Customer Reviews

All That We Can Be: Black Leadership And Racial Integration The Army Way

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Can It Be This Simple?

All That We Can Be: Black Leadership and Racial Integration the Army Way by Charles Moskos and John Sibley Butler

Reviewed by Robert Gest III a senior faculty member of The Federal Executive Institute

This book by Moskos and Butler indeed provides a somewhat different solution to the race problem in America; one that I, and I am sure, many others desperately wish could succeed. As a personal friend of both authors, an Afro-American, and a veteran of thirty years in the US Air Force, I read their book with a somewhat biased eye. I believe in Moskos' views of cohesion and community and I know he fervently believes in the solvability of the race issue in this country. However, I found myself reading, accepting many of the arguments of the book, yet ending with a morbid melancholy about the feasibility or soundness of their ultimate argument.

The position that the Army takes which focuses on behavior rather than attitudes is probably one of the few tenable perspectives to take on leading an organization populated by both white and black Americans. Sociologists tell us that attitudes and values cannot be legislated. Such an effort is more likely to harden the positions of people who have come by these attitudes and values from the people and institutions they trust the most. Our parents, churches, friends are instrumental in the formation of our early values and attitudes. And, as many accept, these become part and parcel of who we are at a relatively early age. I like the view of Morris Massey whose seminal work, Who You Are is Where You Were When. Here he argues that short of a Significant Emotional Event, a S-E-E if you will, we are not likely to experience a major shift in attitudes/values. Perhaps the Army, in its effort to ensure harmony, unity, combat effectiveness, presents its newly-entered soldiers with what amounts to a SEE. The Army makes it crystal clear what its expectations are and subsequently brooks little or no deviation. The emphasis is on behavior which can be observed; not on attitudes. Is it possible that this focus makes that much difference? It would seem so.

A war story is in order. In Boot camp during the Fall of 1959, I had the honor of serving as "Barracks Chief" which meant that when the Drill Sergeant went home for the evening, I was "in charge". I had an assistant who like me, was from the Deep South. After about two weeks into an eleven week basic training experience, the assistant and I were sitting on the stoop of the barracks building, discussing a variety of things. Unexpectedly he confided or confessed that had anyone told him three weeks before that he would be sitting with a "nigra", talking as equals and feeling benefitted by the dialogue, he would have called them a "damned liar". His experience with Afro-Americans had been largely confined to the maid and yard man who came to his parents' home to work. Therefore, his world view (read attitudes/values) had been formed by his experiences. Only after he experienced a different paradigm of behavior/relations did he begin to question his assumptions. Richard Tanner Pascale, in his book, Managing on the Edge, states that "it is easier to act ourselves into a better mode of thinking than to think ourselves into a better mode of acting". (p.264) For this reason, Moskos and Butler are onto something when they argue forcefully for National Service. The leveling that occurs when young people of all races, genders, sexual orientations, religions, etc., come together to execute a common mission, forces each "different" to confront the realities of these "others" and begin to reassess their heretofore strongly-held beliefs. Pascale says it this way, "If our experiences are far enough out of whack with our beliefs, we are forced to update our thinking". (p.264) So, the question we might ask is, "Could universal National Service have the impact that the authors suggest?

Yes, National Service could have a major impact on changing both behavior and attitudes. But would it be enough? Would the changes extend to situations outside of the arena where the National Service is performed? The record is mixed in this regard. Anecdotal evidence indicates that when left to their own devices, the races tend to seek out others they perceive as "like themselves". I have first-hand experience that it seems to matter little how wealthy or educated one may be, she/he is still first thought of and identified by the color of his or her skin. The treatment may not be as harsh, but the differentiation is still there. So, I would pose the question to the authors, "How do we get past skin color?"

So, although the authors make a very good case for adopting the Army's approach of race-savvy versus color-blindness and behavior versus attitude, could it not be that absent a "forced behavior environment", this simply will not work for the general public? At least, not as successfully as it has for the Army? Having said all that, America could still benefit immeasurably from creating institutions where its citizens are required to face their stereotypes but conduct themselves as if these false views did not exist. Over time the stark and strongly-held world views might soften and such could only aid in the improvement of race relations in America.

Moskos and Butler do an excellent job of describing how the Army has done a much better job than other American institutions at racial integration. Unlike a few of the previous reviewers, I did not feel that the authors claimed that the Army had done it perfectly, or that there was complete racial harmony. In fact, I think the authors were fairly clear that the Army was far from perfect. Instead, they argue that the Army is one of the best, if not the best, examples we have.

Further, Moskos and Butler do a great job of operationalizing or articulating, the steps the Services used and are using. These concrete examples are extremely valuable when evaluating whether other institutions can follow in the Army's footsteps or not.

One of the strengths of the book is that both Moskos and Butler are uniquely qualified to write about the military. Both served in the Army as soldiers (not officers), both are professors who study the military, and both continue to stay in contact with the Army. In short, they are in a position to blend personal experience, academic analysis and recent events.

Charles Moskos and John Butler have delievered in our hands an excellent propoganda treatsie telling us that integration has worked in the Army. It has worked without lowering standards and has provided an environment in which African-Americans can excel. Surely society and other institutions need to take a look at the Army and borrow some of its strategies to provide equal opportunity for African-Americans in the civilian sector.

If you have served in the Army for any length of time you would know that is is not "race" free. Institutional racism was not addressed in this text. Although you have African-Americans in leadership positions in the NCO Corps that changes when we go into the officer's Corps and when we look at positions that African-Americans hold in each branch. Not everything is equal.

The Army is portrayed as a good paternalistic organization which is able to take low performing Blacks and make them into good soldiers. Very little is mentioned at all that many Blacks who have joined the Army have come from stable homes, have a sense of purpose and are instilled with deep family values. These young men and women will be successful in any environment.

Of course there are certain things that outside organizations can learn from the Army and implement the changes in their structures. We must keep in mind that the Army has different control systems in place by virtue of its nature that can't be duplicated in the civilian world. In such a case the Army is able to be successful in integrating its force. The Army's purpose is to defend our country. It can't do it if there is racial strife in the organization. Racists behavior is not in its best interest for defence.

If you create an environment where there is a level playing field then everyone has the opportunity to excel. What the Army has done is not unique as Moskos implies. Civilian society can not be compared with the Army because of its unique mission. The Army doesn't change until society tells it to do so.

Mr. Moskos would have done a better job in presenting the Army as an alternative for African-Americans to explore as they embark on their way to viable careers for their lives. The Army is not racism free and better attention needs to be addressed to the institutional barriers. Purchase this book if you are highly optimistic or have your head buried in the sand regarding integration the Army way.

Perhaps confirming suspicions of most African-Americans, I can attest to the very real resentment that their presence in the ranks engenders. It is true that their representation in the NCO corps is quite heavy, but I have personally observed that the officer corps is equally topheavy with whites. Naturally the officer corps is better educated, if not always smarter. To the average white observer without the benefit of liberal indoctrination,it is quite obvious that the reason for this preponderance of Black NCO's is that the military lifestyle is often infinitely more palatable than the civilian cycle of poverty, drugs, and crime that surely await the average black who is either too witless, or too proud to take advantage of the many programs developed by Whitey to raise him above his circumstances. This is not to say that many African-Americans do not benefit in a true moral sense from the strict meritocracy envisioned and implemented by the military. Quite often they are superior soldiers and human beings when shown the truth and beauty of discipline and self-sacrifice. Unfortunately, there are many more who have never managed to embrace these equalizing truths, and have managed to cling to the ghetto mentality to the detriment of those they presume to command. For this reason you will see most whites leave service after the contracted number of years, and many blacks stay on to fill the NCO ranks.

I belive that the author of this book is blaming society, especially Universities, a little too much. In the beginning when he makes this assertion that Universites are racist he basis it on the astute obervation that since there a few African Americans in the Universities that they are racist or something like that. Furthmore since the Military has more African Americans it is a better instiution. Here is a better explanation. Universities are a lot more selective and thus can choose from the entire population. The Army will take anyone it can get its hands on. I just did not like the Authors atitutde that the whole is racist. Furthermore he knows nothing about music. I love when he writes white soldiers are listening to more black music and he uses Heavy Metal and Rock n Roll, both white music! In fact Heavy Metal is white protest music against Black music! Do some research or think before writting a book.