The true motivation for government policy is revealed when agencies come to Congress for money. Under the scrutiny of committee members’ questioning, cabinet-level officials should build a good case for the funding they hope to receive. When it comes to taxpayers shelling out for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, it’s going to be an uphill slog – as it should be. It comes down to the key issue: equity of outcomes versus equality of opportunity, merit versus preferred, arbitrary selection. The State Department’s first chief Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, (DEI) and Access Officer, Ambassador Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley, discovered the minefield testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight and Accountability.
Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Access
Ambassador Abercrombie-Winstanley appeared before the committee to justify a request for her office’s budget of $76 million. She explained how the money would be allocated:
“A little under ten percent of that funding would go to my office. The remaining 90 percent of the request is spread across other bureaus. My office coordinates closely with these bureaus and the rest of the Department to successfully implement DEIA initiatives and to ensure there is no duplication of resources…and travel to our Missions to engage with our workforce. It also includes our small project initiatives which provide funds for projects that advance DEIA domestically or abroad.”
Unfortunately, Ambassador Abercrombie-Winstanley, coming hat in hand to request $76 million for her office’s budget, got resistance because similar expensive DEI requests of dubious worth have gagged congressional committees. Not long ago, Liberty Nation reported on an Air Force budget for DEI officers with salaries “anywhere from $93,367 to $121,378 per year…demonstrable skills and prior performance are not the hiring measures.” During an exchange with the ambassador, Representative Cory Mills (R-FL) got to the crux of the DEI advocacy issues. Mills explained that he came from dire family circumstances, yet he is a US congressman not based on DEI but on the “idea that equal opportunity exists thanks to Americans and the things that we fight for.” He then asked the seminal question: “What is the difference between equity and equality?”
“Equality is that you each are in a place, and you get a ball with a target ahead of you. Equity is if you are smaller, weaker you might be placed closer to the target,” Abercrombie-Stanley responded. Then Mills provided the practical definition that drives merit preferences. “Equity is about equal outcome, and equality is about equal opportunity,” Mills explained. But when the target is defeating Russia, North Korea, China, or Iran, does the US want the smaller, weaker individual on the field at all? To that point, Mills asked “how DEIA [diversity, equity, inclusion, and access] helps us win in strategic competition when it comes to China, or push back on Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine, or prevent a nuclear Iran? Can you name one meaningful contribution DEIA would make toward those priorities.” Of course, that is what most critics of DEI’s “woke” agenda ask. How is the US more likely to overcome its biggest national security challenges when the best and the brightest are supplanted by adequate and dull?
Diversity Does Not Build Confidence in Foggy Bottom
There is a reason the two most important cabinet officials in national security are the secretary of state and the secretary of defense. During international crises, the US State Department is the last bastion of security before hostilities break out. America wants the ambassador and the diplomatic mission to reduce tensions successfully. Consequently, the taxpayer deserves to be confident the best is chosen for diplomatic duties and foreign policy staff positions at Foggy Bottom.
Though Ambassador Abercrombie-Winstanley presented an articulate and passionate defense of the State Department DEI and Access office’s requested budget, the sentence, “It also includes our small project initiatives which provide funds for projects that advance DEIA domestically or abroad,” prompts skepticism. It does not mention the State Department “offering Palestinians $100,000 to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion in arts and sports; and a State Department grant of over $20,000 for drag shows in Ecuador,” as Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-TX) lamented during a recent full committee hearing. “(T)he Biden administration has made a point of flying Black Lives Matter and gay Pride flags at embassies across the globe, including at the Holy See,” the Washington Examiner observed.
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Accountability Congressman Brian Mast (R-FL) was blunt in his concern over the State Department official’s presentation. He considered the office to be “mandating division.” Mast made the point unambiguously: “This office has a clever name that uses strong emotional words — diversity, equity, inclusion — but functionally does the opposite of what America has always stood for, which is very simply the best man, the best woman for the job.”
The State Department is crucial in establishing a strong foreign policy and communicating American values. Ensuring equal opportunity for advancement and putting the best people in positions of responsibility should be the goal. Flying flags considered culturally offensive at US embassies does not help Abercrombie-Winstanley’s funding cause.
