The Foreign Service Journal, July-August 2013

8 JULY-AUGUST 2013 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL LETTERS The Persistence of Gender Imbalance Margot Carrington’s article, “How Are FS Women at State Faring?”, was an excellent addition to your May issue’s focus on diversity. The State Depart- ment made promoting gender diver- sity a priority during the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, but we at home must also model what we teach. When I came into the Foreign Ser- vice, my A-100 class was very evenly balanced for gender. Yet the data indi- cate that somewhere between entry and the Senior Foreign Service, that balance gets lost. If the State Department is serious about ensuring diversity at senior levels, it must identify why this is happening and devote the necessary resources to reverse the trend. Coney Patterson FSO Washington, D.C. Promoting Transformative Inclusion I was proud to be among the con- tributors to the excellent May issue of the Journal , which underscored the importance of “transformative inclu- sion” for confronting challenges to U.S. foreign policy. That term is not mine, but one Ernest J. Wilson III eloquently defines in his own article in that issue, “Diversity and Cultural Competence: Mission-Critical Elements of U.S. For- eign Policy.” Because I hope some of the recom- mendations I made in my 2010-2011 Una Chapman Cox Sabbatical Fellow- ship report might be useful in helping us achieve “transformative inclusion,” I am pleased that AFSA chose to repub- lish them as part of my article, “How Are FS Women at State Far- ing?” To fully understand the context, please find the full report online at uccox foundation.org under “Professional Develop-ment.” Let me also take this opportunity to thank the Una Chapman Cox Foundation for its continued support of the Foreign Service and for promot- ing a more diverse, and hence stronger, Foreign Service corps. Margot Carrington FSO Washington, D.C. Professionalism and Diversity In his April letter, “Professionalism vs. Diversity?”, retired FSO Richard W. Hoover seems to imply that the search for diversity in employment and the desire for professionalism are mutually exclusive undertakings. In one pas- sage, he was quite explicit: “Hiring and promoting people with a view to their gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity and skin color necessarily promote both the exclusion and the non-retention of top talent.” He then goes on to state: “I do not believe that the professional problems raised by the AFSA president are as amenable to structural and training reforms as she goes on to suggest. Besides, why should State be tasked to train up officers in the ways of excel- lence, discipline and professionalism? Are new FSOs no longer expected to have such qualities?” I simply must take strong exception to both of Mr. Hoover’s positions. As a veteran of more than 50 years of government service (20 in the Army and 30 in the Foreign Service), I know that professionalism and diversity are not mutu- ally exclusive. To the contrary: When they are handled correctly, they can be mutually reinforc- ing. The key is that an institution must recruit for talent, but in doing so, must reach out broadly across the society it represents. This, unfortunately, is something that the Foreign Service did poorly for a good part of its history; ask any female FSO who just a few decades ago was forced to resign when she got married. It is his second point, though, with which I most vehemently disagree. The question that should be asked is this: “Why have the Department of State and the Foreign Service not taken the responsibility to train and educate their officers in the ways of excellence, dis- cipline and professionalism?” After all, many other institutions do it. I would sincerely hope that Mr. Hoover is not suggesting that there is a ‘diplomacy’ gene that is present in only a narrow segment of the population, and all the institution needs to do is find those people, hire them and then turn them loose. That has never been a recipe for long-term viability or success, and in today’s complex world, it’s a prescription for disaster. Is the Foreign Service so different that it can’t take a reasonably intel- ligent, dedicated individual (regardless of gender, ethnicity or other markers) and mold that individual into a profes- sional diplomat through a program of