Karen McFarlane: 0:32

Hey Brittany, hey Karen, how are you? I'm good. Hi Mina. You know, she says hi Love it Love it. Hi to all our listeners, Welcome back to the E-Word. Yes, and today we're going to talk about some. I'm going to say breaking news, right, Because this just came out about an hour ago. So you know, in all transparency, we haven't had a lot of time to digest it, so we're going to digest it right now with all of you. I love it.

Brittany S. Hale: 1:08

I'm learning alongside everyone listening, so that'll be fun, all right.

Karen McFarlane: 1:14

So this article from Politico just came out, title of which is Federal Judge Preserves Naval Academy's Race-Conscious Admissions, which intrigued me because obviously we've been hearing a lot about, you know, this pullback on admissions and other DEI efforts and we've talked a lot about that. So this is an interesting twist in the preservation of it. So I'm just going to read a part of the article just to get us all up to speed. Held the US Naval Academy's consideration of race and admissions, arguing that pursuing diversity in the military is a national security interest. That sounds like a big deal to me. The ruling is an early blow to Students for Fair Admissions' latest attempt to extend the scope of its Supreme Court win against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill that gutted the use of race in college admissions. The ruling also comes while the Naval Academy's admissions process is underway for its next class.

Karen McFarlane: 2:30

Judge Richard Bennett emphasized in his ruling of the academy is quote distinct from a civilian university end quote because its mission is to prepare its students to become officers in the military. He also said that while race is considered an admissions, the academy does not have racial quotas or engage in racial balancing and race is not a determinative factor in its process. And race is not a determinative factor in its process. And I'll just read this one, the last part. I mean there's more, but Bennett added that the academy proved its national security interest is measurable and its admissions program is narrowly tailored. He also said the court defers to the executive branch on military personnel decisions. So what are your initial thoughts in hearing that diversity is in our national security's interest?

Brittany S. Hale: 3:33

Yes, yes, I would say. Looking at the demographics of the United States, it would, in my view, make sense to have military officers and personnel from a variety of backgrounds, and you would want people from a variety of backgrounds to have a vested interest in the continuity of the safety of the country in which they reside.

Brittany S. Hale: 4:06

So, um, I don't. I don't understand the challenge, especially since it seems like the judge is saying that race is not necessarily a determinative factor and it doesn't seem that people of any background are being rejected from the Naval Academy solely on race. I should also note that I have quite a few members of my family who are in the military or have retired from the military. A cousin of mine is a proud retired Naval officer, so I admit my bias there, but I it's. It's a bizarre suit to me.

Karen McFarlane: 5:04

Well, you know, the suits were bizarre from the very beginning, right. But it ended up passing passing mustard on the Supreme court level, and I should note the article goes on to say that the SFFA, who is fighting for race to be a non-determinant factor, is still going to pursue it. Right, they're going to go to the Fourth US Circuit Court of Appeals and then, if they're unsuccessful there, they'll of course go to the US Supreme Court.

Brittany S. Hale: 5:36

To what aim? What is the goal?

Karen McFarlane: 5:39

The goal is to eliminate race from the equation, um, although the judge is basically, like you just said, saying it's not a huge part of the equation, um, so Right.

Karen McFarlane: 6:06

So they say, ok, great, we're not considering race and their admittance numbers continue to in the military. I don't know Right, but it kind of feels that way and I don't know what the point of that is. Right, like you just talked about diaspora, people in the United States who have equal ability, okay, and you know, I feel like anyone who, almost anyone who, wants to raise their hand to serve and put their life on the line for this country, irrespective of skin tone, which is just skin tone, okay, right, it's about how much melanin a person has, right, um, for the most part, I mean. I know there's other factors. Why would we want to say no To that? But I also don't understand some of the arguments that are being put forth for some of the cabinet candidates who are against women in the military. Right, women have proven themselves to be stellar, stellar, okay, in all capacities, right, and yet there is this odd conclusion that they don't belong there.

Brittany S. Hale: 7:43

Yeah, and I guess I would want to understand what is the conclusion. What is the goal of excluding people solely based on appearance, from, as you said, serving their country? And from my perspective, it would not make sense to exclude people from the opportunity to serve, from the opportunity to pursue opportunity, and wholly exclude them from the university space, higher education, the workforce, government. What are the alternatives and what do you expect people to do? And how do you expect people to have a vested interest in the continuity of this nation?

Karen McFarlane: 8:45

I don't know I this is confusing to us, right, because it makes no sense in our world, right? I mean, gender doesn't matter, you know, skin tone doesn't matter, appearance doesn't matter, even your sexual orientation doesn't matter, right? Again, I'm no expert in this area, but it's about the desire to serve your country, being able to follow certain procedures and rules and regulations, follow directions, right, it's about honor and valor. And if I'm playing devil's advocate, which I really don't even want to, right, I guess there's a different definition of honor in certain people's minds, right? And I don't, again, I don't understand that I can define it, but that's the only place that I see that they can kind of sink their teeth into is if we have a differing view of what service and honor means, because people can do the job irrespective of all those attributes. So it has to be something more internal, intrinsically internal to the psyche around the individual something more intrinsically internal to the psyche around the individual.

Brittany S. Hale: 10:22

Yeah, and that's. I guess that's the concern. So I just wanted to look up the demographics of the military and so I see a few different things. The first thing that came up, of course, was for the army, so of course I just want to make that distinction between the army and the Navy. 0.6% are white, non-Hispanic people you have about 20.3% are black non-Hispanic, 17.6% as Hispanic, 6.9% as Asian or Pacific Islander, 0.9% as American Indian or Alaskan native, Native and 0.8% as unknown or other. So if I look at the US Navy, In terms of the US Navy for active duty members, it looks like 68.8% identify as white.

Karen McFarlane: 11:49

And approximately one-third of active duty members self-identify with a racial minority group Got it, and I wonder what those numbers?

Brittany S. Hale: 11:54

look like for the Naval Academy. So with the Naval Institute they have. You know they produced a proceeding. It's called there's a diversity gap in the war room. And they said, as of 2022, 24.5% of the Navy's officer corps was comprised of racial minorities, with 9.6% being Hispanic or Latino, and that compares to about 39.5% and 19.1% of the sailors being of the same background.

Karen McFarlane: 12:35

Sounds like there's a gap.

Brittany S. Hale: 12:37

It sounds like there's a gap, and I mean this is on the US Naval Institute site. Trust is the foundation on which leadership is built, I agree, and a hallmark of effective units. A culture of trust is essential, not only within the wardroom, but also between officers and the sailors and Marines they lead. It's vital to the success of the Navy and Marine Corps mission. Disparities in demographic representation between the officer corps and enlisted personnel could hamper that trust. Social science research suggests that trust can be negatively affected by racial incongruencies, and they cite an article going back to 1981, that noted a history of unfair treatment because Black Americans were less likely to trust white Americans and institutions perceived as favoring the dominant culture. And they then jumped forward to a 2021 study that also found minority students continue to develop mistrust of white professors. And so the overarching goal, and something they actually said it would be foolish to assume that their fleet is immune to interracial mistrust. That affects other aspects of US society, I find it fascinating.

Karen McFarlane: 14:14

I mean, that's very self-explanatory and I'm going to add something to that too. So there's the internal aspect of it. But the military engages with lots of different cultures and societies, yes, yes, many of which, probably most of which, okay are of so-called minority populations, right, and so if, a they're not well-versed and trained in how to engage with these different societies and cultures, that's problematic. In how to engage with these different societies and cultures, that's problematic. B if they don't have people who are either from or descended from or I'll even go so far as to say, look like in some cases right People from these different cultures and societies, then I would think that it would erode their ability to fully complete their, whatever their mission is, or just to cultivate relationships or understand the dynamics between the US and other populations.

Karen McFarlane: 15:28

Right, that's that diversity of thought and experience that everyone touts, that they want, but sometimes that comes from, you know. You know, in integrating and engaging all sorts of different populations that are non-US but also non-white, right, and so you have that internal aspect and that external aspect and the cultural competencies that have to come from being part of the military and how that infuses in our society and other societies. So I think it's very complex and not focusing on diversity would be problematic and, I think, supports that assertion that it is in support of our national security interests Again, not being expert in that, but it just seems to make common sense Exactly.

Brittany S. Hale: 16:31

Because you hit the nail on the head, what is the racial minority makeup in the United States is the global majority around the world. It's incredibly important that this is something that's addressed and dealt with. I mean, even on the US Naval Institute article, they point out the US Naval Academy and they said you know, that's one of three primary paths to a commission, and it says that the racial and ethnic backgrounds of the roughly 1,000 freshly minted has a significant bearing on the demographic makeup of the officer corps and that diversity should be supported at every level, including application, encouraging people who are racial minorities to continue to achieve the academic success. Because, again, that undercurrent is that these people are somehow undeserving. Where that's not the case, these people are successful and they're also encouraged to apply for leadership roles that they historically have not been afforded.

Brittany S. Hale: 17:58

Because a rising tide lifts, all boats are occupying these spaces. The better it is for morale, the better it is to build trust internally and, to your point, you know, perhaps even externally. So again, again, I ask that question what are they hoping to achieve? What do they, what do they want out of this? You know, if I'm, if I'm, making an effort to assume positive intent, it's still unclear for me to understand what the end goal is.

Karen McFarlane: 18:51

And I think, whether we agree or disagree, right, that not everyone has like a sinister agenda, right, they truly believe in what they're doing is that when stripping away these things, it doesn't come with a solution that you know supports the original intent of why these programs were put into place. So that's my concern. It's like stripping them away without consequence, right? Oh well, we just have to figure out a different way. Now, you know, people are innovative, they're creative, right, they often need to be, and often a challenge needs to be put in front of them for them to solve it, solve for it, right, and change is uncomfortable. So you know I'm. Change is uncomfortable.

Karen McFarlane: 20:01

So you know I have confidence in the people that care about the original intent, right, and solving for some of the historical inequity, that they're going to find ways, either you know, silently or out loud, to continue to make the proper corrections. But I would love to hear about them, right, and I would even love if these groups that are fighting to you know, ensure, at the end of the day I mean, this is what they're talking about ensure that race is not a factor, right, it doesn't have to be considered a factor, that you know they come with solutions, but it doesn't seem to be the case. So that's my main concern, and so I guess that the answer to the question to what end? Is to make sure that race is not a factor, right? I'm going to try to answer that question with that type of answer, but it still leaves a lot of gaps, and that's the tricky and scary part at the same time.

Brittany S. Hale: 21:02

Right, Because then we're asking well, what next Race is no longer a factor, and then are we going to say gender should no longer be a factor and you know everything else, which, to your point? It would be nice, we agree. It would be lovely. We could receive people and perceive their talents and their capabilities, regardless of how they present, who they love, where they live, how they speak. All of that would be wonderful. However, history and present day shows us that that's not where we're at. Yeah, and so if we want to get there I understand and respect we have different ideas about where to get there, but it seems that a lot of these people are even reluctant to. It seems kind of counterintuitive because they're they're reluctant to discuss the differences made when it comes to race and gender and ability and gender expression and all of that. They're reluctant to acknowledge all of the systemic barriers put up.

Brittany S. Hale: 22:29

And at the same time, they don't want race or any of these things to be a factor to be considered. Yeah, so it seems counterintuitive yeah, I'm articulating that correctly, but hopefully no, you, you, absolutely they're.

Karen McFarlane: 22:47

It's willful, um, it seems very willful that they want to ignore the important hard aspects of you know what this all means Like if they were to do two things simultaneously like one, have a real think tank, right, that was really about solving these ideas, bringing that diversity of thought together, right, and examining how we can heal the country from its past atrocities because that's what they are atrocities, right, that still reverberate in society today, while simultaneously changing legislation. While simultaneously changing legislation. Maybe I can get behind that, right, but they're not doing that, or at least we don't see that, we don't hear about that. So that's what makes it, you know, quite frankly, scary and icky, you know. And when you hear these ideas about the, you know, from the new administration, it feels like going backwards and ignoring the things that are right in our face or changing the narrative around them.

Karen McFarlane: 24:12

So I just don't know, I'm not confident, but I am hopeful, I still remain hopeful and this ruling, you know, I think, is a big deal. I hope it doesn't go unnoticed, because the message that it sends is very powerful, because the message that it sends is very powerful, and I hope that corporations pick up on it. You know, at the end of the day it's about, from a corporate perspective, what's in the best interest of your organization, your customers, right, your employees, your shareholders. And if you take the lens that the naval academy has taken and obviously, this judge, how does your calculus change when you're considering ensuring that you have equitable practices within your organization and the dynamics that flow out of that? And and I guess the big part is too is measuring and proving that, which has always been a challenge right?

Karen McFarlane: 25:26

for organizations, and maybe that's Much less the government you know, yeah, and maybe that needs to be the focus in some new way, right, Like maybe the metrics that we were using weren't enough. I'm not going to say maybe the metrics we were using were not enough because they weren't convincing, right To make the solid case for a lot of these organizations that have pulled back on their practices. Maybe the companies that are doing it really well need to be more vocal and share how they're doing it and why it's working for them. A lot of maybes in that, but you know there are things that we could do and now we're just being pushed to do them. A lot of maybes in that, but you know there's there, there are things that we could do and now we're just being pushed to do them in a different way.

Brittany S. Hale: 26:23

It's working for your organization. Reach out.

Karen McFarlane: 26:26

We want to hear from you Exactly.

Karen McFarlane: 26:29

And I want to say, on a serious, non-serious front, right, I watch this show called Lioness, okay, and it's based on like a real story. So Lioness is about a special ops team I think they're in the Marines right that were stationed in Iran and Afghanistan, and they're women, mostly women, okay, and in the show the main character is Zoe Zaldana, so she's Afro Latina, right, and there are other Latino women in the show as well, as you know, great supporting characters. Of course, there's Nicole Kidman also, so she's always great to watch.

Brittany S. Hale: 27:16

But my point being is it is showing Nicole Kidman, isn't it?

Karen McFarlane: 27:20

Yes, yes, and oh, morgan Freeman is in it as well, okay, so he's always worth watching. But my point here is that it's based on a true story and it's showing the impact and the talent that women have in the military, particularly in very special, unique roles right Special forces, right Special ops, and the impact they have on our country and which often, you know especially, I guess, in these special groups right, they're not touted because it's part of national security, so we don't get to hear about all this stuff all the time because we can't Right, um, and so that also does a disservice to people understanding the impact that women and minorities can have. But, um, I encourage people to watch it, just just get a different perspective. It's not just all fantasy and it's actually really great television in terms of how it's written and how it's acted. You know there's some great talents in there, so plug.

Brittany S. Hale: 28:32

Pay us Prime Pay us.

Karen McFarlane: 28:36

And if you guys are watching out there, let me know your thoughts. I would love to hear them. We're on season two right now and I'm sure it's gonna come back for season three because it's so good, oh, wow yeah.

Brittany S. Hale: 28:48

so I think I think our lesson here is just let let people be patriots, let people serve.

Karen McFarlane: 28:56

I like that I like that you know who is determining what patriotism means and what it does not mean. Right, yes, who can raise their hand for that and who cannot? Right who?

Brittany S. Hale: 29:13

can serve. Let people be.

Karen McFarlane: 29:15

Let just let people be. That's all we're asking. I guess we'll see what's to come as the SFFA continues to fight, but this is a good one to watch, to see where it goes.

Brittany S. Hale: 29:30

Agreed, agreed.

Karen McFarlane: 29:33

All right. Well, I guess that's our lesson for this week.

Brittany S. Hale: 29:36

Thank you agreed, all right. Well, I guess that's our lesson for this week.

Karen McFarlane: 29:38

Thank you so until next time I'll see you then, britney, bye.