PORTSMOUTH
Sixty years after President Truman integrated the military, the Navy’s top admiral said Thursday that more must be done to diversify the ranks – especially at the top.
“The lack of diversity in Navy leadership does not allow us to take advantage of varied perspectives, of varied experience. And as a result of that, we are a lesser service,” Adm. Gary Roughead said. “The time for talk is over. The only thing that matters now is action.”
Roughead, the chief of naval operations, spoke to hundreds of military officers attending the annual conference of the National Naval Officers Association. The association supports the development of a diverse officer corps in the Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard through recruiting, retention and career development.
While blacks make up about 17 percent of the total force, they are just 9 percent of all officers, according to data obtained and analyzed by The Associated Press.
The rarity of blacks in the top ranks is apparent in one startling statistic: Only one of the 38 four-star generals or admirals serving as of May is black. And just 10 black men have ever gained four-star rank – five in the Army, four in the Air Force and one in the Navy, according to the Pentagon.
As a result, younger black officers have few mentors of their own race.
The anniversary of Truman’s order this week has led Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other top officials to reflect on how far the armed forces have come with racial integration and what they have yet to achieve.
Best known among the four-stars is retired Gen. Colin Powell, who later became the country’s first black secretary of state, under President George W. Bush.
In a stirring salute in the Capitol rotunda on Wednesday, Powell said that as a youngster in 1948, it never occurred to him that he could rise to be chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
But when he joined the military 10 years later, “They no longer cared whether I was black or white, immigrant kid or not,” Powell told the crowd, which was dotted with the red blazers of Tuskegee Airmen – the first group of black fighter pilots allowed into the U.S. Army Air Corps that flew in World War II. “The only thing my commanders ever told me from 1958 for the rest of my career, is 'Can you perform?’ And that’s all we have ever asked for.”
Much progress has been made since 1948, Roughead said, when less than 1 percent of Navy officers were black. That figure is now about 8 percent, he said, but the Navy’s senior leaders need to better reflect the U.S. population, which is about 13 percent black and 15 percent Hispanic.
Roughead described various ways to bring more minority officers into senior leadership positions, none of which are quick solutions.
He stressed the importance of mentoring junior officers by steering them to posts that will help them ascend the ranks.
Another important facet: bringing in officers through the Naval Academy and university commissioning programs. Roughead talked about expanding preparatory school slots for potential Naval Academy students.
Roughead said 16 historically black colleges, including Hampton University and Norfolk State University, have naval reserve officer training programs, and the Navy is working to add programs at seven more.
“If you do not seek out students who are at historically black colleges to share with them opportunities that the U.S. Navy has, that is an opportunity missed,” Roughead said. “It’s an opportunity missed for the young men and women who attend that school; it’s an opportunity missed for all of us.”
Roughead wouldn’t wait until college to attract potential officers, however.
“We need to look younger,” the gray-haired admiral urged the audience, drawing a roar of laughs. Roughead chuckled, then rephrased the statement: “We really need to look at the younger demographic: middle schools.”
When students are applying to or visiting colleges, it might be too late to interest them in a military career, he warned.
The four-star admiral said he doesn’t envision recruiters canvassing middle schools. Rather, he wants ordinary sailors to tutor students, get involved in after-school or summer programs and talk about their experiences on submarines and ships.
“This is not a hard sell. This is not recruiting. This is simply sharing with young men and women what we do, what is possible and what the opportunities are,” Roughead said.
The chief of naval operations would not comment on another personnel issue in the news recently: the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that bars gay and lesbian people from serving openly in the military.
On Wednesday, a congressional committee heard testimony on that policy for the first time in 15 years.
Asked whether the policy affects recruiting, retention and readiness, Roughead replied: “We’ve seen the numbers vary for a variety of reasons.
“The position I have on 'Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’: It’s the law of the land. We abide by the law of the land.”
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Kate Wiltrout, (757) 446-2629, kate.wiltrout@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Mary
Do gays give to AIDS research? ABSOLUTELY! More money is raised and donated by drag queen shows then any other group of people. I have forgotten more than I remember about those figures, maybe my son would know. I'll see what I can find out. Take care, Mary
Thanks, you two
For your good wishes and prayers.
One thought: if we factor in the folks overseas dying of AIDS, then the cost of the research per person comes way down. I know it is unusual to think of it that way--our government pays for research to benefit *our* citizens--but the way that AIDS is affecting the future of the world, particularly Africa, I could see giving more to this. And, of course, our advances in breast cancer and prostate cancer research are shared with other countries, too, although we don't factor in lives saved overseas when we run the stats on AIDS, breast cancer, or prostate cancer. Cancer is pretty equally spread across the world, while something like 1 in 3 South Africans are HIV positive. And AIDS is contagious, and related to upticks in TB and hepatitis.
Also, there is private funding for each of those research areas. I *know* people are generous with breast cancer dollars. Gertz Point, do gays give lots of $$ to AIDS research? Cheers, MGM
good luck Mary
"AIDS research receives more than $2.5 billion in federal dollars. Breast cancer research will receive about $870 million next year. Compare that to $485 million for prostate cancer research. The United States invests approximately $16,700 to find a cure for each life lost to prostate cancer; more than $21,800 for each life lost to breast cancer, and about $160,000 for each life lost to AIDS. It's not that research for other diseases receives too much funding. Prostate cancer receives too little." - National Prostate Cancer Coalition. This goes to show how effective awareness campaigns and politicizing a disease can be. Breast and prostate cancer afflict about the same number but breast cancer receives more funding. Breast cancer took several of my relatives. Good luck, Mary - I hope you have a happier result.
Dear Mary
"I sure thank God for the research dollars, private and governmental, that have gone into breast cancer therapies since the 1970's, as I am currently battling *that* disease myself (chemo Thursday)."
Please stay positive. My sister did not fare as well back in the 80's with cancer and we are all grateful for any research in the numerious diseases we face every day. My Mother died of alzheimer's at the age of 94. HIV, gay issues (because of my son), heart disease, cancer and alzheimer's are all issues of great concern for me because they touch my life, like heart disease and cancer are concerns of CS.
Mary, we don't always agree, and we don't have to, but you will be in my thoughts and prayers. God Bless!
cs
"More people have HIV/AIDS than cancer." What propaganda have you been reading? According to the CDC, which I realize you seem to believe is malicious skewing data, doesn't list HIV / AIDS as being among the top diseases responsible for killing Americans."
Sorry, but when I wrote that I was taking into consideration other countries like Africa. I certainly didn't mean it to come across the way it did. Sorry! CS I understand your concern about your own health and heart disease. My husband died from it. I think this discussion has gotten a little off track. My points are that HIV is not a gay disease. It is preventable with safe sex. You can get it from ONE unprotected sex act. Our Government needs to pay attention to what is happening in the straight U.S. communities with Blacks, Latino's, and Hispanics (mostly women), and they DO NOT...we already know about the gay community. Peace!
Totals . . .
I don't know how many people have HIV vs. cancer vs. other things, but I sure thank God for the research dollars, private and governmental, that have gone into breast cancer therapies since the 1970's, as I am currently battling *that* disease myself (chemo Thursday). Cheers, MGM
huh?
"More people have HIV/AIDS than cancer." What propaganda have you been reading? According to the CDC, which I realize you seem to believe is malicious skewing data, doesn't list HIV / AIDS as being among the top diseases responsible for killing Americans. I admit I don't have the numbers of people who have HIV vice have cancer, but I am more concerned about cancer and heart disease because they collectively kill over a million Americans a year. And again, if you don't have unprotected sex or exchange IV drug needles, you can just about guarantee that you won't get HIV. I'd rather research monies go towards things that might kill me - and have killed members of my family - than toward something that is completely preventable. Then again, I tend to be more of a personal responsibility kind of person. I believe people should have the freedom do do pretty much as they please but they should also be held accountable when those choices go sour. Kinda like the current mortgage crisis. Now I have to pay for people who made irresponsible financial choices.
RE: not blaming gays
It's difficult to tell if more Homosexuals than straights are infected with HIV because reports come out aimed at gays. It seem to be the politically correct way to go. The gay community took the bull by the horn back in the 80's, they asked the hard question, and got little to no answers. It wasn't until straights started to be diagnosed did even the smallest attention was made public. When HIV started it wasn't called that and straights that had the disease were not reported even after they died with HIV. If we could get honest reporting, we might know the truth about this deadly (if untreated) disease. I personally think it's still the governments intention to only speak of gays when they mention HIV, to keep them down at a level they want them to be instead of equal to all. My thought only.
RE: frustrating
"Unfortunately it seems as if the people who are engaging in these risky behaviors are least likely to have health insurance, so we all end up paying for their poor choices."
I feel that is only partially correct. HIV?AIDS knows no economic boundry. Look at the money Johnson has and he got infected. It may be true that lower income, may be the higher percentage, but there again, I just don't want people to think they are safe. More people have HIV/AIDS than cancer. There are some womderful drugs on the market and just because you have AIDS does not mean you cannot live a long and health life. One of the women I met at the training seminar was straight, Black, AIDS positive, and a 2 year old child, HIV negative. She is also happily married after being infected with HIV 12 years ago. I met a 7 year old boy at an HIV benefit who jumped on our table and declaired "I'm HIV Positive", it broke my heart. Not his!
not blaming gays
Please let me be clear. I am not blaming HIV / AIDS on gays. It's a "gay disease" in terms of numbers in the US, just like sickle cell anemia is a "black disease." I believe the gay community has been very effective in politicizing the disease to gain funding. HIV research gets a lot more money than diseases that kill a lot more people (I'm talking US, of course). The world at large benefits from the research, and I believe that better understanding retro viral diseases will have great benefit in the future for more than just HIV. Diseases want to survive just as much as we do, and our inability to cure HIV suggests that other similar diseases will show up some day. Better to have a head start.
frustrating indeed
What frustrates me the most about HIV / AIDS is that finding a cure and treatment for it diverts a lot of money away from other diseases, like cancer, for which we have no cure and still have more questions than answers about causality. Not having unprotected sex and not sharing IV drug needles seems little to ask. Don't get me wrong - I'm far from perfect and have made plenty of bad choices over the course of my life. I'm just saying that whether you are gay, straight, black, white, whatever, you can basically prevent yourself from getting HIV (and syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, pregnant, etc). Unfortunately it seems as if the people who are engaging in these risky behaviors are least likely to have health insurance, so we all end up paying for their poor choices.
Of course if people ate healthier, abstained from smoking and didn't drink alcohol, we'd have less obesity, heart disease, diabetes,
You can read the myths
Do a google search on hiv/aids myths and you will learn a lot. These articles are not put out by the gay society, but my people like Magic Johnson.
There was even a time when a report came out that Johnson had been cured of AIDS. There is no cure for AIDS and HIV does not have to turn into AIDS. It all depends on the viral load. Magic's wife heard the rumor and went with it. She was hoping to put it all behind her, and keep the public quiet about her husband. This is what happens when ignorance is in play. And there is so much ignorance about HIV/AIDS that it makes it difficult for the average person to understand that there has been 28 years of blaming gays, and all the other lies that come with this disease. That's the scary part, because so many straight people feel they are safe, (especially kids) when nothing could be further from the truth. I hope your son knows the truth.
Gertz Point
Just a couple of days ago, and I can't find it in the archives, the Pilot ran a story about HIV among illegal Hispanic immigrants. They mentioned three cases, a gay Mexican male, a lesbian from Mexico who had a gay man try to impregnate her, and a woman from Mexico whose American boyfriend/husband dealt illegal drugs. All three are HIV positive now.
The implication in the article would be that two-thirds of the cases involve gay males. If you can find that article, Gertz Point, you might want to take on the writer for presenting it that way. However, it may have been that he or she could only find a few illegal immigrants willing to talk. It may not have been a conscious attempt to paint HIV as mostly a gay disease.
My teen son says "I will not have unprotected sex till marriage. I will never take illegal drugs" and I believe him, because we have talked about AIDS and STD's openly in our home. Cheers, MGM
c.s.
"If you get HIV in the US, you have no one to blame but yourself. The disease is 100% related to behavior and is completely preventable."
If I was blunt, I'm sorry, but I get so frustrated with the myth's and falshoods regarding this disease and the fact that so many people think it's all because of gay's. Your above comment is accurate. I mighty add that "behavior" is unprotected sex. If the CDC did not mention the increase in the hetero community of Blacks, Latino's and Hispanics they have done a terrible dis-service to everyone because they are the people most vulnerable at this time and their numbers are rapidly growing. There may be an increase in the younger age gays, I've not read that myself. If I ccould see you Mary and even John I could give you a ton of infomration I brought back from Calif., but we know that's impossible.
slow your roll
I wasn't making a judgment about gay people, so chill out. The fact is, as Mary kindly pointed out in about as polite a way as possible in a family newspaper, the pathology of HIV is such that transmission is more efficient in some ways than others. Anal sex, which is an activity more commonly (but certainly not exclusively) associated with gay men, is far riskier than other sexual activity with regards to HIV transmission. In the United States, gay men account for a plurality, if not a majority, of cases. This is not the case in, say, Africa. I would also posit that the reason we are so concerned about HIV in Africa is because the disease is completely out of control there and the situation is such that the people don't know any better (education levels, access to media, etc) - the South African president publicly denied the link between HIV and AIDS until recently, for example. If you get HIV in the
I do agree
I do agree with the young age increase, but my sole arguement is to make people aware that HIV is not a gay disease. It has affected every walk of life, and knows no discrimination.
One other idea, Gertz Point!
There is a possible explanation for having higher rates of HIV among gay males that is more due to anatomy than sexual orientation. Have you seen that any tears in a membrane can transfer HIV through to the bloodstream (even during unprotected sex, if the parts of the body being, um, exercised are not torn, the person has a pretty good chance of not getting HIV)? Well, the rates of tearing for vaginal vs. anal intercourse would account for a higher number of cases of HIV involving the latter. You would also find that in heterosexual couples who prefer anal intercourse. It is just easier to get exposed that way, regardless of sexual orientation. Cheers, MGM
c.s.
I haven't seen the lastes CDC report, but what did it say about African Americans and the Latino Hetero population in the U.S.? Remember too the CDC is put out by the Federal Governement who has been totally wrong about this disease since day one. I'm not trying to minimize the seriousness of this disease, but it is not a gay disease, and never was. There is more false info. out there then truth.
The only difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals is their sexual preference. There is no other difference. HIV like many diseases is due to unprotected sex and nothing else other than sharing drug needles from infected people.
HIV Rate Up 12 Percent Among Young Gay Men
"The number of young homosexual men being newly diagnosed with HIV infection is rising by 12 percent a year, with the steepest upward trend in young black men, according to a new report.
The double-digit increase in young gay men is about 10 times higher than in the homosexual community overall, where the number of new infections is going up about 1.5 percent a year.
The report, released yesterday by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, appears to confirm impressions that a "second-wave" AIDS epidemic is underway in gay America."
Washington Post, June 27, 2008.
To deny the facts does the afflicted no good and diverts resources away from where they are needed.
Mary, I'm not offended
"Another question for you is whether gay couples who have long-term partners go to the gay clubs just to be with other gay people."
The majority of gay couples or singles don't even go to clubs.
"I had read that some of the people who had partners (mainly guys) would go out looking for hookups one night a week (by mutual agreement with their partner)"
Mary, I'm sure that does happen, but it's a myth to think it's the majority of gay couples. Hetero's do the same thing.
"'Cuz the world is a hard enough place without us swallowing untrue things from people who have an agenda to push."
Mary, there are so many myth's, and you can read more falshoods then reality generated by homophobes, and some Christina Rights folks. The only agenda in the gay community is to live without fear of losing their home or job. They want and deserve the same rights as anyone. Sorry, I didn't have enough space to eleborate.