RAdm Robert Sharp: Diversity Just Makes Sense. Until it Doesn’t.

RAdm Robert Sharp, director of the National Maritime Intelligence-Integration Office and commander of Office of Naval Intelligence, recently made a fascinating statement in support of the LGBT community [emphasis added]:

[Sharp] said his commitment comes from the important role diversity and inclusion play in building a strong Navy. It not only the right thing to do, he said, it is a warfighting readiness imperative

Nowhere is that more important than in the intelligence community, he said.

“It’s our job to go out there and understand adversaries. We need to be looking at threats from every different angle, and if we can’t bring in diversity of experience, diversity of expertise, diversity of thought, we will not be as good as we need to be for our nation.”

That begs two important questions:

First, where is the support for religious diversity — which would include contradictory “diversity of thought” on the sexual liberty RAdm Sharp so strongly supports?  Are we “not as good as we need to be” if we do not also include “diversity of belief”?

Second, if sexual diversity is a “warfighting readiness imperative,” where is the US Navy’s support for all the other-sexualities? Everybody knows by now of the Afghan cultural issue with men and boys. Do we need similarly sexually motivated men in the US intelligence community to “go out there and understand [those] adversaries?” Does the intelligence community need someone “from the angle” of polygamy to “be as good as we need to be”?  How about bestiality?

If some diversity is good, is more diversity better?

“What’s the opposite of inclusion? It’s exclusion,” he said. “And as soon as you exclude, you miss talent and you miss opportunity. So I’m passionate about diversity and inclusion. To me, it just makes sense.”

Is the US military missing opportunities because its diversity “excludes” convicted felons, drug users, men over the age of 65, polygamists, and the physically disabled? Does all exclusion cause “talent” to be missed, or does some exclusion actually help the mission?

If some diversity is good, is more diversity better?

Maybe not:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Reasonably speaking, it would seem that wisely-applied diversity has its place — as does exclusion, despite politically popular arguments to the contrary.

Diversity for the sake of diversity is not only worthless, it may be dangerous. After all, if your commitment to diversity doesn’t allow you to “exclude” things, your diversity will include bad things, too — including things that undermine your integrity, honor, morality, and mission effectiveness.

And that wouldn’t make much sense, would it?


One comment

  • False equivalencies in the name of your own religion. Bias born of BS

    Here we go with the whole: “Well if we let in the homos then we have let in the pedos and the animal-lovers.”

    Talk about an old cliche stereotypical argument. I’m sure you’ll tell me next that you have “friends who are homosexual.”