Politically Correct Suicide

Mike at Mike's America has blogged about the problems UCLA has in accommodating the various diverse groups who wish to have their own graduation ceremony. Mainly identity politics has run amok and instead of 'out of many one' we are seeing 'many but separate.'

A friend earlier today showed me the newest issue of GX, Guard Experience, which talks about what is happening with the Army National Guard, its citizen-soldiers, and their families. Strangely I have not found an online link to this magazine, just indirect ones like this recruiting link. One article, title eludes me now, made my jaw drop. It deals the the California Army National Guard and hence the tie in with UCLA's problems.

It seems there is a move afoot to make the California Army Guard units reflect more closely the demographics of their communities. Since only 25% of the force is Hispanic while the overall community is more than 32% Hispanic. Officials want this to change since the number of Hispanics in California since the last census has risen by over 57%.

There are a few problems with this rise in the Hispanic population and this plan to address it.

• How many are legal immigrants to the United States, naturalized, or born here in that 57% rise? Bet the percentage of Californians of Hispanic ancestry drops a few percentage points once we toss out all the illegals and felons.
• Unit cohesion above the platoon/company level. To meet these demographically mandated goals, will we see pure Hispanic and pure Anglo units in the same battalion, regiment, or even division? If so, will English be enforced as the lingua franca? If not, then we can kiss cohesion above the platoon level goodbye unless there are enough bilingual personnel. This in an Army that is trying to generate enough speakers of Arabic, Dari, and Farsi to name three critical languages.
• Competence. That is going to be another question. If this is forced down the throat of the Army Guard, will they be picky in the quality of recruits if they have to meet these arbitrary quotas. Sub-par recruits do make it out of Basic Training and AIT, though rarely. The question arises, once they reach their units and are shown to be under-achievers will their units discharge them or keep them on the rolls just to keep their percentage up?
• Loyalty is another hot button item. Recruiters desperate to get recruits may just sign up some with questionable backgrounds. Who is to say, like the Del Monte plant where illegals were using the Social Security cards of deceased Americans or even false ones, the same could not happen with recruits. So we get illegals in a military unit. Will they hold true allegiance to the state of California and the United States? Or covertly serve another country?
• And most troubling of all, will recruiters and unit commanders have to turn away qualified applicants because they are not Hispanic and hence would drive that unit's ethnic ratio below that of the community it is in? Bet some have forgotten Bakke vs the State of California.

If the Army Guard continues to fail to meet these ratios there would be one last gasp for the multiculturals in their quest to make the Guard reflect the general population. Institute a state mandated service period of say two years and by fiat assign a percentage to the Army Guard to keep them at the pre-assigned quota levels.

This is plain and simple a bad idea that needs to be stopped now before the California Army National Guard is destroyed.