This is probably not going to be a popular opinion among the military men of my, em…
Vintage.
But I’m frankly not at all surprised at the crucifixion court martial of LT Bryan Black, who found it somehow necessary to not only tell a female midshipman that battleships made him feel a little funny in the drawers, but also attribute a different potential reaction to herself.
She took offense, he apologized, end of story.
Except that it wasn’t. Someone else took offense too, another officer who worked with Black. Was there bad blood between them? Who can tell.
Did he, through “conduct unbecoming an officer” open himself up to whatever else followed? Most certainly.
Because potty humor isn’t what we’re paying him for. We’re paying him to mentor his charges and execute the Naval Academy’s mission:
To develop midshipmen morally, mentally and physically and to imbue them with the highest ideals of duty, honor and loyalty in order to provide graduates who are dedicated to a career of naval service and have potential for future development in mind and character to assume the highest responsibilities of command, citizenship and government.
Don’t see leadership by sexual innuendo anywhere inside there. Potty humor? Some can make it work, with others it is unfunny, with all of us it’s a risk, calculated or otherwise.
I’m not saying that had I been the Supe I’d have made the same call myself. What I’m saying is that the lieutenant put himself in a position of vulnerability by boorish behavior to a junior. He wouldn’t have said what he said to a female admiral, because he would have had to know that there would be consequences. In saying what he said to a subordinate midshipman, he tried to take advantage of his statutory position. And he also took a high risk/low return professional gamble. I qualify that as stupid. Was it criminally stupid?
-
Guess we’ll see.
“We don’t hang men for stealing horses. We hang men so that horses might not be stolen.”
- Edward Halifax
Ooops. Sorry. This is the correct URL
Sir, I may not be of your vintage (only ~2/3rds of the way) but I think you’re totally off.
“Conduct Unbecoming” is a catchall article that’s designed to ensure they can send you up whenever they deem fit. If it were part of civilian law it would be struck down as vague and selectively enforced.
Everyone has made mistakes and violated the letter of the UCMJ. Some of your best stories involve such actions. Some of my mistakes could have spread contamination across half the county. Imagine where you would be right now if they had sent you to mast after your “non-verbal communication” with that Marine major. I’m sure the Navy and the internet would be much poorer.
LT Black screwed up. When he was called on it he apologized. “Sorry” may not fix the turbine or bring back the dead, but when people are offended “sorry” can do quite a lot. I don’t think it’s fair to end a career just because a 20-something put his foot in his mouth talking to a girl.
I?ɬ
I’ve never understood why ‘shoes get aroused by big ships, but anyway…
IMHO the LT was stupid on a grand scale. In this day and age, putting a female midshipman in the position he did was a misuse of his rank. Good on the mid for calling him on it – not only for the boorish behavior itself, but for the misuse of the privilege of rank. The Navy doesn’t need officers who don’t recognize this by the time they’re LT’s.
Were I his CO, the LT would be getting a career-ending fitrep and assigned to deck division for the duration of his tour.
This is not a criminal issue and it is a waste of assets to proceed with prosecution. The criminal prosecution also smacks of the overboard response to the ’91 Tailhook scandal.
I agree with Lex (and Brian) that while the court martial may be an over-reaction, the LT was stupid and out of line. So, while he may be suffering from political gamesmanship or being made an example of in this climate, he’s the idiot who got the ball rolling by his behavior.
Lex’s take on it reminded me of an experience I had last year. Because I crossed my personal behavior line, I opened myself up to offensive behavior from others that ended up pretty ugly. Yes, others were out of line on several counts and I didn’t deserve to be treated that way, but I invited it by my own mistakes.
A CM may not be justice, but as many have said here and elsewhere, in today’s climate he showed a mind-boggling lack of judgement to say that to a midshipman. And that alone makes him of questionable abilities and effectiveness in his position. I’m not sure I’d go as far as Brian in purposely giving him a career-ending fitrep, but I’d be making some kind of official notice of it, and looking to see if he showed subsequent improvement in judgement and behavior.
And MMDeuce, I’m guessing Lex will be the first to acknowledge he’s damn lucky to have largely “gotten away with” what he did and subsequently “lived” long enough to recognize that.
The music hall folks knew the way to go:
“Let the punishment fit the crime.”
VADM Rempt was seduced by the feminism of the day.
He is equally to blame for this damn situation.
The lowest degree of UCMJ punishment, properly advertised, would have done the job.
AT the risk of being pummeled, the LT’s misjudgements are simply a symptom of a bigger disease. Namely that the Naval Academy has lost sight of its real mission in the training of Naval Officers. It started down this path in 1976 and the pace has been accelerated by the events of recent years. That this is going to a CM shows how far gone the place really is.
As I pointed out elsewhere its the end result of the very thing the women claimed they wanted in the first place, to be treated like one of the guys. The women start out saying they want to be treated just like the guys. Then when they find out what guys really think they start the campaign to feminize and the rest is history.
In the process the system, particularly the plebe system, which by its nature should be adversial, is watered down to virtually nothing. So today’s USNA is nothing more than a university where everyone wears the same clothes. Benfit to the US Navy is virtually zero.
This is indicative of what happens when service academies go co-educational. Its happened at my beloved alma mater which at least had the cajones to fight gender integration all the way to the Supreme court.( Scalia and Thomas are the only justices who really understand the constitutional issues there by the way…..). Martin Van Creveld documented this effect very well in the book Men Women and War.
So the MID was offended. TOUGH! She needs to get over it and get a life. The LCDR , who as the Phibian has pointed out has an agenda, and instead of being equally slammed, gets to drive the bus here. Plus as you dig deeper you find that she appears to be that unique species that has prospered in the service these recent years, somone who has made a career of being a woman in the Navy. Think her being the Navy cycling coach has not played a role in her detailing?
Now that USNA had made this into the ridiculous event it has become, I hope Charles Gittins and his team get him aquitted. And in the process drag the academy through a media grinder which will show why this was an overreaction to nothing to begin with.
If it had been a woman that had made the remark and the guy that took offense, the guy would have been crucified for speaking up.
Its not gender neutral, its gender preferred……
Cap’n
I remember talking to a Navy Wife when women were first allowed to serve on ships.
‘I have no problem allowing women on ships.’ she said ‘As long as it’s not my husband’s ship.’
The ensuing barrage of fraternization rules left my head spinning. Behavior must be changed so that the crew (men and women) become an integrated and well oiled team again. We Chiefs had a lot of learning to do, especially when it came to the all-but-certain rivalies for the attention of new crewmates. ‘Twasn’t easy, but I think we were successful.
That said, what LT Black apologised for would have landed him in my office for ‘counseling’ if he were a sailor in my Division. That he was assigned a leadership role in the education process teaching proto-officers proper military should rightly lead to low marks on his efficiency report. Court Martial? Not so sure.
Perhaps this is a reflex action related to Aluminum U’s recent scandal where Instructors allegedly pushed Evangelical Christian thought on the Kay-dets. Perhaps not, but it certainly begs the question:
‘Is this a Court Martial offense?’
To this Beached Chief, no. Assignment to a weather station in Adak, yes.
Why do we even have this 3500 member social experiment? Because we always have? Most officers and ALL our sailors come from all other forms of public/private education. Why should these institutions take up so much of our effort/$$. Is it cost effective?
Just kidding Lex.
re- “Was it criminally stupid?”
It is today. Makes the whole cabal up there look foolish. In the 1930′s we had the court martial of LT Chester Nimitz for one thing. Nowadays we have the court martial of LT Black for another. Makes me want to puke.
B2
While the LT’s behavior was inexcusable, and should certainly be addressed, legal action (court martial) is over-kill. Something akin to using a sledgehammer on a mosquito… I’m no legal eagle; but, the UCMJ must offer more appropriate means of dealing with the issue.
Just wanted to clarify. In the end of my previous comment I wasn’t referring to a specific event.
And Skippy, I gotta speak up and defend the midshipman. By all reports she was satisfied with the apology. It was her superior officer who pursued it despite what was reportedly her request to stop the investigation.
(I’m going to stop babbling now, and listen to people who actually know what they’re talking about.)
I have a son at USNA. He has told me a number of times of the inherant tension between male and female mids. He, and others, have also told me of female officers that have a clear agenda of castrating male mids…
So, as you don’t think he is one sided, recently a female mid was dismissed for getting pregnant. He claims that everyone knew who the father was but, the male mid received no investigation or punishment at all. This angered my son.
That said, the idea that an off colored remark that was then apologized for is a court marshail offense… this is ludicrous.
Lex sez: “I qualify that as stupid. Was it criminally stupid?”
Stupid? Yep. Criminal? No.
However in these days of Political Correctness
doing stupid stuff like that *will* get you
thrown on the PC sacrifical alter. LT Black
should have had enough of the gray stuff between the ears to know that. I happen to agree with an earlier commenter that this should have never gone to a CM. He should have gotten the verbal spanking he deserved and the corresponding comments and grades in his FITREP.
Cheers…hope y’all have a good weekend.
I’m off to the Washington Capitals game…which will probably be a depressing affair the way they have been playing lately.
Shipmates,
Although the good LT was a twit with his comments, I reserve my wrath for the LCDR who got this whole cluster going. The LT apologized to the Midi. She accepted. He probably had the scare of his life. Now comes the Lcdr, goes off on her own and starts an “investigation” into it.
Doesn’t it smell to high heaven that the female midis might have been just as concerned about thier positions by an overbearing Lcdr? Didn’t that officer take advantage of HER position to get what she wanted out of the women midis?
And just WHY was this Lcdr going off like this? Could it have anything to do, perhaps, with getting rid of a rival professor? They are in the same department after all. Anyone look to see if there was prior bad blood between her and the LT?
A woman officer has more power over a male officer than anyone else imagines, because when (not if) she makes a complaint, that poor bastard is going to be guilty until proven innocent, and maybe even not then. His name will be whispered from command to command and he’ll be a pariah regardles of his innocence.
Bitter? Yup. I’ve seen it happen within my old squadron. First hand to a good friend. And no one could do anything to help him because the PC sharks were in the water and he bacame just so much chum…
I can only hope that the LCDR gets as investigated as the LT is, that perhaps someone will take a “special interest” in her position at the NA. But I doubt that’s gonna happen anytime soon. No one there has THAT kind of courage.
Respects,
AW1 Tim (former)
Cap’n,
The comments on this issue appear to plot a wide course around a larger issue. I think FbL put her finger on the CPA. Is there an undercurrent of hostility between the sexes at your Alma Mater? Should that not be the focus of any ‘investigation’?
[...] Which is why I think that so much of the criticsm of the Black/Whisenant issue is so misguided. Because the Academy has another tacit mission apart from that explicitly quoted in the linked post – Survival: In order to continue “preparing midshipmen morally, mentally and physically,” the Academy must itself continue unhampered and unhindered. The institution believes in itself. [...]
Sure there is an undercurrent of hostility at USNA or other military colleges. At my alma mater where the court fight is still a recent memory, the cadets know what they are required to do, but they also know that there was once a time when it was not so. And they have been told by DOG’s (disgruntled old grads) that it was better. So they miss what they are never going to be allowed to have.
I never went on liberty with women ( Navy women that is…….). I went out with other guys or by myself because in the long run it was inherently safer. At work, because I was so opposed to the concept, I went out of my way to be fair and keep my conversation to work and only work. It was the only safe way to navigate the minefield Senior D points out. Just cause one is paranoid does not mean people are out to get you. LT Black forgot that somewhere along the line.
I’m on the “CM is overkill” boat. He’s an idiot. He admitted it. Someone who wasn’t involved got her panties in a wad and forced the issue.
To me, this is a case of reprimand and ass-chewing, and holding him back in his career somehow until he gets his proverbial shit together. But CM? Seems inappropriate.
I’ve said this on other blogs and I’ll reiterate what some have said here; the SPCM is 100% the doing of the accused. Sure, Admiral’s Mast would have a foregone conclusion, just as the FITREP he signed (or should sign today) will have adverse comments and grades, ending his career regardless of the outcome of the SPCM. This guy had other opportunities to correct his behavior, based on counseling for his performance and commentary in the classroom. He obviously failed to correct that behavior and it looks like 5+ years as a commissioned officer failed to teach him proper standards of conduct with subordinates. Sure, he’s getting hammered a bit harder than others, but he’s also shown an inability to correct his performance and is a good candidate to be the sacrificial lamb as an example to all others. For those that have never been staff at USNA (or taught ROTC), it may be a bit hard to understand the concept of holding a higher standard than in the fleet.
For those that think Art 133 is a perfect catch-all to hang someone at the whim of a senior, why don’t you learn about the process of justice and the steps laid out in the MCM. The other specifications that he faced were unreasonable multiplication of charges, but the 133 spec is dead on.
Skippy- I’ve seen this sentiment on CDR S and I’ve seen it here…..a lot of people seem to have some pretty mysogistic views, veiled under the cloak of “…it disrespects all of the hard working women out there…” or something to that effect. When I was at USNA, I had a similar view; chalk it up to immaturity. There’s tension at the school, but due entirely to males that think they’re Rambo-reincarnate and that women will keep them from their date with destiny. Those same mysoginistic views have played themselves out on too many message boards with the references to the LCDR. If it was a male LCDR Tomcat pilot, would people be saying the same thing, or is only because she’s a female 1800? How about a Captain or Major infantryman? I suspect not. 1976 has nothing to do with this situation. Changing societal views and opinions (well versed in case law) bring about differect reactions in the present than we saw in the past. Tailhook and the failure to do anything play a part, but societal views (and the need to maintain the institution) play an equal role.
Tell me, what effect do you think her role as USNA’s cycling coach (or the endorsement crap spouted on another blog) have to do with detailing and being the golden child or anything else with this case? Tell us all about the corruption in Millington while you’re at it. Or is it just b/c everyone wants to jump on the woman-officer-hater bandwagon? And no, I’m not female….I’m about as Type-A, aggressive alpha-male as one can be.
The mid was placed in a very bad situation. Black didn’t apologize until the next day, so I highly doubt he had the “scare of his life”. Further, with a direct senior-subordinate role, was she to say “I don’t accept your apology”, if that was her true feeling? A different dynamic enters when it’s a senior-subordinate role….one that everyone on here that is an officer and commenting should understand. The LCDR obviously knew of his previous issues with his mouth, which likely precipitated this investigation. Even if the mid may have said she didn’t want the investigation to continue, that is baseless for the investigation of improper behavior. We don’t suspend investigations of rape, assault or any other offense if the “victim” (not an appropriate term for this case, but I’ll generalize with it nonetheless) requests it, so why should it happen here? Saying “I’m sorry” doesn’t cut it when one has a collision or goes aground and it shouldn’t here. The collective body of this LT’s actions transcends the singular comment for which everyone thinks an apology is acceptable, thereby leading to the punitive actions.
Skippy and CDR S have taken aim at me elsewhere, so I’m waiting with a bulls-eye again.
RGT,
Your definition of mysongny and mine are very different. I don’t hate women, in fact quite the opposite I love women! All kinds.
I do have, I am sure a different view of the way a well functioning society should work and I despise feminism as it has actually marginalized “real women” and their progress in the world. Its made a lot of wacko lesbians happy though……..
The LCDR’s “preferred” customer status has a lot to do with this case because it allowed here to assume a role way out of proportion to where it should be in this case.
Societal opinions have changed and now you know why I like living in Asia. The rate of decay is slower here (although still present). I’ve made no secret of that.
You would be advised to read a woman’s point of view on this subject though. Go to Elaine Donnelly’s web site and see what she has to say. She’s a great woman that realizes that men and women are different and that its not a problem for either sex to realize that and arrange societal values accordingly……
Preferred customer status has ?what? to do with this case? How is her role as the cycling coach figuring in to have her “assume a role way out of proportion to where it should be in this case”? Her role as coach/O-rep for the cycling club and what has happened with the YP cruise are so totally divergent and unrelated that it only shows the means with which someone will stretch to discredit another individual. Would you feel better if she was O-rep to the Women’s Cooking Club?
I’ve read Elaine Donnelly’s writings and put her in the same grouping as Pat Robertson and Charles Schumer….fringe nutjobs with no real clue about the world. For them, it exists inside their own rose-colored glasses with a parallax error corresponding to their personal politics. A woman’s point of view isn’t what will work with this situation….nor will a man’s. It requires a commander’s view with an eye towards preserving the integrity of the command and the high standards of those within it.
Now that we’re getting some personal feelings out in the open, it’ll be a little easier to read through the fluff and disagree on the salient issues rather than those that are a crutch for our “wish-it-were” view of the world.
A good commander would never have let it go this far. Period end of statement.
I’d feel better about “shelly belly” if her ass was packed off to sea and she had endure half the BS that most men go through in a 3 year period. Not happening any time soon I’m sure.
It’s no use arguing. You have your opinion, I have mine. Never the twain shall meet. You want my personal feelings? All the people involved here need a Louisville Slugger to the forehead for being useless., LT Black included. That’s not going to happen any time soon.
I’m sure LCDR Whisenant is not the type of lady I will be dating any time soon. When she learns even half the values the S.O has, she might be worth saying hello to. However being a typical American shrew I doubt she will.
I will not however, put my manhood in a box simplay because the powers of political correctness demand. RGT you are either an Academy pogue and way too close to this case, or you have forgotten the values the Academy used to hold ….a long time ago and a galacy far away when men where men, sex was safe, and folks knew how to deal with trival bullshit.
Elaine Donnelly deserves sainthood in my book. I’ll bet she would have made a great Midshipmen too, however she is too smart to cheapen herself that way.
(Waving the red flag in front of the bull……)
En Garde!
Well that red flag got my attention, too. Skippy, you wrote: I?ɬ
Well that red flag got my attention, too. Skippy, you wrote: I’m sure LCDR Whisenant is not the type of lady I will be dating any time soon.
I just have to ask… What relevance does whether or not you’d date the LCDR have to do with this issue? Is that actually your first thought upon encountering a woman in any situation: would I date her?
I like what you’re doing here, RGT. Good to see that someone has the facts to back up their opinions with.
Skippy- I’ll lay my stuff on the table….I’m an academy grad and spent far too many years at sea. Far from being a pogue, as I was told many times that I should never be commissioned b/c I was too independent with my thought and didn’t conform “enough”. What you seem to miss is a sense of common decency. From your words, it sounds as if you’ve been screwed over by more than a few women in your past…..if so, it sucks and I’m sorry for you. However, that shouldn’t translate into a professional realm. Tell me, are you in a purple billet overseas or are you even Navy (referenced from your “USAF computer” comment in the other posting)? I said it on CDR S and I’ll say it here….one doesn’t get commissioned as an 1800, they lat xfer into it. So….she’s spent at least 3, probably 5 years at sea prior to joining the METOC world; I’d further surmise that she has seen everything that you refer to. I’m not sure what fleet you’ve been in, but I’ve never had any problem with sexual harrassment issues in 6 tours. Why is this? Because I maintain a professional decorum, not because I’m scared or a closet mysoginist. Your hatrd and vitriol for the LCDR is puzzling. I asked it before and I asked it again, hoping for a response: What if the person investigating was a LCDR Tomcat pilot or a MAJ infantryman? Would you call them kool-aid drinkers or pogues? Or is this just b/c a woman looked into an officer that she likely knew had some issues with his behavior and verbal diarrhea?
And to answer another of your questions, yes, men and women CAN be just friends. Do you try to sleep with every female that you know? Can you not look at a coworker without wondering how much fun you could have with her? If that’s the case, you’re acting like a 15 year old boy that just discovered his Dad’s Playboy collection.
What I’m seeing here is that this isn’t at all about LT Black and his actions (and resultant guilt or innocence of Art 133), but rather a forum to vent against women. You’ve pretty much laid bare your overall feelings toward females in the service, albeit hidden under a thin veneer of “all of those great women that don’t make any noise”.
You mentioned your view of women in the world and a “functioning society”….care to expound on that? Just what is a role for women in this Utopian mecca that you dream about while mourning the loss of all-male bastions. While you’re digging your hole with other answers, I thought I might give you a bigger shovel. God help any woman that works for you…..rape must be the fault of a woman, huh?
Assuming that you’re still commissioned, I find it rather paradoxical that you swear allegiance to the Constitution, yet can’t seem to support some basic tenents of it, nor that which is codified within the US Code. Maybe it’s time for some old guys to retire and get out of my way.
There will be no explanation here. I’m done.
It’s clear I should not have gone down this rathole, there is no hope of being able to explain opinions that are passionately held but not politically correct. It was a mistake to try……
As for who I am, well, I’m just a red blooded American boy trying to make his way in the world. I don’t need therapy or counseling nor do I try to date co-workers. I am strong willed however and that’s not going change anytime soon.
And I do work hard at what I do. Which is where I have to go now, to work. To do professional things while keeping my thoughts to myself…..
As for my view of the world, well I’ve laid it out fairly well over at my blog…….
We’ve had this discussion before, you and I: Passionate opinions do not, in my view, by and of themselves lend weight to the argument under discussion. There are lunatics in assylums who believe incredible things quite passionately.
In order to have a civilized discussion on a topic, it is useful to say that “I believe A, because of observations B and C, which have consequences D and E.” If it is not clear to others, you might go on to say “Consequences D and E are undesirable because of their first or second (or third) order interaction on critical capability Z.”
Then we can have a discussion about the verity of the observations and the necessarity of the conclusions. “Because I say so loudlies” works at many levels in the military but doesn’t carry much heft in this part of the world.
Metrics, metrics, metrics…….
Lex, there are just some things that cannot be quantified, else why would Ted Kennedy gone off the deep end about Altio yesterday. It’s a passionate belief that the world was going to hell; that’s why he did it. That he appeared the fool while doing it ( which he did) mattered not to him. He had a message to get out and at his age, limited time to do it.
I’m like Ted. And its why, in my heart of hearts, I have sympathy for him despite his allegiance to things that I don’t like. For at least he stands to make a stand, unlike so many of his counterparts, including my good friend and fellow alumnus who serves on the defense comittee..
Not every arguement can be quantified. The better business types would have us beleive otherwise, but would metrics have produced a Patton? Or a Halsey? Somehow I doubt it. They would have been killed in today’s Navy……..
The folks I admire, they are all gone now. Oh but in their day, they taught the boys right…..
Passion doesn’t equate to fact and legal arguments….nor does it make for effective leadership. Do you hold the same respect for OBL? How about the Iranian leadership and their quest for the nuclear genie? Your argument for Ted can be applied equally for these 2 cases. Principles, facts, positions and performance all come together….and I could point out a bunch of guys, from O-3 to O-6 who aren’t kool-aid drinkers and I would follow through the gates of hell.
You can say “metrics, metrics, metrics” all you want, but there’s a difference between the “business” push in this gun club and being able to justify actions. Your Halseys and Pattons had more than just passion and feelings to support their COA’s in various campaigns. Don’t hang a hat on great leaders and say that they’re just like you. From your commentary and blog, I’d guess that you’re at either Yokota or Atsugi….kinda a limited exposure to the folks that are doing the deed on a daily basis. I’d encourage you to visit Camps Pendleton, Lejeune and Butler as well as NABLC or NABC to get a handle on some of those guys. LT Black is also not in the same league as myself, much less a Halsey or Patton (who I’d never compare myself to in a thousand years). Your position is not one of those great leaders, but rather of someone that should have served 50 years ago.
Smart men choose their battles and don’t go for the frontal assault every time. Ted can’t seem to pick his battles. When you fight everything, those battles which are important are lost in the confusion. Fighting everything doesn’t mark someone as great, it marks them as a hothead with no sense of direction or discretion.
You’re right, the world has changed. To be successful, you adapt with those changes and choose your fights carefully where they’ll have the most to gain with little expenditure.
I ain’t commenting to stir the turds again but we’ve got two (2), zealots here arguing.
1- a well known blogosphere regular, hip-shooter and anonymous semi-mysoginist who had a messy divorce and possibly needs some anger management at the FSC. Seems to relish being shot in the face and “unloved”.
2- On the other hand, we have an impassioned JO, or ex-JO, Annapolis educated, apparent insider to this buffoonish, and frankly, embarrassing scandal, who sees in black & white because, well, that is the way he was taught! (IMHO, but then again I went to the T-H Convention 6 times so I can’t be trusted, right?).
Sounds like the those Democratic “debates” back in 2004. Remember ‘em? Boils down to this- Skippy watches too many old movies like “Hellcats of the Navy” and RGT disquals by lumping Elaine Donnelly with Charles Schumer….
Summary: Skippy-sans arguments (?) are notoriously predictable; but RGT has piqued my interest. Just what is his connection to that LCDR?
BTW RGT, months ago after first coming abord Lex’s gig, I took on Skippy-san with the same ferocity and “some” similar arguments. I couldn’t get to 1st base….gouge.
B2
Yup, the dynamics around here are certainly interesting.
It’s part of why I check the comments section with such frequency.
31 comments and not one flounce. Heh.
Was that an invitation?
But then again, I wouldn’t want to sexually harrass you…
RGT. Yawn. Sound of grounding axes….Yawn.
B2,
Anger management? Pshaw. That’s what beer , baseball bats, and my blog are made for.
As for being unloved, well remember, its all about me.
Must be nice to have all the answers though. That the world may be a little more complex than that bothers the self assurred not a wit.
I prefer the road less traveled. The view is better along the way.
I’ve come to this discussion late, but have read through all the comments on this and the related thread, so here’s my pov for what it’s worth:
Having been a female in the Navy myself (albeit not the US Navy), at a time when women were breaking the ground of equal pay/equal rank, I’ve seen the best and worst sides of integration, and I was a Midshipman at the time as well. The gaucheness and blunders came from both sexes and all ranks – that was normal, no one expected it to be smooth.
But this is 2006. The rules have been shaped by the experiences of the past decades. Lt. Black isn’t standing at the dawn of social change, it’s well past midday and he should have known what to say and what not to say to a female midshipman.
Firstly, she’s a mid. New to the Navy, unsure and pretty well bottom of the barrel when it comes to status. A very easy target to shoot at, and for a seasoned Lieutenant, as her superior and instructor, to make a sleazy sexual reference demonstrates not only a lack of judgment, but a lack of values as an officer. Lex is right, he wouldn’t have dreamed of saying what he did to a superior officer, female or not.
I’m trying to put myself in the mid’s shoes here. If I was his equal in rank and he’d made that comment to me, I’d have had the rank and time in the service to take him on it. We would have had it out then and there. Whether I was offended or not isn’t the point. As his equal I could debate the issue with him.
If I was a midshipman, with very little experience, no rank or status, desperate to make my way and work out what being an Officer in the Navy is all about, and a Lieutenant instructor made that kind of comment to me, would I have felt the same ability to call him on his words?
Of course not. Good for her to do something about it. Many mids wouldn’t. Many I knew didn’t. They were too intimidated by their surroundings. And btw, this is not part of any mid’s ‘toughening-up’ process. He can give her a hard time over navigation, seamanship or whatever, but not over her sexuality or gender, and certainly not over his.
And that’s where he gets it wrong. That he thought it was OKAY to say it is what gets me. An apology 24 hours later is too late, smacking of ‘what trouble am I in now?’ rather than, ‘I was wrong to say that.’
I guess his career is down the tubes by now anyway, but it must be SEEN to be that way, and the leadership of the Academy must be seen to have the power to punish him and those with similar attitudes, whether or not they are concerned with gender or equality issues.
The nut of this issue is that an officer behaved inappropriately to a subordinate whilst a teacher at the Academy. The Academy should be empowered to discipline him. If it can’t, then it’s disempowered and loses its authority to deal with the kinds of values held by Lt Black and others, and the problem perpetuates with no end in sight.
And as I said before, it’s 2006, not 1980. Haven’t we come further than this?
Hey, Ozwitch try this address for some Countervailing info: http://pcrevolt.blogspot.com/2006/03/double-standard-for-sexual-misconduct.html
Hey there. I served with LT Black. He was in his 30′s when this comment was made. Although I knew him before this incident, he always meant well.
Meaning well and doing well are two different things though. You CAN’T begin to understand the EEOC culture at the Academies these days. Any comment like that should not go without some sort of punishment. I don’t know if a court martial was needed, but I wasn’t there.
Go Navy!
I’ve no doubt that he meant well, and we all wonder if the punishment fit the crime. But all that EEOC pressure doesn’t come to Supe in his sleep like a bolt from the blue. Annapolis is only a short haul from the Capitol, and frankly we’ve all got much more important things to do than entertain congresscritters with lame excuses or simpering explanations for the errancies of boorish commissioned officers who are in turn charged with molding the next generation of naval leadership.
Go Navy, aye!