The Foreign Service Journal, September 2020

50 SEPTEMBER 2020 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL Building a Representative Foreign Service The Foreign Service Act of 1980 reorganized the Foreign Service, emphasizing that the Foreign Service should be representative of the American people. Specifically, the legislation aimed at strengthening the Foreign Service by promoting policies and procedures—including affirmative action—that would encour- age entry and advancement in the Foreign Service by people from all segments of American society, as well as promoting fair and equitable treatment for all without regard to political affilia- tion, race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age or handicap. The Senior Foreign Service may be the last bastion of discrimi- nation in the Foreign Service. I respect and admire those who have worked their way to the top and survived the rigorous train- ing and hardships. However, I am discouraged by inequality in a system that appears to stack the deck in favor of a select few. … Congress can and will pass legislation and hold oversight hearings, but it is up to the officials at the State Department to carry out policies of equal opportunity and equal representation. Reports and studies can identify the problems, but the solutions can come only from action. —Congressman Gerry Sikorski (DFL Party, Minn.), July 1990 The Status of Women I believe the real test of equality is the extent to which a woman is expected to carry her full share of the workload and is actively supported in doing so. I wonder how many other women have had written into their efficiency report that Ms. Jones is a capable officer, but unfortunately the work she was assigned to do did not justify a recommendation for promotion. Whose failure was that? If a supervisor really wants to get the most out of a woman assigned to the mission—and I suspect some secretly see them- selves as martyrs doomed to carry an extra burden for the sake of women’s lib—perhaps he should ask himself a few soul- searching questions: Do you assign a woman officer the same workload, both in substance and volume, that you would assign a male officer of the same grade and experience? Do you find yourself looking around for jobs “suitable for women”? Do you try to “help her out” by taking over the more challeng- ing assignments, rather than letting her take what comes? … The questions above are not hypothetical. They derive from actual situations in which I have found myself on one occasion or another. I believe the real loser, in the last analysis, was the United States Government, which was not getting the full benefit of the talents it was paying for. —Ms. Jones, January 1978 Beyond the Call of Duty It isn’t often that we get an opportunity to submit a performance rating on the Secretary of State. But there was a quality about Secretary Rusk’s recent testimony on civil rights [legislation that became the Civil Rights Act of 1964] before the Senate Committee on Commerce which came through clearly in the television reportage and which we thought it well to impart to our readers, especially those overseas, who were not within camera range. It was certainly within the scope of the Secretary’s responsibili- ties to point out that the failure of the United States to live up in practice to what it preaches in its Constitution and Declaration of Independence is exploited by the communists in their attempts to belittle the U. S. claim to leadership of the Free World. It was also most appropriate for the Secretary to reveal how difficult it is to carry on correct diplomatic relations with representatives of other countries whose color subjects them to the kind of discrimination and injury to their personal dignity which some people in this country still practice toward more than ten percent of the United States citizenry. … Then, quite deliberately, he committed the Department and the Foreign Service in the following passage: “So, let me stress again, the interest of the Department of State in this bill reaches far beyond obtaining decent treatment for non-white diplomats and visitors. We are directly and comprehensively concerned with obtaining decent treatment for all human beings, including American citizens.” … This attitude goes to the heart of the problem. Despite the deci- sions of the courts, the decrees of the Executive Branch, and even eventual laws by Congress, the only permanent solution to this issue lies in the attitude of the individual to his fellowman. All of us in the Service who deal constantly and intimately with people of all races and colors might well think of these things. —Editorial, October 1963 n