The Foreign Service Journal, March 2023

36 MARCH 2023 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL ours is a life and career for which there is no blueprint. If only it were as simple as passing a multiple-choice test; the depart- ment could save untold millions on recruitment, retention, and promotion simply by taking the highest-scoring candidates. Unfortunately, vetting the best candidates and creating the best diplomats are not so simple tasks. As with all systems of stratification, those who benefited under the FSOT method of culling sometimes tend to advocate for the system that rewarded them. This does not, of course, mean that another system is inferior. I’ve already discussed how the FSOT has changed over the years in pursuit of some- thing better. Unfortunately, change itself is often viewed with suspicion; even early automobiles once drew mockery from those who were used to a horse and carriage. Yet uncomfortable change is essential for development. With A-100 relatively fresh in my memory, I can recall what one mentor said to my class: “The Foreign Service is aspira- tional.” That is, the work we do is nearly impossible to quantify, and it is even more difficult to judge its efficacy. It adapts to new developments at home and abroad, looking for opportunities and striving toward new possibilities. At best, our work embod- ies the projection of hope onto a world that can look hopeless. How would one define the net value of wars that were never fought? Or of criminals turned away at visa lines? I’m not going to try to define effective diplomacy because I think it’s a loaded term. But I do know that doing the same things the same way produces the same results; and I do know that as an aspirational organization, the State Department will (hope- fully) never cease to progress and innovate, even if sometimes at a snail’s pace. The Importance of Diversity Part of that laborious innovation involves a push for wider inclusion. Rather than hyper-focusing on standardized tests to produce standardized diplomats, the State Department has increasingly sought a variety of experiences from its applicants (in stark contrast to much of the rest of the world, where careers in diplomacy are still reserved for the well-connected). Where else but America could a 30-something former janitor like me take his hopes and his creative writing degree, and be given a chance to change both his own life and (aspirationally) the wider world through this career? This emphasis on diversity is not merely to promote a moral imperative of wider inclusion: It’s a strategic decision to better serve the interests of the State Department in navigating through complex problems on the global stage … because two heads are better than one only if they don’t think the same things. This is why phrases like “strength in diversity” are more than inspira- tional quips. We have a radically different brand of diplomacy because we are a radically different kind of country. No, our diplomacy is not standard. It’s far from conventional. But convention has never been good enough for the greatest nation on earth. We seek, adapt, innovate, improvise, and lead. In this sense, U.S. diplomacy mirrors U.S. industry. In another sense, diplomacy is also representational; hence, the government doesn’t hire FSOs on H1B visas to take our jobs (although many H1B visa holders would likely outperform us on the FSOT!). Individual merit and wider representation have always been coexistent factors in FSO selection. The difference today is that the State Department has recently begun to see how much more varied talent is available to them if they remove a few of the rigid fixtures that historically led a very specific “type” into Foreign Service work. Seeking a wider scope of knowledge and experience led State to recruit former Shakespearean actors, orphans adopted from Kazakhstan (both being among my personal friends and colleagues), and even me. It’s not that Georgetown grads with degrees in Foreign Service are no longer needed, or that either pathway to this career is better than the other. Rather it is pre- cisely because our disparate paths, experiences, and bodies of knowledge add great breadth and depth to U.S. diplomacy. But suppose that I’m wrong. If the State Department made a mistake in hiring any one of us, they will have ample opportunity to rectify it. Conversely, if we prove our merit in the field, that is the greatest and perhaps only real proof that any of us deserve to be here. n This emphasis on diversity is not merely to promote a moral imperative of wider inclusion: It’s a strategic decision to better serve the interests of the State Department.