The Air Force’s decision to remove educational materials about the Tuskegee Airmen and Women’s Airforce Service Pilots (WASPs) from its basic training curriculum has ignited a heated debate about military history and diversity.
At a Glance
- Air Force removes videos about Tuskegee Airmen and WASPs from basic training
- Change aligns with new Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Acceptance (DEIA) guidance
- Decision seen as part of broader rebranding of Air Force DEI programs
- Critics argue removal may be “malicious obedience” to new orders
- Debate raises questions about recognition of historic achievements in military instruction
Air Force Curriculum Changes Spark Controversy
The United States Air Force has recently made a controversial decision to exclude educational materials mentioning the Tuskegee Airmen and Women’s Airforce Service Pilots (WASPs) from its basic training curriculum. This move has raised eyebrows and sparked debate among military personnel, historians, and the general public.
The Tuskegee Airmen, the first African American military aviators, and the WASPs, civilian female pilots who flew military aircraft during World War II, were pioneers in advancing diversity within the military. Their removal from the curriculum comes amid widespread discussions on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) in the Department of Defense.
According to a leaked internal message, the curriculum changes are in line with new Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Acceptance (DEIA) guidance.
The message stated, “In accordance with NEW DEIA [Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Acceptance] Guidance the lesson plans listed below have been changed/alternated to meet the guidance,” as reported by RedState.
Speculation of “Malicious Obedience”
Some observers have suggested that the removal of these videos may be an act of “malicious obedience,” where orders are followed in a way that causes disruption or highlights potential flaws in the directive. This interpretation draws parallels to historical instances of military resistance to desegregation orders.
Critics argue that removing educational content about these pioneering groups does a disservice to their legacy and the important role they played in advancing diversity within the military. They contend that understanding this history is crucial for fostering an inclusive environment in today’s armed forces.
As the debate continues, many are calling for a reevaluation of the decision and a clearer explanation of how these curriculum changes align with the Air Force’s goals for diversity and inclusion. The controversy highlights the ongoing challenges in balancing new directives with the preservation of important historical narratives in military education.
What do our readers think – was this the right move?
