Justice at West Point

[MemberLG]

"how about you bring in someone from JAG, commanders who have been through the process on both the victim-support side and as the authority over the suspect? Teach me how to properly adjudicate the crime"

Have you suggested this to your CoC? Maybe even sent an email directly to the SHARP rep? They don't have all the answers on the best way to teach and reinforce this. They need new ways to communicate the same message to avoid desensitizing the Soldiers/Cadets. Sometimes that comes from higher, more often it could come from lower if it makes it past the sidebar comments.

Others that i have heard recently to combat the powerpoint to death:
1. Weekly incident reports forwarded down the chain and then briefed at formation
2. Role playing scenarios
3. Incorporporating cases like your PMEE Leader Challenges into classes and boards (Soldier/NCO of the..., promotion)

Because if not that, then there is the enforcement/deterrence side:
1. Barracks checks - many, like here the SDO makes 4 checks per night all over post here.
2. Curfews - talking about TAPS in many places where you would need to be back in your residence. And that goes for all Soldiers and Officers.
3. Liquor cutoff sales time - like ending sales earlier in the evening at on base establishments, to include the class 6/shopette so you couldn't go back to your room to drink
4. Patrols - leaders going out in town to establishments frequented by Soldiers to monitor and if 2. goes into effect, likely report/apprehend people.

The choice is out there - solve the problem at your level, or the senior leadership is going to force on you things you don't want both in terms of restrictions and extra duties. That is on top of congress likely taking away your UCMJ authority.

For me, the solution is very simple - zero tolerance. I shouldn't compare drinking and driving to sexual harassment and assults, but most soldiers don't drink and drive anymore because they know if they get caught their craeer is over.

Your second suggestions remind me of when I was stationed in Korea. Good old days of doing courtesy patrols in TDC. It wasn't hard as GIs stand out in Korea. Not sure we can tell who are soldiers or not in a bar in Killeen, Texas.

 

[BigBear]

Because if not that, then there is the enforcement/deterrence side:
1. Barracks checks - many, like here the SDO makes 4 checks per night all over post here.
2. Curfews - talking about TAPS in many places where you would need to be back in your residence. And that goes for all Soldiers and Officers.
3. Liquor cutoff sales time - like ending sales earlier in the evening at on base establishments, to include the class 6/shopette so you couldn't go back to your room to drink
4. Patrols - leaders going out in town to establishments frequented by Soldiers to monitor and if 2. goes into effect, likely report/apprehend people.

The choice is out there - solve the problem at your level, or the senior leadership is going to force on you things you don't want both in terms of restrictions and extra duties. That is on top of congress likely taking away your UCMJ authority.

All four of those things are already in effect here. Apparently they aren't working

For anyone with some actual command/UCMJ experience in the real military-
What is the negative to handing over adjudicative authority to a 3rd Party for SHARP cases?

 

[scoutpilot]

For your consideration...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324769704579008950507165032.html

The recent debate about sexual assault in the military also reflects the notion that there is something fundamentally diseased about the institution itself. The New York Times has editorialized on "the military's entrenched culture of sexual violence." Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D., N.Y.) demands that the country replace the military chain of command with civilian legal processes in cases of sexual harassment and assault because the military is inadequate to deal with crimes of "dominance and violence and power." Ms. Gillibrand has been joined in her legislative effort by two leading libertarian Senate Republicans, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.

Yet the numbers bandied about to show an epidemic of sexual violence in the U.S. military are questionable. In May, Capt. Lindsay Rodman, a judge advocate stationed at U.S. Marine Headquarters in Arlington, Va., reported on this page, for example, that the number of military sexual assaults frequently cited in Congress and elsewhere are based on a badly distorted interpretation of a Defense Department survey. In recent months the American public has often heard that 26,000 service members were sexually assaulted last year. But that statistic comes from an unscientific poll and refers to "unwanted sexual contact," including touching the buttocks or even attempted touching.

Moreover, as Gail Heriot, a law professor at the University of San Diego and a member of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, wrote recently in the Weekly Standard, "there is no evidence that the military has a higher rate of sexual assault than, say, colleges and universities. Indeed, what paltry evidence there is suggests the opposite."

 

[navygirl89]

Regardless of other facts it's pretty obvious that the media looks for oppurtunities to point out sexual assault in the military in a manner it doesn't do for most of the rest of the world.

 

[845something]

As for handing over adjudication:
1. Slippery slope - what else will be handed over next?
2. Unified/wholistic approach - let's take the Rugby team as a starting point - in the course of that investigation, what would have happened if there is also a SHARP case discovered? Does the other investigation stop and the SHARP take precedence? Does the SHARP prosecutor offer immunity to the others in return for testimony? What does that do for the overall command climate? Further, what is the commander's impetus to change the culture if they have no control over the outcome?
3. What is independent? Does that mean civilian reporting outside of the DoD? Or are they also service members? Do they report to DoD? Each service component? Major command? How does that change anything if it still goes to someone in the military? There are multiple ways to influence specific outcomes.
4. Who are the investigators? MPs? CID? Or does another arm of government get created or does another federal LE arm, like the FBI, get tagged to do the investigation? What is their authority to act outside of the US where SOFAs are concerned?
5. What do you do about deployed environments? Especially in the midst of open hostilities? Do we and can we pull all of those involved out of the line and send them back while at the same time sending in the investigators?
6. Who is defending the Soldier? Trial Defense who is a generalized lawyer to serve all Soldiers in an array of cases (going up against a prosecutor who only handles SHARP cases)? A new independent SHARP defense team? Will the Soldier really get a good defense if the thought going in for the program is we aren't convicting enough?

Don't get me wrong, there are some things that make a separate adjudicator easier - handling cases across distinct units, handling cases where the alledged perpetrator has moved (ie. in neither case is the issue visibly affecting the unit with the perpetrator), skill in handling the rights and procedural issues that a good defense lawyer will pick apart that not every commander has mastered.

That is just the first few off the top of my head. Weigh that against the system that is already in place. Commanders at higher levels can always require that specific cases be forwarded directly to them. I've never heard of CID ignoring an allegation and they are largely autonomous of most commands already.

The issue largely comes down to is there evidence to prosecute. If so, turning it over to a court martial is easy. If not, that is where it gets complex. Usually your SJA will advise you if you have a case that you push. Do you go for an article 15? The Soldier can always demand a court martial and knows that they can get off with a good lawyer. Hence having a unified/wholistic approach where other lesser UCMJ charges are usually tacked on. An independent SHARP prosecutor wouldn't necessarily have that option. If they did, it goes back to that Slippery Slope argument before. The idea has great sound bite appeal, but the practicality and effects just don't match.

Maybe someone else sees it differently. Zero-tolerance is the way to go, but it isn't always that easy. DUI has evidence at the point of arrest. Sexual Assualt doesn't always, especially when reporting is delayed. I rather see the problem stopped before it gets that far.

 

[usna1985]

Folks,

As a reminder, this is the WP forum. If you want to discuss the issue of sexual harassment in the Army, the military justice system, etc., the proper place is in the Academy/Military News section.

I'm not trying to stifle legitimate discussion . . . but this forum is for those who want to learn more about WP and this debate, which started on that subject, has morphed quite a bit and is now largely off-topic for this forum.

Please return it to the specific issue that happened at WP or move the debate to the other forum.

Thank you.

 

[Fastpitch]

Wow. Not sure where to start, so I'll just throw out random thoughts. By way of context, I am a father of two girls. The 20 yr. old is in ROTC is somewhat serious about her faith, and the 18 yr. old is very casual about her faith and has no interest in the military. My 18 yr. old has a group of about nine girls who have shared life experiences on a daily basis for about five years now. One is student council president, several are officers, and others are four year letterwomen in various sports. Almost all are off to top 50 colleges. Between two and four sleep over at our house at least every other week. I listen to their conversations in our home, and up until last year, when I would chauffer them to their various parties. Our home, which is only a half mile from our High School in a very affluent suburban area of Southern California, is usually the starting point on Friday and Saturday nights for my daughter and her posse to go out Saki bombing, pre-party drinking, post party puking, etc. No, I do not condone drinking, and my own choices and my own faith lead me on a path of sobriety (by that I mean one beer or glass of wine, maybe two over a few hours, but that's where I draw the line). I don't like feeling drunk, or even feeling almost drunk. I prefer to be in control at all times. Hey, but that's me. My choices derive from both my personality, and my faith. But I am like an alien in the eyes of my daughter's high achieving peer group.

The current drinking/drug culture among high achievers:

I say all this b/c my 18 yr. old's group of friends are, in my view, representative of how high achieving suburban males and females view the world these days (as opposed to when I went to HS in the 1970s.) We are living in a post Judeo-Christian world, where morality is complex, nuanced, and ultimately defined by each person individually. Of course I find this absurd, but I have a different world view defined by my religious experiences and how I understand the Bible. Drinking to excess is perfectly fine for 90% of my daughter's high achieving peers. To put this in context, one is going to Tulane on a full ride, several are on to UC schools (Berkeley, UCLA, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, etc.), one at St. Andrew's in Scotland There is even a word among her peers for those who don't drink or do drugs and are not religious... "straight edge". And I'm not aware they know anybody who doesn't drink or do drugs for religiousl reasons. A small minorty simply doesn't like to drink, but it is very small. It is quite rare. Even church kids get plastered when they are sure their disapproving parents are not likely to find out. Even science nerds headed to Caltech or MIT get plastered on a regular basis. These are high achiveing kids, with high achieving parents (at least monetarily) who have a completely alien way of looking at morality compared to how I do or my wife does. They almost all smoke pot several times a week, and usually from a bong. I am told most of their parents also smoke pot regularly, and sometimes WITH their kids. A typical facebook private message would be "hey, whacha doin tonight?" with the reply "nothing... the party at XX got shut down by his parents." "OK, let's get ****faced." "or, let's hit the bong.. you got any?". And the conversation continues long enough to discuss whom they want to include, and where to do it.

OK, so that pretty much set's the frame for their alcohol/drug culture.

Now, what about sexuality?

My daughter has told me at least a dozen times over the past four years ... "Dad, you realize all my friends sleep with their boyfriends, don't you? It's just not normal not to. This is what kids these days do." Which is really her way of saying.. "I know you don't want me to have sex before marriage, but seriously, this is not the the Victorian era." Once again, non-religious kids think having sex is normal, and not having sex is abberant behavior. ALL her friends, not just a few think this way.

So now, you combine a youth culture in which high achieving kids totally enjoy getting plastered, and totally enjoy hitting the bong, and totally enjoy "hooking up" with anyone in their peer group, and you've got a situation not that many of us adults really comprehend. It's like an alien world for church-going folk. It's like trying to understand the drinking/sexual culture of some tribe in New Guinea or youth in Finland.

Bringing this around to the USMA situation:

So, to bring this around to USMA, most of the kids/cadets at WP are somewhat, if not a whole lot, like the high achieving kids I describe above. One big difference will be that a lot higher % at WP will be highly religious compared to society at large, and won't approve of getting ****faced, stoned, or causally hooking up. But they will still be in the minority at WP these days.

So, to bring this around to the sexual harassment at WP discussion, if you cannot control getting stone cold drunk, you cannot control sexual harrassment/aggression/assault. First, Judgement flies out the window, and natural desires of pleasure and domination will emerge. Second, it's not like most of these cadets have not had sex multiple times before... it's not the first time, AND they like it. Now on to the aggression, the forcing of the situation. If you think people are naturally born courteous and respectful, then you and I have completely different world views. My position is that when people get drunk, they revert to their natural tendencies of selfishness and disrespect. Most have taught themselves to be courteous and respectful even when drunk, but that took a lot of time, education, and receptivity. Many were not so educated, and were not receptive to these "religious" notions.

So for me, all the Bible Studies, sexual harrassment seminars, sexual harrassment power points, etc. are of some use, but really fall by the wayside when people lose control of the judgment center of the brain (frontal lobes) by getting drunk, and being in proximity to another cadet who is less drunk, and trying to muster the courage to say NO! I don't want that! Get off of me! The aggressing cadet is thinking..."WTF? You like sex, you like me, so what's the problem?" And they don't take no for an answer b/c they've lost control of their judgment, and they've reverted to base impulses. To ask a plastered cadet so show good judgment is about as realistic as expecting them to drive like they weren't drunk.

Now, I don't condone ANY of this... getting drunk, getting stoned, casual sex, or the point of this discussion., sexual aggression and sexual violence. I'm merely pointing out that once a cadet loses contact with the judgment center of their brain, all bets are off.

Practically speaking, my older daughter and I took Krav Maga classes together a couple of years ago from an instructor that used to instruct in the Israeli military. She knows how to defend herself against an unarmed assailant. I would like to think that if she were in a situation where another cadet would not take NO! for an answer, that she would employ her Krav Maga 1st move technique (a violent kick to the groin area of the attacker), and be able to extricate herself from the situation. But there are no guarantees when the assailant is bigger, stronger, and acting like an animal. The better thing would be, assuming she does not want to hook up, to physically avoid being in proximity to cadets who are drunk.

 

[aseanag]

Wow. Not sure where to start, so I'll just throw out random thoughts. By way of context, I am a father of two girls. The 20 yr. old is in ROTC is somewhat serious about her faith, and the 18 yr. old is very casual about her faith and has no interest in the military. My 18 yr. old has a group of about nine girls who have shared life experiences on a daily basis for about five years now. One is student council president, several are officers, and others are four year letterwomen in various sports. Almost all are off to top 50 colleges. Between two and four sleep over at our house at least every other week. I listen to their conversations in our home, and up until last year, when I would chauffer them to their various parties. Our home, which is only a half mile from our High School in a very affluent suburban area of Southern California, is usually the starting point on Friday and Saturday nights for my daughter and her posse to go out Saki bombing, pre-party drinking, post party puking, etc. No, I do not condone drinking, and my own choices and my own faith lead me on a path of sobriety (by that I mean one beer or glass of wine, maybe two over a few hours, but that's where I draw the line). I don't like feeling drunk, or even feeling almost drunk. I prefer to be in control at all times. Hey, but that's me. My choices derive from both my personality, and my faith. But I am like an alien in the eyes of my daughter's high achieving peer group.

The current drinking/drug culture among high achievers:

I say all this b/c my 18 yr. old's group of friends are, in my view, representative of how high achieving suburban males and females view the world these days (as opposed to when I went to HS in the 1970s.) We are living in a post Judeo-Christian world, where morality is complex, nuanced, and ultimately defined by each person individually. Of course I find this absurd, but I have a different world view defined by my religious experiences and how I understand the Bible. Drinking to excess is perfectly fine for 90% of my daughter's high achieving peers. To put this in context, one is going to Tulane on a full ride, several are on to UC schools (Berkeley, UCLA, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, etc.), one at St. Andrew's in Scotland There is even a word among her peers for those who don't drink or do drugs and are not religious... "straight edge". And I'm not aware they know anybody who doesn't drink or do drugs for religiousl reasons. A small minorty simply doesn't like to drink, but it is very small. It is quite rare. Even church kids get plastered when they are sure their disapproving parents are not likely to find out. Even science nerds headed to Caltech or MIT get plastered on a regular basis. These are high achiveing kids, with high achieving parents (at least monetarily) who have a completely alien way of looking at morality compared to how I do or my wife does. They almost all smoke pot several times a week, and usually from a bong. I am told most of their parents also smoke pot regularly, and sometimes WITH their kids. A typical facebook private message would be "hey, whacha doin tonight?" with the reply "nothing... the party at XX got shut down by his parents." "OK, let's get ****faced." "or, let's hit the bong.. you got any?". And the conversation continues long enough to discuss whom they want to include, and where to do it.

OK, so that pretty much set's the frame for their alcohol/drug culture.

Now, what about sexuality?

My daughter has told me at least a dozen times over the past four years ... "Dad, you realize all my friends sleep with their boyfriends, don't you? It's just not normal not to. This is what kids these days do." Which is really her way of saying.. "I know you don't want me to have sex before marriage, but seriously, this is not the the Victorian era." Once again, non-religious kids think having sex is normal, and not having sex is abberant behavior. ALL her friends, not just a few think this way.

So now, you combine a youth culture in which high achieving kids totally enjoy getting plastered, and totally enjoy hitting the bong, and totally enjoy "hooking up" with anyone in their peer group, and you've got a situation not that many of us adults really comprehend. It's like an alien world for church-going folk. It's like trying to understand the drinking/sexual culture of some tribe in New Guinea or youth in Finland.

Bringing this around to the USMA situation:

So, to bring this around to USMA, most of the kids/cadets at WP are somewhat, if not a whole lot, like the high achieving kids I describe above. One big difference will be that a lot higher % at WP will be highly religious compared to society at large, and won't approve of getting ****faced, stoned, or causally hooking up. But they will still be in the minority at WP these days.

So, to bring this around to the sexual harassment at WP discussion, if you cannot control getting stone cold drunk, you cannot control sexual harrassment. First, Judgement flies out the window, and natural desires of pleasure and domination will emerge. Second, it's not like most of these cadets have not had sex multiple times before... it's not the first time, AND they like it. Now on to the aggression, the forcing of the situation. If you think people are naturally born courteous and respectful, then you and I have completely different world views. My position is that when people get drunk, they revert to their natural tendencies of selfishness and disrespect.

So for me, all the Bible Studies, sexual harrassment seminars, sexual harrassment power points, etc. are of some use, but really fall by the wayside when people lose control of the judgment center of the brain by getting drunk, and being in proximity to another cadet who is less drunk, and trying to muster the courage to say NO! I don't want that! Get off of me! The aggressing cadet is thinking..."WTF? You like sex, you like me, so what's the problem?" And they don't take no for an answer b/c they've lost control of their judgment, and they've reverted to savagery.

The real truth. Bullseye!!!!!!!

 

[Xyz]

Yikes. The few who expressed the "cadets, you must avoid female cadets to protect yourselves" rhetoric are for lack of better words disturbing, and everything that is wrong with the Army and SAs right now regarding SH and SA.

How about you stick near your sisters in arms and treat them like you would any soldier? How about you help them out like you would any buddy when they get too drunk, and get them back safely? How about you don't make dirty, nasty comments in order to try to be "cool"? Or instead of telling your buddies to stay away from females, police them up so that this isn't a problem? She's too drunk? "Hey, bro, don't do that. She's incapacitated and so are you." instead of "GET SOME!"

No, on the other hand, you're right. Stay away from females soldiers and female cadets. After all, they aren't equal in arms, are they? They don't deserve the same respects as your male comrades, do they? The true professional Officer and leader of character avoids certain peers and subordinates, merely to protect his own honor.

Truly sad to hear this type coming from fellow cadets and others alike. Disappointing. My advice? Cherish and protect your soldiers or leave the Academy/Army. Male, female, Puerto Rican or Chinese. Do it for them and stop being obsessed with yourselves and your own personal well being. That is a characteristic incredibly unbecoming of a future officer.

It's not "boys will be boys." You are entering into a profession of male and female soldiers, whether you like it or not. If you're going to "avoid" a demographic, get out. Good soldiers don't need people like you.

 

[MemberLG]

Yikes. The few who expressed the "cadets, you must avoid female cadets to protect yourselves" rhetoric are for lack of better words disturbing, and everything that is wrong with the Army and SAs right now regarding SH and SA.

How about you stick near your sisters in arms and treat them like you would any soldier? How about you help them out like you would any buddy when they get too drunk, and get them back safely? How about you don't make dirty, nasty comments in order to try to be "cool"? Or instead of telling your buddies to stay away from females, police them up so that this isn't a problem? She's too drunk? "Hey, bro, don't do that. She's incapacitated and so are you." instead of "GET SOME!"

No, on the other hand, you're right. Stay away from females soldiers and female cadets. After all, they aren't equal in arms, are they? They don't deserve the same respects as your male comrades, do they? The true professional Officer and leader of character avoids certain peers and subordinates, merely to protect his own honor.

Truly sad to hear this type coming from fellow cadets and others alike. Disappointing. My advice? Cherish and protect your soldiers or leave the Academy/Army. Male, female, Puerto Rican or Chinese. Do it for them and stop being obsessed with yourselves and your own personal well being. That is a characteristic incredibly unbecoming of a future officer.

It's not "boys will be boys." You are entering into a profession of male and female soldiers, whether you like it or not. If you're going to "avoid" a demographic, get out. Good soldiers don't need people like you.

You might be taking "avoid female cadets" comment out of context. Do you hang out with all of your company mates? Being an Army officer is a life style choice. However that doesn't mean you can not be selective on who you socialize with. I don't disagree with you that if you go out with you company mates and one of them is about to get in trouble, male or female, we have a moral obligation to do something. Had a company mate that never went out drinking with us. We still liked him. I didn't get invited to some outings, but I didn't care.

 

[Xyz]

You might be taking "avoid female cadets" comment out of context. Do you hang out with all of your company mates? Being an Army officer is a life style choice. However that doesn't mean you can not be selective on who you socialize with. I don't disagree with you that if you go out with you company mates and one of them is about to get in trouble, male or female, we have a moral obligation to do something. Had a company mate that never went out drinking with us. We still liked him. I didn't get invited to some outings, but I didn't care.

Respectfully, there is a stark difference between not associating with peoe just ur to your friend group and not associating with people based off their sex, race, religious demographic.

 

[JMC0759]

I wrote about the topic of sexual assaults on another thread back in March.

"This is my two cents from the law enforcement perspective. Sexual Assault is a tough offense to investigate. There is usually alcohol involved and nobody can really say what happened. There may be very limited or no physical evidence and it all may come down to he said/she said. A frustrating case to investigate when two futures hang in the balance."

Anybody can be accussed of sexual assault. Alcohol consumption is usually involved. My youngest daughter left for a civilian college a few weeks ago and she was required to take online classes about sexual assault prevention and alcohol abuse before she could start classes.

Cheap advice - females should never go to a party where alcohol is being served without a co-pilot and don't ever leave a friend behind. Know how much alcohol it is safe for you to consume and know what you are drinking. Males should never place themselves in a position where their conduct could be brought into question. A co-pilot might not be enough to help you. I have seen some horror stories over the years where innocent people have been accussed of sexual assault.

 

[MemberLG]

Respectfully, there is a stark difference between not associating with peoe just ur to your friend group and not associating with people based off their sex, race, religious demographic.

How do you know someone is not associating with someone else based off "their sex, race, religious demographic"? Simple scenario, you get on a bus, two empty seats, one next to a white person and one next to non-white person, if I decided to seat next to a white person because he is a smaller so I will have more space to myself am I racist. Since folks can't read my mine, a casual observer might think I am a racist because I didn't pick the seat next to a non-white person.

If you look hard enough, everything can be about "sex, race, religious demographic."

Regardless, we still have a freedom of association in this country.

 

[LineInTheSand]

How do you know someone is not associating with someone else based off "their sex, race, religious demographic"? Simple scenario, you get on a bus, two empty seats, one next to a white person and one next to non-white person, if I decided to seat next to a white person because he is a smaller so I will have more space to myself am I racist. Since folks can't read my mine, a casual observer might think I am a racist because I didn't pick the seat next to a non-white person.

If you look hard enough, everything can be about "sex, race, religious demographic."

Regardless, we still have a freedom of association in this country.

We tend to identify with people who look like us, have similar experiences, etc. You want to sit next to the white guy, more power to you. I'm comfortable with the understanding that I have prejudices and behaviors that either I don't recognize or istanctively act on. Maybe I sit next to the white guy. Maybe I sit next to the guy with the same college shirt, or reading a book....

We care too much about this stuff. Sit next to whoever makes your most comfortable, for whatever reason.

 

[Xyz]

How do you know someone is not associating with someone else based off "their sex, race, religious demographic"? Simple scenario, you get on a bus, two empty seats, one next to a white person and one next to non-white person, if I decided to seat next to a white person because he is a smaller so I will have more space to myself am I racist. Since folks can't read my mine, a casual observer might think I am a racist because I didn't pick the seat next to a non-white person.

If you look hard enough, everything can be about "sex, race, religious demographic."

Regardless, we still have a freedom of association in this country.

That is completely beside the topic at hand. What I was referring to was the comments people made on sexual assault that DOES, regardless of what people would like to think, happens at West Point. Yes, there are people falsely accused but men and children are sexually assaulted in society as well. Do you accuse them of lying, too, to get someone in trouble? It happens, but on a much smaller scale than people for some reason think.

And the solution for this is not "avoid cadet girls and female soldiers." The solution is police up your buddies, and treat everyone like soldiers instead of boys and girls. And freedom of association shouldn't really be a large factor in someone who is supposed to lead people of all demographics, in my own opinion. At least that is how I intend to lead my soldiers. Equally and respectfully. I'm not going to gravitate toward the white/black male/female subordinates. And I would hope others look to do the same.

 

[scoutpilot]

That is completely beside the topic at hand. What I was referring to was the comments people made on sexual assault that DOES, regardless of what people would like to think, happens at West Point. Yes, there are people falsely accused but men and children are sexually assaulted in society as well. Do you accuse them of lying, too, to get someone in trouble? It happens, but on a much smaller scale than people for some reason think.

And the solution for this is not "avoid cadet girls and female soldiers." The solution is police up your buddies, and treat everyone like soldiers instead of boys and girls. And freedom of association shouldn't really be a large factor in someone who is supposed to lead people of all demographics, in my own opinion. At least that is how I intend to lead my soldiers. Equally and respectfully. I'm not going to gravitate toward the white/black male/female subordinates. And I would hope others look to do the same.

It's easy to speak in absolutes when you're in the leadership laboratory and you're surrounded by people of equal intelligence from congruent backgrounds.

 

[BigBear]

That is completely beside the topic at hand. What I was referring to was the comments people made on sexual assault that DOES, regardless of what people would like to think, happens at West Point. Yes, there are people falsely accused but men and children are sexually assaulted in society as well. Do you accuse them of lying, too, to get someone in trouble? It happens, but on a much smaller scale than people for some reason think.

And the solution for this is not "avoid cadet girls and female soldiers." The solution is police up your buddies, and treat everyone like soldiers instead of boys and girls. And freedom of association shouldn't really be a large factor in someone who is supposed to lead people of all demographics, in my own opinion. At least that is how I intend to lead my soldiers. Equally and respectfully. I'm not going to gravitate toward the white/black male/female subordinates. And I would hope others look to do the same.

No one is saying show bias towards your soldiers; some posters have said that it is safer to just avoid female cadets, which I don't think was supposed to mean "cut off all contact," but rather "you can't be falsely accused if you don't put yourself in that situation to begin with."

 

[MemberLG]

That is completely beside the topic at hand. What I was referring to was the comments people made on sexual assault that DOES, regardless of what people would like to think, happens at West Point. Yes, there are people falsely accused but men and children are sexually assaulted in society as well. Do you accuse them of lying, too, to get someone in trouble? It happens, but on a much smaller scale than people for some reason think.

And the solution for this is not "avoid cadet girls and female soldiers." The solution is police up your buddies, and treat everyone like soldiers instead of boys and girls. And freedom of association shouldn't really be a large factor in someone who is supposed to lead people of all demographics, in my own opinion. At least that is how I intend to lead my soldiers. Equally and respectfully. I'm not going to gravitate toward the white/black male/female subordinates. And I would hope others look to do the same.

To clarify, my points are focused on off duty conducts. How does leading and freedom of association connect? Being a leader is a 24/7 job, but you do have some free time. Perhaps freedom of association is not the best way to describe the situation.

How about a male soldier looking for a girl friend? There is a female solider in the same unit that he gets along fine and is attracted too. But he decides not to ask her out because she is another soldier.

 

[scoutpilot]

To clarify, my points are focused on off duty conducts. How does leading and freedom of association connect? Being a leader is a 24/7 job, but you do have some free time. Perhaps freedom of association is not the best way to describe the situation.

How about a male soldier looking for a girl friend? There is a female solider in the same unit that he gets along fine and is attracted too. But he decides not to ask her out because she is another soldier.

Indeed. There's a big difference between sharing a fighting position as equals during the week for an STX and deciding to go drink in proximity to one another on Saturday night.

Treating someone with respect as a military professional and hanging out with them in a social environment are two totally different things.

 

[Xyz]

Just to hit all these replies at once--
scoutpilot,
Equal intelligence? Congruent backgrounds? Respectfully, I hope that was a sarcastic post. It has nothing to do with being in a leadership laboratory, and if it does I apologize that I hold highly the moral courage not to discriminate between classmates because I'm "afraid to get accused of getting raped" or "afraid of getting raped." Maybe we should discriminate based on personal character instead of sweeping generalizations.

BigBear, your posts have been some of the worst offenses. You say some fairly absurd things about the academy dynamic, such as your lack of ever witnessing any sexual harrassment, ever (maybe because you "avoid female cadets"?). Try to think about what you are saying: A cadet got accused of raping another cadet. Who really knows the details, entirely, other than what was posted in this single article. Your automatic response? Avoid female cadets to avoid being accused of being raped. Maybe female cadets should avoid male cadets to avoid being sexually harrassed? No? Because that's what the big Army's like, men, women and a whole slew of different types of people. So why practice what you should never hope to practice when you graduate. Maybe instead, cadets should police each other up and there wouldn't be a problem. If you think avoiding a demographic to cover your own ass is a good solution to anything, I am disappointed that you are on this forum attempting to represent our academy.

MemberLG,
So in your free time, you should avoid your sisters in arms, african americans, puerto ricans, jews, muslims... because they make you feel uncomfortable. Check roger. Got it.
And this has nothing to do with "girl friends." There's the problem right there. Why do you all always think of our sisters in arms as potential girlfriends or whatever? Treat them like soldiers and there are no problems. It's so simple. That point was completely irrelevent.

Edit: I cannot believe you do not fathom the absurdity of what you are all trying to say. "STAY AWAY FROM FEMALE CADETS TO AVOID BEING ACCUSED OF RAPE" Say that out loud three times, please. It is sad that people actually convince themselves of things like that.

Edit2: "Stay away from all women that do not want to have sex with you, otherwise when you look like you're trying you might get accused of sexual harrassmenet. Treat your sisters in arms as aliens because they don't want to have sex with you. Enjoy your time with all civilian girls, though. they're willing and definintely never lie"