USA : In a recent opinion piece published by this news outlet, retired American diplomat Phillip Linderman and Marcus W. Thornton, of Feds For Freedom, argue for revamping the recruitment process for U.S. Foreign Service Officers (FSOs). They write that the system, referred to as the State Department’s “hiring monopoly,” does not represent American geographic diversity and favors what they describe as the coastal elite. They also critique the State Department’s DEIA (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility) initiatives, asserting that such initiatives add political bias to the Foreign Service. They conclude that a new Foreign Service recruitment model be based on that used by Congress for military academy appointments.
As a career diplomat and the president of the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), I respectfully disagree with such assertions, while fearing that the proposal, if acted upon, could jeopardize our diplomatic effectiveness at a time when the stakes couldn’t be higher.
First, as the authors rightly posit, geographic diversity within the Foreign Service is vital to serving U.S. interests and promoting our values abroad. Yet the assertion that the Foreign Service fails to represent American geographic diversity does not correspond with the facts.
Most professionals who enter the Foreign Service do so after attending graduate programs at universities that specialize in international relations, most of which exist in urban hubs like Washington, D.C., or New York City. Thus it is not surprising that according to the authors’ cited data, recruits list their legal residences in these metropolitan areas, which do not necessarily reflect their original hometowns.
Our data bear this out. In November of 2022, we surveyed nearly 3,000 of our members, drawn from all Foreign Service ranks, including the State Department. By comparing where the survey respondents grew up with the state-by-state population percentages from the 2020 U.S. census, we found that the distribution of Foreign Service members aligns closely with the national population distribution across most states.
Moreover, our survey shows that in states such as Alaska, Kansas, Montana, and Wyoming, the Foreign Service representation exceeds the respective proportions of the U.S. population. This suggests that the Foreign Service is drawing professionals from a wide range of geographic backgrounds, not just from major American urban centers on the coasts.
I would also respectfully push back against the contention that DEIA efforts at the State Department and other foreign affairs agencies are about “imposing quotas and identity politics.” Having a diverse workforce has repeatedly been shown to improve decision-making outcomes, in both government and the private sector. That is one overarching idea behind DEIA.
The other is to recruit a workforce that looks more like America—one that reflects the rich racial, ethnic, socio-economic, and other attributes of our great country—and where everyone has an equal shot at joining. All this can be done while maintaining the rigorous entry requirements that have marked the Foreign Service as an institution of excellence with a highly skilled workforce.
These initiatives are not merely about fulfilling legal or statutory requirements. Growing diversity enhances our country’s ability to navigate complex international relationships in a more effective and culturally sensitive manner. According to the State Department, 16 percent of the State Dept.’s Foreign Service workforce comprises former military veterans.
We have diplomats who grew up as refugees. We have diplomats who were the first in their family to attend college. We have diplomats who are members of the LGBTQ+ community. These diverse backgrounds equip the U.S. diplomatic corps with the ability to anticipate and address issues that might not be evident to a more homogeneous group. Such inclusivity is not only essential but also a promising sign for the future as we face an increasingly interconnected and complex world.
Finally, introducing political appointments into the Foreign Service risks introducing the very bias the authors seek to eliminate. AFSA, which represents over 80 percent of active-duty Foreign Service members across six agencies, will always defend our corps as a nonpartisan organization of dedicated men and women who serve the president, regardless of the president’s political party. Having political appointments runs the risk of changing that orientation. It may also bring distinct biases—including those of the appointing representative or senator. Historical evidence strongly suggests that a merit-based civil service promotes more stable and consistent diplomatic engagement, a critical component of international relations.
In the end, we all want the same thing: A Foreign Service that can react nimbly to global crises and challenges, such as the potential outbreak of regional conflict in the Middle East and burgeoning cyber security threats. But to do so effectively we must uphold a merit-based, diverse, and inclusive Foreign Service. One that has a deep understanding of global affairs and the ability to approach these challenges with the varied perspectives necessary to craft nuanced and practical solutions.
By Thomas Yazdgerdi, Phillip Linderman, Marcus W. Thornton
Join: 👉 https://t.me/acnewspatriots
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of AC.NEWS
Disclaimer: This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). AC.News will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article www.ac.news websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner. Reprinting this article: Non-commercial use OK. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Discussion about this post