DA photos are racist. For those not in the know, DA photos are pictures of a soldier that go on his record brief to be looked at for promotions and other activities. For instance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1SG_Carl_E._Howard_DA_Photo.jpg
You don't believe me? Here are reasons that I have run across that might justify getting a DA photo:
1. Shows professionalism for the promotions board
2. Serves as photo for a funeral ceremony if a soldier gets killed
Reason 2 is a last-ditch, urban legend reason. I haven't heard any actual soldiers or anyone else cite it, so while it may be true, it is of secondary importance. Which takes us to the main question: Is reason 1 really necessary? Do these board members sit around and really look at ribbons and compare awards to the records? Do they inspect haircuts for the photo in order to judge professionalism, over the contents of the ORB and the officer's OERs?
Here's the regulation:
http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/R640_30.pdf
It states:
"The photograph is an important representation of the Soldier. It is of particular interest during DA selection boards and career management activities."
Really? Why is that?
That statement is disingenuous. It means exactly what it says, but it's phrased to make people think that it's about evaluating a soldier's professionalism and qualifications. I think it's to ensure that the boards meet goals for ethnic and/or gender representation. There is no reason that a board needs a photo to represent a soldier other than to visually verify the soldier's race, his/her gender, and general physical attractiveness (which matters even for guys-- attractive people generally make better first impressions than do ugly ones). It's a great PR tool.
Let's see: Do photos like these affect promotion decisions for the wrong reasons?
http://www.bragg.army.mil/DA_Photo/thephoto.htm
Is there anything in these photos that cannot be represented on an Officer Record Brief, which lists all assignments, awards, schools, height, weight, security clearance, educational background, branch, home of record, and other qualifications? Or an OER, which is based on superiors' feedback of a soldier's job performance?
So what, you say, let's let kids be kids and play ball.
NO. Not only does this become a horrendous waste of soldier and Army time, effort, and money (see the policy above), but it's a PC tool to ensure that the Army looks good, instead of ensuring that the Army can do its job. It's another example, a bright idea, to ensure that someone can carefully pick a mix of promotees to match the Army concept of equal opportunity and gender/race equality. Enough of that crap. It's affirmative action, and it's divisive and counterproductive. It introduces doubt about the qualifications of minorities and women who have been promoted, regardless about whether those individuals are qualified or not. Or, if you want to go the other way with the argument, it gives the opportunity for board officers to discriminate against minorities and/or women. It is not fair to anyone regardless of how you care to spin it.
The Army, and in particular its soldiers--our nation's sons and daughters--deserves people who are qualified to do their jobs, not people selected to fill a slot.
Only by positing a neutral board do we see any benefit (excluding the soldier's time spent preparing for and getting the photo, the unit's time without the soldier, and the expense of maintaining DA photo studios at every base), but please refer to my proposal below for saving time...
Let's do it this way: Get rid of the photo and eliminate visibility of the person's name during the board selection process. Evaluate on qualifications, experience, and performance. If the board can take the time to read OERs, the ORB, and look at the photo now, let's save them some time and get rid of the photo. Any takers?
I cannot find any history of the DA photo policy; if I've missed something big, I welcome feedback and additional information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1SG_Carl_E._Howard_DA_Photo.jpg
You don't believe me? Here are reasons that I have run across that might justify getting a DA photo:
1. Shows professionalism for the promotions board
2. Serves as photo for a funeral ceremony if a soldier gets killed
Reason 2 is a last-ditch, urban legend reason. I haven't heard any actual soldiers or anyone else cite it, so while it may be true, it is of secondary importance. Which takes us to the main question: Is reason 1 really necessary? Do these board members sit around and really look at ribbons and compare awards to the records? Do they inspect haircuts for the photo in order to judge professionalism, over the contents of the ORB and the officer's OERs?
Here's the regulation:
http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/R640_30.pdf
It states:
"The photograph is an important representation of the Soldier. It is of particular interest during DA selection boards and career management activities."
Really? Why is that?
That statement is disingenuous. It means exactly what it says, but it's phrased to make people think that it's about evaluating a soldier's professionalism and qualifications. I think it's to ensure that the boards meet goals for ethnic and/or gender representation. There is no reason that a board needs a photo to represent a soldier other than to visually verify the soldier's race, his/her gender, and general physical attractiveness (which matters even for guys-- attractive people generally make better first impressions than do ugly ones). It's a great PR tool.
Let's see: Do photos like these affect promotion decisions for the wrong reasons?
http://www.bragg.army.mil/DA_Photo/thephoto.htm
Is there anything in these photos that cannot be represented on an Officer Record Brief, which lists all assignments, awards, schools, height, weight, security clearance, educational background, branch, home of record, and other qualifications? Or an OER, which is based on superiors' feedback of a soldier's job performance?
So what, you say, let's let kids be kids and play ball.
NO. Not only does this become a horrendous waste of soldier and Army time, effort, and money (see the policy above), but it's a PC tool to ensure that the Army looks good, instead of ensuring that the Army can do its job. It's another example, a bright idea, to ensure that someone can carefully pick a mix of promotees to match the Army concept of equal opportunity and gender/race equality. Enough of that crap. It's affirmative action, and it's divisive and counterproductive. It introduces doubt about the qualifications of minorities and women who have been promoted, regardless about whether those individuals are qualified or not. Or, if you want to go the other way with the argument, it gives the opportunity for board officers to discriminate against minorities and/or women. It is not fair to anyone regardless of how you care to spin it.
The Army, and in particular its soldiers--our nation's sons and daughters--deserves people who are qualified to do their jobs, not people selected to fill a slot.
Only by positing a neutral board do we see any benefit (excluding the soldier's time spent preparing for and getting the photo, the unit's time without the soldier, and the expense of maintaining DA photo studios at every base), but please refer to my proposal below for saving time...
Let's do it this way: Get rid of the photo and eliminate visibility of the person's name during the board selection process. Evaluate on qualifications, experience, and performance. If the board can take the time to read OERs, the ORB, and look at the photo now, let's save them some time and get rid of the photo. Any takers?
I cannot find any history of the DA photo policy; if I've missed something big, I welcome feedback and additional information.
No comments:
Post a Comment