THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | MAY-JUNE 2026 21 Those who passed the oral test usually became Foreign Service officers. But this didn’t produce equal outcomes, so the Civil Service exam was scrapped. For the Foreign Service, the Board of Examiners inserted in 2007 a “Qualification Evaluation Panel” (QEP) as a filter between written and oral tests, which I believe was designed to accomplish the same “race-rigging” as higher education achieved through “holistic review.” The QEP essentially injected prototype DEI into the hiring process, allowing BEX to bypass lower scores in racially desired applicants through assessments of character, life experience, or other subjective measures. The result was as predictable as it was calculated: fewer white males were hired. AFSA questioned the practice at first but now criticizes the Trump administration for attempting to undo the damage it caused to innocent individuals. What Rubin Gets Wrong Rubin claims that “State has hosted several joint activities with BFF, including recruitment events.” Yes, a few State officials have spoken at events sponsored by BFF, just as they do for countless other groups. That’s called public diplomacy. Rubin says BFF is “the only employee organization permitted to function at all.” He laments that a host of identitarian employee groups are deprived of “official recognition” and the use of State Department spaces. I believe these private groups are welcome to do their thing, but like the BFF, none deserve support from taxpayers nor free use of government facilities. Rubin charges that “senior active-duty officers who are members of BFF” have published articles “supporting immigration enforcement” and “denouncing DEIA,” policies that he scathingly calls “President Trump’s domestic political agenda.” Really? Is it merely Trump’s agenda, not bipartisan duty, to support the enforcement of laws passed by Congress, including the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Rubin claims that “BFF’s focus on ‘meritocracy’ is really about returning white men to exclusive leadership roles,” insinuating racism and sexism. In fact, BFF is diverse in membership and open to all who accept our principles. But it is hardly surprising that fewer of the identity groups who reaped the benefits of DEI would seek to join BFF in championing equal opportunity. Rubin doesn’t criticize the Alliance for Diplomacy and Justice, a group founded by former Biden political appointees. Their agenda is “progressive” and globalist. All eight of their founding members are women—hardly diverse or inclusive. Finally, Rubin claims “members of the BFF are rife with hostility toward the Foreign Service and its members.” I don’t know where he gets this. Our members are united in love of country and respect for the Foreign Service, of which we are often lonely defenders among conservatives. Common Ground? Despite Rubin’s hostility toward our organization, there is common ground. First, we agree that U.S. ambassador positions should not be vacant. They should be filled with capable people who will follow directives from the Secretary of State. Trump should get on with nominating them, and the Senate should confirm them. Second, Rubin has a “vision of our Foreign Service being representative of our country in every respect.” So do we. Except Rubin doesn’t seem to want diversity of viewpoint. Accept the progressive dogma or perish, he implies, warning that “when the administration changes, [BFF members] are going to find themselves in a very awkward and disadvantaged position.” Rubin may be right, since the environment at State remains one of left-wing consensus that punishes all other views. Liberals greatly outnumber conservatives in the Foreign Service. As national demographics change, the only things holding this country together are shared values and fair competition. That is why the BFF is so adamant that reforms are needed to the Foreign Service’s recruitment, retention, and promotions processes. BFF members have argued that the majority of FSOs will do their jobs capably whatever their personal beliefs. We hope that AFSA shares our BFF principle that “the professional U.S. diplomatic and consular corps should, based on merit, recruit, select, assign, and promote Americans of all backgrounds from across the country, without discrimination or preference on the basis of race, ethnicity, sex, or other immutable characteristics.” We welcome Ambassador Neumann’s assertion that “there is an urgent need for dialogue” as to how to improve our nation’s diplomatic service. AFSA President John Dinkelman recently wrote that “we need to come together in person, face to face, to find ... common ground.” In this spirit, perhaps AFSA and its allies would consider meeting and exchanging ideas with BFF leadership instead of devoting pages of The Foreign Service Journal to attacking them. We hope so. We’ll be waiting. n The Foreign Service Journal is committed to fostering dialogue on issues of concern to the foreign affairs community. We believe it is important to provide space for differing opinions to be expressed and examined. Publication should not be construed as endorsement, but rather as part of our broader commitment to open discourse and the documentation of the Foreign Service experience. The views and opinions presented here are those of the author and do not reflect those of the FSJ or AFSA.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy ODIyMDU=