Politically biased ROTC LLAB...was this appropriate?

[usafa2022]

My AFROTC Detachment recently had an LLAB that myself and some other cadets were not sure was appropriate by military standards. The topic was diversity--more specifically racism--and the lab consisted of a guest lecturer followed by group discussions about race.

The guest speaker played a video of a TED talk by a presenter who was clearly pushing a left-leaning view on the topic, and later on during our discussions, our CO voiced his support for several policies, such as affirmative action, that also were heavily leaning towards the left side of the aisle. As a whole, nearly all of the views expressed by the cadre, wing staff, and their guest speaker during the LLAB were biased in one direction. (For context, there was no special circumstance that would bring about a conversation about race in the unit; no incidents of racism by cadets or anything like that had happened.)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't members of the military forbidden from making political statements while in uniform? Although no one present was openly supporting a specific candidate or party, there was a clear bias towards a particular ideological worldview. Also, was a sensitive "social justice"-oriented topic such as race really an appropriate topic for a military environment in the first place? The entire thing came across to me and several others as being unprofessional, so I'm just trying to understand how (or if) this fits into the military's ethos/rules of conduct.

 

[Tbpxece]

Did they expressly violate (a) the Hatch Act, (b) Article 88 of the UCMJ, or (c) DoDD 1344.10?

If not, you are in the squishy world of "command influence" and "professional conduct". Very hard to prove, and not much you can do about it. Especially as a cadet in training status. Look at what Gen. MacArthur did to President Truman while in uniform. He got away with that.

You will encounter a lot of political viewpoints as an officer. Many will annoy or upset you. Part of maintaining bearing is learning to focus more on the mission and less on the personality quirks of those in office or command over you.

Keep your head down and don't get spun up on this stuff even if you disagree with it. You will be in command someday, and will have the option of pushing your personal political views-- or not.

And seriously-- NEVER fall into the stupid habit of criticizing the officials listed in Article 88. It is stupid and short-sighted to do so and only serves to undermine your integrity. You will likely be holding command at some point in your future. A great way to completely destroy your credibility and influence is to start popping off at the mouth about your political views and opinions on folks your enlisted troops voted for.

Take the high road.

 

[thibaud]

With Tbpxece on this one. Generally, it helps to to maintain a distinction between "politics" defined as support for specific political parties, candidates for office or elected officials - call it politicking, or campaigning or any other partisan support - and statements about social or political issues.

The latter is simply part of the public discourse that any citizen is entitled to engage in. And "diversity and inclusion" training comes with the territory in any corporate or professional setting; get used to it.

The former is expressly outlawed by the Hatch Act; the reason is that such politicking, or political support for specific individuals, leads down a slippery slope toward political coercion, favoritism, or retaliation.

As regards your specific complaint, if the officer had shown a video or engaged in speech that gave a suggestion that the cadets ought to vote for Party 'A' and against Party 'B' (or against, say, a third-party POTUS candidate, formerly of Party 'A'), then I'd agree with you, for the reasons outlined above.

If OTOH the content of the session was not partisan or directed at specific political figures, and was focused on "race" as a general ie not partisan or electoral issues, then I think you're best advised to listen, learn, feel free to (respectfully, discreetly, quietly) disagree wherever and whenever reason and facts prompt you to do so. But best to keep one's counsel, try to see the other side, and resist the urge to hold forth. Not every thought needs to be expressed.

 

[A1Janitor]

I agree with both.

Listen. It’s a quality you’ll need to develop.

 

[USMCGrunt]

But best to keep one's counsel, try to see the other side, and resist the urge to hold forth. Not every thought needs to be expressed.

Amen!

Great advice in the responses and the comment above is spot on.

You are a AF ROTC student at an institute of higher learning. It is great that you are challenging the establishment and the presentation - it is a right of passage. Once you commission, the reality of these things takes on new meaning. You may be faced to take a stand on the lawfulness of a particular order or whether to challenge a senior office in matters like this. It is serious business. Until then, save your philosophical challenges and "barracks lawyer" interpretations to private discussions with your peers (in private with/ or without adult beverages).

 

[Tbpxece]

Until then, save your philosophical challenges and "barracks lawyer" interpretations to private discussions with your peers (in private with/ or without adult beverages).

I'd edit this to read "friends" instead of "peers". Things really are getting nasty.

To anyone else browsing through, be very careful about sharing your political viewpoints in professional settings. Not much good comes of it anymore, and there is the potential for a lot of downside. Let the angry, screechy shills hang themselves-- you don't need to help them by tying your own noose.

Other than that, I appreciate the sage advice, @USMCGrunt , and @thibaud , you should always agree with me, sir!

 

[USMCGrunt]

I'd edit this to read "friends" instead of "peers". Things really are getting nasty.

I agree with your edit @Tbpxece.

Also, to be clear - I really wasn't trying to be nasty. I was trying to offer advice and counsel.

Not sure we will always agree, but we seem to be in the same place on this issue.

 

[thibaud]

I defer to Tbpxece in (nearly) everything on these boards.

Once again, he's nailed it:

I'd edit this to read "friends" instead of "peers". Things really are getting nasty.
To anyone else browsing through, be very careful about sharing your political viewpoints in professional settings. Not much good comes of it anymore, and there is the potential for a lot of downside. Let the angry, screechy shills hang themselves-- you don't need to help them by tying your own noose.

I think our society is painfully, belatedly realizing that the amazing power of social media to express one's heartfelt opinions to thousands or millions of strangers is not a mixed blessing but a curse.

In any workplace setting, this behavior and this urge is more than a curse: it's an RPG aimed at your career.

Nothing good will come from arguing with one's colleagues about politics. Nothing. Ever. Anywhere.

Think, reflect, listen, read, ponder, write down your thoughts on paper. But resist the urge to speak out or tap tap tap your deepest, most heartfelt thoughts onto any public forum.

 

[Tbpxece]

I'd edit this to read "friends" instead of "peers". Things really are getting nasty.

I agree with your edit @Tbpxece.

Also, to be clear - I really wasn't trying to be nasty. I was trying to offer advice and counsel.

Not sure we will always agree, but we seem to be in the same place on this issue.

I was referring to general political discourse, not your comment. As always, your advice is well founded.

 

[HuskyPilot]

IMHO, keep your conservative views to yourself. The military is no different from corporate America as it pertains to supporting the expression of left leaning views and shunning or even persecuting views on the right. It's the world we live in today. Don't take any chances as a cadet being labeled a "racist" or "intolerant" for simply expressing a different opinion.

 

[kinnem]

I'll take a somewhat contrarian position. I know it seemed biased to you, but did what they say represent the Air Force's position on these matters? If so, it was appropriate.

 

[Pima]

(For context, there was no special circumstance that would bring about a conversation about race in the unit; no incidents of racism by cadets or anything like that had happened.)

I would just put this out there that although there have been no incidents or circumstances regarding race within your unit, you need to realize that they may have been required to do this briefing due to HQ AFROTC. If it came down from upon high than although you may feel they tilted it to the left, it may be they were following a script/direction.
The cadre's job is not only to train you from a military aspect, but also how to be a leader and that includes understanding different views regarding things like diversity.
~ You will find in the ADAF world you will also be required to attend meetings regarding sexual harassment, ethics, discrimination, etc., just like many companies require this type of training for their employees.

 

[TeddyPlus4]

Agree with @kinnem on this. As a cadet, or as a junior officer for that matter, you never know what directive is coming down from from "on high".

Second, I've learned that very little "clearly left" or "clearly right". It's all relative.

Finally, your big take away from the training is that you are entering an organization with many people from many different backgrounds and you need to be prepared to serve, fight, and win with all of them.

 

[learningNavymom]

It sounds as though the lab was intended as Diversity and Inclusion training, which is not only a commonplace in the corporate world and the public sector but is part of the military's mandate as well. And such training, if it is to be effective, is supposed to make people question their preconceptions and maybe make them feel a little uncomfortable.

In 2009, Congress mandated the creation of a Military Leadership Diversity Commission (MLDC) tasked with conducting “a comprehensive evaluation and assessment of policies that provide opportunities for the promotion and advancement of minority members of the Armed Forces, including minority members who are senior officers.” One of the commission’s key findings was that the Armed Forces have not been successful in developing a continuous stream of leaders as demographically diverse as the nation they serve. The commission made 20 recommendations for improving diversity and inclusion, and many have been implemented by subsequent law and policy changes.

Here are some goals listed in the DOD Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan, 2012-2017:

Employ an aligned strategic outreach effort to identify,
attract, and recruit from a broad talent pool reflective of
the best of the nation we serve. Position DOD to be an
“employer of choice” that is competitive in attracting and
recruiting top talent.

Develop, mentor, and retain top talent from across the
total force. Establish DOD’s position as an employer of
choice by creating a merit-based workforce life-cycle
continuum that focuses on personal and professional
development through training, education, and developing
employment flexibility to retain a highly-skilled
workforce.

Ensure leadership commitment to an accountable and
sustained diversity effort. Develop structures and
strategies to equip leadership with the ability to manage
diversity, be accountable, and engender an inclusive work
environment that cultivates innovation and optimization
within the Department.

 

[New@This]

There may be no incidents of racism that you are aware of. That doesn't mean that there haven't been incidents in the detachment that may have caused leadership to feel this was important. As a cadet in the detachment you are not aware of or made aware of all incidents that may arise.

 

[Tex232]

My AFROTC Detachment recently had an LLAB that myself and some other cadets were not sure was appropriate by military standards. The topic was diversity--more specifically racism--and the lab consisted of a guest lecturer followed by group discussions about race.

The guest speaker played a video of a TED talk by a presenter who was clearly pushing a left-leaning view on the topic, and later on during our discussions, our CO voiced his support for several policies, such as affirmative action, that also were heavily leaning towards the left side of the aisle. As a whole, nearly all of the views expressed by the cadre, wing staff, and their guest speaker during the LLAB were biased in one direction. (For context, there was no special circumstance that would bring about a conversation about race in the unit; no incidents of racism by cadets or anything like that had happened.)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't members of the military forbidden from making political statements while in uniform? Although no one present was openly supporting a specific candidate or party, there was a clear bias towards a particular ideological worldview. Also, was a sensitive "social justice"-oriented topic such as race really an appropriate topic for a military environment in the first place? The entire thing came across to me and several others as being unprofessional, so I'm just trying to understand how (or if) this fits into the military's ethos/rules of conduct.

Yes, it probably was left-leaning, and yes, it probably was uncalled for. And if the shoe was on the other foot and the briefing had been right-leaning, you can bet your ass there would have been some kind of pushback. Unfortunately that is the world we live in now. Society likes to silence or even punish those with conservative viewpoints and let those with liberal viewpoints have at it. In this particular instance is it worth making a formal complaint over? Probably not. But that's up to you, and you can't be punished for making an IG complaint.

 

[williamsdr3]

Also, was a sensitive "social justice"-oriented topic such as race really an appropriate topic for a military environment in the first place?

USAFA2022 I am glad you are bringing up your opinion on this in a thoughtful way - as others have said challenging the status quo - but I am a little surprised that you question race as being an appropriate topic for a military environment in the first place. It is an appropriate topic for any workplace or organization because the way people respond whether consciously or unconsciously to race can affect organizational performance.

 

[mil.intel]

I represented my detachment in this year's LEDx Leadership Symposium in Maxwell AFB/ACSC early January. The theme was Diversity at the Intersection of Leadership. The Air University leadership invited various guest speakers including a Gender Studies expert/professor from Cambridge University. Over the week, it completely shattered my viewpoint that the military was a single, monolithic entity heavily biased one way or the other - rather, an extremely diverse group of humans with varying political/social/religious etc standpoints united by the common goal of protecting our Nation's defense.

I'm a liberal ready to commission in May (completed my Form 24 this week ) and couldn't be more excited. I advise you that you keep your mind open and try to understand where others are coming from.

 

[cb7893]

Also, was a sensitive "social justice"-oriented topic such as race really an appropriate topic for a military environment in the first place?

I can't comment on the quality of the facilitator of your lab, but I can state unequivocally that it is highly appropriate. There is a higher % of African Americans in the enlisted ranks of the military than in the population at large. The disparity is even greater between the military and lily white communities like the one where my 1LT DS was born and raised. You could very well find yourself commanding black soldiers/airmen/sailors/marines from the Bronx to 50 miles outside of Biloxi, MS. These young men and women are your responsibility, so you do yourself a favor knowing something about how they see the world. Knowing what buttons can and can't be pushed will be very helpful.

 

[EDelahanty]

I have no idea what you mean by a left-leaning view on the topic of racism, but it sounds like undergraduate snowflakery. You are training to be an officer and may at some point be supervising young airmen who have not had the education you have had. Hopefully, the extra training you now disparage will prepare you to prevent tragic and career-ending incidents such as the following.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Danny_Chen