is focusing on creating a “long-lasting pipeline” of African American officer candidates early on in their academic careers, beginning at the middle and high school levels, which encourage participants to pursue STEM-related coursework that can benefit them and the armed forces.

The Coast Guard Academy’s diversity affairs director also makes the point that while it is important to increase the numbers of eligible candidates entering the pipeline, it is also essential to provide these participants with the ongoing support they need to succeed in a military career (Jones, 2010). At the time of writing, Jones (2010) reports that, “African Americans make up just 2.5% of the student body and Hispanics account for 7% to 8% [but] the 2014 incoming class is its most diverse since 1999, with 16 African Americans out of a class of 290 students” (p. 37). While these percentages appear to represent real progress, it must be noted that 16 African Americans out of 290 students is just 5.5%, compared to their current 12.6% representation in the larger American population (American people, 2021).

In fact, the Coast Guard concedes that even this progress is modest, but the Academy’s diversity affairs director also notes that the most recent cadre of minority students are better prepared academically for the rigors of the coursework compared to previous classes, and they have enjoyed the benefits of a comprehensive pre-orientation mentoring program (for which they arrive on campus early) that is specifically focused on providing these future Coast Guard leaders with the “moral support they need as individuals and a group to succeed [because] we're not just trying to change the crayon box [but] want to make sure they're successful once they come through the door" (as cited in Jones, 2010, p. 38). These combined efforts have already demonstrated some positive results, with the Coast Guard recently celebrating the promotion of the first African American flag officer to receive three stars as well as its second female vice commandant in the Academy’s history. Moreover, minority retention rates in the Coast Guard are at unprecedented high levels, and actually exceed majority retention levels, albeit only slightly for officers; however, representation rates for enlisted ranks tell a different story, with fully 39.9% of the Coast Guard enlisted ranks being filled by minority members and nearly one-third (29.7%) females (Jones, 2010).

Although not as impressive as the Coast Guard’s results in improving diversity in its ranks, its sister service, the U.S. Navy also reports increasing success in its efforts to recruit minorities and women. For example, Jones cited Captain Ken Barrett, head of the Navy’s diversity programming, as enthusing that, “There has been dramatic improvement with regard to women, who now represent approximately 15.3% of its force. African Americans and Hispanics represent 8.08% and 6.22% of the officer ranks and 18.26% and 17.21% of enlistment, respectively” (as cited in Jones, 2010, p. 38).

These percentages are far more in line with African American representation in the larger population, but these results did not just fall out of the sky but were rather the result of an ongoing commitment to promoting diversity in the Navy today and in the future. In this regard, Barrett adds that, “We have diversity outreach officers in major markets and we added outreach officers in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston, and Atlanta. We also have done a lot to network among educators, business leaders, and government officials to get the Navy message out there and access untapped markets” (as cited in Jones, 2010, p 38).

In other words, the U.S. Navy is taking steps to actively reach out to prospective African Americans who may have not seriously considered a military career in ways that other service branches are not. Here again as well, the U.S. Navy has borrowed some important guidance from the private sector by ensuring that these officer candidates receive the types and levels of mentoring support they need to succeed. For instance, Jones points out that, “Although the Navy works to ensure that members of all demographic groups receive the support needed to achieve major milestones and key assignments that lead to faster promotions, the branch also has made a special effort to expose racial and ethnic minorities to service affinity groups through which enlisted men and women can meet and be mentored by senior officers from similar backgrounds” (2010, p.38).

Finally, the U.S. Army has also implemented a number of new strategies that have been borrowed from the private sector to help eliminate known obstacles to promotion for African Americans, including the stopping the practice of including photographs of officers in their personnel files to prevent promotion boards from taking race into account, even unconsciously, during their deliberations. Likewise, there are indications from the field that growing numbers of African American officers are selecting combat assignments which is a proven path to achieving access to higher level positions. While these practices have been used in the private sector for years, it is important to note that it is never too late to eliminate longstanding barriers to progress.

Many of these more recent efforts have serendipitously coincided with the nation’s outrage over the murder of George Floyd at the hands of law enforcement authorities, and these changes underscore the importance that overcoming racism in the military services has assumed in recent months. Indeed, in his testimony before a U.S. Congressional committee, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff made it clear that, “We must thoughtfully examine our institution and ensure it is a place where all Americans see themselves represented and have equal opportunity to succeed, especially in leadership positions” (as cited in Brook, 2020, para. 6). In sum, and to paraphrase the cartoon character “Pogo,” “We have met the enemy and he is us” for far too many African Americans in the U.S. military today, but the research was consistent in showing that things are changing for the better, albeit at a painfully slow pace.

Chapter Three: Methods (Qualitative/Quantitative)

Social scientists can select from a wide array of research methodologies, including most typically the qualitative and quantitative paradigms (Neuman, 2008). On the one hand, qualitative methodologies such as reviews of the relevant literature, focus groups, participant-observations, structured and semi-structured interviews (Neuman, 2008). On the other hand, quantitative methods such as questionnaires and surveys are commonly used quantitative research methods. While quantitative methods have long been regarded as the gold standard for social research purposes, there is a growing recognition that both research traditions can provide valuable insights that might not be otherwise discernible (Neuman, 2008). Therefore, this study used a mixed methods research design that drew on both qualitative and quantitative resources, with the former being comprised of a systematic review of the literature and the latter consisting of on-point statistical data concerning past and current representation rates of African American senior military leaders and other relevant demographic data.

In addition, a mixed methods approach was highly appropriate for the intersectionalist analyses of these findings that were needed to develop informed answers to the study’s overarching purpose as stated in the introductory chapter. For instance, according to Feagin and Elias (2012), “An intersectionalist analysis is necessary for understanding the diverse experiences and power of different racial groups, including the effects of gender, class and other oppression/inequality within and among different groups of color” (p. 37). Likewise, Ender et al. (2015) emphasize that, “It appears that racial and military affiliations combine to yield a unique perspective on war, adapting elements of both statuses [which] support the concept of intersectionality” (p. 231). The application of the above-described mixed methods design generated the following results.

Chapter Four: Results

From a strictly quantitative perspective, the research showed that there are vastly more African American general officers today than at the start of World War II when the first African American was promoted to the rank of brigadier general in 1940, but the research also showed that the representation of African Americans in these lofty ranks remains miserably low today. For example, at present, there are 12 four-star generals in the U.S. armed forces; eleven are white and one is African American. In addition, there are also 45 three-star (lieutenant) generals, with 37 white and eight black officers. In addition, there are also 105 two-star (major) generals, with 90 white and 15 black. Of the 125 one-star (brigadier) generals (so named because they lead a brigade in wartime), 107 are white and 19 are black. Likewise, of the 231 senior field command positions (colonels typically lead brigades of about 4,000 soldiers during peacetime), 218 are white and 13 are black (Brook, 2020). Some indication of the disparities in these respective rates of representation can be seen when they are compared to the overall rate of 21.5% blacks and 78.5% other for all members of the U.S. Army (Brook, 2020).

An infographic provided by the Department of Defense’s Office for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (2021) provides the most recent breakdown of African American representation in the armed forces today, including a historiographical analysis dating to the U.S. Civil War as shown in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2. Portrait of African American Active Duty Service Members as of 2021

Source: Department of Defense’s Office for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (2021) at https://diversity.defense.gov/DE-I-Infographics/Demographic-Infographics/

In addition, the DoD’s Office for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion also provides the following breakdown of occupations for current active duty African American officers in all service branches as set forth in Table 1 below.

Table 1

Occupations of African American Active Duty Male and Female Officers as of 2021

Officer occupation

Male

Female

Tactical operations officers

Health care officers

Supply, procurement & allied officers

Engineering & Maintenance officers

Administrators

Intelligence officers

Scientists and professionals

Non-occupational officers

General officers and executives

Behind this quantitative data, though, exists a wide array of views, perceptions, beliefs and opinions concerning how best to improve the representation rates for African Americans who aspire to a professional career in the U.S. military as an officer, including those set forth in Table 2 below.

Table 2

Key findings from peer-reviewed and scholarly studies

Source

Key findings

Comments

Shaffer (n.d.).

Even after integration and the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, life in an officially colorblind military (or country, for that matter) did not and does not guarantee equable treatment

before the law, whether that law is civil or the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Continental forces had a mixed record on the service of African Americans. The most integrated service was the Navy, which welcomed African-American sailors with open arms.

African Americans have been

part of the national political struggles of the United States since before independence, even

despite the vexed relationship to the ideals of liberty and justice experienced by both the

enslaved and “free black” populations.

Adams (1997)

Mentoring is a popular subject in discussions concerning leadership and professional

development. However, like the rest of society, minorities and women in the military are

disadvantaged in the socialization process. It appears they are not provided the proper

guidance and hands-on experience, which is necessary to practice leadership and improve their skills in the workplace. The US military has followed the business sector and has begun to address these problems by instituting formal mentoring programs. These

programs are based on the premise that a successful mentorship benefits not only the

individual, but the organization as well. Properly implemented and administered, mentoring can have a positive effect on individuals and military organizations

This was a seminal study of mentoring in the U.S. military in which the author first mentions that the armed forces are taking lessons from the private sector in its mentoring initiatives.

Briscoe (2013)

The Army must manage diversity which requires

more than simply supplementing and old system with new initiatives. It requires

changing the system and modifying the core culture, which includes senior leaders’

oversight of the professional development processes. This measure of performance will

promote diversity and fairness within the ranks.

The Army cannot solve this problem on its own. Senior leaders must also aggressively pursue diversity among the most senior ranks.

Bonam & Nas (2018)

Whites when compared to African Americans displayed less critical historical knowledge, explaining their greater denial of systemic racism. Moreover, stronger racial identity among Whites predicted greater systemic racism denial.

Differences in critical historical knowledge (i.e., knowledge of past racism) and motivation to protect group esteem predicted present-day racism perceptions among Whites and Blacks attending different, racially homogenous universities.

Jones (2010)

In 2008, the U.S. Congress established the Military Leadership Diversity Commission which was tasked with analyzing the promotion rates for minorities in the military and to develop strategies to make the armed forces more reflective of the nation's diverse population. The Commission’s final report included recommendations for increased recruiting efforts directed at African Americans to help balance their representation in the higher ranks of all of the military branches.

Recruiting and retaining minorities, particularly in the officer ranks, present an ongoing challenge for each military branch

Randolph (2018)

Mentoring occurs in the Army, but not through the Army Mentoring Program, because few officers are registered, use, or know of the program. Those patterns were parallel to three other patterns that indicated: lost mentoring time for junior officers, only 1-5 mentee experiences in an Army career, and an ardent desire for mentoring relationships. Based on the research findings, patterns identified, and themes developed, mentoring may have greater impact on African American Army Captain success and promotion potential when initiated at the onset of an officer’s career.

Subpar promotion rates to Major for minority and female officers is a systemic problem spanning over the last 40-plus years, and what may contribute to the diversity imbalance at senior Army officer levels, requires a holistic performance improvement strategy.

Jones (2010)

Recruiting and retaining minorities, particularly in the officer ranks, presents an ongoing challenge for each military branch. The Coast Guard Academy, however, is hopeful that community outreach may ultimately be the key and the Air Force concurs. Reaching out to underrepresented demographic groups around the country to educate them on Air Force opportunities, both in uniform and as civilians, helps youth and their mentors understand the benefit of serving in the Air Force and military in general. The Air Force is committed to being a leading competitor in the war for talent.

Overall, in 2010, the U.S. Air Force was 7.04% Hispanic, 12.7% African American, and 19.4% female, with its greatest challenge in attracting diverse applicants at the officer level. The Air Force has great diversity within the enlisted ranks. The competition is keen with corporate America, as well as other services for the same group of highly qualified diverse college graduates.

Myers (2014)

A growing body of scholarship indicates that civil rights leaders rather than prejudiced white officers, opposed the idea of

expanding the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) at historically black colleges and universities because doing so could reinforce segregation. Instead, people within the Department of Defense worked to raise the number of African Americans attending the service academies and ROTC programs at multiracial schools.

As long as 50 years ago, military and civilian officials expressed growing concerns over the lack of career progression of black officers.

Ender, M. G. et al. (2015)

African-Americans in the U.S. military encompass at least two distinct identity groups: a racial status associated with lower support for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a military status which tends to be more 'hawkish' in perspective. Majorities of military cadets, regardless of race, supported both of these wars more than their civilian counterparts, but African-Americans are significantly less supportive of the wars relative to their peers within each group. African-American cadets support both wars less so than whites and cadets of other races, but African-American cadets supported both wars more than African-American civilians.