Originally Posted by
RichardJones
In a time of impeding conflict, does it not make sense to pick and train the best candidates for the job? REGARDLESS, of colour, sex, educational qualifications or class.
Yup.
Selection on the basis of merit is appropriate.
- Colour is not relevant to competency, competency is. The Japanese-American 442nd IR RCT was awarded >4000 Purple Hearts, >4000 Bronze stars, and 21 MoH. Out of 3523 MoH's 95 were awarded to black African Americans, one recipient being a double MoH recipient, one of only 19 of those.
- Gender made no difference with skill as snipers or even fighter pilots. (pretty sure there are days when I wouldn't want to be undertaking 1v1 with my better half).
- Religion? have a look at Normandy, the headstones are not all catholic.
- 3 conscientious objectors were awarded MoH's.
- 1 female was awarded a MoH. 1. WTH.
- 12 Nepalese were awarded VC's.
- 29 Indians were awarded VC's,
- 1 fijian, 1 Grenadan, 2 Maori's, .... VC's. 1 Ukranian...
sexism, racism has no place in selection of competency, to do so ensures that you are diminishing the opportunity to have the best of the best. Equal opportunity should not be a selection bias towards or against one group. There is an inherent background bias that exists that can affect selection, and a preparatory course pre-selection would level that playing field that occurs from socio-economic experiences.
The LT COL guy below did 143 combat missions in Round II, flew 100 more combat missions in Korea as a fighter pilot, and is photographed here in Viet-Nam, with his RF-4C white skinned back seater. He was the CO of the 16th Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron (TRS), of the 460th Tactical Reconnaissance Wing, out of TSN.
In spite of racism and segregation the Tuskegee African Americans contributed competency to the allied effort, and produced a number of well respected flag rank officers who served with distinction. There was no positive bias, and as always those of colour or the wrong gender are not reflected in the honours awarded, the system is biased towards it's own ends.
If the UK wishes to have the best staff, the current process is not going to achieve that any more than the prior system did.
Originally Posted by
RichardJones
Where's my tin hat?
here's your top cover.