African American Senior Military Leaders: Barriers and Solutions

Introduction: African Americans in U.S. Military History

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 American servicemembers. Indeed, these disparate representation rates have remained stagnant for more than half a century, with little or no substantive progress having been made in reducing the disparity. Although there are some encouraging signs emanating from the White House and the Pentagon that promise to improve promotion opportunities for African Americans to attain top leadership positions in the future, the process requires time, and some observers suggest that time is no longer a luxury the U.S. armed forces enjoy.

The purpose of this mixed methods study is to examine the key reasons behind the inordinate underrepresentation of African Americans in senior leadership positions in the U.S. armed forces. A qualitative literature review of peer-reviewed and scholarly resources, together with a quantitative analysis of existing surveys, reveals what barriers are preventing African American officers from reaching senior positions. Recommendations to decrease the racial imbalance in the armed forces are identified throughout.

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 to 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 placed in the path to equality, African Americans have served with honor and distinction in every war fought by the United States, including the Revolutionary War. 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 especially noteworthy aspect of this early commitment is the fact that African Americans were actually exempted from the U.S. Militia Act of 1792, which mandated involuntary military service for all males but was subsequently interpreted to exclude blacks, free or otherwise (Ender et al., 2015). Nevertheless, despite fighting against one white supremacist government on behalf of a similarly constituted United States and being treated far differently from their white counterparts, African Americans historically served the country as members of the armed forces. As Ender et al. (2015) note, "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, despite the Confederacy's offer of freedom to enslaved people if the South prevailed in the Civil War — an offer that profoundly contradicted the fundamental precepts upon which the Confederacy was founded — African Americans played an important part in the Union's victory. As Ender et al. 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 second-class citizen status during the late 19th century and the first half of the 20th century, African Americans continued their tradition of military service even when compelled to serve in segregated units. These conditions helped underscore the need for senior African American military leaders to command those segregated units, including the famed Buffalo Soldiers in the Indian and Spanish-American Wars. Consequently, Henry O. Flipper became the first African American graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 1877, with another 24 Black graduates following by the end of the century (Ender et al., 2015).

Although race relations remained strained during the early 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 toward greater social equality. These views became especially pronounced following the United States' entry into World War I. Here again, however, despite honorable and even heroic service, the very same men and women were once again relegated to second-class citizenship once the war had been won (Ender et al., 2015).

Things began to change in more substantive ways during and following World War II. 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 struggle was resolved in part by Executive Order No. 9981, promulgated by President Harry S. Truman in 1948, which desegregated military units that would go on to fight in Korea and Vietnam. These contributions to national defense were responsible, at least in part, for the grudging passage of the Civil Rights Act and subsequent federal legislation designed to guarantee African Americans their fundamental constitutional rights.

The percentage of Black servicemembers remained consistently high even after the end of conscription and the introduction of the All-Volunteer Force (AVF) in 1973. Since that time, African American representation in the U.S. armed forces has consistently outpaced their representation in the general population — a trend that continues to the present day.

Notwithstanding this lengthy track record of 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 that became evident following the cessation of hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq. Although these modest declines have brought African American representation more in line with their overall share of the American population, the U.S. military still provides invaluable career opportunities for many African Americans who might not secure comparable benefits elsewhere (Segal & Thanner, 2007). As Ender et al. conclude, "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 are also shaped by the fact that minorities in general — and African Americans in particular — consider themselves far more likely to be assigned to hazardous combat scenarios, a perception further affected by ongoing reports of institutionalized racism in the armed forces over the past 30 years (Ender et al., 2015).

Notwithstanding the multiple benefits of military service, the combined effects of these negative perceptions may help explain the current dearth of top-ranking Black leaders in the U.S. military. There have been some exceptions — most notably the appointment 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. As Brook (2020) reports, "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).

Review of Literature

Much of the blame has been assigned to prior executive leadership, which resisted renaming Confederate-named military bases and reportedly delayed the promotions of women to general officer rank. This anti-diversity stance placed a further dampening effect on the promotion of African Americans. Brook (2020) documents the trend: "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" (para. 6). In sum, African Americans in the U.S. military have faced the double burden of institutionalized racism combined with political turmoil — issues examined in depth below.

Although the history of the United States is not unique in its longstanding institutional practices based on race, this nation does stand apart by virtue of having fought an enormously costly Civil War — in part to end slavery and to eliminate these disparities. The original U.S. Constitution is largely silent with respect to race; however, the Thirteenth Amendment outlawed slavery and the Fifteenth Amendment guaranteed the right to vote regardless of "race" or "color."

In 1948, Executive Order 9981 desegregated the U.S. armed forces, with President Truman expecting the military to provide equal opportunities to all servicepersons. The order 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 more than three-quarters of a century ago, has not been fully implemented, as evidenced by the historic underrepresentation of African Americans in top military leadership. Some service branches have been more successful than others in achieving this goal, but racially based obstacles still confront African Americans at every turn in their military careers, irrespective of branch of service.

A study by Briscoe (2013) notes that "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 ground troops needed to prosecute land warfare, and because serving in a combat role in one of these branches has historically facilitated advancement to senior leadership positions, African Americans face a compounded disadvantage in accessing promotion opportunities. Briscoe explains: "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).

Research by Segal and Thanner (2007) showed that even prior to the most recent dampening effects on minority promotions, there had been virtually no progress in improving the representation of Black officers in high-level leadership positions: "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, African American enlistments have tapered off in recent years, while Hispanic enlistments have increased. Not surprisingly, this minority group has also experienced many of the same constraints to top military leadership as their African American counterparts. Moreover, Hispanic women have joined the armed forces at a greater rate than Hispanic men, meaning they now constitute a larger percentage of women serving on active duty (Segal & Thanner, 2007).

Against this backdrop, the U.S. Congress established the Military Leadership Diversity Commission to examine diversity levels across all military branches and to identify strategies for overcoming constraints to parity. One of the more interesting findings was that each service branch applies a different definition of "diversity." Clarence "C.J." Johnson, principal director of the Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity at the Department of Defense, acknowledged the limits of early progress: "not much more can be expected after two years, particularly at the senior levels" (as cited in Jones, 2010, p. 58).

Jones (2010) also notes that the Commission faced structural obstacles beyond its control: "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). It is also widely recognized that certain occupational paths within each service branch offer greater promotion opportunities, and African Americans have not always been able to access the same career ladders available to white officers. As Jones (2010) observes, "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).

In response, the Department of Defense began exploring civilian business practices for clues about helping women and minorities advance. The Military Leadership Diversity Commission's final report identified three overarching goals:

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).

These goals were to be guided by fourteen specific recommendations, including: defining diversity for a new era; building a foundation for change; ensuring leadership commitment to diversity; developing future leaders; increasing the pool of eligible candidates; improving outreach and recruiting strategies; eliminating barriers to career advancement; ensuring continued progress; realigning organizational structure; instituting accountability; ensuring succession of leaders committed to diversity; systematically developing demographically diverse leadership; pursuing a broader approach to diversity encompassing backgrounds, skill sets, and personal attributes; and developing and implementing robust policies and strategic metrics (Lyles, 2011, pp. 16–19).

While some of these goals may appear overly broad, they provide a useful framework for moving the armed forces toward demographic parity in higher echelons of leadership. One valuable lesson drawn from collaboration with the private sector has been the growing recognition of the importance of mentoring. A case study by Randolph (2018) 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" (p. 37).