Defense Advisory Committee on Diversity and Inclusion

Defense Advisory Committee on Diversity and Inclusion
Name	Defense Advisory Committee on Diversity and Inclusion
Formation	2021
Type	Federal advisory committee
Headquarters	Arlington, Virginia
Leader title	Chair
Leader name	(various)
Parent organization	United States Department of Defense

Defense Advisory Committee on Diversity and Inclusion is a federal advisory committee established to provide independent advice to the United States Secretary of Defense, the United States Department of Defense, and senior leaders on matters related to diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility within the United States Armed Forces. The committee draws on expertise from civilian academics, former senior officers, private sector executives, and representatives of veterans' service organizations to assess policies affecting personnel across the United States Army, United States Navy, United States Air Force, United States Marine Corps, and United States Space Force. Its work has intersected with legislation, executive directives, and historic reviews involving prominent institutions and public figures.

History

The committee was announced amid broader Department of Defense reforms influenced by events such as the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and force-wide initiatives following reviews by panels including the SEAL Team 6-era inquiries and the recommendations of the Sullivan Report-style assessments. It formed during an era shaped by presidential actions from the administrations of Joe Biden, Donald Trump, and policy continuity tracing to earlier administrations like Barack Obama and George W. Bush. Early membership included individuals with prior public service under secretaries such as Lloyd Austin and predecessors who served with leaders linked to institutions like Johns Hopkins University, Harvard University, Stanford University, and Georgetown University. The committee’s charter and scope were influenced by statutory frameworks such as the Federal Advisory Committee Act and interactions with congressional committees including the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services and the United States House Committee on Armed Services.

Mission and Responsibilities

The committee’s stated mission aligns with directives from the Office of the Secretary of Defense and counsel from offices such as the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, and the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute. Responsibilities include reviewing recruitment practices seen at service academies like the United States Military Academy, United States Naval Academy, United States Air Force Academy, and inputs affecting institutions such as the Reserve Officers' Training Corps and Defense Commissary Agency. It examines retention patterns related to deployments in theaters identified by commands like United States Central Command, United States Indo-Pacific Command, and policy impacts referenced by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and leaders including former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff officers.

Organizational Structure

The committee comprises a chair, vice chair, and ad hoc working groups drawing members from civilian sectors including academia and industry partners such as Microsoft Corporation, Lockheed Martin, Booz Allen Hamilton, and consulting firms that have advised entities like McKinsey & Company and Boston Consulting Group. Liaison relationships include the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and interagency contacts with the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of Personnel Management. It convenes subject-matter expert panels addressing topics covered by organizations such as the American Psychological Association, Society for Human Resource Management, Pew Research Center, and military studies appearing in journals like the Armed Forces & Society and the Journal of Strategic Studies.

Key Reports and Recommendations

Published reports have addressed issues echoing findings from landmark studies and commissions such as the General Accounting Office reports, the work of the Independent Review Commission on service culture, and recommendations aligning with standards referenced by the United Nations and guidance from bodies like the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Recommendations included reforms to accession standards influenced by research from RAND Corporation, updated training curricula akin to syllabi used at institutions like the United States Army War College and the Naval War College, and policy proposals for accommodations reflecting guidance from the Americans with Disabilities Act implementation. Reports have been presented to senior officials, testified before subcommittees chaired by members of the United States Congress, and cited in briefings that included participation by former secretaries such as Robert Gates and Ash Carter.

Impact and Implementation

Implementation of recommendations has intersected with personnel policy changes enacted by leaders such as Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and enacted orders tied to executive actions by President Joe Biden. Specific impacts include revisions to recruitment outreach paralleling programs run by the Department of Education and partnerships with organizations like the National Urban League, League of United Latin American Citizens, and the NAACP for outreach to underrepresented communities. Changes influenced training doctrine used at service schools such as the Marine Corps University and the Air University, and informed updates to equal opportunity procedures coordinated with the Inspector General of the Department of Defense and service-level Inspector General offices.

Criticism and Controversies

Critiques have come from quarters including members of Congress and think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and Center for Strategic and International Studies who questioned resource allocation and the balance between readiness and inclusion objectives. Debates mirrored disputes involving prominent public figures and cases adjudicated in forums including the Supreme Court of the United States, and drew commentary from media outlets and policy scholars affiliated with institutions such as Yale University, Columbia University, Princeton University, University of Chicago, and Johns Hopkins University. Some veteran advocacy groups, including chapters of Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion, raised concerns about implementation timelines and unintended effects on unit cohesion examined in studies from Brookings Institution and Hoover Institution.

Category:United States Department of Defense advisory bodies