Naval Academy defends move to adjust image on national TV

Zoobernarf · November 13, 2009, 1:13pm

Everyone please just stop a moment. The brigade was addressed last night about this issue as it had been a big deal here too. Most people including the media are not telling the full story.

While the commandant was away at training the color guard was asked to chose 6 midshipman to go to the world series. The midshipmen talked amongst themselves on the team and it just happened to work out as 6 white males. This decision was forwarded to the commandant (as all movement orders are) and he saw this. He decided to ADD 2 more slots to the color guard for a total of 8 spots in order to try to reflect the composition of the Brigade better.

BUT, there was a uniform issue en route to the game, and the size had to be reduced back down to six mids.

Anyways, make with that story as you wish, but know that those are the facts. In the military you will quickly learn there are things you cant change even if dont like them. You will have to accept that and say “yes sir” even if it blows.

Zoobernarf · November 13, 2009, 1:16pm

Wow I started typing mine before mombee submitted I guess, sorry its a bit of a double post. But yes I agree with her, she seems to know more about the uniform issue than I do.

grad_dad · November 13, 2009, 1:19pm

Momathome- every promotion is tied to someone’s opinion of the individual, and the emphasis on a person’s particular skillset will vary from evaluator to evaluator. We have come a long way in the diversity of our miltary and I say for the better. We always seem to focus on a single event to promote our arguement. So let’s look at this one. The person who assassinated President Kennedy was white male former Marine. Does that mean that all white males should be removed from the Marine Corps? Does the killing of a young Navy Seal officer and female ensign by a white submarine officer mean we should prevent white males from the submarine force? Things happen. People change for the worse and for the better. The military involves humans, which is not a perfect race. We have to learn from our mistakes. If the Navy had not been at the forefront of diversity during my career, I would have missed the opportunity to work for some outstanding leaders. We have more important things to worry about than the composition of the color guard at a baseball game.

aglages · November 13, 2009, 1:22pm

Who asked the color guard to select 6 midshipmen? Did anyone hear from her / him last night when he brigade was addressed?

“en route”? What exactly happened “en route” Something lost or stolen? Otherwise I would think the uniform issue occurred before the trip.

Luigi59 · November 13, 2009, 1:36pm

Yes, and another poster made a comparison of the political correctness of the Army and the Navy, stating that it was PC that prevented the removal of a Muslim Army major lest it offend other Muslims, just as it was PC that changed the racial make-up of the USNA color guard at the World Series lest it offend any non-white males who may be watching.

Threads here can and often do take curves and turns due to previously made posts, and the post made in response to them. Get used to it.

A USNA Midshipman, announced in advance by name in a press release, a member of the USNA honor guard, going to New York to perform on the biggest stage he has ever seen, at the World Series at Yankee Stadium, and he “forgets” his cover and his shoes?

How naive are you to believe that?

lotrjedi13 · November 13, 2009, 1:46pm

I don’t know, it’s possible that he did forget them. My basketball team’s star point guard (and she’s not the lazy, careless type) forgot her entire uniform when we went to the state championship game.

But yes, I do agree. It sounds rather odd that a midshipman would forget things as basic as his cover and shoes.

Luigi59 · November 13, 2009, 1:48pm

I believe the Washington Post and the CDR Salamander blog comments printed below explain everything in much better clarity than “mombee’s opinion.”

CDR Salamander’s comments in italics.

A military-oriented blog, CDR Salamander, reported last week that two white, male midshipmen had been pulled from the color guard that went to Yankee Stadium and replaced with two other students, one an Asian American male, the other a white female, to make the group more diverse.

Hey, I get a shout-out too! But … like Para 1, this is a fact; and this is where things get interesting.

Academy leadership disputed that account.

*Hmmmm … someone here has a different story than everyone else.

My sources? Serving Midshipmen, Commissioned Officers, family, alumni, and friends. I’ll stick with my sources … their stories all agree with each other. Ahem.*

“No midshipman was ever given approval to attend this event and then later told they could not,” said Capt. Matthew Klunder, commandant of midshipmen, in a statement Monday.

Define “attend.” That is different than “perform.” Nice trick - but no workie here. Once again - review his words.

He said he considered replacing two white males in the group but chose instead to expand it from six to eight to make it more representative of the Naval Academy.

*Everyone here who was ever on a precision drill team or color guard, feel free to join in on the CAPT Klunder pig pile.

Did you ever, after training with a specific number of members (say … four flag and two rifle) ever plus-up at the last minute without practice?*

Two of the eight could not perform because one midshipman, Zishan Hameed, had forgotten parts of his uniform. The color guard marches in pairs.

Again - who at the last minute wants to lead a color guard with two extra personnel thrown in - when you didn’t plan to perform with that number? Nasty spin.

A report in the Navy Times, citing unnamed sources, stated that two white males were replaced by Allaire and Hameed. The report noted that a pre-game press release named a six-person color guard, including Allaire and Hameed.

That is fact. Confused? You are supposed to be, methinks.

Two members of the color guard contacted by The Post referred interview requests to the school’s Public Affairs Office. Another declined to comment on Monday. Two others couldn’t be reached for comment.

It should have been mentioned that they can’t. They were issued a legal order not to talk to anyone about this. They followed orders.

According to academy spokesman Cmdr. Joe Carpenter, the color guard was invited to present the flag during the national anthem at the World Series game. Senior staff reviewed the names of those who wanted to go, all white males, and decided the group should better reflect the diversity of the academy. Of the 4,400 midshipmen, 20 percent are female and about one-quarter are minorities.

Fact. Now, go read CDR Carpenter again. This starts to get even more fun.

“The color guard that was going to the World Series, which by all accounts is an event on a national stage, with a national audience, needed to be representative of the Naval Academy,” Carpenter said.

*Really? Where is the “geographical diversity” color guard? Where is the “religious diversity” color guard? Where is the “I like redheads, he likes natural blondes” color guard?

Oh, and the word, “needed.” Who defined that need, and in the paragraph above, who was the senior commissioned officer present to agreed to discriminate against two defined individuals on the basis of race?

Is racial discrimination actionable under the UCMJ? I think so. Does it apply in this case? I’m not a lawyer - I don’t know. If removing someone from a position based on their race not racial discrimination, what is it?*

An academy color guard is assembled from a roster of 28 midshipmen to represent the institution at ceremonies and public events. “That group of 28 can be put together in any combination,” Carpenter said. Groups of midshipmen can ask to participate in high-profile events, Carpenter said, but the final decision rests with the commandant and his staff.

*OK, CDR Carpenter - you just answered my question. The senior officer that approved the removal of two MIDN based on their race was the Commandant? What does the CMEO had to say about this?

The CMEO’s webpage states:

It is the Naval Academys policy to provide equal treatment and equal opportunity to all midshipmen and staff. The objective of the Command Managed Equal Opportunity (CMEO) program is to promote positive command morale by providing an environment in which all personnel can perform to their maximum ability unimpeded by institutional or individual biases based on race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, or religious stereotypes. To this end, the CMEO program supports the chain of command and addresses issues of sexual harassment and equal opportunity. CMEO officers seek to educate midshipmen about the importance of diversity and to prevent occurrences of sexual harassment and discrimination.

Wow - looks like a clear cut case to me. CAPT Klunder, over to you.

Back to the WaPo article,*

Klunder said he originally planned to replace some members of the color guard. “My only guidance to them was that any replacements must be fully qualified team members and that originally proposed team members would still be permitted to travel to and attend the World Series,” he said in a statement.

*CAPT, you just contradicted yourself.

Earlier, you stated,*

“No midshipman was ever given approval to attend this event and then later told they could not,” said Capt. Matthew Klunder, commandant of midshipmen, in a statement Monday

*Now, I’m not going to play the “attend vs. perform” sea-lawyer game. Let’s make that “perform,” as that is the issue here.

You then state,*

… originally proposed team members would still be permitted to travel to and attend the World Series…

So, we do have an “original” and “Potemkin” color guard team. Thank you CAPT, you just made my point.

After further discussion, he said he decided to expand the guard from six to eight. Klunder said he met with the two midshipmen who could not participate because of the forgotten garments, “to discuss the sequence of events and improve on any communication breakdowns or misperceptions that were experienced.”

I am sure the conversation was a bit more than that. Quite a bit more. How about letting the MIDN talk about it? You are.

“It is regretful that assumptions were made” by the six midshipmen who asked to march at Yankee Stadium, Klunder said, “but it has been and will remain the Naval Academy leadership’s prerogative” to decide who carries the flag.

*Very nice - blame the victim.

No assumptions were make. The MIDN were told by both the MIDN and uniformed chain of command that they were removed because they were white males. That is not an assumption on their part - that is a fact - a fact confirmed by CDR Carpenter.

What is regretful here, is that the Naval Academy takes as its prerogative to openly discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, or national origin. Is that in the finest traditions of the naval service? In the 21st century - is that really where we should be? Is that in alignment with honor, courage, and commitment?*

Momathome · November 13, 2009, 2:24pm

Grad/Dad -

“every promotion is tied to someone’s opinion of the individual, and the emphasis on a person’s particular skillset will vary from evaluator to evaluator.”

While that may have SOME basis in fact, it is not what I am referring to - so I will restate my position. In certain situations, there is a minimum amount of skill/talent/training necessary to achieve the given objective. When those requirements are put aside in order to achieve “diversity”, someone who worked their tail off to qualify was not given an opportunity and someone who didn’t meet the minimum standards was put into a position they may not be prepared to handle.

When it comes to public safety issues, whether it be the military, or police/firefighters, the seriousness of the consequences ramps up and peoples’ lives are literally at stake. If my house is on fire and I am hanging out a window, I do not care about the gender or ethnicity of the firefighter who arrives. I do, however, care if that person is not tall enough to get the ladder off the truck and rescue me! I do care if another firefighter has to be pulled of the hose line to “help” the person unable to do their job and I am injured or killed because of the delay!

While the USNA Color Guard issue is being portrayed as much ado about nothing, the point is that it is wrong to have different standards for people based on their race or their gender or their religious beliefs, whichever way that sword cuts…it is wrong! And in the case of the military (and Ft Hood IS a prime example), it can and does cause the loss of life!

1896645 · November 13, 2009, 4:26pm

I’m a new poster here–I first surfed onto this forum awhile back when doing some research and have only very periodically come back to browse messages out of curiosity on certain university/military topics. I’ve never posted but after reading this string of messages felt compelled to actually establish an account in order to write in–in large part because in reading this it seems like there’s a basic misreading of arguments going on, and about an extremely important topic.

Namely: several people have written that both the USNA and Ft. Hood incidents are examples of PC behavior in that the motivation behind decision-making was to “not offend” a certain group (non-white males and Muslims, respectively).

I have to disagree with that. In both instances, I think that the action was far more proactive than reactive and instead rested on an active desire to engage, attract and retain a diverse group of service-people for very specific strategic and military objectives.

I don’t think that focus on diversity in the military is “for the sake of diversity”. I think it’s for the sake of two missions that are key to success:

Mission #1) Motivating soldiers and sailors and airmen (or prospective soldiers and sailors and airmen) by giving them examples of people to look up to with whom they can easily identify.

A fairly non-politicized example of this (though of a slightly different nature and mission–but worth mentioning as being related) would be the law that dictates that service academies must have students from all 50 states. We don’t want a service that only has members from 35 of the states in the union even if it means slightly watering down the metrics for competition in less-competitive or populated states. As has been discussed on here many times–it’s a lot harder to get into an academy coming from NY or MD or CA than it is from ND. That’s the breaks.

But also, just on a personal, non-politicized level, how many of us have had the experience of being somewhere new, doing something hard, feeling lonely and suddenly meeting someone who’s from our hometown or city? It feels good. Suddenly we’re reminded that there are other people from similar circumstances who have made a choice that challenges them. You might think this is namby-pamby psychology but social-psychologists and industrial-psychologists and even businesses study this and it’s proven true. There are non-PC benefits (totally outside the idea of “offending” people) to having a diverse workforce that actually work to INCREASE productivity and efficacy.

In terms of the actual World Series example: I don’t think the vast majority of people would have noticed if the color guard were six white males and been offended by that; however, as has been pointed out–it would have missed an opportunity to appeal to a small subset of people who might notice and be inspired by seeing something they hadn’t anticipated seeing. Regardless of whether or not you agree with that position, it’s worth attributing the correct motivations which were probably not of the “I want to avoid offending women” variety and more of the “I want to maximize the use of this PR opportunity.”

Mission #2: Having an American military force that is populated with people from varied backgrounds, races and religions, and who have varied language-abilities and skillsets in order to more effectively engage in areas across the globe.

This mission is more connected to policies that might have influenced dealings with Major Hassan (these are policies the existence of which are speculative on my part, but that are certainly perceived to exist by people who have written messages in this forum).

This is an even more interesting and complicated issue however, because I think it cuts to the quick of a lot of the complications and frustrations of trying to fight an irregular war. To the degree to which (terrible and devastating) oversights were made in making personnel decisions regarding Major Hassan, it is not because people didn’t want to “offend Muslims”, it’s because personnel people have an objective to recruit and retain Muslim servicemembers for very clear reasons.

There’s a tactical military benefit to having Arabic-speakers, soldiers of Middle-eastern/central-Asian descent and Muslims available for deployment to areas in which most people are Arabic speakers, of Middle-eastern/central-Asian descent and practice the Muslim faith. These individuals have a proportionally higher cultural knowledge of a place, faith and language in which we are fighting an irregular, culturally-charged war. It may not be fair or right but it seems proven in many wars stretching back for centuries that people are more apt to more quickly trust someone with which they have an immediate connection. Quick trust on the part of locals and a willingness to share information or believe in the noble motives of US soldiers is a key to winning an irregular war.

It doesn’t mean that local populations can’t bond with a GI from Alabama (I recently read a terrific article about a very close friendship that grew up between a guy from Tuscaloosa and an Iraqi translator), but it is less likely to happen as quickly. At the very least, that’s the reason the policy exists.

It is absolutely awful that people certainly seem to have overlooked red flags in Major Hasan’s case–however, I don’t think this was to “avoid offending Muslims”. It was due to an active goal in the military to increase the attraction, retention, promotion and deployment of the number of service-people of Muslim heritage or Middle-eastern descent or with a background in Arabic because they are a tactical or strategic asset (whether it is related to strategy of tactics would, I imagine, depend on where/when the conversation is taking place).

So I propose this thought experiment in terms of thinking about whether decisions were made for PC/non-PC reasons:

What if the very policy of trying to retain as many Muslim’s within the ranks as possible has directly led to circumstances in which let’s say five units (which is a low-end estimate) have ended up with a American-born, Muslim intelligence officer who has been such an asset in building relationships with local tribal leaders and/or religious or municipal leaders that it has led to a strong relationship that has resulted in intelligence gathering that has directly prevented 2-3 ambushes for each unit. If two lives were saved in each of these 2-3 ambushes, then we’re talking about upwards of 20 lives having been saved because of this very policy that people are accusing of being a PC-driven scourge that directly resulted in Ft. Hood. What then? Is this still a “bad” policy (to the degree such a “policy” even exists)?

And please don’t say that we need the policy that resulted in the acquisition of the awesome Muslim troops who save lives but should do away with the policy that resulted in the retention of Major Hasan because it’s the same concept, the same policy. The point is not even that any policy is 100% good and effective. It’s just that one flaw in a system does not mean that the policy or system has terrible motivations–even a dramatic and tragic flaw.

No one wants bad troops–it’s just there are cracks and loopholes in any system and people slip through or manipulate circumstances.

The loss of 13 lives is awful and tragic and I think everyone can and does agree with that–most of all people like General Casey and other veterans of multiple wars who have seen carnage and loss of life on a scale I think none of us can begin to understand, and who accept some measure of responsibility for all of the soldiers under their command.

But Major Hasan was clearly crazy. He may have been Muslim and he may have had a delusional conception of the world in which this was some great gesture in alliance with a terrorist organization (though I’m skeptical that it was particularly plotted out by any cell larger than him and him alone because of the chaotic and lonely nature of it) but he was mostly just a crazy person who slipped through the system.

There have been crazy people who have slipped through the system and ended up perpetrating instances of fragging in these wars–that is also awful and tragic. But whatever “policy” resulted in the military’s retention of these crazy and dissatisfied fraggers is no more at fault for their horrific behavior than the “policy” that resulted in the retention of Major Hasan.

What’s at fault is the exact point in the system where an individual–a personnel worker, a superior officer–overlooked behavioral indicators that should have shouted out: This Person Is A Danger!!! And we should, as a society, explore what point that was.

The most tragic thing is that there will always be crazy and delusional people who do awful, awful things because they slip through the cracks of a system that, in hindsight, wishes it had caught them. Because, as they say, hindsight is always 20-20. This will happen in the military and out, in schools, in post offices, in homes, on streets. It’s scary and it’s sad.

And we, as humans, will always try to understand this irrational and frightening behavior by coming up with “reasons” that they slipped through the cracks. Because this makes us feel slightly more in control of circumstances that make us feel like we are losing some measure of control over our world.

General Casey’s comments on Ft. Hood do sound odd when highlighted as they were in the previous message. But I think it may have been a language thing–I don’t think he’s saying some theoretical conception of diversity is more important than people’s lives. It’s hard to stomach the idea that a military officer would not take the deaths of his service-people with the utmost seriousness. And I can’t really believe that he doesn’t.

I would venture to guess that he was trying to say: to lose diversity in the wake of this event would be even more tragic. And I think that his sentiment must have roots in the idea that it is better for the operational military to have a diverse representation in its ranks. This is not to kowtow to special interests but is to help effectively maintain an all-volunteer force in a country that is ever more diverse and also (seemingly) ever more conflict-shy, and in order to most effectively fight irregular wars in regions that are highly foreign to most Americans and culturally-charged.

Because psychology is, in fact, a huge part of most military engagements in the modern world. And race, culture, background and language thoroughly inform psychology.

aglages · November 13, 2009, 5:31pm

PR instead of PC? Is it not discrimination if personnel decisions are made for PR purposes, or is it only discrimination if the personnel are not white?

While this may be a factor in some military specialties, it is far from the most important consideration in choosing a military officer. Loyalty and patriotism seem substantially more important (to me). When these qualities are demoted to secondary importance for other reasons (whether PC or minor military needs), then the motivation and decision making process needs to be seriously reviewed. The fact that the Army Chief of Staff mentions “diversity” in the same sentence as this murderer makes many people question the Army’s priorities.

To continue to value diversity over more important qualities would not only be more tragic but IMHO invite more of these 'tragedies".

Amen.

mombee · November 13, 2009, 5:55pm

Mom, there are twenty eight highly qualified, highly trained, highly competent members of the color guard team. The composition of those selected for this particular evolution was simply changed a few times as it went up the chain of command, which is more normal than not. During none of these renditions were there any less than stellar members involved. Your entire premise of not meeting the minimum standards is totally false.

Luigi, you seem to disagree with everything I say and then post links and articles to support all my statements. When you get through arguing with yourself, let me know who wins.

Numbers, thanks for the post. It’s nice to see that a few “get it”.

Luigi59 · November 13, 2009, 7:03pm

When you get through with changing your screen name for the 3rd time so you can continue to post your “undeniable” opinions, let me know.

flyboy47 · November 13, 2009, 11:30pm

why can’t the selection be based on who’s the best color guardsmen? not based on the gaurdsman’s color…

1896645 · November 13, 2009, 11:31pm

Luigi–if your last post is some kind of reference to me being a “new” name for mombee, I’d like you to go back and read our posts. The syntax and diction are throughly distinct. Our writing styles have very little in common.

I’m sorry if my name is problematic but honestly, I tried multiple names and every option I tried was used (it wasn’t that many, but it was like 5-8). I was bored at work which led to my posting and I didn’t have the patience to try to create names all day so eventually I just went with some numbers which were immediately accepted.

That said, to the poster who actually responded to my argument: My first argument was not simply about PR, it was about the idea of motivating troops. If a platoon leader is more effective because he’s charismatic but has a lower IQ than another platoon leader who wanted the position is that somehow “unfair”. Because that happens all the time and thank god it does. Technically he’s dumber. Does that matter? What metric should be used to rank his “standard”? How should these standards be determined? Who should be determining them? Maybe the officer corps? Maybe people like General Casey?

In other words: should the smart, awkward guy get to lead troops because on some arbitrary test he ranks higher?

This idea that there is a hard-and-fast metric evaluating a “standard” seems nonsensical to me. People make decisions based on all sorts of variables. Seriously. IQ tests are human-created. People’s PT test results vary wildly by which day they’re taken. I’ve known people who maxed a PT test one day and were mid-range a month later (because they were sick or having a bad day).

These are only a couple of small reasons that decisions shouldn’t be made exclusively based on those sorts of numbers. And, in fact, they aren’t, which is a good thing. Individuals numbers are used to create a larger picture of what kind of candidate, soldier, officer or applicant someone is. But certainly other factors always enter the picture. Among these are sometimes the needs/demands of the bigger picture. That seems reasonable to me.

It just seems like this PC argument is a bit of a strawman–a way to deflect concern from the real issue: someone messed up somewhere along the way and should have recognized that a psychopath was in the ranks. That’s scary to think about because that indicates human error. And, let’s be honest, we can never create policies that neutralize human error or apathy–which is the scary foundation upon which most societal problems rest.

aglages · November 14, 2009, 12:53am

Without a psychological evaluation how would someone who has never met the murderer know that he was a psychopath? The scary part is not that a human made an error, it’s that because of a belief that diversity is more important than loyalty or patriotism, an anti-American whack job was kept in the military.

Let’s not insult each other. Was the murderer allowed to stay in the Army because he was a great leader of men, because he did well on some arbitrary test or because he was a Muslim?

Perhaps not a “hard-and-fast metric”, but certainly some acceptable standards that have a higher value and perhaps are better predictors of successful officers. Wonder where “diversity” fits in the list of attributes that MOST successful officers seem to share? I think you’ll find patriotism, loyalty, intelligence and leadership are far more important qualities.

Couldn’t agree more.

1896645 · November 14, 2009, 11:50am

aglages wrote: “Let’s not insult each other.”

Well, I wasn’t trying to insult you–I was trying to imply that our “measurements” for things are always imperfect and only one factor among many.

My point was that although intelligence is a key attribute of a successful officer and a strong predictor (maybe the strongest, according to the weighting of factors in the SA admissions offices) of success we don’t allow it to be the only one, as well we shouldn’t.

When people repeatedly use the phrase “meet the standard” it implies that there’s a single standard. There isn’t. There are lots of standards and lots of factors that go into determining whether or not people are successful. People keep bringing up standards of patriotism and loyalty and leadership. How do we rate these? Subjectively. There’s no other way. My point was only that it’s not useful for purposes of debate to act like there’s a hard-and-fast standard out there that people (like the midshipman who marched in the color guard) are failing to meet. How do we know how they chose the original six midshipmen? Maybe it was a popularity contest. Maybe it was all firsties. Who knows? The point is that decisions get made for all kinds of reasons outside of some nonexistent perfect “standard”. And I wouldn’t want decisions to only be made via the numerical standards that we do have–like IQ tests and SATs and PT test results–because some of them are totally biased and they don’t take into account those squishy, subjective concepts like patriotism and loyalty.

To take this back to the topic of diversity: if you read much psycho-social research, it’s clear that issues of diversity have an effect on human motivation. Since the army is in the business of motivating people–both troops and civilians with whom it works in country–this doesn’t seem like an unreasonable factor to also consider. Not exclusively consider, but have as a secondary or tertiary consideration.

aglages wrote: “Was the murderer allowed to stay in the Army because he was a great leader of men, because he did well on some arbitrary test or because he was a Muslim?”

I think if one of those factors is most dominant it was the second of them. He did well on tests. He made his way through medical school. The army paid for this. Therefore he was forced to stay in the Army in compensation for his training. He wanted to leave the Army and was disallowed.

I just think it’s an enormous and destructive oversimplification to say that he was kept on primarily because he was a Muslim. He was kept on primarily because the Army has a policy of not allowing people to leave before their commitments are up. Should we change this policy and make it easier for people to leave just prior to deployment because suddenly they’ve decided they don’t want to go to war for one reason or another?

There have been court cases to this effect and the answer is a resounding no.

There should be exceptions to that rule made in extreme cases–for instance, where the person might be a danger to others around them. This was one of those extreme cases, and that’s my point: someone should have realized this along the way. This guy did not belong in the Army.

But to argue that he was “allowed to stay” in order to not “offend Muslims” just seems untrue. He wanted to get out and probably 95% of the reason he was not allowed out was because there’s a policy of making people work off the cost of their education.

IF people knew that this guy was a horrible soldier and only allowed him to stay because he was Muslim THEN of course that’s a terrible policy and I’d be shocked if everyone didn’t agree to that.

I just really don’t think that’s what happened here and I don’t understand why other people think that it is. If anything, in an overstressed army the people evaluating him didn’t spend the time and care on it that they should have in order to identify that he was a menace to those around him and get him out.

aglages wrote: “Perhaps not a “hard-and-fast metric”, but certainly some acceptable standards that have a higher value and perhaps are better predictors of successful officers. Wonder where “diversity” fits in the list of attributes that MOST successful officers seem to share? I think you’ll find patriotism, loyalty, intelligence and leadership are far more important qualities.”

I don’t think anyone’s arguing that diversity should rate as highly as patriotism, loyalty, intelligence or leadership when deciding whether or not to retain a soldier. That’s why baseline standards exist. You don’t let someone stay in who can’t pass PT tests repeatedly, you don’t let someone into the military who can’t get a certain score on the ASVAB, you don’t let someone in the military who doesn’t stand up and swear an oath, and you don’t promote someone who has no control over their unit and doesn’t accomplish their mission.

After that, what does it matter if we decide that for operational purposes (whether it be training or tactics or recruitment) it’s better to try and keep people who have a specific skill-set or background that can theoretically assist the army in completing a certain job. That has to do with the “needs” of the army as conceived on high. Personally, I defer in military decision-making to generals who have 25+ years of experience commanding troops and multiple deployments under their belts.

aglages · November 14, 2009, 12:08pm

I think it is pretty clear that people knew this low-life was a horrible soldier. Why the Army kept him anyway is certainly a question that Congress will be asking over the next few months. Of course we already know what the Army Chief of Staff is concerned the investigations MIGHT find:

It may well be that the days of generals making decisions for primarily military reasons instead of PC reasons have come and gone. Although a topic for discussion in another thread, I wonder if it is still possible to make general rank without a keen sense of which way the political winds are currently blowing.

1896645 · November 14, 2009, 12:54pm

“I think it is pretty clear that people knew this low-life was a horrible soldier.”

And I would argue that people knew he wasn’t a particularly good soldier, but until 10 days ago it wasn’t clear just how awful he was. He was in a career-field (medical) that is understaffed and decisions were made that in hindsight were atrocious. These decisions seem especially atrocious because different strands of information are all coming together that, quite likely, were never all put together pre-incident. That’s the nature of hindsight.

And again, I interpret that quote from Casey differently than you do. I think what he’s saying is that if, on top of this tragedy, people start blaming diversity, that’s even worse.

Your implication above is that the “real” answer to this whole mess is that a fixation on diversity is somehow the culprit in the retention of Major Hasan.

So my question would be: Why do you not want to wait for a thorough investigation and determination of this? Why are you so immediately sure that “protected status for reasons of diversity” is the root cause of this problem? Why don’t other possibilities–like the understaffed Army–seem like also might be legitimate explanations?

I really doubt that at any point in the chain of events someone looked at his file and said: well he’s horrible and dangerous and offensive but he’s a Muslim so we can’t fire him.

If I had to guess I’d say that people looked at his file and said: he’s not the best solider out there and he’s done some suspect things but there’s nothing definitive to qualify him as a danger. Clearly this was wrong, but I just don’t think people knew ahead of time.

Again, I’d like to point back to the other incidents that have happened within these wars–incidents of fragging, incidents of unethical and abusive conduct in war zones. Ill-equipped soldiers were retained in the army because retention is the default policy of the military. Outside of dramatic health problems, it’s hard to get let go from the army during a time of war. The system is designed that way for pretty obvious reasons.

And I guess we just disagree in terms of the decision-making of the military establishment: I still think that generals primarily make decisions for military reasons.

I think that political and/or cultural factors sometimes influence those reasons, but that’s due to the fact that the military does not exist in a cultural vacuum. The diverse make-up of the USA and of regions in which we are deployed can and should have an effect on the way that we think about military strategy whether it effects language enrollment, cultural training, staffing decisions, the establishment of operating bases. I think that was and is one of the lessons of Petraeus’s success.

This in no way makes excuses for what happened. I just don’t think there’s a causal link between an embrace of diversity and this incident. I’m not trying to be difficult; I just really don’t think there’s causality.

In fact, I think the logic of “he was retained because he was a Muslim!” is far too facile and, just as you accuse General Casey above, indicates coming into Monday morning quarterbacking of the incident with a predetermined position.

I actually don’t think General Casey is even doing that. In fact, I think that he–as much as anyone, has a real and clear incentive to figure out what went wrong in terms of the retention of Hasan and fix it. Because he’s the officer at the top of the pyramid. This is HIS responsibility.

I think Hasan was retained for a variety of complicated reasons none the least of which is that the military is spread thin and we don’t currently have enough Army doctors.

The fact of his retention was, in hindsight, a tragedy.

mombee · November 16, 2009, 1:10pm

. There are a few diehards who feel that the sole purpose of diversity is either political correctness or the fear of offending a particular group. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are many reasons for diversity. “Numbers” has hit on a few. I am only going to address one reason, and in my opinion, the most important reason, that of the quality of our armed forces. It is impossible to maintain the best quality possible without diversity. The demographics in America are changing. There are no longer sufficient quality white males available in the numbers necessary to maintain the quality of our forces that we demand today. Of course we could increase the attractiveness of the military; increased salaries, better living conditions, more home and family life, etc. However, each and every one of these incentives would require more money, money that would have to be taken from somewhere else, money that could most likely be better utilized on material, equipment, and infrastructure. Money, most importantly, which would have to be justified to Congress. Money that would be difficult to justify since there are other quality individuals who could be recruited with a minimal amount of effort. Highly qualified diversity groups which would bring better overall quality to our entire military. .

We now have a volunteer force, top to bottom. One has to have a desire to serve. Patriotism is a factor but there are many more factors which must be examined. One must feel welcome, feel that they are a part of the organization, feel that they are being given the opportunity to perform to their maximum, and feel that they have the opportunity for promotion, among many other factors. Without a sense of fulfillment, a sailor, no matter what race, gender, or ethnic persuasion, will either not join or leave at the first opportunity.

On these service academy forums we have posters who claim to have actually served in the military who portray females as conniving sexual predators to whom the entire male crew of a boat or ship is unsafe and who will do anything possible to connive themselves out of making a cruise, placing undue hardships on their shipmates. We see certain minorities unfairly portrayed as the reason that the honor concepts and codes aren’t working today. Is this portraying a welcome atmosphere? An atmosphere where everyone is given the same opportunity to perform to their utmost? I don’t think so. Perhaps, due to the unfair portrayals of a few, the military must make an extra effort, to go past equal opportunity, past the norm. Do any of these individuals realize that perhaps the only reason that the selection of one individual over that of another might simply be to counter their prejudiced unsubstantiated rantings and of those like them who have given the military a false bad image?

Momathome · November 16, 2009, 3:17pm

“There are no longer sufficient quality white males available in the numbers necessary to maintain the quality of our forces that we demand today.”

That is patently untrue and offensive to every single white male who has been rejected in favor a minority applicant with lower scores! It is equally offensive to every single minority applicant who has received top notch scores but always feels like others are looking at them with suspicion as to whether they should “really” be there…

This is not an excersize in social experimentation and positive self esteem! These people are putting their lives on the line to protect our nation and they deserve to be treated honestly and fairly!

Thread		Replies	Views
Academies believe admission change won't hurt minorities Naval Academy - Annapolis	1	46	April 17, 2021
Academy focuses on diversity : Oversight board hears of work to recruit minorities Naval Academy - Annapolis	1	48	April 17, 2021
Life at the Naval Academy Naval Academy - Annapolis	43	293	April 17, 2021
"The academy can do better" scandal Naval Academy - Annapolis	8	115	April 16, 2021
2011 Induction Naval Academy - Annapolis	17	68	April 17, 2021

Naval Academy defends move to adjust image on national TV

POPULAR STATES

SEARCH SAT SCORES

SEARCH ACT SCORES

SEARCH GPA’S

Naval Academy defends move to adjust image on national TV

Related Topics

POPULAR STATES

SEARCH SAT SCORES

SEARCH ACT SCORES

SEARCH GPA’S

CONNECT WITH US