HOME | BIO | MUSIC | JOURNEYS BY DJ | STUDIO BLOG | POLITICAL BLOG | BOOKING INFO | CONTACT

A reader remonstrates:

What the hell does the race and gender of the employees of the TSA have to do with their ability/inability to keep the public secure?

He's referring to this post from a few days back. Since he's clearly attempting to attack me with my own argument, I apparently must not have made myself clear. So let me try again...

I could care less what race or ethnicity the people in this TSA photo are. As far as I'm concerned, neither of those attributes has anything to do with an individual's ability to protect and serve our nation. It's your talents, not your pigmentation, that determine how well you do your job.

As a group, yes, I think diversity is a plus, a point I also attempted to make in my original post. Given our nation's multi-racial and multi-ethnic makeup, it only helps when our government reflects our people. That's true in all aspects of government, but I suspect its particularly true when it comes to our security services. But clearly we can all agree that diversity isn't the primary goal of the TSA, can't we? To quote myself:

Now for the record, yes, of course, security and diversity can in fact coexist. In fact, I would argue that diversity can in fact help to make us as a nation more secure (more on that another time). But this is just plain stupid. This image is about diversity and nothing more. And for the record, no, diversity is not one of the missions of the TSA.

But go take a look at that picture again. That's a photo created by the TSA for us in its public relations campaigns. It's not racism or sexism that leads me to that conclusion. It's logic.

I mean, c'mon... It's not an accidental collection of people. It's not an action shot of a group of TSA workers either on the job or gathered together after work. It's a group that was organized and posed for this specific occasion - the creation of a "who are we" photo for the TA website. There's absolutely nothing about it that is even remotely candid or authentic.

Given that, its not unreasonable to ask why this specific group of people was selected. After all, PR photos are always designed to convey a specific message. They are never accidental. And in this case that message is clear, both from the photo, its caption ("TSA... Keeping You Safe: This is who we are..."), and the first sentence of the paragraph beneath it:

We are your neighbors, relatives, sisters and brothers.

So the conclusion, and the only conclusion, that I can draw is that someone at the TSA thought it was important to convey the idea that the "who" the TSA "is" is diversity itself.

My question is: "Why?" How precisely does playing Noah's Ark with PR photos help make the nation safer? The answer is that it doesn't. Its dumb, its offensive, and its a waste of time and money.

So what's the alternative?

How about this:

Bring together the 5 or 10 best employees from throughout the entire department. Perhaps it could be a collection of the most innovative employees, or maybe the ones who have been deemed by managers to have done the best job. Then, put them in the the picture as an example of America's best and brightest. Let their skills, rather than their skin color, be what qualifies them for inclusion in the picture.

Too contrived? Fine. Then just go out and take pictures of real TSA employees performing real TSA jobs. Do that, and my guess is you'll end up with just as diverse a cast of characters as you have here. But rather than an artificial one, it'll be genuine, a real reflection of the strength of the TSA's diversity in action.

One final detail and then I'll let this go. Because I have to say it... Isn't including a one-armed man in the photo more than a little gratuitous? It would be one thing if he was selected for his outstanding service to the TSA, but I don't think that given the rest of the photo I'm being overly cynical to assume that's not why he's here. He's here not because of his talents but because he has one arm. And I'm not sorry to say that I think that's wrong.

"...not by the color of the skin but by the content of their character..." right?