The Foreign Service Journal, November 2018

12 NOVEMBER 2018 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL Saying No to Diversity A trio of articles in the September Foreign Service Journal typifies the diversity mania sweeping the Foreign Service: “Who Is the Future of the Foreign Service?” by Barbara Bodi ne, “A Foreign Service for America” by Representative Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) and “Diversity: Not Just a Cause for the Underrepresented” by Jay Porter. Each largely ignores diversity’s elephant-in-the-room question, the double-edged sword: What exactly does diversity bring to the table in terms of achieving optimal foreign policy formu- lation and execution? Although making token mention of patriotism, intelligence, knowl- edge and character (let’s call them the “Foreign Service essentials”), Ambas- sador Bodine’s article really focuses on the need to recruit “the right people,” those who are the colors of the rain- bow, LGBTQ and, if I read correctly, women—at least half. Might, then, the Foreign Service admit the less qualified by applying the “right people” criterion, while rejecting the most qualified if they are not, say, the color of the day? Or, once the Foreign Service has enough LGBTQ officers, would it reject the next gay applicant though he or she has the diplomatic qualities of a Talleyrand or Metternich? In effect, failure to maintain the “essentials” turns full-throttle diversity recruiting into a double-edged sword. Here’s another double-edger: Only by diversifying the Foreign Service, Rep. Castro writes, can we gather minorities’ support behind American diplomacy and global leadership. In other words, the congressman and his adherents want a Foreign Service that (as the old saw goes) looks like them. Jay Porter, a European affairs desk officer, equates diversity with superior results: an embassy team containing a diplomat who shares the ethnicity of the host country better understands that host country. Now, were that true, the department would promote better understanding by sending our Muslim diplomats to Arab countries. It would be Catholics, say, to Ireland, Italy or Poland. Atheists and democratic socialists? Off you go to Cuba, China, Venezuela and, when it opens, North Korea. And although it’s not clear whether the writer extends his judgments on ethnicity to include race, might not African American and Asian American diplomats best serve in Africa and Asia? Heavens! What diversity here? Rather, it’s the double-edged sword: diversity obtained by dividing Foreign Service personnel into ethnic and racial groups, stereotyping and assigning them accordingly. Recruiting on the basis of diversity necessarily comes at the expense of the “Foreign Service essentials.” How can it be otherwise when, for example, diver- sity recruitment’s modus operandi— based as it is on race, ethnicity, gender and sexual preferences—excludes broad groups of applicants (half the males, possibly) from fair competition? Frankly, those who are patriotic, intelligent, knowledgeable and charac- ter-filled don’t give a damn what people look like; nor are they likely to recruit or advance anyone on that basis. Rather, they hold the “essentials” close and are the best champions and practitioners of both effective diplomacy and successful diversity. n Richard W. Hoover FSO, retired Front Royal, Virginia