About Military Academy Scandals:
With military precision (pun intended) one can count on a military academy scandal every few years. The branches appear to take turns--the Navy, then a few years later the Army. Lately the Air Force is having its "rape" and "cheating" scandals. What follows is a point of view not reported elsewhere. It's written by a Mustang (an enlisted man promoted to officer) serving on submarines and with UDT-21) and as a former career Army airborne infantry officer. For many this is going to be extremely uncomfortable, if not impossible, to read. It has to do with responsibility, and cause, and intention, and communication.
Here's an overview of the rape scandal: A female cadet reported that a senior male cadet had raped her, not once but repeatedly throughout the semester. When the female cadet finally reported the incident, it's said that about 40 other female cadets came forth and reported that they too experienced similar, and worse, and repeated treatments by many senior male cadets.
The behavior of the male cadets is so reprehensible it makes it difficult to get to responsibility, to cause, in the matter. What has yet to be reported is the out-integrity of each of the "victims" and of the Commandant, the one responsible for communicating and supporting the academy's code of honor.
America's military academies operate from what's referred to as the Code of Honor. To paraphrase the code:
If a cadet observes another cadet or staff member breaking a rule, the cadet has agreed (pledged his/her word) to confront the rule breaker and ask that he/she report themselves. If the perpetrator refuses to report him/herself they must be told that they leave the observer no choice but to report them; else, and here's the biggie, the observer also will be reprimanded/expelled.
So we ask: How can an upper classman make even sexual overtures, let alone rape in the form of sex-at-my-command (a most heinous misuse of control and power), toward a junior female classman except with the fear of knowing with
absolute certainty that it will be reported?
*We also ask: If both the victim and the perpetrator are equally bound by the same code of honor what choice does the female have but to handle the infraction (the first leer, the first untoward communication) as pledged by her word? Would she even want to belong to an organization in which, if she reported such intolerable behavior, she was not believed? Didn't each female cadet give her word to the Commandant of the Academy that she could be absolutely trusted to support the code?
And finally we ask: Who communicated to the male cadet(s) that such behavior was acceptable? It was, unbeknownst to most everyone, the Commandant himself. How do we know? We know by the results. It was in fact unconsciously communicated nonverbally. Within a few conversations (during a three-hour communication consultation) we could discover that the Commandant held (and most likely still holds) unacknowledged sexist views.
Now here's the irony. The subject of non-verbal (to include unconscious intentional) communication is not part of any academy's leadership-communication curriculum. It wasn't until I left both the Navy (submarines, and later, the Underwater Demolition Team, now called SEALs) and the Army, and the university education system (see
About Us) that I even heard about the subject of leading/communicating from intention. It was, of all places, presented in the business world as part of the curriculum in advanced sales training. It was not covered at all in my B.A. or M.A. Speech-Communication curriculums. Not even to this day do universities cover such important communication variables as incompletes, acknowledgments, withholds, integrity, and perpetrations, the variables that a communicologist knows with certainty are the root of all communication breakdowns. Why aren't these topics covered? A coach (teacher) must him/herself operate from impeccable integrity. Few teachers can afford such luxury. Such a person is experienced as a threat to most everyone in today's leadership positions, in part because a coach/educator must agree to go absolutely straight, to include cleaning up all messes from cause.
In the presence of someone who operates from integrity any out integrity soon reveals itself.Herein lies (pun not intended) the rub, and the cause of the pattern of the repeating military academy scandals.
The code of honor is not communicated. It is not delivered with intention for it to be honored, therefore it's only understood. It's neither gotten nor recreated.
Note: It would take a communicologist (a communication-skills coach) about 36 hours (a three-day weekend intensive) to communicate the code to an academy student body, its staff and administrators. I say "communicologist" meaning someone who has spent as much time studying/teaching communication as any (
yes, any) professional has spent in his/her specific field.
Most academy commandants are stuck somewhere in the process of becoming a leader. What you say? A Colonel/General is not a leader, they are only trying to be a leader? Yes. The way one can tell that an organization has a leader is that the agreements/rules are co-created and honored. This is because a leader communicates the rules as opposed to "announces them," "puts them out," "tells everyone," "informs everyone," "says them," "makes them available," etc. A "leader" inspires integrity. Subordinates of someone in the "process-of-becoming-a-leader" have no choice other than to mirror the integrity of their superior. An aura of integrity emanates from a leader. A leader can tell from experience if there is a withhold or an unacknowledged perpetration in the relationship. When a relationship starts from integrity any out-integrity is like a "mote in thine eye." It begs to be acknowledged/communicated and cleared.
For example: The majority of parents miss their child's first lie. This is due in part because most adults have yet to be acknowledged (caught) for their own first lie. You might ask, why is the change (obvious to an observer) from a countenance of innocence to a look of guilt on their child's face missed by most parents? It's simply because most parents have so many unacknowledged lies that they have lost their ability to hear another's lie; they are not in present-time, they are unconscious. At some point in time most parents lapse into their imitation of communication.
Here's an example of a few minutes of a prospective 36-hour weekend-long leadership communication-skills workshop to be given at the beginning of each year at an academy. It would be titled "The Honor Code of Conduct - a communication workshop." It would be co-facilitated by the Commandant and a non-military communicologist (a communication-skills coach). It would include the following:
"Let's begin. If you lied on your application please go to the rear of the room. If there is deceit or something inaccurate on your application please go to the rear of the room. (At the back of the room academy admin staff would be seated at tables with each cadet's application form.)
Note: Communication can not take place when there is an unacknowledged error/perpetration/withhold in the space. 95% percent of all job applications (world wide) have one or more errors on them. It's not only that the cadet applicant made the error, that's what applicants do, it's that the staff was so unconscious that they did not catch it. Such sloppy work creates disrespect.
Once the forms have been completed the workshop continues. Another part of the workshop would sound like this:
I'm speaking directly to you female cadets. When, not if, a male cadet in any way imposes himself upon you and you don't report it, you will be expelled. Now this is not hypothetical. It will happen. Some sexist senior male cadet who has yet to formulate a code of ethics and morals will impose himself upon you in some fashion. We can absolutely count on this happening. What I need to know now is whether or not I can trust you to insist that the cadet stop; and, if he persists in any way, that you'll tell him that he leaves you no choice other than to report hem. If I can't trust you the military doesn't want you. Leave now. We do not want covert saboteurs in the military. Silence condones. To be an officer you must be willing at all times to not have the job. If you become attached to graduating then you will fail me. You will compromise your integrity. You will have thwarted and sabotaged me. We already know the male cadet of whom we speak doesn't deserve to be an officer. What's also true is the female who attracts and rewards by silence such behavior is also not fit to be an officer. We don't need is another "tail-hook" incident in which you, yes you, let something slide, for fear of . . . . for reasons. You either maintain your integrity or you have your reasons. Men, you are making the same agreement with me. If a female cadet makes sexual advances towards you then your job is to stop it mid-communication. To not is to intend it. We are going to spend this whole weekend going over just what the code of honor means. The floor is open for discussions throughout out the 36-hour Communication of The Code of Conduct. No one leaves except that all are clear. To not share a thought this weekend is as good as deciding to not be an officer. I need and want to hear your philosophies your belief systems. I don't care what they are. What's important is that you have the courage to share it with all of us. If you hide your thoughts you are as good as washed out.
More about the Air Force's honor code:
Honolulu Advertiser: 5/15/04,
Air Force Academy head takes blame in test cheating scandal. With this headline we see that Air Force cadets, still recovering from the rape scandal, once again draw our attention to the academy's leadership. It's a shame because it not the cadets. Leaders lead and subordinates follow. Like children the cadets are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing. Most military personnel try to do as little as possible, in this case, study. Leaders know this.
Those in the process of becoming leaders (the academy cadre-staff-leadership) cannot tell when a cadet (a subordinate) is jerking them around pretending to play the game). Cadets have absolutely no choice but to mirror the integrity of the organization.
In this case, Lt. General John Rosa, the present Academy Superintendent, is missing the leadership communication skills it takes to communicate the code of honor.
Cheating is a powerful communication of disrespect. It's one way a cadet has of bringing to the world's attention the fact that something is wrong. In this case the leaders have become stuck doing their imitation of communication. The cadets are presently faced with a dilemma, they are bound by oath to support their Commander-in-Chief (The President) yet at some level they know something about the Iraq war is out-integrity. Getting expelled for cheating is ironically the most noble, albeit unconscious, way of getting out of the responsibility of leading men in a battle they don't agree with. A part of an American's psyche is that a man's home is his castle. We just don't assassinate other presidents. There are other ways of communicating that will produce the desired result.
* Could it be that a male cadet can intuit (experience) the integrity of a female cadet and sense that she spins (Read about
entanglement) the same as he when is comes to integrity? Put another way, cons attract cons. More accurately, cadets read each other and intend (albeit unconsciously) all outcomes.
Just because one is unaware of how they produced a result doesn't mean that they, using their leadership-communication skills, didn't produce it.
With aloha,
Kerry
Last edited 6/10/24
