Lawsuit filed against USAFA Superintendent

Can I point out that nowhere did i see it say where this pressure was from, it may have just been from other cadets?
Okay, I'm repeating myself. Time to move on. My post way back on post #15:
The new second lieutenant gets up in the ready room on Friday morning and announces that he is going to the ball game Saturday night and asks if anyone wants to come along. How many will respond? The skipper gets up and makes the same announcement. Same question. Completely different response, correct? Often command endorsement is perceived as more than command endorsement, pure and simple.
The skipper plays golf. All the other officers in the squadron play golf. Tennis, the same thing. He drinks like a fish. You have to arrive early at the o'club to get a seat. A teetotler, the club goes out of business from lack of business. His wife likes to go to the travelling Broadway shows that come through town once a month. A couple of months into his command, the mess treasurer is buying blocks of tickets so the entire wardroom can go. The Supt at the Naval Academy is a Protestant and attends the 11:00 Academy Chapel service. Suddenly attendance is up because all the officers are now atttending Protestant chapel just so they can say 'hi' to the supt and he will see what great Protestants they are, just like him. (Actually we did have one Supt who went to Chapel under duress just because of this). "Pressure" in the military can be very subtle, especially in the officer corps.
 
Last edited:
Apples and oranges. Tell us what you did when it was the Commanding Officer smoking and "Bible Thumping".

That's crap and you know it. As for smoking, we still had common courtesy and respect for each other. The commander, if he smoked, didn't light up in his office with others there normally. Not that I EVER saw. But I do remember one O-5 at the O'club when I was bartending, who was chain smoking at the end of the bar and the smoke was blowing right at me. I simply said: "Damn boss, you're killing me here". He simply said: "Damn, I'm sorry about that". And he put it out. He even moved to the other stool at the bar so everyone could still chat, and the draft blew the smoke away from us. Granted, we're talking the 80's and overseas, where everyone seems to be part of a closer knit family. Maybe it's not that way on a ship.

As for bible thumping; I've NEVER seen a commanding officer or even one of his/her junior officers try and push the bible, religion, etc... on anyone. And before you give me some story about how it's subtle, and the junior folks are coerced or intimidated into it because they are afraid to say anything; save your breath. I'm not buying what you're selling. If you want to say it's common in the Navy, then go for it.

I'll submit to Steve or Bullet for their experience. Did you all ever feel intimidated around a senior officer because of their religious views? I've personally had religious discussions/debates/arguments with senior officers. (O5-O6) and I never felt intimidated or in a position where my opinions weren't equally respected. In other words; other than peers, who I could say "Piss off", I never felt like I was being pushed to attend or be involved in any type of religious activity or function. Granted, I was an NCO, but I doubt they were afraid of me. I simply never experienced the religious pressure where I felt I couldn't disagree or have my own opinion. And I definitely never felt pressured into attending a function. Many I did. (Not from pressure, but out of respect). e.g. memorial services at the chapel; a couple of prayer luncheons; etc.. But it was definitely a voluntary engagement.
 
Okay, I'm repeating myself. Time to move on. My post way back on post #15: The skipper plays golf. All the other officers in the squadron play golf. Tennis, the same thing. He drinks like a fish. You have to arrive early at the o'club to get a seat. A teetotler, the club goes out of business from lack of business. His wife likes to go to the travelling Broadway shows that come through town once a month. A couple of months into his command, the mess treasurer is buying blocks of tickets so the entire wardroom can go. The Supt at the Naval Academy is a Protestant and attends the 11:00 Academy Chapel service. Suddenly attendance is up because all the officers are now atttending Protestant chapel just so they can say 'hi' to the supt and he will see what great Protestants they are, just like him. (Actually we did have one Supt who went to Chapel under duress just because of this). "Pressure" in the military can be very subtle, especially in the officer corps.

Maybe it isn't pressure. Maybe it's the naval officers "Kissing Butt" and trying to increase their promotion/assignment/tdy/etc... opportunities. I'm not being facetious. I'm dead serious. Sort of like joining the Officer/NCO club. Not that you had to; but if you did, there were definitely some political advantages to it. But those types of social engagements happen every day in the real world as well as in the military. But there's a big difference between attending such activities because you're AFRAID of retribution and attending such activities to gain politically.
 
Maybe it isn't pressure. Maybe it's the naval officers "Kissing Butt" and trying to increase their promotion/assignment/tdy/etc... opportunities. I'm not being facetious. I'm dead serious. Sort of like joining the Officer/NCO club. Not that you had to; but if you did, there were definitely some political advantages to it. But those types of social engagements happen every day in the real world as well as in the military. But there's a big difference between attending such activities because you're AFRAID of retribution and attending such activities to gain politically.

Are you aware of ANY of the problems that were found at USAFA due to the climate of Evangelical harassment that was occurring a few years ago? Yes, some of it was cadet-to-cadet, but the other cadet could have certainly been a regimental officer or an upperclassman as well. But I believe there were also some officers/advisors involved as well.

And according to hornetguy, he can personally vouch that it did indeed take place and he felt coerced.

Why are you trying to deny the history that paints USAFA as an enthusiastic participant in religious harassment? Read the survey, the most recent one that the Commanding Officer sought to suppress for so long.

Air Force Academy Defends Decision Not To Release Detailed Survey Results

It was finally released after months of attempts to suppress it: Academy officials share climate survey details

It contains things like this:

"In the first area of concern, despite an improving trend since 1998, 48 percent of religious, non-Christian cadets who responded to the survey said they believe cadets have "low tolerance for those who do not follow a religion or believe in a divine being." This is approximately a 20-percent increase from the 2007 climate assessment survey."​

A great institution like USAFA cheapens itself when it succumbs to any religious persecution, no matter from where it comes from. No one seems to get too upset when they are on the "good" side, but boy-oh-boy just wait until the "other side" gains the upper hand and then we'll really see which group is tolerant and which group is not.

The USAFA should be running away from any appearance of religious proselytizing or endorsement, period. We may all be happy now that they are favoring "our" religion, but times do (and will) change and we can't THEN decide that the Endorsement Clause suddenly has relevance.
 
Maybe it isn't pressure. Maybe it's the naval officers "Kissing Butt" and trying to increase their promotion/assignment/tdy/etc... opportunities. I'm not being facetious. I'm dead serious. Sort of like joining the Officer/NCO club. Not that you had to; but if you did, there were definitely some political advantages to it. But those types of social engagements happen every day in the real world as well as in the military. But there's a big difference between attending such activities because you're AFRAID of retribution and attending such activities to gain politically.
I think we have a breakthrough. So it is okay if one has to become an Evelengical Christian to 'gain politically'?
 
Not at all. It beneficial for individuals to be self assured and not lemmings. I can honestly say that I may not have been in total agreement with everyone, but I do believe that I gained the respect of most.

If a person is weak, and has to submit to peer pressure, then that's their problem. I am 100% anti-PC. I have been since it started to become prevalent in the 70's. I WILL not use hyphenated descriptors. I will not use neutral derivatives. I do not tolerate being thin skinned. And the more that people concentrate on our commonalities and not our differences, the better our country will be.

If an officer allows themself to be intimidated and compromise their morals, values, beliefs, etc... then they are weak. If they only care about their political advancement, then they will lose all respect by those they command, and they'll have neither. The true leader is the one that knows how to truly compromise. Not a one way compromise of their beliefs and positions; but where the can engage both sides to compromise. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this type of compromise. Especially with a topic like religion, where neither position is 100% guaranteed to know the truth, until they die.

Believe it or not, not everyone is intimidated or coerced into compromising positions. And those who aren't, aren't always punished politically for their choices. So what is the difference between the officer who is intimidated and the one who isn't, yet isn't negatively affected by not becoming a lemming? The answer is respect. Learn to respect yourself, and you will gain respect from others. When this happens, you will not be intimidated or coerced. But you can believe that this doesn't exist. I know for a fact that it does. I've seen it too many times. From generals down to the butter bar right out of the academy or ROTC. You can believe what you want.
 
If an officer allows themself to be intimidated and compromise their morals, values, beliefs, etc... then they are weak. If they only care about their political advancement, then they will lose all respect by those they command, and they'll have neither.
Again, this has nothing to do with peers, but a junior/senior relationship.
This seems a long way to go to avoid laying the blame where it is due, on the senior. Blaming the victim. And if that doesn't work, blame those who work for him for not recognizaing it.
 
Again, this has nothing to do with peers, but a junior/senior relationship.
This seems a long way to go to avoid laying the blame where it is due, on the senior. Blaming the victim. And if that doesn't work, blame those who work for him for not recognizaing it.

Maybe the problem I have, is that I've seen first hand, in very bad ways, what peer pressure does. From alcohol to drugs to sex to crime, etc... I grew up in the new york city / new jersey area. I saw how individuals would allow themselves to be intimidated and pressured. I have no respect for them. You might think I'm blaming the "Victim", but I'm not. I simply don't believe that a person can be manipulated unless they allow themselves to be. And if they allow themselves, then I have no respect for them. Especially at the peer level. The academies are made up of supposedly some of the best minds coming out of school. They are being taught a code of honor and integrity. They are being taught the importance of teamwork. Granted, these individuals haven't all matured yet. Some do stupid things like alcohol and drugs; cheating; stealing; etc... But these are people who were probably destined to not succeed in the military anyway.

Anyway; I believe in individuals being responsible for their own actions and their own fate. If they have become intimidated and had their values, morals, beliefs, etc... compromised; then they allowed it. You can see it as blaming the victim all you want. That's half of society's problem. Blame our parents. Blame the schools. Blame society. Blame television. Blame anyone but ourselves.
 
Okay, I'm repeating myself. Time to move on. My post way back on post #15: The skipper plays golf. All the other officers in the squadron play golf. Tennis, the same thing. He drinks like a fish. You have to arrive early at the o'club to get a seat. A teetotler, the club goes out of business from lack of business. His wife likes to go to the travelling Broadway shows that come through town once a month. A couple of months into his command, the mess treasurer is buying blocks of tickets so the entire wardroom can go. The Supt at the Naval Academy is a Protestant and attends the 11:00 Academy Chapel service. Suddenly attendance is up because all the officers are now atttending Protestant chapel just so they can say 'hi' to the supt and he will see what great Protestants they are, just like him. (Actually we did have one Supt who went to Chapel under duress just because of this). "Pressure" in the military can be very subtle, especially in the officer corps.

I was referring to the study, which your post #15 had absolutly NOTHING to do with that study.
 
I was referring to the study, which your post #15 had absolutly NOTHING to do with that study.
Perhaps you could have been more specific. However, it works for the survey as well as it does for the lawsuit.
 
Anyway; I believe in individuals being responsible for their own actions and their own fate. If they have become intimidated and had their values, morals, beliefs, etc... compromised; then they allowed it. You can see it as blaming the victim all you want. That's half of society's problem. Blame our parents. Blame the schools. Blame society. Blame television. Blame anyone but ourselves.

AMEN TO THAT!

Also IMO, the lawsuit seemed more about not liking who was going to be the key speaker. Not necessarily that the event was happening.
 
The skipper plays golf. All the other officers in the squadron play golf. Tennis, the same thing. He drinks like a fish. You have to arrive early at the o'club to get a seat. A teetotler, the club goes out of business from lack of business. His wife likes to go to the travelling Broadway shows that come through town once a month. A couple of months into his command, the mess treasurer is buying blocks of tickets so the entire wardroom can go. The Supt at the Naval Academy is a Protestant and attends the 11:00 Academy Chapel service. Suddenly attendance is up because all the officers are now atttending Protestant chapel just so they can say 'hi' to the supt and he will see what great Protestants they are, just like him. (Actually we did have one Supt who went to Chapel under duress just because of this). "Pressure" in the military can be very subtle, especially in the officer corps.

Ah, TWO breakthroughs in less than two pages of this thread!

So, if the Commander isn't an avid golfer or heavy drinker, he instead likes to make videos that denigrate woman and simulate sex acts, which he then shows to the entire crew with the warning "you don't like, shut up and go hug yourself!"

Well, don't you think some of those under him feel a little "subtle pressure" now to act just like that commander? Wouldn't you expect them to also feel pressure to use similar inappropriate behaviour such as this when it's their turn to conduct a morale boosting exercise for their troops?

So, who is right and who is wrong here? The AFA Supe or the Navy XO? Or is it both? Or neither?
 
We can debate about whether or not this was wise or not, but the real question is does it rise to the level of a Constitutional violation?
I don't see enough evidence to convince me that this case does rise to that level.

Personally, I never felt religiously coerced at the academy. Maybe that is because I am a protestant Christian. I don't know. I do know that I had quite a few private conversations about Roman Catholicism, LDS, and Islam with various adherents to those faiths/denominations. I usually felt there was plenty of mutual respect in those conversations.

The only times I can remember where really offensive things were said about my faith was from my roommate, but he liked to say outlandish things and we both knew it. I knew he said a lot of things in jest/half-joking, so I never really got angry about it. That kind of stuff between roommates isn't too big of an issue, if both know what's going on, IMO.
 
Ah, TWO breakthroughs in less than two pages of this thread!

So, if the Commander isn't an avid golfer or heavy drinker, he instead likes to make videos that denigrate woman and simulate sex acts, which he then shows to the entire crew with the warning "you don't like, shut up and go hug yourself!"

Well, don't you think some of those under him feel a little "subtle pressure" now to act just like that commander? Wouldn't you expect them to also feel pressure to use similar inappropriate behaviour such as this when it's their turn to conduct a morale boosting exercise for their troops?

So, who is right and who is wrong here? The AFA Supe or the Navy XO? Or is it both? Or neither?
Well, apparently AF officers are at least nearly as smart as Naval officers because both realized the situations for what they really were. For the AFA, a coercion to being subjected to secular religious beliefs, a violation of the constitution. And for the Navy, sometimes morale becomes such an important issue on a one-of-a-kind 50 year old warship in combat conditions, that "thinking outside the box" might become necessary and, thusly, see the actions for what they really were, no more, no less.
 
We can debate about whether or not this was wise or not, but the real question is does it rise to the level of a Constitutional violation?
I don't see enough evidence to convince me that this case does rise to that level.

I would disagree.

The endorsement test (proposed by United States Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in the 1984 case of Lynch v. Donnelly) asks whether a particular government action amounts to an endorsement of religion, thus violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

According to the test, a government action is invalid if it creates a perception in the mind of a reasonable observer that the government is either endorsing or disapproving of religion.

O'Connor wrote:

The Establishment Clause prohibits government from making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community. Government can run afoul of that prohibition...[by] endorsement or disapproval of religion. Endorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.​

Clearly, this case is a violation when the endorsement test is applied.

:cool:
 
I think it's great that you guys are finally discussing the relevant issue -- do the facts rise to the level of a constitutional violation? This is a MUCH different question than whether hosting the event (and how it was communicated) was "morally right" or whether the Academy's "judgment" here was sound. Much different.

Luigi, O'Connor's opinion in Lynch v. Donnelly was actually the concurring opinion. The majority held, however, that religious displays at city hall are okay.

You guys really should be discussing the Lemon test (and looking at how this test has been applied over the years). This test was first described by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman. http://supreme.justia.com/us/403/602/case.html. In Lemon, the Court announced the following test for separation issues:

"First, the statute [or government action] must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U. S. 236, 392 U. S. 243 (1968); finally, the statute [or government action] must not foster 'an excessive government entanglement with religion.' Walz, supra, at 397 U. S. 674"

The word "excessive" is key. For example, the courts have uniformly held that there is nothing wrong with a Christmas tree at the White House, or having "In God We Trust" emblazoned on our currency. These may offend some, but they do NOT rise to the level of a constitutional violation.
 
Last edited:
I just wanted to echo the difference between command endorsement of the religious event and of cadet-to-cadet religious discussion. I'm not sure there is a college in the U.S. where overly religious students are not out and about espousing their beliefs. As a nonreligious person, I personally don't like it, but it's everywhere (at institutions public and private). As long as they are not injuring people, the discussion of faith by individual citizens is not an issue. From my own experiences at VMI, there was a group of cadets called "The God Squad," and while they usually associated with themselves, it was not all that uncommon for them to try and reel-in someone. I guess one or two may have tried it with me, and I would usually just leave the room. If they were in my room, I'd change the subject or engage them in debate if I felt the mood. Cadets, or other university students, do not represent government endorsement of a particular faith. If, however, the administration of VMI started pushing chapel attendance or started endorsing a particular belief structure, you can bet there would be a problem.

Case in point, during my time at VMI, there was always a "Grace" said before dinners over the PA system in the mess hall. Shortly after I graduated, a cadet sued VMI (and won at the District Court level-I think it may have been moot when it reached the 4th Circuit), alleging that this was endorsement of religion by a state university. VMI defended the practice as an Institute tradition, but they lost. There is no prayer anymore (as far as I know). There are still avenues for religious cadets to worship, and there are still groups of students who get together for Bible study, etc. VMI doesn't say a word positively or negatively about it. I'm sure most colleges have such groups, and the active duty military does too. FOr people far from home, these are the only activities they might have to practice their faith. But-those activities, I think, do not present a government endorsement of religion (and allow students to freely practice their religion while on campus). It all boils down to the Free Excercise vs. Establishment Clause. As patentesq points out, Lemon is still the authority on the EC (although it has been inconsistently applied in subsequent 1st Amendment cases, and its future is uncertain).

The command element at USAFA sponsoring this prayer luncheon raises Establishment Clause concerns. It will be interesting to see how it pans out. I think it is rather more of an entaglement than a Christmas Tree/Menorah display would be (but less than a prayer broadcast to the entire wing at mealtimes). We shall see.
 
Last edited:
Really great post, sprog. A district judge with an agenda can really confuse things here. Based on the facts as I read them, I don't think this is any more entanglement than the official "National Motto" of the United States, which can be found at 36 U.S.C. Section 302 --> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/36/302.html. Who knows, maybe that section will be struck down someday.

VMI should have brought a test case if the matter was moot by the time the 4th Cir. looked at it (VMI probably concluded that the hassle of legal expenses/bad press wasn't worth it for a minor tradition, as opposed to what the Citadel did on female admissions a few years ago).
 
as opposed to what the Citadel did on female admissions a few years ago.

Diverson ahead-

It was actually VMI's case. United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996). It's a seminal case in 14th Amendment EP Clause jurisprudence. It introduced the "exceedingly persuasive justification" language to the intermediate scrutiny test for gender-based distinctions. I was at VMI at the time, it was interesting. Even more interesting was discussing the case in Con. law class at law school. Once the prof found out where I went to college, I didn't get a break from Socratic interrogation for the entire hour.
 
You just made me laugh out loud in a very solemn conference room of lawyers! The other folks in my CLE session are wondering what on Earth can be better than learning about legal issues! My response is that I AM learning about legal issues -- from sprog!
 
Back
Top