First I want to give sincere thanks to those that commented on my previous post. That essay was written some time ago for an ACSC/DL class as part of PME discussion. It wasn’t part of an assignment but rather was an attempt to start a discussion with my peers and especially those from the fighter side of the house. As the comments in the previous post demonstrate, it wasn’t a model of research or academic inquiry and has several flaws. For those reasons I had no intention of posting it here. But a fighter pilot critic wanted to see it so I strapped on a thick skin, posted it, and took some well deserved spears. I believe its main claim that UAS are more capable and cheaper than manned counterparts and can be realized more quickly if cultural and political changes are made in the Air Force remains unblemished. The recently released Air Force “UAS Flight Plan” report paints a similar vision. Still my diatribe was weak in several areas and the commentary of several on this blog highlighted them. I thank them for their criticism.
That was the process that should have taken place in my online PME discussion but for the most part did not. Instead of having my views challenged and the weaknesses of my assertions highlighted, the ACSC/DL process resulted in an F-15C pilot privately telling me I should talk to my OG/CC to have my views challenged after sending my views out to poison my chain of command. Ironically, instead of conventionally debating me online or in person he chose the asymmetrical approach of fighting me using the “bro network.” Like an enemy that surrounds and fades into the crowd… Such asymmetrical battles allow for a less capable foe to turn his adversary’s strength into a weakness. These encounters are typically political in nature even when they take on the violent dimension. As might be imagined, politics is not my strong suit. Asymmetrical fights are essentially about ideas and values and require dialog, honesty, self-reflection, and creativity to win and I think I have some strengths in that area. But the political reality of such conflict strongly dictates that being right doesn’t guarantee success.
Some have and will claim my detailing of the academic freedom violation is merely whining. I think it’s more than that. I recently learned from an anonymous source that one of the email chains actually went from a CSAF executive officer (F-15C pilot) to a group of Eagle Drivers and then found its way directly into my chain of command. Email chains have popped up from the original violation and have found their way throughout my current command and despite its widespread proliferation not one person has contacted me about the discussion (other than my boss at the direction of a two-star). Even when I directly email the participants of chain emails provided to me and extend an invitation for a professional discussion to the writers I get no response. Many have shown willingness to negatively comment, insult, and pass along emails but have avoided any serious discussion of the ideas with me. If Air Force officers refuse to debate professional differences how likely is it they will be able to bring the leadership skills necessary to win the hearts and minds warfare we find ourselves engaged in now? And what is the role of our Professional Military Education in providing these skills to officers charged with winning our nation’s wars?
My professional discussion in my ACSC/DL course turned into a hit order spread across the Internet--exactly the kind of thing Air University academic freedom policy is supposed to prevent but did not. In fact, the F-15C pilot wasn’t even removed from the class despite admitting his violation even after evidence his actions infected my chain of command at the two-star level. My year in the program has demonstrated without question that ACSC/DL does not value academic freedom. That “institution” is a poster pinned to a cardboard backing with no structure or substance behind it. It is an empty shell of a program that epitomizes perception at the expense of reality and likely does more harm to the education of military officers than it does good. It is only after ACSC/DL leadership refused to remove the student from the class that I realized the program was rotten to the core and I would have to find another way to discuss ideas with peers. This blog was born of the failure of ACSC/DL to provide a basic forum for military officers to discuss and share their experiences and thoughts.
The petition for redress for my academic freedom violation was elevated to the Air University level a month and a half ago. There has still been no resolution to the issue and as far as I know the F-15C pilot hasn’t been removed from courses where he is still free to issue hits on anybody he disagrees with. I can’t help but wonder how long it takes to investigate a case with a smoking gun and a signed confession.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I won't begrudge you your bitterness over the affront. But to say
ReplyDeleteIt is an empty shell of a program that epitomizes perception at the expense of reality and likely does more harm to the education of military officers than it does good...the program was rotten to the core...
sounds as if you're crucifying an institution over a single personal affront. With only the available text, it seems as if you have a legitimate gripe. But how you choose to respond to it will say more about your character than the incident itself. To this point, your response bears similarity to those who decry all religion because of one bad experience, or who harbor ill will toward the cops because they got pulled over unfairly once. Don't villify the whole due to the transgressions of the part. That tends to sound like whining.
You're an Air Force officer. My advice: calm down and move on.
You say I have a legitimate gripe given my account and how I respond to it will highlight my character. I agree. But you advise me that because I'm an officer I should calm down and move on when faced with this legitimate gripe.
ReplyDeleteI don't think officers facing valid gripes should calm down and move on. I am of the opinion that officers with legitimate gripes should take actions to see those issues resolved. Personally I think that is a mark of good character.
This blog shows more than one instance reflecting ACSC/DL's lack of academic freedom. Beyond that are other examples which I haven't shared. Still further are the thoughts of greater minds who see a problem with military education as something which serves to reinforce bias rather than challenge assumptions. I am not the only person to think there is a cultural issue with our professional military education. So I don't think this is a matter of simply one isolated incident. This is a systemic problem and it's a leadership issue on some level.
If you are willing to share, however, I would be interested in how you come to the conclusion an officer should calm down and move on when faced with legitimate gripes as a mark of character. I am a bit confused. Your own book forcefully decries an Air Force culture of immorality and a lack of integrity and your blog appears to value freedom of speech and religion.
I guess I just don't understand your perspective here. I hope you will clarify.
When I said calm down it was in reference to demonizing an institution. Global generalizations are ill-advised in any circumstance. You come across as someone emotionally engaged, which can convey passion but can also cloud your perspective.
ReplyDeleteWhen I said move on, its because you appear so consumed that you've gone beyond merely "resolving" your dispute. You implied the offender should have been booted, but that is not consistent with ACSC policy. You claim no responsibility, yet you yourself are not without fault. In fact, you risk mooting your own claim by posting the same information here your offender distributed.
The following statement is not an analysis of your situation but an explanation of my perspective, which you requested: Sometimes publicly pursuing a legitimate gripe doesn't improve the situation--not that it doesn't change it, it just doesn't improve it. I have counseled people that playing the martyr over some personal offenses doesn't necessarily change the environment, correct the offense, or even bring good attention to a worthy cause. Sometimes it only serves to undermine the credibility of the speaker.
You've chosen to publicly "pick this battle." I disagree with that choice, but you are free to make it. My disagreement is not inconsistent with my personal views on integrity or freedom.
I am not the only person to think there is a cultural issue with our professional military education.
Yes, I noticed your links to Tom Ricks. To some it might appear you've shaped the tree to fit your forest.
Requesting the person who violated my academic freedom be booted from the program is not consistent with ACSC policy? Please share the source of this policy with me because I wasn't aware of it. I am only aware of AUI 36-2308 (the regulation entitled "Academic Freedom") section 2 entitled "Policy" which details non-attribution policy and then states:
ReplyDelete"Violation of this prohibition by military personnel is a violation of Article 92,
UCMJ" (2.5.1).
AUI 36-2308 also mandates that the petition for redress "must include...the specific redress
the individual is seeking" (3.3.1).
So that is why I asked that the violator be removed from AU courses. AU courses require academic freedom, the violator demonstrated he doesn't value the academic freedom of those he disagrees with, so my request seems pretty common sense to me. Especially in light of the UCMJ violation which could carry much stiffer consequences.
So if you could please post the source of the policy you claim exists where ACSC does not remove students that violate academic freedom that would be helpful and would demonstrate the problem is even more systemic.
"You claim no responsibility, yet you yourself are not without fault. In fact, you risk mooting your own claim by posting the same information here your offender distributed."
Ok, I think you are straying well outside your lane here. I am not without fault in the incident? Please explain how I am at fault. Posting the same information as my offender here? Negative. I think you are missing the picture. The offense was sending the information outside of PME and attributing it to me. Had he sent the information out but removed my name then it would have complied with "non-attribution" policy. So there is no way I have done the same thing because nowhere in this blog have I mentioned the offender's name. Further, I have not provided the same information the offender sent out. The essay provided was not in his email chain. The blurb he did send out was requested by a fighter pilot critic on this blog but was not provided to avoid the charge you are now making.
Thanks for clarifying your perspective on public versus private discussions for resolution. I didn't seek a public discussion of this issue but the actions of ACSC/DL have led me down that road. I understand your point here but again I'm a bit surprised that you have this viewpoint as the author of a book on Amazon.com that is very scathing of Air Force fighter pilot culture.
Tom Ricks is not the only person to see issues with military education.
I agree with you that emotion can cloud a debate with a high degree of emotion and a lack of facts. I think your last comment clearly demonstrates that.
Requesting the person who violated my academic freedom be booted from the program is not consistent with ACSC policy?
ReplyDeleteThat's not what I said. I said you implied that the required outcome was that he be expelled. That is not explicit in any Air Force PME instruction that I can find. Yes, the offense is punishable, and yes, you should request your redress; I can find no statement guaranteeing you'll get it.
please post the source...where ACSC does not remove students that violate academic freedom
As explained above, you're asking for proof of a negative. I can find no policy that requires ACSC to remove students for the violation you cited. As I may simply have missed it, please cite the proof of a positive.
Please explain how I am at fault.
The word "fault" did not convey my intent. You are not responsible for the actions of the other party. However, you, too, have not lived to the spirit of the same regulation. For example,
The intent of these policies is to focus attention on the need for civility and accuracy in the comments individuals make about and toward others in an academic environment.
...academic freedom must be tempered by good judgment to refrain from making offensive remarks, unfounded opinions, or irresponsible statements either verbally or in writing...This is not meant to restrict classroom discussions of controversial subjects; however, discretion must be a guiding criterion.
Assuming your post is as it was submitted to the student forum, even you have admitted its lack of accuracy. It was arguably not civil toward your fellow students, given their professions. I pointed out several unfounded opinions, and how you made many assertive and authoritative statements without tempering them with either discretion for your audience or an acknowledgement of your lack of expertise. It was poorly researched and poorly communicated. In addition, while I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, I question its relevance to the course material. While rabbit trails certainly occur, I do not recall an ACSC course requiring the discussion you submitted.
It was also poorly credited. For example, you admit paraphrasing Wikipedia (of all things), but you gave it no citation. In but one example, Wikipedia says
ReplyDelete"After flying over the wreckage of the two helicopters lying burning on the ground, May radioed Wickson, "Stick a fork in them, they're done.""
while you said
"...one of the pilots flying over the burning wreckage of the helicopters said, "Stick a fork in them, they're done."
The academic integrity policy requires acknowledgement for such a paraphrase; some might argue it requires a quotation, since you use largely the same format and verbiage. Either way, you didn't credit someone else for their words.
None of this excuses the actions of the offender. But it does demonstrate that your own actions were not without criticism.
there is no way I have done the same thing because nowhere...have I mentioned the offender's name.
What he did was publicize your comment with your name. You have now publicized your comment. While you have not publicized your own name (which is what I meant by doing the same thing he did), you risk that happening. The internet has lots of information on it.
I didn't seek a public discussion of this issue but the actions of ACSC/DL have led me down that road.
If the process hasn't been completed, how can you draw that conclusion? What has the "public discussion" contributed to the outcome?
I'm a bit surprised that you have this viewpoint as the author of a book on Amazon.com that is very scathing of Air Force fighter pilot culture
My book does not demonize a community or an institution, nor does it seek to change it. I do not communicate a vendetta or accuse an organization of doing more harm than good, nor of being "rotten to the core." I do highlight its many faults, including many "stupid" people and behaviors; however, I am not harboring a grudge or grinding an axe. In fact, I encourage others to join that very community. It conveys my personal experiences for the benefit of others who wish to follow a similar path to mine. You and I do not share a paradigm.
Be careful in your criticism. It is one thing to criticize military PME. It is another for a military officer to criticize superior officers' conduct of the same.
"I said you implied that the required outcome was that he be expelled. That is not explicit in any Air Force PME instruction that I can find. Yes, the offense is punishable, and yes, you should request your redress; I can find no statement guaranteeing you'll get it."
ReplyDeleteIf I thought it was required would I petition asking for it? I think your inferred something that was not actually implied. Please accept this clarification.
You stated "You implied the offender should have been booted, but that is not consistent with ACSC policy." I understood that to mean you thought booting people for academic freedom violation was inconsistent with ACSC policy. I now understand that isn't what you meant. Thanks for your clarification.
"The word 'fault' did not convey my intent. You are not responsible for the actions of the other party. However, you, too, have not lived to the spirit of the same regulation. For example, [criticisms of the non-assignment essay]."
Again, the essay you read was NOT part of the academic freedom violation. Separate issue. Now your original assertion was "You claim no responsibility, yet you yourself are not without fault. In fact, you risk mooting your own claim by posting the same information here your offender distributed." So the fact that this essay was posted separately as a non-assigned matter of discussion which was not graded should demonstrate that I did not post the same information as the offender. Separate. Hopefully we can agree on this point.
If you want to continue to discuss or repeat the criticisms of this essay please feel free. But it has nothing to do with the academic freedom violation and I have already admitted the essay had many flaws.
As far as your implication that my essay was offensive, lacking good judgment, unfounded or irresponsible then you are free to pass that subjective judgment. As it were, nobody else did and therefore this is a moot point (the window for being offended has long closed). I agree with them and think your implication is way off base. If that was really the standard then there would be even less dialog in PME than there is now and certainly not a hint of controversy or painful critical institutional reflection or so it seems to me.
I understand you don't like what I said in that essay and you wish I hadn't posted it in ACSC. With all of its faults, however, it was good for a needed discussion in my opinion. Lets also not forget that the ACSC environment, that essay and its explicit invitation for spears is part of the learning process of PME. If ACSC/DL required every posting for discussion to be flawless there would be little reason for discussion. While you are free to hold the essay in whatever light you want let's remember I wasn't submitting it for the Pulitzer. That doesn't mean the faults shouldn't be pointed out of course and again I thank you for your criticisms of that essay.
"While you have not publicized your own name (which is what I meant by doing the same thing he did), you risk that happening."
ReplyDeleteEven if somebody put two and two together that is NOT the same thing as breaking AU non-attribution policy. It is not even remotely the same as should be obvious by the concept of "non-attribution" which says it's ok to share information as long as you don't attribute it to somebody. Your caveat is not part of the policy. I did not do the same thing as the offender and I do not risk doing the same as the offender.
"If the process hasn't been completed, how can you draw that conclusion?"
Because my conclusion concerns the ACSC/DL program after having completed all but two classes (including the thesis) and after having informative phone conversation with the Dean of that program in which it was made obvious to me that academic freedom is not valued at all. I have absolutely no reservation stating that the ACSC/DL program, under the leadership of the civilian Dean of the program, does not provide or value academic freedom. No reservation at all. It remains to be seen if the wider ACSC or Air University program is the same or not which is why I have not yet concluded there. I hope they will make the required surgical adjustments to fix the ACSC/DL program.
"My book does not demonize a community or an institution, nor does it seek to change it... In fact, I encourage others to join that very community."
I agree that your book does encourage people to join that community though this fact contradicts your statement in the second paragraph of your introduction which says "This book...is meant neither to encourage people to become fighter pilots nor to discourage them from doing so." I think your claim that you have no intention of changing that culture is blatantly wrong. Your book is filled with strategies to witness to fighter pilot peers while at work. The very act of proselytizing is to change the culture one person at a time isn't it? Still your book is filled with an obvious desire to change the culture. For example in your section called "The Christian Reaction" you wrote:
"One course of action is disobedience. A Christian can view military regulations as an affront and choose to express his faith even in the face of policies that prohibit or restrict it. The advantage of such action is...it is also possible that the military would change its policies as a result."
In another section you state, "Christians can and should work to influence the military leadership's decisions..."(1948, Kindle Edition).
"Be careful in your criticism. It is one thing to criticize military PME. It is another for a military officer to criticize superior officers' conduct of the same."
As you might imagine I've put some thought into this. Thanks for the warning.
While I welcome your criticisms I have to admit that I find your comments increasingly disingenuous. While I hope you'll continue to provide criticism I may end up not responding to them if they don't show an understanding of the basic facts of my blog posts or if they appear to be insincere or simply vituperative.
Works Cited:
Dowty, Jonathan C., "CHRISTIAN FIGHTER PILOT is not an oxymoron," Kindle Edition, 2007.
I somehow got the impression that your blog post was the "article in question." I understand now that it was an ACSC post, but not part of the ac freedom issue. My mistake, though I would suggest some of my critiques are still valid.
ReplyDeleteYour quotes from my book are woefully out of context. My introduction says that it is aimed at those already headed into the fighter pilot community; thus it is they who I am "encouraging"--I'm not trying to convince those who aren't interested to become fighter pilots.
Despite your assertion, the "very act of proselytizing"--which is a loaded statement we'd have to clarify--is not aimed at changing a culture, though that may also be an outcome. The "disobedience" course of action is something I described, not something I advocated. My statement referring to "influencing the leadership" is about contributing to ongoing military policy, not changing the culture as it exists.
Could someone following the advice in my book "change" the culture? Possibly, but that is not my book's point. While the "moral living" I advocate may influence the culture, that is not its primary objective.
I have nothing further to contribute to this conversation.