The chief of the army, Major General John Boswell, offered his “unreserved apology” for publishing the essay on Wednesday, saying the army did not endorse its contents. He had named it the winner because it was the better-written entry of two in that category, he said, but that decision was a mistake.

 

“I will always listen to the opinions of others, particularly those of our soldiers. And I think it is important that we seek to understand where other views exist,” he wrote, in a post on the link where the article was removed.

 

“In this particular case however, it has been made clear to me that publishing this essay was viewed as undermining both the inclusive culture we are seeking and the work that is being done across all ranks to effect this change – work that is incredibly important, not just to me but to our organisation.”

Boswell planned on Wednesday to face a number of staff who wanted to air their concerns over the essay’s publication, with a further meeting on Monday.

---

 READ MORE

• Army gives anti-diversity essay award, then removes it after backlash

---

The incident comes amid concerns in the military of the presence of personnel holding extremist views.

The essay, by an author identified only as “N Dell”, argues the army should try to become more exclusive rather than more diverse.

Dell writes of knowing there could be a backlash “afforded to the authors of similar documents in the current socio-political climate” but invokes an army slogan containing the words “courage and integrity” in doing so.

“I will argue that the NZ Army cannot reconcile a more diverse and inclusive workforce with the maintenance of a warrior ethos and war-fighting culture or, at least, it should not try,” he wrote.

“Further it should redirect as little energy as possible toward creating a more 'inclusive' culture in the way that this kind of language is understood in the politically charged parlance of the present day.

“On the contrary, I will argue that, if anything, the army should instead endeavour to become more exclusive.”

Efforts towards making the army more diverse and inclusive came at the expense of combat readiness, and the army should stick to “fighting real wars”, he said.

“Every man-hour that is spent on 'cultural awareness training' or similar programmes is a man-hour that is not spent training for combat or monitoring our enemies.”

He also claims Māori are over-represented in the army, which he backs up by citing a Google search, and argues against attempts to “engineer” diversity.

“The trend over the past five to six years to increasingly focus on race, gender and sexual orientation feels like a return to a pre-social revolution era where these arbitrary features of a person were given so much more weight than they deserve.”

Former army officer Dr Ellen Nelson, who wrote her PhD on inclusion and diversity in the army, said there was an overwhelming amount of research that showed the benefits of diversity to the army's culture and performance.

Another essay, which won the non-commissioned officer (NCO) category, argued increasing diversity and inclusion is in the spirit of maintaining the force’s warrior ethos and culture.

The piece, by “Ms E Campbell”, cites various sources including a book by retired American general Stanley McChrystal. “The modern New Zealand soldier is diverse and inclusive, and a stronger warrior for it.”