Diversity is vital to national security — except when it isn’t

To paraphrase George Orwell, all minorities deserve equality, but some deserve more equality than others. Or so it would seem, in assessing two court cases involving American institutions.

The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in what are known colloquially as the “race-based college admissions” cases.  Almost simultaneously, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit — just one level below the Supreme Court and often considered the Supreme Court’s JV team — is reviewing the case of several Sikh American recruits who may be prohibited from joining the Marine Corps unless they forfeit the tenets of their faith. 

Although the cases might seem unrelated, they actually share a common thread.

During the Supreme Court oral argument regarding college admissions, the court granted U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar — the lawyer who represents the United States in court — a portion of argument time to state the government’s official position. Prelogar’s argument is noteworthy because she argued that considering race in college admissions decisions is necessary for the nation’s defense:

“Our armed forces know from hard experience that when we do not have a diverse officer corps that is broadly reflective of a diverse fighting force, our strength and cohesion and military readiness suffer. So it is a critical national security imperative to attain diversity within the officer corps.”

That argument might seem unremarkable but for the fact that it stands in stark contrast to the United States’s official position in the Sikh case at the D.C. Circuit, which employs eerily similar language — but in support of the opposite conclusion:

“Long experience has taught the Marine Corps that one essential measure for accomplishing the Corps’ training project is imposing a strict discipline of uniformity. … The Corps has concluded that this uniformity is essential for building the kind of unit cohesion and good order and discipline necessary for accomplishing the mission of the Marines.”

These two cases, occurring less than one mile apart in the nation’s capital, are worlds apart when it comes to honesty and consistency. It appears that for racial minorities, the United States government’s official position is that diversity is a “critical national security imperative.” But for religious minorities, the government’s official position is that uniformity is “necessary for accomplishing the mission” — so necessary that Sikhs cannot join without shaving, cutting their hair, and removing their religious articles in violation of their faith. 

This hypocrisy goes far beyond government lawyers making arguments in courtrooms. Military officials frequently and publicly tout the important role that diversity plays in the military. 

In July 2021, for example, the Deputy Commandant of the Marine Corps explained that “without having individuals with different backgrounds, we have a tendency to engage in ‘groupthink.’” 

The Deputy Commandant’s boss, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, further explained that “it is critical that we prioritize policies that maximize the individual strengths of every Marine, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, creed, or any other marker.” 

And the Commandant’s boss, the Secretary of the Navy himself, added that the Department of the Navy “can only overcome the complex challenges we face every day by cultivating the talent and unique insights of individuals from diverse personal, cultural and professional backgrounds.”

If these senior officials are sincere in their proclamations that diversity and inclusion are critical to national security, they would not waste precious taxpayer dollars and goodwill fighting a cruel and unnecessary legal battle to prevent young, capable, patriotic Sikh Americans from serving with their religious freedom intact. In fact, it is a battle that one Sikh service member once fought and won.

In 2009, Army Lt. Col. Kamal Singh Kalsi became the first Sikh soldier in decades to be granted religious accommodation to grow a beard and wear a turban while in uniform. Two years later, Kalsi received a Bronze Star for his actions while deployed to Afghanistan in support of combat operations as an emergency medicine physician. Kalsi recounted his experience: “I took care of hundreds of Marines who were deployed in Helmand [Province]. Not a single Marine I patched up during combat operations in Afghanistan was bothered by the fact that I have a turban and a beard.” 

Kalsi personifies the type of diversity that makes our military stronger, more capable, and better equipped to accomplish its mission. Just as the legendary contributions of the 442nd Regimental Combat Team and the Tuskegee Airmen were instrumental to America’s success during World War II, Sikhs have a proud history of significant military service that is inspired by their faith. 

Unfortunately, it appears that some in our military apparently no longer value the contributions of Americans of faith. Despite the fact that Americans who identify as “highly religious” are significantly more likely to join the military than their nonreligious counterparts, recruiting and retention numbers are now at historic lows. Americans who value faith and religious freedom cannot be certain that the military will protect those values. And if our military will not protect religious freedom for its own members, how can we trust that it will protect religious freedom for the rest of us?

While it is true that diversity is important to recruiting, building and maintaining a potent military force, diversity must include Americans of faith, especially minority faiths. Indeed, religious freedom is vital to national security, and the hypocrisy on display weakens our nation.

Mike Berry is director of military affairs at First Liberty Institute and a former active duty U.S. Marine Corps officer. Follow him on Twitter @_mike_berry.