stoutfellow (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
stoutfellow) wrote2006-02-11 03:15 pm
stoutfellow) wrote2006-02-11 03:15 pm
Entry tags:
Colorado Springs
There are worse sins than abuse of authority. Still, that is one of the sins to which I have the most visceral reaction. I'm not sure why; perhaps it is because it is one of the besetting sins of people in my profession, educators. In any case, it enrages me to hear of it.
As an undergraduate, I spent a year or so in ROTC. One day, in one of my Military Science classes - this must have been late in 1976 or early in 1977 - the instructor, a major, began talking about politics, making his Republican preferences quite clear. Then he began going around the class, asking each of us how we had voted. When he got around to me, I told him that I would prefer not to say; he stopped a moment in apparent surprise, then nodded. He didn't ask anyone else. I don't know that I've ever been angrier with a teacher than I was that day. A few months later, I left the program (for entirely different reasons), but that memory has stuck with me, and continues to rankle.
In my classes, I don't talk about politics, or about religion. (Well, with certain exceptions: in my History of Math class, religion is occasionally relevant, e.g. in discussing Pascal, but I try to keep my discussion purely descriptive.) It would be deeply unethical for me to do so, in my judgement.
It is for reasons like this that the scandal over proselytizing at the Air Force Academy offends me so. John Cole - no liberal he - has a good discussion of the matter. If I, a civilian mathematics professor, am ethically constrained in this respect, how much more so an officer at a military academy? An officer has far more influence over a cadet than I could possibly have, and it is therefore far more incumbent on him - or her - to use that power ethically. As an individual, yes, s/he has the right to attempt to propagate his/her faith; but within the confines of the Academy, s/he does not, cannot, act as an individual, but only as a representative of the United States and of its armed forces. I think, as Cole does, that the guidelines put forward a few months ago were wise ones, and I am disturbed that they seem to have been watered down.
As an undergraduate, I spent a year or so in ROTC. One day, in one of my Military Science classes - this must have been late in 1976 or early in 1977 - the instructor, a major, began talking about politics, making his Republican preferences quite clear. Then he began going around the class, asking each of us how we had voted. When he got around to me, I told him that I would prefer not to say; he stopped a moment in apparent surprise, then nodded. He didn't ask anyone else. I don't know that I've ever been angrier with a teacher than I was that day. A few months later, I left the program (for entirely different reasons), but that memory has stuck with me, and continues to rankle.
In my classes, I don't talk about politics, or about religion. (Well, with certain exceptions: in my History of Math class, religion is occasionally relevant, e.g. in discussing Pascal, but I try to keep my discussion purely descriptive.) It would be deeply unethical for me to do so, in my judgement.
It is for reasons like this that the scandal over proselytizing at the Air Force Academy offends me so. John Cole - no liberal he - has a good discussion of the matter. If I, a civilian mathematics professor, am ethically constrained in this respect, how much more so an officer at a military academy? An officer has far more influence over a cadet than I could possibly have, and it is therefore far more incumbent on him - or her - to use that power ethically. As an individual, yes, s/he has the right to attempt to propagate his/her faith; but within the confines of the Academy, s/he does not, cannot, act as an individual, but only as a representative of the United States and of its armed forces. I think, as Cole does, that the guidelines put forward a few months ago were wise ones, and I am disturbed that they seem to have been watered down.
no subject
As both of these groups could be expected to be devoted soldiers and loyal to the nation (Maoists encouraged their supporters to do military service well, because they feared Soviet invasion and because they believed in a popular militia - the right-wingers were nationalistic per definition) they had already influence - the soldier's union was definitely left-leaning, whereas it was well-known a bit too many officers were too right-wing for political comfort.
But both groups also included prospective terrorists and criminal elements who could get the idea to break into military depots and steal weapons and rob banks for the Cause. (The big sweep to get rid of right-wing extremists started after some such events) So it was a delicate issue no one was really comfortable with and I got the feeling no one wanted to ask about politics unless a recruit was clearly unstable or saying too disturbing things.
But I can't say the military itself did encourage political or religious expression of officers. Gideonites gave us bibles at some time, and we visisted the bishop's church where the female chaplain said something fuzzy, but these were voluntary things, and the most political thing the officers tended to display were photos of the royal family.
no subject
I'd heard about this from the usual left-wing sources and, unfortunately dismissed it. After all, if one reads early 20th century writers, the picture of drawn of the type of religious language used by officers, professors and people of authority would have them nowadays, drawn and quartered for the offense. And, I'll note their prowess in either profession compared favorably to (v. favorably in the latter case) to those today.
And then I read:
I'll need to investigate further, but, for the nonce: Yoiks. That doesn't look good. Keep in mind, however, that Cole is quoting from the WaPo: Trust, but verify.
no subject
Sorry about that.
Keep in Mind ...
http://www.greatertalent.com/biography.php?id=541
Hardly a lefty ...
From the Air Force Times:
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1477125.php
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1521345.php
Re: Keep in Mind ...
no subject
Personally?
I'm uncomfortable a lot of times when religion gets into the military. I don't mind at ceremonies where you expect it (an opening prayer, a grace, a benediction, or a memorial service) but sometimes... it gets out of hand. There are times when it is not exactly coercive, but it makes me feel uncomfortable.
1) One of our Lutheran friends made the mistake of going to one of the "praise and glory" type services, and they tried to forcibly baptize him.
2) A ten-minute long, overly effusive evangelical prayer (which, admittedly, was at a promotion ceremony) that made me want to creep out of the room.
3) Our current brigade commander including a Biblical quote at the end of every briefing.
Sometimes, tuning it out isn't always an option.
The point from Cole's post about it that I liked was this:
Furthermore, it isn’t religious bigotry to say that the Air Force is wrong to revise the guidelines they just released because they received some intense lobbying from a bunch of loudmouthed zealots who once again assumed their favorite role- poor, oppressed Christian. After all, the Air Force itself recognizes they have a problem:
The Air Force report cites some incidents but does not go into details: religious slurs and disparaging remarks between cadets and statements from faculty and staff with strong religious beliefs that some cadets found offensive.
DV
no subject
no subject
Whatever those Air Force dudes are smoking, I *don't* want any. [cowers effectively Somewhere Else.]