Dear editor:
Gail Symons’ recent column bemoaning the Secretary of War’s desire to focus the military less on diversity, equity, and inclusion and more on warrior ethos is full of inaccuracies.
I won’t address every aspect of her column in detail and instead will focus on two items, promotions and physical standards.
It is true that service members are valued for their professionalism, integrity, and competence and are routinely selected for jobs based on these attributes, as Gail provides herself as one of these examples.
However, what Gail is describing is a decision from an individual commander.
From that example, we cannot draw the conclusion that the services and their processes are racially and gender blind when it comes to such things as the promotion process and the selection of commanders. To do so shows complete ignorance of the service level processes.
Let me give you one example within the Army:
The Brigade and Battalion commander selection process uses criteria to screen qualified candidates to rank them within an order of merit list that is then indexed against the available commands.
Various factors do influence the process (for example, criteria guidance and emphasis), but it is intended to be what Gail referred to as non-biased to race and gender, and the initial order of merit list is indeed close to that.
However, we should note that this process is not blind to race and gender as Gail claims. An identifier code is used to alert the board members to packets of every minority and female candidate (to include those candidates competing for Command Sergeant Major as well as promotion to General Officer).
After compiling the initial order of merit list based on the desired knowledge, skills, and attributes of the candidates, Army senior leaders involved in the process then very closely examine that list to ensure it conforms to a desired demographic outcome.
If the initial order of merit list conforms to the desired outcome, no changes are made, and the process is generally fair, but certainly not blind.
However, if it doesn’t comply with the desired demographic outcome, then candidates initially selected for command based on their knowledge, skills, and attributes are removed and are replaced by individuals of a desired race or gender to meet the desired demographic outcome.
This process may be repeated several times until the desired outcome is achieved. This means that better qualified candidates are passed over in favor of candidates belonging to a specific gender or race.
Of note, this is not an open process and the candidates are not supposed to be aware of this shuffling. However, the process is common knowledge amongst those who have worked or have colleagues in the Army’s Human Resources Command and with many of those who have been through or involved in the selection and boarding processes.
To be clear, this information isn’t what I think occurs; rather, it comes directly from numerous officers that worked these processes within Army Human Resources command and human resource personnel in various component and theater commands.
Additionally, the assertion that “gender-based standards” did not lower the overall physical standards is false.
The Army attempted to implement a new physical training test based on gender and age neutral standards.
The physical testing with the Army changed from what was known as the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT; 2 mile run, 2 minutes of pushups, and 2 minutes of sit-ups) to the Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT; originally including the deadlift, standing power throw, hand release push-ups, sprint-drag-carry, leg tuck, and two mile run). Nearly nine years of testing revealed that females struggled to pass the test.
A Defense Centers for Public Health study revealed that from 2018-2020 men were passing the ACFT at a rate nearly three times that of women (76% of men passed compared to 27% of women).
The Army formally implemented the ACFT in 2022 and data collected from 2023 to 2024 revealed that 97% of men passed the test (a 20% increase) while 92% of women passed the test (a whopping 65% increase). Why such a dramatic increase for women?
After continued revisions to the test events and the standards in an effort to make the test more favorable to females (and that also made it nearly impossible for a male to fail), the Army ultimately decided to re-institute differing standards according to age and gender, with female standards being lower in every event except the plank (that standard was equal).
To give a sense of the disparity of these standards, a twenty-one-year-old male needed to do three deadlift repetitions of 340 lbs and run two miles in 13:22 to achieve a maximum score in those events. His female counterpart needed to lift 210lbs and complete the run in 15:29. This is exactly what the Secretary of War describes as equal outcomes based on unequal performance.
Why the change to standards and why were they not equal across the force? The bureaucrats cloaked the differing standards as “seeking to create a fairer, more inclusive standard that better reflects the demands of modern military service.”
However, in laymen’s terms fitness test results are one criterion used in determining promotions and the Army worried that females were being discriminated against within the promotion system because they could not perform on par with their male counterparts, and thus the Army reinstituted the “equal outcomes” concept (under Secretary of War Hegseth’s tenure, the Army has again modified the events and instituted gender neutral standards for soldiers serving in combat specialties).
I take exception with nearly every point Gail made within her column.
Her comment pertaining to beard waivers focuses only on a minority medical condition and fails to acknowledge the increase in service members claiming Norse Paganism as a religion (and the problems commanders are faced with in determining if the belief is sincere or if the service member simply desires a beard waiver to grow a beard).
However, suffice it to say that Gail’s column is based overwhelmingly on opinion and personal emotion, not fact.
So, Gail, please stop with the rhetoric. Despite your service in the Navy, it is apparent that you have very little knowledge of the service level processes the Secretary of War is intent on changing.
There is no question the military applied different standards to achieve equal outcomes between genders and that the military considered race and gender within such service level processes as promotions and command selection.
While these processes were well intended, they unfortunately create a backdrop of suspicion relating to measuring and comparing achievements. And this is not fair to anyone involved.
Sincerely,
Heath Harrower, Pinedale
Heath Harrower retired from the Army less than one year ago after nearly 29 years of service. As a Colonel, he was twice selected for Brigade level command. Within his last job as a deputy commander of a two-star organization, one of the items tasked to him within his portfolio included leading that command’s directed Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion program.
