Unity Without Equity Isn’t Cohesion: A Black Veteranality reading of Pete Hegseth’s new “Warrior Ethos”

By: Bryon L. Garner, PhD

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is rolling out a hard-edge “warrior ethos” agenda—tight grooming rules (no beards except narrow waivers), daily PT, and an explicit attack on DEI—framed as a return to discipline and unity. This piece utilizes Black veteranality to examine what it truly entails within the ranks: who it harms, what truths it silences, and why “unity without equity” is not cohesion but a façade. (Reuters)

What Hegseth is instituting—plainly

At a rare all-hands gathering of senior leaders at Quantico on September 30, 2025, Hegseth said the quiet part out loud: DEI is out, stricter grooming and fitness standards are in, and leaders who disagree should resign. In public remarks and allied reporting, he has mocked “fat generals,” demanded daily hard PT (not yoga), and tied outward sameness—hair, shaving, body metrics—to inner discipline. That, in his telling, is how to rebuild a “warrior ethos.” (Reuters)

To be clear: “warrior ethos” is not new. In the Army, it’s the four-line core nested inside the Soldier’s Creed—place the mission first, never accept defeat, never quit, never leave a fallen comrade—codified in 2003 as part of a service-wide cultural campaign. The phrase has always been about mindset under fire, not conformity in a mirror. (Army)

Hegseth’s move is something else: redefining ethos as enforcement—appearance, sameness, and the narrowing of what counts as “unity.” That’s the pivot this article interrogates.

The lens: Black veteranality

Black veteranality is a way of reading military life that keeps three truths in view at once: (1) the lived experience of Black service members; (2) how institutions translate “patriotism” into rules that often extract dignity while demanding loyalty; and (3) the long afterlife of service—how policy shows up in bodies, careers, families, and in public memory. It asks a simple question: who pays the price of someone else’s idea of cohesion?

With that frame in mind, let’s take the mandate point by point.

1) Unity without equity is not cohesion

Cohesion is the trust you can rely on under stress. It’s not matching haircuts. The DoD’s own data tells you why. The active-duty force today is not a monolith:

• Racial minorities (Black, Asian, American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, multiracial, and “unknown”) make up 32.0% of active-duty troops. Hispanic/Latino members—of any race—make up 19.5%. If you ask, “How many troops are either a racial minority or Hispanic?” the math is straightforward: White, non-Hispanic troops are just 52.6% of the force, which means 47.4% are either racial minorities or White Hispanic. That’s almost half the formation. (Military OneSource)
• Women comprise 17.7% of the active duty force. That’s not cosmetic—it’s operational. (Military OneSource)
• Asian service members alone account for approximately 3.6% of active-duty personnel. Black service members comprise approximately 17.6% of the total. (These figures come straight from the DoD’s race/ethnicity tables for 2023.) (Military OneSource)
• LGBTQ+ presence is real—under-counted, but real. In DoD-funded surveys and VA analyses, at least 6.1% of active-duty personnel identified as LGBT in 2015 (in an environment that discouraged disclosure). Later research and reporting suggest the share is likely higher; estimates of ~79,000 LGBTQ+ troops are often cited. (Veterans Affairs)

When a SecDef pitches “unity” by treating diversity as the problem, he’s not building cohesion; he’s redefining belonging so that nearly half the force (and many women and LGBTQ troops within and beyond that half) must shrink to fit. That’s not unity. That’s a performance of uniformity that erases the real team you actually have. (Reuters)

Black veteranality calls out what it is: image management that hides inequity. Cohesion doesn’t require sameness. It demands fairness—predictable rules, safety to speak up, consistent justice, and leadership that cares who carries the weight.

2) Calling unity and diversity “opposites” is policy violence—aimed at at least 40% of the force

“Policy violence” refers to harm delivered by a rule. You don’t need a slur if the memo does the wounding. When Hegseth frames diversity efforts as soft, political, or corrosive to unity, he signals that the identities of Black, Latino, Asian, women, and LGBTQ troops are problems to be managed, not people to be protected and developed. In a formation where 47.4% are racial/ethnic minorities and 17.7% are women, that messaging lands like a body blow. And LGBTQ troops—at least 6% and likely more—hear it too. (Military OneSource)

This isn’t abstract. Look at grooming:

• Pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB)—razor bumps—affects as many as 45–83% of Black men who shave. It’s not a matter of “preference”; it’s a matter of dermatology. Tightening beard waivers or time-boxing them so that noncompliance risks separation creates unequal skin-in-the-game: some troops can comply without pain; others literally bleed for the standard. That difference tracks directly with race. (Medscape)
• A recent policy shift—limiting medical shaving waivers to a year and pushing separations after that—puts a countdown clock on a condition that disproportionately affects Black men. That’s harm by memo, predictable and avoidable. (AP News)
• The Air Force and Army have both been revising shaving-profile guidance, with service communications acknowledging PFB’s prevalence and trying to align medical profiling. Yet the larger trend—tightening waivers while promising treatment pathways—still rests on an unequal base: the rule disproportionately harms some bodies more than others. (Air Force)

Policy violence shows up in discipline and careers, too. Independent reviews and GAO work have documented racial disparities in military justice and personnel systems over the last several years; the DoD has repeatedly been told to improve how it tracks and addresses those gaps. When top leadership treats “DEI” as the enemy, it de-prioritizes the very tools needed to fix the disparities the government has already found. (Government Accountability Office)

And it shows up in climate and safety. Surveys and investigations have highlighted how extremism/white nationalism and harassment concerns are not imaginary—particularly for minorities. That’s not a reason to stigmatize the ranks; it’s a reason to maintain the mechanisms that identify and address those problems. (Military Times)

Bottom line: in a force where nearly half are racial/ethnic minorities, almost one in five are women, and a non-trivial share are LGBTQ, declaring diversity and unity to be opposites functionally targets a considerable portion of your people. That’s the definition of policy violence.

Verified demographics snapshot (so we’re not hand-waving)

• Racial minority (any ethnicity): 32.0% of active duty in 2023. (Military OneSource)
• Hispanic/Latino (any race): 19.5%. (Military OneSource)
• White, non-Hispanic: 52.6% → which means 47.4% are either racial minorities or White Hispanic. (Directly from the DoD table showing White members by ethnicity: 669,503 White non-Hispanic of 1,273,382 total.) (Military OneSource)
• Women: 17.7% of active duty. (Military OneSource)
• Asian ~3.6%, Black ~17.6%, from DoD’s 2023 active-duty counts. (Military OneSource)
• LGBTQ: at least 6.1% self-identified in 2015 (likely undercounted). (Veterans Affairs)

These communities overlap, so you can’t just add them. The point is simpler: large, mission-critical slices of the force hear anti-DEI rhetoric and beard crackdowns as aimed at them, not at “standards.” That perception gap is itself a readiness risk.

3) Silencing critiques of toxic leadership, racism, and sexism doesn’t protect the military’s image—it breaks it

Hegseth’s message to leaders—get on board or get out—may feel decisive. In practice, it chills reporting and erodes trust. That’s dangerous in a force still working through real issues:

• The Department of the Air Force’s independent disparity reviews (2020–2021) found racial, ethnic, and gender disparities “across the pipeline”—accessions through retention. These are solvable problems if leadership invites data and dissent. They calcify if leadership punishes them. (AFRC)
• The GAO has urged DoD and the services to enhance their tracking and correction of racial and gender disparities in justice and personnel systems. Quieting “DEI talk” doesn’t make those disparities disappear; it just makes them harder to see and fix. (Government Accountability Office)
• On sexual assault and harassment, DoD’s own 2023 report shows thousands of reports and persistent prevalence concerns. Survivors already weigh career risk when considering whether to report. A culture that frames “complaints” as disloyal will push more into silence, with reputational costs far beyond any single case. (SAPR)
• On extremism, independent reporting and service member polls have flagged the reality that some troops are exposed to or targeted by extremist ideology, with minorities disproportionately noticing or bearing the brunt. Minimizing DEI or climate work weakens the early-warning system leaders need. (Military Times)

Here’s the irony: the image Hegseth wants—lean, lethal, unified—is best served by accountability and fairness. Not by turning DEI into a punchline or by banning the conversations that let troops and families tell you what’s actually happening on the deckplates.

What “warrior ethos” actually requires (and what it doesn’t)

The canonical Warrior Ethos—the one baked into the Soldier’s Creed—has always been a promise to each other: mission first, never accept defeat, never quit, never leave a fallen comrade. You can’t keep that promise if whole groups are asked to absorb extra pain (dermatologically, administratively, culturally) so others can feel comfortable with the mirror image of a “warrior.” The ethos demands shared sacrifice toward a shared standard—not unequal sacrifice toward a cosmetic one. (Army)

• It does not require facial-hair policies that override known medical conditions concentrated among Black men. Standards can be strict and humane: keep sealing standards aligned with operational needs, not for appearance’s sake; follow your own medical evidence; and stop using a stopwatch on conditions that your clinicians say require time to treat. (Medscape)
• It does require leaders who invite critique and then act. That’s how you build the only unity that survives contact: equity-anchored cohesion.

Black veteranality’s read is straightforward: the “warrior” brand we want is moral courage under pressure. That includes the courage to examine our own house. Anything less breeds a brittle pride that cracks under scrutiny.

A note on cost and consequence

Rules that hit unevenly don’t just bruise morale; they cost readiness. Suppose shaving-waiver limits push otherwise excellent Marines, Soldiers, Sailors, Guardians, or Airmen out. In that case, you’ll feel it in recruiting and retention—especially among communities DoD is counting on to sustain an all-volunteer force. DoD’s 2023 snapshot already shows a force that is younger and more diverse than the nation assumes; losing credibility with those troops and their families is the surest way to shrink the bench. (Military OneSource)

And because the public is not blind, “tight discipline” that reads as discriminatory harms the brand you think you’re protecting. Communities talk. Surveys of service members and families have already found that concerns about racism factor into assignment choices and basing preferences—a quiet leak in the bucket. Plugging your ears won’t plug that leak. (Military.com)

Bringing it together

• Unity without equity is not cohesion. It’s a theater. Cohesion that fights and wins is built on fairness, accountability, and trust that you can rely on in a crisis. Grooming sameness and gag-order vibes don’t create that; they perform it. (Reuters)
• Declaring diversity the opposite of unity is policy violence. In a force where ~47% are racial/ethnic minorities or White Hispanic, ~18% are women, and at least 6% are LGBTQ, anti-DEI posturing lands as a targeted message. Policy that chronically pounds the same bodies (PFB rules; “male-benchmark” fitness talk) isn’t neutral—it’s harm by design. (Military OneSource)
• Silencing critique normalizes hubris—and the public sees through it. GAO, IG reviews, and DoD’s own reports insist the system still produces uneven outcomes. You fix that by welcoming data and dissent, not by pushing them underground. (Government Accountability Office)

If we truly want a warrior ethos worthy of the name, we can uphold the creed and confront what breaks it in practice. That work—equity as a readiness tool, medical standards that follow medicine, leaders who can hold two truths at once—isn’t softness. It’s steel.