This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
Two months before the Guadalcanal landing, the Marine Corps lost its battle to keep blacks out of its ranks. The first 900 enlisted had their records stamped with the word “Colored” and were isolated, along with their white officers, at a backwater called Montford Point.
Things are better today for the blacks—and Hispanics, women, and other minorities—but not as good as they might be.
c°mb
ined
create the rDh ^ ^ecac^cs °f organizational experience, °ther larpe ^ 1 atmosphere for change. In effect, DoD and ar*d implem°rgan'Zat'ons now have the means to develop b°th accent-hT 30 aPPr<>ach to equal opportunity that is 'ng disappg3 . C an<^ effective. We must not let this open- managemen/’ WC must exercise leadership through a new l*ve action [)crsPecl've of equal opportunity and affirma- n°t onlv n meffective equal opportunity program is c°nfusion rf6^’ '• Eludes the leadership and
DUnng the 1960s, the armed forces had to come to t^nps with racial dissension and unrest. As a solu- ^signed^11 '?• Pro^*em> equal opportunity programs udice we ° e 'm'nate more obvious symptoms of prej- tion His rC esfa^^shed by all services. Overt discrimina- and ethn-^3^118 rac'a' ePi[hets, and the telling of racial 1970s thC ^°^es were no longer acceptable. During the Personnel ^.t0^rarns became entrenched in the structure of ment of <> 3 min*stration, emphasis being on the establish- an organ'°3 S’ stat'st'cal analysis, and the development of the Naw^th'011t0 suPPort ^em. Within the Department of the estahl'u Phase ou'minated during the fall of 1978 in Secretarv % T601 op ^ Office of the Deputy Assistant zation lCs °tK C Navy Por E0ual Opportunity. A reorgani- reassigned t'lrce years later eliminated that office and eliminati( f ^'Pets within the Secretariat. To some, the the cornin'1 °f °l*'ce reflected the progress made and others it g ° a^e e9ual opportunity programs. To
°PPortunirWaS 30 'n<^tcation that the commitment to equal Program i?” ,Was not rea* and that the objectives of the T§rarn had decreased in importance.
crs—_an[j' a Sowing belief among many minority lead- opportunit0' ^ concerned with such issues—that equal the [)eD y Programs are being quietly de-emphasized in 8°vernme ?1Cnt °* ^e^ense (DoD), as well as in other firntative n U^enc'es- These same observers hold that af- n°w rnere]aCtl°nS never really designed to work—are lack of real c a paper exercise. They point to continuing nontic c commitment, growing conservatism, and eco- e<lUality of ,'tl0ns as factors supporting the retreat from Va'idity of J"eatment and opportunity. Regardless of the equal 0Dn t 1S.belief’ 's ev'dent that there is a lull in the Inn neg^ un,ty activities. Whatever the reasons for it, ment to en •n0t an enc*to or a retreat from the commit- tunity to ancl lairness. Indeed, it provides an oppor- l°Ward the S .IUCtUrc Personnel management and direct it eral person"1 <j^rat'on °f equal opportunity with more gen- cnmi_. ne goals. Current limited social pressures, '"‘“usion p lT"’ “ uuuuc:i me teauersmp anu creates resourCes Urmer, it precludes optimum use of human costly; an(.| a s,tuation that is inherently demoralizing, motion’s object"16"13' l° accomPhshment of an orga-
Portunity if 301 s history reflects the view that equal op- tjenera]|y tu*0t a Part °f normal personnel management. active ’pjjg .e. approach to it has been reactive, not pro- nate Prejudi'""*^ resPonse t0 racial unrest was to elimi- ,raining -j-LCe tarou8b human relations and awareness criminate Was no significant effort to identify and act fhat theS,ltUt'0"al barriers to equal opportunity. The Slvely to bja ^rm minority” was applied almost exclu- c Americans helped foster the impression
°te*dinos / .
that moves toward equal opportunity were strictly political reactions to black Americans’ demands for social justice. Not until the mid-1970s was a real effort made to identify the concerns of other ethnic minorities and to address the effects of institutional discrimination through affirmative action. It was during the same period, for example, that issues related to women in the military began to be included as part of the overall effort to provide equal opportunity.
Only recently has the concept taken that affirmative action is not the exclusive responsibility of equal opportunity specialists, but that those who _ ve the authority and resources to develop and implement policies and practices concerning personnel are also responsible. Some of the early actions taken by commanders in response to directives on the subject indicated a poor understanding of the objectives of affirmative action and equal opportunity programs. Increasing the size of a working party to ensure an “appropriate” black-white ratio, prohibiting Hispanics from speaking Spanish socially for the sake of achieving cultural uniformity through a common language, establishing minority recruiting goals without first analyzing minority markets, and requiring recruiters to meet minority goals without providing them with the necessary training, support, and incentives are some examples of mistaken actions. These kinds of actions, regardless of now well intended, produce negative results and tend to reinforce the idea that the equal opportunity program is separate from military personnel management and is designed to provide preferential treatment to minorities. This view is usually coupled with preconceived notions about the groups targeted for affirmative action. The tendency is then to emphasize negatively what are regarded as the limitations and differences of these groups, be they social, economic, cultural, or, in the case of women, physical. At the same time, there is a failure to consider their past performances and potential contributions.
Notwithstanding the real or imagined limitations of current programs, the military services believe in and are committed to the principles of equity—that is, fair treatment for all persons regardless of their race, creed, color, gender, or national origin. The Marine Corps’ commitment is particularly enhanced by its emphasis on leadership and its inherent responsibility to ensure fair treatment for every individual. Equity as an institutional premise and emphasis on leadership are essential to the ultimate resolution of problems stemming from personal bias. However, enlightened leadership and a policy of equality should be supplemented, but certainly not replaced, by effective management at all levels of command. Unfortunately, equal opportunity programs are generally regarded as a departure from the traditional principles of leadership and good management, and, inasmuch as they focus on people by race, sex, and ethnic groups, they often arouse distrust and sometimes resentment. The lingering effects of institutional or systematic discrimination, a legacy of past personnel management policies and procedures, are often ignored. This is so primarily because there is a tendency to eradicate individual discrimination solely by personal example and forceful leadership. Failure to under-
United States is most often described as a hoinog1
enous
society, a “melting pot”-
together and blend into a cultural amalgamation their individual characteristics, and become parrot ^
for
stand the objectives of the institutional equal opportunity program and its strategies can also be attributed to the program’s initially fragmented and reactive implementation, lack of adequate information about it, fear of increased workload, and assumptions based on the experiences of other organizations. The program is widely regarded as unnecessary, burdensome, detrimental to unit cohesion, and implicitly critical of leadership ability.
We should not look at equal opportunity programs as external impositions, social experiments, or “preferential
treatment” for selected groups. They must be seen aS integral part of sound personnel management, as a ta of ensuring full use of all human resources, and as a of enhancing command effectiveness.
To acquire this managerial perspective, it is usetu ^ to examine the concept of human heterogeneity. Hete neity, the quality or state of being composed of dissl ingredients or constituents, is not a term usually apP,ie our nation’s population or to its institutions. Rathef- a nation wherein people cot® 'on, sn of a unl’
form populace with its own flavor and texture. To a degree, this was the case with the early European • ,
grants. Overlapping waves of people of different nan
changed cult^et|ln® ^or J°^s’ housing, and education and laneuap Ura va*ues and replaced Old World traditions 'arly color rf' ecausf °f their physical features, particu- stream Amp .UroPean immigrants were viewed by main- anH cricans as fni-pioncrc fv„„. *ua “stock”
-weu py | - -------- uta iu men uuinciaiiu were
nave either ch VCr^’ not hy choice. These and other groups lheir own p,ii?SCn’ °r been forced, to maintain or develop Although the (|UrC whh>n the tapestry of U. S. society. ^r°up, most olTC acculturation varies from group to considered diff * CSC PeoPle are sufficiently distinct to be lca- In most c- Crent ^rom the people of mainstream Amer- are hicultUrai mu’ lhese groups, again to varying degrees, Reeled to surv' valne being Americans and adapt as ner'lage and i !Vf ’-^Ut they also value and maintain their havp^ ,Itlons- In short, instead of a “melting-
Pot
’ retain a more original texture and
gr0UD .re mlatiyely well accepted. Eventually, each descendants lnferTaiT*e^ and otherwise merged with the 'n8 to their a° ° . r Europeans. Another factor contribut- dte United „ s^lmilation was that they expected to stay in Some ethn'1 £S Perrnancntly, or at least for many years. Pean roots h-C ^rouPs’ particularly those with non-Euro- P°t,” nor jlaaVeJ10^ wihingly jumped into the “melting- S°me, the PiVC ^een considered desirable additions, ^t rnigrants Crt° ^'Cans’ l°r example, are not immigrants and 'niprove 5Xerc's'ng a right to expand their horizons Place of resid °lr econornic condition by changing their as native An61100 Ihe United States. Others, such
n°l come frr)enCans and niost Mexican-Americans, did Was a United an0t^er country- Here long before there which they w- .if*68’ have a strong and proud culture characterj2eri *S • l° Preserve- Black Americans cannot be ”°rld involu T lairn'8rants because they came to the VT jeered by Slav y> ^ thdr tieS t0 their homeland
at c°ntributpatSteW comPosecl °f a variety of ingredients caltural feast o 0 the richness and flavor of America’s
° palatp,'!me Ihe ingredients have become subtle c while others i
In the early 1970s, then-CNO Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt, Jr., recognized that equal opportunity in the service among minorities was important enough to warrant meeting with the enlisted Hispanic opposite him and other members of the Human Relations Council in a Yokosuka eatery.
flavor. Still others are side dishes that accentuate the stew.
Whether or not social diversity is desirable is not the issue here. The fact is that human heterogeneity is a social reality and must be carefully considered in managing any organization with large numbers of people. Approximately one-third of the national population and of the armed forces is comprised of members of today’s so- called minority groups. Consequently, leaders and managers must take cultural pluralism into account when they make decisions. Failure to do so can result in human conflict, reduced effectiveness or productivity, and underuse of human resources.
It is not likely that the “problem” of having a multicultural society will be resolved by gradual assimilation or by the acculturization of minorities. On the contrary, the trend is toward more diversity as the primary source of new immigrants changes from Europe to Latin America and Asia, and as minorities increasingly insist on retaining their identities. Alvin Toffler, author of Future Shock, describes it best in his book The Third Wave. Explaining increasing social diversity as part of the “demassifica- tion” of society, he writes:
“As our jobs become less interchangeable, they [employees] arrive at the work place with an acute consciousness of their ethnic, religious, professional, sexual, subcultural and individual differences. Groups that throughout the Second Wave era fought to be ‘integrated’ or ‘assimilated’ into mass society now refuse to melt their differences.”
Toffler’s warning to management is also worthy of citing:
“Executives who continue to think in terms of mass society are shocked and confused by a world they no longer recognize.”
We should recognize that America’s culture has developed from the best each group has to pffer. The builders of the United States were the hardiest, willing to struggle and face uncertainty in order to gain freedom and greater opportunity for their children. The people of minority cultures have also contributed much to the United States, particularly in terms of national defense. The following examples of these contributions help in understanding the relationship between equal opportunity and more general goals.
During the War for Independence, Don Bernardo de Galvez, Governor of the Louisiana Territory, wrested control of the Mississippi River from the British and protected the western flank of George Washington’s colonial forces. His army, at times as large as Washington’s, was com-
the
Civil War; eventually, more than 180,000 blacks ser- ^ “colored” troop units, and 23 were awarded Me
been in direct proportion to the level of national in ment in wartime and the resulting requirement manpower. Although we no longer have policies1
;thatl^
“ — _ - . gf0liP’
the military participation of any racial or ethnic B
most immigration are now the Spanish-speaking c°yj^.0' south of the United States and the Asian countries ° ^
china. Not only are minorities growing rapidly
time
pose a threat that suggests the need for certain capabilities associated with heterogeneous armed^ fi'
This« U®
posed of blacks, Hispanics, Creoles, Indians, and Europeans. Although the city of Galveston was named after de Galvez, the contribution of this Hispanic and his multicultural army to America’s independence has been for the most part forgotten.
Mexican-Americans have served in the U. S. armed forces in great numbers and with distinction in all of America’s wars. Units composed primarily of Mexican- Americans fought in the first major battle of the Civil War at Valverde and in the Philippines at the outbreak of World War II. Many of Arizona’s and New Mexico’s Rough Riders were Mexican-Americans. In Vietnam, Mexican- Americans sustained the highest per capita losses of any group—bloody evidence of their over-representation in combat units.
Puerto Ricans became citizens by an act of Congress just in time to become eligible for service in World War I, and thousands fought alongside their fellow Americans in the trenches of Europe. Puerto Rican units again served in Europe during World War II and later in Korea and Vietnam. More than 200,000 Puerto Ricans served in these four wars and more than a thousand died.
The military contribution of black Americans has not been adequately recognized. They have been significant to our national defense, serving in every military conflict in which the United States has been involved. Black militiamen fought with independent colonial units during the French and Indian Wars. Black “minutemen” fought at Lexington and Concord. At first, they were prohibited from enlisting in the Continental Army, but the manpower shortage forced a change in policy (a recurring experience for minorities throughout our history), and many blacks joined Washington’s Army. In fact, all-black units were formed and fought in the War for Independence. During the Battle of Rhode Island in 1778, an all-black unit held the line against British assaults long enough to allow the bulk of the American Army to escape a trap. The military contributions of blacks during the Revolutionary ^ar. ^ War of 1812, and the Seminole Wars overcame objeC to the admission of blacks into the military durin§ .
000 blacks serif I
_ awarded M&d
Honor. Yet, history notwithstanding, black Anier'C‘ct, had to press for a role in World War I. It was not ^ different during World War II. Units were segregate * number of black officers was limited, black troops used primarily as laborers, and distinguished servi • black soldiers, sailors, and marines was limited. j The black experience in seeking a significant an role in the nation’s defense is shared by other m>n ^ groups. The entry of minorities into the armed *°^v0jve- there is ample evidence that minorities are still unC*eI^aCjeS sented and underused in certain occupations and gr -ty With history as a guide, it is safe to predict that m representation in the armed forces will again increa , idly. This will occur in the event of mobilization, a ecgtt- power needs outpace supply, or when an improving , omy dims the current attractiveness of military enhs ^ Military manpower planners must consider the etie ^ war has had on minority representation in the increasing representation of minorities in today s j0l). ing recruiting market, and their potential eonti1 =jUfes They should also consider current policies and pr°cj^ ^ that limit minority participation. For example, m three wars, Spanish-speaking marines, under the g ^()0t of Spanish-speaking drill instructors, were trained camp and were then assigned to all types of Marine units; whereas today, marginal fluency in Engl>s good enough to allow many otherwise highly pua jjCy Spanish-speaking Americans to be accepted. Tlns V ^ should be replaced by one that would establish a p ^ (C. to teach English as a second language and alio)'' u|d cruitment of specially qualified personnel. This expand the recruiting market and ensure the aval a, v ^ili' a training system that can be expanded as required ; tary mobilization.
When examining peacetime recruitment, it is in® . to point to some demographic realities. In a T, manpower market, the minority population 1 ^t-
younger and is increasing. Furthermore, immigratl^eS of terns have changed. Instead of Europe, the s°aiintries
bers, but they are increasing their representation skilled workers and college students. ^ ^
This is significant not only in relation to peace cruiting goals, but also to manpower needs during1 conflict. Soviet strategies involving Third World
Among them is the capability to expand rapidly quires the accelerated accession and absorption 0
We are Women not now being aggressively recruited. If ments l° a^*e t0 recruit effectively in all seg-
ancl posjt- e market, we must establish now a permanent ket. We mVe ^.resence 'n aU sectors of the recruiting mar- with min USt earn to communicate and interact positively ment f0 °nt-v communities. Another contingency require- ity to intpmV0 vement 'n Third World conflicts is the abil- °f differe rfC* furtively and effectively with allied forces units prov’HCU tUfeS' Presence °f minorities in U. S. enhances th ^ CU'tura' Perspective and, in some cases, this is wr'tf6 In^u*st’c capabilities of our forces. Even as the national6n’ m’*’taiT advisors are in El Salvador, and nist adVan mec*’a debate the increasing threat of commu- als° someCCS *n ^°Ut^ anc^ Central America. There are rePresentat'lntema* or§amzat'°nal demands. As minority Correspond'°n en*'sted ranks increases, there is a
are needed nCeC* ^or rn'nor*ty officers. More officers Provide rol001 mere^ t0 ensure fair representation, but to enhance th6 moc^s *or minority enlisted personnel and to tions within ant*erstanding of culturally different population and m' C eaclership. Role models improve motiva- bility and 1ITOj^an organization that recognizes the capa- c°ntribute am n i a** groups to participate and to mately 30% af eveJs and in all areas. Currently, approxi- as compared° .‘7* ar'nc enlisted personnel are minorities, With this Wl^ aPProximately 6% in the officer ranks. 3 need to e nCC^ ^°r 'ncreased representation, there is also serving jn annSUre acquisition of personnel capable of r°nment Th ’ncreasingly complicated technological envi- tunities for '"dividuals who equate increased oppor- See the forest ’fnoiat*es w*th a reduction of standards fail to c.a*ly have e °r trees- The fact that minorities histori- hfe experien *ower quality education and different !0rs in deter CCS S”°U^ not considered as the only fac- 'n the paSt nilain8 their potential. Excellent performance Possible ", *n t0^ay’s armed forces speaks of their Ceived or de/' Uj°n 'n ^ure. We should not be devaluation antTi ^ institutional barriers that affect the Vlturally bia , eve'°Pment of minorities; barriers such as ^a* do not v-T test*n§’ election, and evaluation criteria type reflectjvaUefcu*turai diversity are based on a proto- Ment for nUe C, °. t*le majority population. The require- a°w an apnar CV° ^n§hsh language is an example of Minorities an^Vr reas°nable policy serves as a barrier to r'ne Corps ac ^ GCts Not too long ago, the Ma
ll hmited numh^tC^ non"high school graduates, although aied applicant Cr^’ w*1i*e rejecting otherwise highly qual- Sultt We accent m° Were not fluent in English. As a rereading while & some individuals who required remedial Vposure t0 „ We turned down college students who, with ltay tlevelope(ier^<^a^.usa8e °f English, would have rap- the othe h*110 ^’^h-quality bilingual marines. at'ti°n taken bv We ^ave a g°°d example of how an .tie providjn ^ersonnel management enhances readiness "|e Corps re ^ et^ua* opportunity to minorities. The Ma-
sct°01 graduatesCC^ulhe .test'score requirement for high h°ols. when it selected personnel for formal
bH c°incident^SU ^ere ’s ^ess overaH school attrition Clng selected r ^realer percentage of minorities are °r ormal schools. This increase, in turn,
helps in the attainment of affirmative actions calling for increased representation of minorities in technical occupations. In short, this was a management action that turned out to be an affirmative action.
Expansion of the selection base, whether in recruiting, training, or assignment of personnel, allows us to be more selective and to maximize quality. By broadening the concept of quality and allowing exceptional capabilities to offset corrigible limitations (for example, college-level academic achievement versus fluency in English), we can also maintain or even increase quality. Finally, by comparing background and achievement in determining potential, we can ensure the most effective use of personnel.
Some other examples of effective affirmative actions may help clarify this concept. The Navy’s Hispanic Demonstration Project, a pilot program to target Hispanic recruitment, increased Hispanic enlistments by more than 1,000 (from approximately 3% to 4% of all accessions) during a year when overall accession goals were met in an increasingly austere environment and shrinking recruiting market. A dire shortage of military doctors was partly eased by increasing the number of Puerto Rican and Filipino medical officers accepted. The Puerto Rico National Guard reduced attrition in mainland basic training from
rof
aiiuuiu ut, a GU1U1UUUUN JJIUCCSJi lliai nUS (0
tinely allocated. Existing functional staffs would le j.
• - . .MW
incorporate equal opportunity considerations in tne u
opment and attainment of organizational goals < tives. For example, within many organizations- it|S
ni’vV
sons learned.
chaf'
on
ige*
the
)V£'
ment must begin now, while conditions are favoran uj we still retain some momentum from past efforts- 0„1; opportunity programs can become things of the PaS. ’ (C(0' if we begin to institutionalize more equitable and ^ geneous programs in the present by anticipating the
andiflt#1
the Equal Opportunity Branch, Headquarters Marine Corps, to the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy Opportunity. Colonel Vazquez was Commanding Officer, M- ^ racks, Puerto Rico, and is currently assigned to Marine Corps ment and Education Command, Quantico, VA.
29% to 3%—well below the Army average—by providing recruits who had English as a second language. The Army has also been successful with training in the English language. A concerted effort to increase the number of black midshipmen at the Naval Academy resulted in significant increases during a period in which quality indicators also rose and attrition dwindled.
Cultural characteristics such as behavior, values, and beliefs are factors that help shape a person’s perceptions and expectations about the military environment and his or her ability to adapt to it. Deep understanding and appreciation of these characteristics by those involved in counseling, recruiting, and career-planning can have a positive impact on higher retention and such attendant benefits as lowering recruiting and training costs.
Realistic and effective affirmative actions consider specific personnel needs, reflect an understanding of cultural group differences, and use both traditional and innovative personnel management techniques to get a job done. The difference between an affirmative action and a personnel action is that the former calls for understanding and accepting cultural variety in our society, the better to accomplish the latter. By factoring heterogeneity into the manpower equation, personnel actions are better targeted and are more effective.
America’s heterogeneous history and the knowledge that significant minority representation in the armed forces is inevitable lead to the inescapable conclusion that a new approach to affirmative action is required. Affirmative actions are designed to ensure equal opportunity and, more fundamentally, to overcome the effects of past discrimination. Many critics of affirmative action argue that it is anti-equality, because it tends to group people by categories and targets some categories for special attention. If discrimination is a thing of the past, they ask, why is there a need to target efforts toward any particular group? Will not providing equal opportunity to everyone as an individual eventually result in appropriate minority representation in all enlisted grades and officer ranks? Although well-intended, these questions reflect a limited perspective, a short and narrow view of future personnel needs, and a reluctance to examine critically existing practices in personnel management. Grouping people by categories is not unique to affirmative action. In determining policies and procedures, we routinely group people by gender, grade, geography, occupation, academic background, marital status, educational level, time in service, prior service, performance, etc. We also develop our recruiting strategies around demographics. For some reason, however, ethnic and cultural distinctions are widely found to be objectionable when ways to maximize our effectiveness as manpower and personnel managers are being considered. Whether this stems from ignorance about minority groups or from a negative reaction to the concept of equal opportunity is not the issue. The issue is the relevancy of equal opportunity and affirmative action to the needs of military manpower and personnel management in a heterogeneous environment.
Acceptance of heterogeneity and integration of equal opportunity within personnel management is also applica
ble to other government agencies and private industry- fact, although DoD led the nation in eliminating se^f£L"I tion and reducing institutional discrimination, it is now business community that is taking the initiative in acce"a ing heterogeneity as a business reality and not mere y legal or moral requirement. Tasteful and realistic w* tisements featuring or including minorities as a distinct integral part of society are graphic examples of this n awareness. So, for that matter, is the selective but aScr^| sive recruitment of minorities for executive entry-1^ positions and the employment of minority researchers consultants. All this reflects a growing understanding consideration of cultural characteristics in the deye ment of managerial procedures. A military service, c0^t ration, government agency, or any other organization decides to implement this concept should not find c°s be a major consideration. First, no major reorganizatl(j } required. Implementation of this concept is primarl'flr matter of education and managerial development; h |S should be, a continuous process that has resources
.... . . V. .1
and obj^
vAuuipiv, wmini many «j
the responsibility of equal opportunity staffs to esta° (0 minority recruitment objectives and, in some case^,tes conduct the recruitment. Under an approach that integ c. equal opportunity with other personnel management tions, the staff responsible for recruitment will incorp this objective within its overall objectives. , 0{
Second, equal opportunity staffs have a great de‘ expertise that could assist other staffs in identifyingp, tives, establishing priorities, and developing a bette derstanding of minorities. .
Third, implementation should be gradual, keepicf with growing understanding and acceptance of the p. cept, and it should be flexible enough to benefit fiofl1
The key to effective leadership is anticipating in the direction of movement. Great leadership- - p other hand, dictates the direction of movement andlS ^ rally in the forefront. For too long, a mistaken PerC7, jit- of equal opportunity has caused leaders to oppose ^ evitable movement toward more equitable and *iet^u„ity neous organizations. Currently, they have the °PPv. t|$ to dictate the direction of the movement along Pat coincide with general organizational goals. But this
[1] S. N»v2i
Colonel Vazquez graduated in the Class of 1961 from the U ^ fpiC1 Academy and received his master’s degree in system managed j l« the University of Southern California. During 1975, he was as* S
' ~ ~ - - - )s, a
[4]___________________ ^_____________ j __ __ 'lav./ -jje ^**3
Opportunity. Colonel Vazquez was Commanding Officer,
id*-'