tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8762223684746484243.post4681129072285711488..comments2024-03-26T17:28:04.126-07:00Comments on Pick Your Battles: Academic Freedom Violation in ACSC/DLPickYourBattles.Nethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16448529287854593110noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8762223684746484243.post-15075576340265531402009-07-01T08:43:32.699-07:002009-07-01T08:43:32.699-07:005. You ask, "in what universe does an aggrie...5. You ask, "in what universe does an aggrieved student get to demand the removal of another?" That is a good question and I was actually surprised when I read section 3.3.1 of AUI 36-2308, which states, "the individual's request for redress of an academic freedom violation must include...the specific redress the individual is seeking" (AUI 36-2308).<br /><br />That is why I made that demand. It seems to me that if an officer fails to debate an idea he disagrees with and then takes those protected ideas and sends them outside of PME with the intent to harm then that officer has demonstrated they do not value academic freedom. Since academic freedom is required in all Air University courses my demand doesn't seem unreasonable. Especially not for a field grade officer.<br /><br />I'm more interested in the issue as part of my research. It seems to me the officer's actions may indicate a lack of moral courage which some, like Yingling, argue is not only required of a military officer but is lacking within our military culture to the extent it constitutes a crisis requiring Congressional interaction (Yingling, 2007). As Schein demonstrates, how people are punished and rewarded is one of five key mechanisms in determining the culture of an institution. It shows what is truly valued. Not only are stated values and rules important but also how they are acted on (Schein, 2778).<br /><br />Great comments. I hope you continue to provide me with the benefit of your experiences especially since you have a unique cultural vantage point.<br /><br />Works Cited:<br /><br />Air University Instruction 36-2308 Academic Freedom, 22 August 2008 (http://www.au.af.mil/msd/pubs/aui/aui36-2308.pdf).<br /><br />Danskine, Bruce Fall of the Fighter Generals: The Future of USAF Leadership, June 2001 (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/saas/danskine.pdf).<br /><br />Schein, Edgar H, "Organizational Culture and Leadership" Kindle Edition Jossey-Bass, 2004.<br /><br />Yingling, Paul A Failure of Generalship, Armed Forces Journal, May 2007 (http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/05/2635198).PickYourBattles.Nethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16448529287854593110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8762223684746484243.post-9009201858094362042009-07-01T08:43:08.502-07:002009-07-01T08:43:08.502-07:002. You ask at what point do comments lose the pro...2. You ask at what point do comments lose the protections of academic freedom and you indicate you think I was close to violating section 2.6 of AUI 36-2308.<br /><br />Nobody has raised the question of whether my substance was protected or not until your post above. Also, nobody raised the question of my form being anything but perfect until I did. <br /><br />As far as what speech is unprotected you mention section 2.6 of the regulation. It states that academic freedom must be tempered and that individuals must not make remarks that are offensive, unfounded, or irresponsible. My remarks were clearly founded on my experiences so that does not apply. "Offensive" and "irresponsible" are more subjective. Obviously any claim of "offense" does not necessarily make a person's statement offensive. It would be difficult to have a useful discussion of ideas if this were the case. So the regulation further explains what is meant by stating, "Offensive remarks or irresponsible statements include comments disparaging any person’s race, color, national origin, ethnic group, religion, or sex." My remarks certainly didn't do any of that.<br /><br />Again, no faculty or student member suggested my remarks were unworthy of academic protection. Section 2.6.1.3 gives a seventy-two hour window for complaints against offensive or irresponsible remarks. No complaints were made.<br /><br />3. How is the F-15C lack of combat experience, which is not their fault, a cultural defect?<br /><br />I wouldn't call lack of combat experience a cultural defect, per se, but I do raise concerns with a culture in which those with the least combat experience run the Air Force and set agendas concerning combat. As Danskine shows, fighter pilots are grossly over represented in Air Force leadership (for good or ill) and from my experience F-15C pilots even more so.<br /><br />Danskine discusses different airframe communities (he calls them "tribes"):<br /><br />"They generally posess "cultures" that are disintinctive from other tribes, and visions or paradigms on the proper application of airpower that center on their own tribal beliefs" (Danskine, 2001, 5).<br /><br />He then goes on to discuss the role of combat experience in those cultures:<br /><br />"Additionally, I propose there are differences along the lines of generations.. This assumes that young officers entering the service will be influenced not only by their immediate tribe, but also by the combat experiences of their early career. This will, in turn, condition their way of viewing warfare" (Danskine, 2001, 7).<br /><br />He mentions how leaders like General Powell and General Schwarzkopf were affected by their Vietnam experiences. He also raises the question of the role combat experience will play in leadership once the last Vietnam experienced General retired. I think it's a fair question to ask why those with the least amount of combat experience are in most of the power positions in the Air Force. I think it’s useful to ask about self-selection in UPT and see if any characteristics can be distilled. I think it's fair to ask if that is good for the Air Force as a whole. When I heard the two-star F-15C pilot make remarks about Iraq and Afghanistan as "skirmishes" (mentioned in a previous comment) my chain of command at that point, from my squadron commander all the way up to the CSAF, consisted entirely of F-15C pilots...every last one of them. I think these cultural questions are worthy of exploration.<br /><br />4. You remarked about my comment that "My experiences justify my comments regardless of tone." Perhaps the intent of my remark didn't get through. What I'm saying here is that regardless of my tone or packaging, my experiences justify the message. In other words, while I admit that my form perhaps might have been better my substance was still justified.PickYourBattles.Nethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16448529287854593110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8762223684746484243.post-81391494698915914012009-07-01T08:40:49.126-07:002009-07-01T08:40:49.126-07:00You make some good points and raise some good ques...You make some good points and raise some good questions. I'll try to sum them up and respond to each via several comments here.<br /><br />1. What is the academic value of a blanket statement made against an entire community and ad hominem attacks against their professional conduct?<br /><br />First, my blanket statement came with a disclaimer that my remarks were based on my experiences. It also said there were exceptions and that I personally knew exceptions. In my opinion, blanket statements about cultures are justified just as they are in an anthropological or ethical study. The level of accuracy of such statements is certainly up for debate. If there is one exception does that mean it's not useful or wrong to provide a blanket statement? I don’t believe so. Our brains are meant to group "like with like" and draw conclusions. It makes sense and is useful to do so. The danger, however, is that we stop accepting inputs in our data collection and therefore risk our understanding of reality failing to change with a changing reality or failing to change as we get a more complete view of reality. I gave the disclaimer to indicate that my statement was not absolute and that I am aware of exceptions. Part of this sounding board is to encourage people to post experiences counter to my own which brings me more directly to your point on why the blanket statement is academically valuable.<br /><br />It's valuable because if somebody disagrees with my statements they will speak up and provide their experiences and reasoning to counter my own. I can then evaluate that new information and change my view appropriately. While strong language does carry some risks to the discussion (like encouraging people that can't attack substance to instead attack form) it also has the added benefit of ensuring that typically quiet types don't remain quiet. Even people that have opinions and rarely provide them will be prompted to respond to somebody who makes a strongly asserted claim they don't agree with if they can. I would argue such an approach has some value (especially given an audience of Type A personalities) but it has to be weighed against the red herrings and distractions it invites. By the way, I'm not suggesting that you are attacking form instead of substance...you're definitely taking on my substance as well as my form. But there are others who will (and have) concentrated on the packaging of the message while ignoring the message itself. I think the approach I took has some value in the smaller PME discussion but maybe I’m wrong. Who knows what approach would have been the most useful...it’s hard to tell without a crystal ball. Maybe it would have been more useful had I went out of my way to make my real concerns more innocuous and my statements more friendly. I've ceded my delivery may have been more useful if done differently. Perhaps the form could have been better. While I am more focused on substance than form both are important.PickYourBattles.Nethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16448529287854593110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8762223684746484243.post-43341740094977841682009-06-30T23:51:13.436-07:002009-06-30T23:51:13.436-07:00I guess "thick skin" is a relative term....I guess "thick skin" is a relative term.<br /><br />Overall, you have a slight conundrum here. Kudos to you for not stepping into a steaming pile of hypocrisy and doing your best to honor the intent of non-attribution and academic integrity. However, by doing this, you've only presented one side of the story. <br /><br />Eagle Driver sounds like a Mark 1 douchebag, but by your own admission, your communications to him were caustic, of poor tone and with elevated levels of venom. Without actually knowing your comments, we'll just have to take you at your word that your statements were "within the bounds of ACSC discussion." <br /><br />If that is true, considering the original topic of a manned vs unmanned technology, exactly what is the 'academic value' of making admittedly blanket statements against an entire community with ad hominem attacks against their professional conduct? At what point do your comments no longer fall under the protection of academic freedom? He may be in clear violation of para 2.4.1 of the AFI, but I would argue that you were pretty close to violating para 2.6.<br /><br />A few other gems:<br /> - Again with the combat experience. The Eagle community's lack of it is a <b>cultural</b> defect? While there are certainly ramifications on multiple levels regarding the lack of combat experience in the current F-15C community, it certainly isn't their fault and to even bring it up is borderline petty.<br /><br /> - <i>"My experiences justify my comments regardless of tone"</i> Seriously? You actually believe that? Lemme know how that attitude works out.<br /><br /> - In what universe does an aggrieved student get to demand the removal of another?<br /><br />I am by no means defending the actions of Eagle Dude. If half of what you say is true, he deserves whatever punishment he gets (or should get). While your academic freedom was violated, it doesn't appear you were punished for your views by you chain of command. If you feel you were unfairly censored with the removal of your posting privileges, I would say that maybe disparaging an entire community in the AF <i>doesn't</i> fall under the auspices of academic freedom.Nealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09327598143083695799noreply@blogger.com