The Potemkin Color Guard goes mainstream

As the Midshipmen at the Naval Academy, family, friends, and alumni have been hoping, the story of active discrimination going on at Annapolis has broken into a major daily newspaper of record; The Washington Post. The NavyTimes article by Philip Ewing on Sunday was good - but the Washington Post brings it to a wider audience.

Before we get to Daniel de Vise's article tough, you may want to review the previous posts here from last THU and MON.

Dan de Vise's has done a good, balanced article. What I would like to do, if the author does not mind too much, is to do a para by para commentary.

For this to work though, you need to read the article in full. So, go over to the Washington Post and read it, then come back.

Oh, and click an advertisement or two while you are there to thank them and Daniel for running with this article.

Here we go.

Leaders of the U.S. Naval Academy tinkered with the composition of the color guard that appeared at a World Series game last month so the group would not be exclusively white and male.

An affirmative statement of fact. Keep this para in mind as we move forward. This is the core truth of what happened.

Accounts differ on whose names were added to the color guard roster, or purged from the list. But the net result was that one of the six who marched on the Yankee Stadium field Oct. 29, Midshipman 2nd Class Hannah Allaire, was selected because her presence would make the service academy look more diverse before a national audience.

Accurate - though it would have been two of six if one of the Diversity Selectees did not forget his shoes and cover.

The incident has captured the attention of the Annapolis campus and stirred up the broader community of alumni and military observers, who see it as part of a campaign to bring more racial and sexual diversity to the academy. Diversity is a sensitive point at the Naval Academy, an institution that has been accused by some faculty and alumni of forsaking fairness in its quest to build a brigade that mirrors the nation as a whole.

One small point - the issue isn't "...bring(ing) more racial and social diversity...". The issue is the USNA's unwarranted discrimination against individuals based on race and gender.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, elevated diversity to a "strategic imperative" during his tenure as chief of naval operations. Academy leaders, on their official Web site, call diversity "our highest personnel priority." That thinking reflects "a sea change, in that this initiative was generated from within the military, rather than imposed from without by civilian overseers," said retired Marine Maj. Gen. Thomas Wilkerson, an academy alumnus and chief executive of the U.S. Naval Institute, an independent think tank. Some alumni, he said, "have voiced concerns that it will happen at the expense of quality and combat readiness."

I think MG Wilkerson has a couple of things wrong here. First, talk to anyone with experience dealing with Congress. The push for all things proposed by the Diversity Bullies and the Diversity Industry is hard-run from Congress to the military. The decision was made a long time ago to sacrifice fairness and equal treatment in favor of support for budgets and weapons programs by those members of Congress who fully support the retrograde theories proposed by the Diversity Industry. If you don't do what they want - they will force it on you. Just look what happened to the Coast Guard Academy recently.

No; internally the Navy I know and love wants to treat everyone the same regardless of race, creed, color, or national origin - it is Congress and Big Navy though that decided that equality isn't enough. They must take from others to give to someone else - and will do it based simply on self-identified racial and ethnic groupings.

Second thing that MG Wilkerson has wrong; USNI is not a think tank. It is an independent forum. I hope I don't get dinged at USNIBlog for bringing those two things up - but it is what it is. I mean it in the most polite and helpful way.

A military-oriented blog, CDR Salamander, reported last week that two white, male midshipmen had been pulled from the color guard that went to Yankee Stadium and replaced with two other students, one an Asian American male, the other a white female, to make the group more diverse.

Hey, I get a shout-out too! But .... like Para 1, this is a fact; and this is where things get interesting.

Academy leadership disputed that account.

Hmmmm .... someone here has a different story than everyone else.

My sources? Serving Midshipmen, Commissioned Officers, family, alumni, and friends. I'll stick with my sources ... their stories all agree with each other. Ahem.

"No midshipman was ever given approval to attend this event and then later told they could not," said Capt. Matthew Klunder, commandant of midshipmen, in a statement Monday.

Define "attend." That is different than "perform." Nice trick - but no workie here. Once again - review 8v6.

He said he considered replacing two white males in the group but chose instead to expand it from six to eight to make it more representative of the Naval Academy.

Everyone here who was ever on a precision drill team or color guard, feel free to join in on the CAPT Klunder pig pile.

Did you ever, after training with a specific number of members (say ... four flag and two rifle) ever plus-up at the last minute without practice?

Two of the eight could not perform because one midshipman, Zishan Hameed, had forgotten parts of his uniform. The color guard marches in pairs.

Again - who at the last minute wants to lead a color guard with two extra personnel thrown in - when you didn't plan to perform with that number? Nasty spin.

A report in the Navy Times, citing unnamed sources, stated that two white males were replaced by Allaire and Hameed. The report noted that a pre-game press release named a six-person color guard, including Allaire and Hameed.

That is fact. Confused? You are supposed to be, methinks.

Two members of the color guard contacted by The Post referred interview requests to the school's Public Affairs Office. Another declined to comment on Monday. Two others couldn't be reached for comment.

It should have been mentioned that they can't. They were issued a legal order not to talk to anyone about this. They followed orders.

According to academy spokesman Cmdr. Joe Carpenter, the color guard was invited to present the flag during the national anthem at the World Series game. Senior staff reviewed the names of those who wanted to go, all white males, and decided the group should better reflect the diversity of the academy. Of the 4,400 midshipmen, 20 percent are female and about one-quarter are minorities.

Fact. Now, go read CDR Carpenter again. This starts to get even more fun.

"The color guard that was going to the World Series, which by all accounts is an event on a national stage, with a national audience, needed to be representative of the Naval Academy," Carpenter said.

Really? Where is the "geographical diversity" color guard? Where is the "religious diversity" color guard? Where is the "I like redheads, he likes natural blondes" color guard?

Oh, and the word, "needed." Who defined that need, and in the paragraph above, who was the senior commissioned officer present to agreed to discriminate against two defined individuals on the basis of race?

Is racial discrimination actionable under the UCMJ? I think so. Does it apply in this case? I'm not a lawyer - I don't know. If removing someone from a position based on their race not racial discrimination, what is it?

An academy color guard is assembled from a roster of 28 midshipmen to represent the institution at ceremonies and public events. "That group of 28 can be put together in any combination," Carpenter said. Groups of midshipmen can ask to participate in high-profile events, Carpenter said, but the final decision rests with the commandant and his staff.

OK, CDR Carpenter - you just answered my question. The senior officer that approved the removal of two MIDN based on their race was the Commandant? What does the CMEO had to say about this? The CMEO's webpage states,

It is the Naval Academy’s policy to provide equal treatment and equal opportunity to all midshipmen and staff. The objective of the Command Managed Equal Opportunity (CMEO) program is to promote positive command morale by providing an environment in which all personnel can perform to their maximum ability unimpeded by institutional or individual biases based on race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, or religious stereotypes. To this end, the CMEO program supports the chain of command and addresses issues of sexual harassment and equal opportunity. CMEO officers seek to educate midshipmen about the importance of diversity and to prevent occurrences of sexual harassment and discrimination.

Wow - looks like a clear cut case to me. CAPT Klunder, over to you.

Back to the WaPo article,

Klunder said he originally planned to replace some members of the color guard. "My only guidance to them was that any replacements must be fully qualified team members and that originally proposed team members would still be permitted to travel to and attend the World Series," he said in a statement.

CAPT, you just contradicted yourself.

Earlier, you stated,

"No midshipman was ever given approval to attend this event and then later told they could not," said Capt. Matthew Klunder, commandant of midshipmen, in a statement Monday

Now, I'm not going to play the "attend vs. perform" sea-lawyer game. Let's make that "perform," as that is the issue here.

You then state,

... originally proposed team members would still be permitted to travel to and attend the World Series...

So, we do have an "original" and "Potemkin" color guard team. Thank you CAPT, you just made my point.

After further discussion, he said he decided to expand the guard from six to eight. Klunder said he met with the two midshipmen who could not participate because of the forgotten garments, "to discuss the sequence of events and improve on any communication breakdowns or misperceptions that were experienced."

I am sure the conversation was a bit more than that. Quite a bit more. How about letting the MIDN talk about it? You are.

"It is regretful that assumptions were made" by the six midshipmen who asked to march at Yankee Stadium, Klunder said, "but it has been and will remain the Naval Academy leadership's prerogative" to decide who carries the flag.

Very nice - blame the victim.

No assumptions were make. The MIDN were told by both the MIDN and uniformed chain of command that they were removed because they were white males. That is not an assumption on their part - that is a fact - a fact confirmed by CDR Carpenter.

What is regretful here, is that the Naval Academy takes as its prerogative to openly discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, or national origin. Is that in the finest traditions of the naval service? In the 21st century - is that really where we should be? Is that in alignment with honor, courage, and commitment?

---

Correction: The “think tank” moniker was Dan de Vise's description, not that of MG Wilkerson.

---

UPDATE: If you want to see what kind of hate and sectarianism the Diversity Bullies breed in the service - click here for a perfect example.

---

UPDATE II - Electric Boogaloo: Welcome to all you late-linker-ins ..... if you want the latest in the saga, please click here.

The Potemkin Color Guard

Walk in somebody's shoes for a bit.

---

You have worked long and hard to reach a high profile position, as those who came before you had.

You did everything that was asked of you, and more. You believed in a system that told you all you had to do was work hard, pay attention to detail, excel in your efforts, show exceptional dedication, and demonstrate professionalism better than those around you. Do that, you were told, and you will be rewarded.

You understood that nothing was guaranteed - but you also knew that the system was a meritocracy based on fair, established rules that everyone agreed upon when they started.

Why wouldn't you believe that? Those in positions of authority, those whose word was gold, those who asked of you only what they demanded of themselves - they told you so. Because they said it was so, it must be true - it has to be true.

After countless hours of work, dedication, and sacrifice, you finally reached the position of service and honor you hoped for - you made it.

The team you are on is set to make a high profile appearance. You are ecstatic. Happy. You let those who are important in your life know, so they can watch you on TV and perhaps see the results of the hard work you put in for so long.

Then it happens.

The day prior to the event you are told that those in power decided to remove you and a friend from the position you worked so long and hard for. You wonder, "What did we do? Why?"

The reason is rather simple; those in positions of authority did not like your race and gender. Nothing that you did - no - not that. Nothing personal - just business, you know.

Simply by being born, you have been found wanting, and unworthy.

Crushed. Betrayed. Lied to. Those, perhaps, are just a few of the emotions you have.

---

So, is the above a made up story, or a generalization to make a point?

No. True story from last week.

On 29 OCT, the USNA Color Guard made an appearance at the World Series. The day prior to their appearance, two Midshipmen were removed from the Color Guard by senior Commissioned Officers in leadership positions at Annapolis for one simple reason; they were white males. That isn't a guess on their part - that is what they were told.

Before I go further, I want to detail a couple of things. I didn't think about running this story after the first notification I received. However, I soon started to receive multiple tips from multiple contacts associated with Annapolis, alumni, and parents.

Over the last few days, working with over a half-dozen very reliable sources, the following story started to flesh itself out.

The day before their appearance, the two MIDN were notified that USNA senior leadership did not like the fact that the Color Guard was not diverse enough. As a result, they were to be removed and replaced with someone with a higher melanin content in their skin, and a female. Boom - there you go.

BZ to the two MIDN involved - word is that they have not taken this blatant racism lying down. Thing is - we don't know what is going on now because the entire Brigade via Company Commanders have been told to refer all questions to the PAO. That is what it is. I have an email in to the USNA PAO's office. Went out late yesterday and I doubt they will reply so soon - but if they do I will update this post appropriately.

I would love to discuss this with the MIDN - but I am not going to ask them to put themselves on report.

Oh, and in any case someone is wondering; I have had no direct contact with either of the two MIDN involved. Nor have I received or asked for information from any MIDN after the squelch order took place; so leave them alone. It isn't about them anyway - it is about a policy that would do this; and the people who execute the policy.

This wasn't a secret over the weekend - the story isn't going to die quickly. Two can keep a secret as long as one of them is dead. Things like this spread like wildfire.

I would like to hear the full story from the USNA side of the house - as this is just plain racism - red in tooth and claw.

It would be great if this was just some great paranoia - some collective misunderstanding and misremembering. That would be a much better thing than officially sanctioned racism, wouldn't it?

Here are some questions the MIDN should ask their leadership if given the chance - any MIDN:
- If the Navy discriminated against two people simply on the basis of their race - at what other times in their career can they expect to be discriminated against?
- In a zero-sum game - does senior leadership realize that to give to one, you have to take from another?
- Is overt racism a valid method to pick one over another? If so, why?

In addition to the integrity of the USNA, the institution it serves, the taxpayers who support it, and the two MIDN discriminated against, there are two other victims of this - the two Diverse selectees. I feel sorry for them as well.

Everyone knows they didn't get there because they were the best - they were there simply because they were good enough to help show a Potemkin image of Annapolis. To do that, they had to steal-by-proxy their position from others based on race and gender. Not something to brag about.

What kind of lessons do we want to teach our future leaders?

- Are hard work, dedication, and working by the rules not the keys to success? No?

- All you need to succeed is to be "good enough," and to be born into one of the protected classes? Really? Is that where we are in the 21st Century Navy?

- If a MIDN is not of a protected class as defined by the Diversity Directorate, then should he consider himself a second class citizen? An officer less worthy simply as a result of his birth?
- Do we tell our officers, "Some people, you see, are more equal than others." - is that where we are?

Sad. But don't go away sad.

No, there is humor to be found even in the worst stories. This little side-bar also has a happy ending ... of sorts.

One of the Diversity selectees showed why he wasn't on the A-Team that day. He forgot his cover and his shoes. A rookie mistake to be sure, but again - says a lot. As a result of the rookie mistake - one of the two MIDN who were discriminated against took his place during the ceremony.

Half full? Yes. However, if your glass is half full of wine and half full of bu11sh1t - it still tastes like bu11sh1t.

---

UPDATE: Late yesterday, I asked USNA Public Affairs the following questions:

(Summary of the above)Could you please confirm the above information is correct.

Additionally, could you also comment on what if any protests have been made formally or informally by the two white male MIDN?

Are there other occasions where changes have been made on "the public face" of USNA due primarily to race, creed, color, national origin, or gender?

Have the MIDN been told not to discuss this issue? If so, why?

This AM, USNA Public Affairs offered the following response:

- The Color Guard is a voluntary extra curricular activity. All members must meet high standards of performance to participate. Members go through extensive training and they are all considered qualified once they are accepted onto the team. 28 midshipmen from all four classes comprise the individual teams that are normally made up of 6 members, but the team size can be adjusted for different situations. Members are selected for events based upon availability, qualification and level of proficiency.

- Background into World Series Event/Decision:
On 28 October 2009, we learned that the Color Guard had been asked to carry the colors at World Series game number 2 at Yankee Stadium. We were excited at the opportunity to represent the Naval Academy in front of our nation and looked at a number of options to ensure our color guard members were fully qualified and available to participate. Upon reviewing the different options, a preliminary option was discussed, but later modified to have a color guard composition of 8 members that would honor the proud work of our team members and highlight the tremendous talents of our many Midshipmen.

Prior to the team's departure on 29 October 2009, this initial course of action was discussed with some specific Midshipmen and because of their valuable insights the final modified plan was developed. Unfortunately, upon arrival at Yankee Stadium, a uniform inventory problem was discovered and therefore, only six midshipmen were present on the field (as even numbers are required). One of the members of the team that did not participate is a second class midshipman that will have opportunities to participate in future events.

Our intent to have all team members participate was not met because one of the midshipmen inadvertently travelled without a required uniform item. While only 6 of the 8 participated in the ceremony, all 8 midshipmen did attend World Series Game2.

Well, there you go.

---

UPDATE II - Electric Boogaloo: Well, we're getting the right readership today.

---

UPDATE III - Anthrax Vermillion at the ATM: Navy Times is on the hunt ... and hello to my MIDN Facebook linkers!

---

UPDATE IV - Leave 'em begg'n for more: Welcome PowerLine readers! If you want the update from here after the Washington Post story ran - please click this.

---

UPDATE V - Time travel tastes like chicken: More and more people are linking in - so if you want the latest updates - you should click here, here, and then here - in that order.

The Bitter Fruits of Good Intentions

As we seem to have reached an Operational Pause in the USNA Color Guard racism scandal, perhaps it is time to update everyone on the latest. If you need a review, or are new to the topic, please click here and follow the links to earlier posts and the background information then come back.

This post is going to have a different structure than most - three authors in one post. There may be some repetition, but that is OK. One report might be slightly different as another (our sources are different). Some of this is strong - but that is OK. Creative friction, love, and emotion create sparks. In a Representative Republic - the light and heat from sparks are healthy and helpful.

As those with first hand knowledge cannot or will not report on what happened, you will have to take 2nd and 3rd hand reports. One blind person cannot describe well what an elephant is - but three people can - especially if each one has a huddle of sighted people around them whispering in their ears. To give the best overview possible - I'm going to give you three blind men blogg'n.

We're going to have a post in three Acts; in the 1st Act, I will provide an overview of a few thoughts I have on the subject and report some of the information I received since last THU night’s ‘Dant call.

Act II will be by USNA Professor of English, Bruce Fleming. He has a unique perspective of having listened to dozens of MIDN on the color guard issue and the general atmosphere of racial discrimination that exists at the USNA. The MIDN talk to him because he is known as one of the few people there that a MIDN feels will keep their confidence and will be a listening ear to their worries, complaints and questions on what is a radioactive topic for almost anyone who is not a tenured professor – and even then – there is a price to be paid for intellectual and moral courage.

Act III will be a short, simple, and modest proposal by a Commissioned Officer who is a long-time friend of this blog and has an exceptional pedigree.

---

Act I:

When I first posted on this two THU ago, I thought this might have a standard “24-hr News Cycle” that in the Blogosphere sometimes runs to 12hrs and if it is a good post, and will have an echo a day or two later as other bloggers pick it up. If you are real lucky – the print media will pick it up – you never know.

As the first word came to me on what was going on prior to the World Series Game that the USNA Color Guard was going to be in – I frankly thought is was a rumor based on a poor assumptions and miscommunication. Sure, I know the selective selection BS that the Diversity Bullies has everyone doing (in my career I was party to many episodes of the kabuki lie that we all participate in) – but I really did not think that it had gotten so bad that someone would pick out specific individuals to discriminate against. But, I was wrong.

Day after day, I started to receive more emails from parents, alumni, serving officers, and even staff and Midshipmen from Annapolis. Then I started pinging some of my regular blog-buddies, contacts, and spies to confirm what was coming across the Salamander transom. Especially coming on the heels of the Honor Code fiasco, it reached a point that The Potemkin Color Guard had to be run that THU.

From there, things started to pick up speed. More people got in contact with me. Navy Times picked it up. We went over 100 comments. Over the weekend I worked the story with the Washington Post. A close run thing, they wanted to make sure, like I did, that this was a ligit issue. They had a higher threshold to go over – but they ran with it as well about the same time we put out an update.

A week on, the story continued to grow. I was a guest on the Michael Smerconish radio show, we put out a third update, Uber-bloggers from MichelleMalkin, JawaReport, PowerLine, Bookwormroom, MudvilleGazette picked it up as well as many other bloggers down the Technorati ecosystem. Professor Fleming was a guest on WBAL radio, and then I followed up as a guest on WTOP on SAT.

All the while – the traffic to my site increased almost four-fold. At the peak (on 11 NOV nonetheless, in a week dominated by the Ft. Hood attack), we tickled 7,000 page views that day – a holiday. When you consider that my site averaged 2,000 page views a day prior to this story – that is significant interest boost. As a matter of fact, since we ran the first story, the average page views have been a little more than 3,000 – a 50% increase. In a phone call I had with a member of the press who wondered what kind of interest this story had, those numbers – sustained – kind of answered that question - that and 100+ comments on my posts and over 200 at the Washington Post.

Why so much interest in something, discrimination is pursuit of diversity in the military, this time around? Well, a few things I think. First, unlike most goal/quota problems, in this case you can actually put a face and a name to the discrimination. Unable to fudge around it – the decision was made to actively discriminate on the basis of race. It was done in an institution that is supposed to be a meritocracy that belongs to an institution that relies on a system of fairness, impartiality, and professionalism. Racism as clear as this, red in tooth and claw, was to many inside and outside the USNA one straw too many. Enough.

And so, we find ourselves roughly two and a half weeks after the act – and the story is still bubbling. The latest milestone took place last THU. It was Dant’s Call, the Commandant of Midshipman, CAPT Klunder, facing ~4,000 Midshipmen.

From the reports I received, this was not the warm, fuzzy Dant’s Call that are supposed to take place. Sad, in a way. Dant was a quite popular Dant as the story has been told to me. A professional’s professional, good guy in a tough job trying to do the right thing. I think that description still holds, but I don’t think his relationship with the MIDN will ever be the same.

Out of the box, Dant’s Call became an “Us vs. Them.” He started with a PPT trying to explain that race, ethnicity, and gender have nothing to do with anything at Annapolis. Everything the MIDN had been reading about differences in admissions, honor code violations, and the latest the color guard, are all misconceptions. That didn’t leave much wiggle room coming out of the box.

Evidently, the Dant does read CDRSalamander, as one of the comments here was confirmed,

"Sir, you see, I think we have an issue of age here. Your generation was taught to see color when you grew up, and your generation still does. MY generation was taught not to see color, and we still don't until someone from your generation reminds us to."

That was nice to see, as that is something we have hit on almost every THU for the last few years. The more that sinks in, the better. Will they act on it? No - I don't think so. The Diversity Bullies have an income to maintain - and many Boomers stuck in the 60s and 70s that are in power and their amen corner have too much invested in their cultish view of this country.

Evidently, the Dant stated that it was a lesson for him that generations see things differently and the younger generations are more color blind than his and older. He also stated that he didn’t ever give anyone something because of their race. Ok. Words need action - and that is the problem.

Then came questions. In a case of enthusiasm, emotion, and stage freight – it appears that a Plebe (4/C MIDN) asked a question asking the Dant to resolve two conflicting statements he made – concerning the conflict we brought up in the Washington Post article related post, “ The Mask Slips at Annapolis”

Well, the Dant’s hackles went up due to perhaps the directness, and tone of the question. In his response said, among other things, he berated the MIDN that, “If you’re going to quote me to the media, use the full quote and not sound bites.”

A bit defensive? Perhaps – but he is under a lot of stress. This has not gone well for him, and the 8v6 conflicting comments still have not been resolved. A good guy in a bad corner.

I found this part interesting. As most of you know, I support the repeal of DADT, but know that the good that would come from it would be ruined by the Diversity Bullies who will have another job security area – and they will scratch at good skin until it bleeds just so they can sell band-aids.

Well, in another question, the repeal of DADT came up. BZ to the MIDN who tied this together: the question was basically, “When don’t ask don’t tell gets repealed, will there be diversity of sexual orientation?” The Dant’s response – probably, as required by law. Pre-emptive surrender, and perhaps he was caught off balance. Shame that was the answer, a lost opportunity, again, to defend the Navy as an institution. Phib’s answer? Simple. “If DADT goes away – then as leaders we should get the mindset of “Don’t Care. ” Do as we do now – lead, evaluate, and reward your Sailors on the basis of sustained superior performance and carry out the plan of the day. Next question.” Given what has happened recently – he probably wouldn’t have liked the follow up snark – “Just like we do with the Color Guard, Dant?” That would be, at the least, what MIDN 4/C Salamander would have thought.

A nice admission – but in many ways adds more questions was the Dant’s statement that he regretted his decision to cut two people out of the Color Guard. A snarky person present might think, “Because you got caught.”, but I think you have a view of the professional doing something he probably thinks he has to do, but doesn’t fully support doing. I am guessing here and may have it wrong, but that is what that reads to me. Sad thing though – the questions that statement brings up, if we got it right, goes right back to the conflicting 8v6 comments by the Dant and the PAO – backed up by press releases and official statements.

There is a lot more there – but this post will be long enough and I’ll leave it there. In the end though, what we don’t have is any debunking of the fact that we have a confirmed case of direct racial discrimination at Annapolis – discrimination excused and sandbagged away in a hope that opposition and the embarrassment of its exposure will simply fade away.

Outside USNA, the excuses usually fall into one of two areas. The first I find the most honest, an excuse that some support active discrimination against one group as long as it gives a picture others want put out there – that racial balance or the appearance of racial balance is more important to the Navy than performance, duty, hard-work, fairness, and honor. I don’t agree with that world-view, but in comments here and in places like SailorBob and the Washington Post, you can hear that.

The second excuse bothers me more. Eventually a certain percentage of true believers in an obviously self-contradictory and corrosive cult will turn away from it – and as it is debunked, the fellow travelers will peal off. That is why the first excuse grouping doesn't bother me that much - there is hope.

One thing I cannot stand though is intellectual passivity. The second excuse is something like, “So what. We have been doing that selective diversity selection cr@p for years. No big deal, it is just to put a face on the Navy – and in any event, it makes some in Congress feel better about supporting us.”

Talk about no core. That is no core. No perspective. No understanding of second and third order effects.

We also saw something else afterwords. It seems that some upper-classmen at Annapolis decided to pig-pile on the 4/C MIDN who asked a question. Their “peer-mentoring” basically was, “If an CAPT says it is raining, but the sun is shining out side – you carry an umbrella and talk about how hard it is raining.”

Nice. And that is the attitude that gets us shipbuilding programs that cannot build ships, Commanding Officers who get relieved for things they have been doing since they were a LTjg, and in the end, has multi-piloted aircraft auger in or run off the runway because the junior pilot didn’t want to warn the senior pilot that his approach was FUBAR. Nice.

Before we move on to Act II & III (which I didn’t read prior to the writing the body of Act I), I wanted to end with a quote from a MIDN that summarized one third order effect of this decision. I like it – and it states why selling your honor, word, and integrity for a debunked, retrograde Diversity Industry is a cancer.

Every midshipmen came the Academy for a reason, and we all expected to be rewarded for our performance. We had great ideas about what the Academy stood for. We were told stories about the honor concept, and how dishonorable acts were not tolerated. We thought everyone would be equally held to the same high standard. And then we came to the Naval Academy and we found out that that wasn't quite the case.

Next is Act II of a three-part post. As a reminder, Act II is by Professor Fleming. He'll explain it.

---

Act II:

Last Friday the well-tended Yard of the United States Naval Academy—its leaves now all but fallen, and immediately removed from the still-green grass by our attentive grounds crew (our campus is in its entirety a National Historic Landmark, after all)—was abuzz. My classes were all but unteachable, to both plebes and upper-classmen: all the midshipmen of the United States Naval Academy wanted to talk about was the “Dant’s Call” of the night before. They had plenty to say.

This rare assembling of the Brigade to hear upper-level spin on a pressing problem was occasioned by what I call Colorguardgate, the removal of the week before of two white males from the USNA color guard that had been asked to perform at the World Series in New York, and the substitution of a woman and a non-white male for them. All stories agreed that the Commandant had made this substitution; things got complex when it turned out, once in New York, that the non-white male had forgotten his gear, so one of the white guys, who had been told to come along and watch the color guard he had been removed from, was put back. But one wasn’t; he protested in an e-mail; the Commandant ordered the Brigade not to talk to reporters or protest the apparent discrimination (the guy not put back has filed a grievance case with the CMEO—anti-discrimination—system). The story exploded into CDR Salamander, from there to the Navy Times and Washington Post, and to Fox News, radio shows (I was on one on Thursday, for WBAL Baltimore/Ron Smith Show) and the “blogosphere.”

The Naval Academy engaged in furious spin, with a cover story through our “don’t even pretend you believe us” Public Affairs Officer about this being a misunderstanding because the Dant had decided to march six members of the color guard, and then eight, and then six: there’s no outside evidence that this is true, incidentally; all that can be confirmed is that the two white guys were taken off. The only undisputed fact is that two white males were told, the day before, that they were off because they stood guilty of being white males and we needed a more “diverse” group to show at the World Series, and the only reason the people marched who did was the one “diverse” guy forgetting his gear.

This may be a trivial case of discrimination in the face of the perversion of admissions and the decimation of the honor concept (all reported on in recent weeks). But like some of those symbolic flash points, it was what set the Brigade off. They’d been talking about it for a week: I had visits from distraught students, e-mails in my box, pleas to talk about it in class—which I tried only half-heartedly to resist: this was a leadership lesson handed to us, a super case of What Not To Do. Why pass it by?

Hence too the Thursday Dant’s Call in response to the furor, an en-masse mando meeting of the Brigade in our cavernous basketball arena, Alumni Hall. And then on Friday morning, the impossibility of talking about Shakespeare in class: all the students could think about was the meeting of the night before.

“If only he’d just admitted that we do all this stuff,” a firstie said bitterly. “Only just admitted. I don’t ask him to fix it, even. Just admit the truth.”

But he didn’t. Another said: “All I wanted him to do was admit he made a bad decision. Everybody makes bad calls. Just admit he had done so.” But he didn’t do that either.

All the mids who discussed the previous evening with me agreed that CAPT Klunder, up to that point the golden boy of the Brigade—largely because he lacked the corrosive personality of his predecessor—fobbed off responsibility again and again: he wasn’t there, he didn’t make that decision, and so on. Over and over I heard, “I can never trust him again.”

Not only did he fob off responsibility, he again and again—so their report—ducked the question. And sometimes, out-and-out lied. During the question session he was asked about the preferential admission for non-whites. [ NB: This is by now a matter of public record; if you don’t believe Prof. Fleming, look at the composition of our remedial school NAPS that virtually guarantees admission to USNA: it’s half recruited athletes, some of whom are minorities, and the other half just minorities without the athletics, with some priors—and a handful of exceptions for political reasons. Last year NAPS instituted an even lower track than its usual remedial one, and threw out the fall trimester’s worth of grades—so intent is USNA on getting minorities through the system and to Annapolis. And the CAPT in charge was relieved, and now the Academic Dean—apparently because they were unable to make the magic trick happen of making silk purses out of sows’ ears. Or look at the composition of our remedial pre-college courses: last semester I took one of mine at random (I volunteered to teach these): 16/18 NAPSters, exactly half minorities, the other half recruited athletes. I can tell you how things get this way, but if you don’t want to listen to me, riddle me this: where are the similarly score-challenged white non-athletes? Hmmmm? They got REJECTED.] CAPT Klunder responded to this question, the woman telling the story assured me, by hiding behind a smoke screen of talking about the need for geographical diversity. We have minority students because congressmen sent them to us. Huh? Geographical diversity only kicks in for the COMPETITIVE NON-WHITE candidates who have to win their Congress(wo)man’s slate. Athletes and minority candidates are DIRECT admitted with NO REGARD to geography. They do not even have to GO VIA THE CONGRESSMEN. Can it be he really doesn’t know this? Instead he offered statistics carefully chosen to show that 50% of the cases recommended for separation in 2009 both for minorities and non-minorities, athletes and non-athletes, were approved: we’re even-handed, the statistics were meant to show, no preference for the recruited students. But the fact is that we don’t even let the cases get that far! Over and over I heard about an athletic department CAPT calling the honor board to postpone or cancel hearings of black football players. And virtually no one is put up for separation any more in 2009. Was this a sampling of two? The Dant, sticking to his script, didn’t say. And none of it impressed the students: virtually all rolled their eyes, though some by saying: “he’s a smooth performer. I’ll give him that. ”

Over and over the midshipmen expressed their intense disappointment with the Dant. He’s an 0-6! He has to tell us the truth! Me, I chuckled. Fat chance, I said. He’s a mid-level staff officer who takes his marching orders from the Supe, who takes his marching orders from the CNO, who takes his marching orders, apparently, from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. If he acknowledged to you what everybody at USNA now knows, that preferential treatment for athletes and minorities skew admissions at USNA and produce our rejection of many stellar candidates in favor of less qualified ones, have rotted the honor system (statistics published in the Annapolis Capital showed minorities and athletes wildly over-represented in honor cases—and these are the ones that are allowed to go to adjudication), and have busted morale, he’d be liable for legal prosecution: what they’re doing is illegal. Of course he has to lie to you, I told my deeply disillusioned midshipmen.

For the students, and for me, the most central question asked by a midshipman produced the acknowledgement by the Dant that the mids’ generation didn’t see race, his did. That’s why, he was admitting, that the dinosaurs (as I call them) were embarked on this deeply destructive, logically incoherent (does a white sailor need a white officer all his own to perform well? That’s the implication of saying a black one needs a black officer), and toxic program that now almost everybody sees through. They see a Black where the midshipmen of today see a person. What more do you need to hear, I asked the students? He’s just conceded the point. And their lying when they have nothing more to stand on only erodes their credibility more. He’s unwittingly (I’m sure) conceded that this is an outdated, 1968 program of race-typing that lost its relevance in the 21st century: that’s why it’s so deeply destructive with the enlisted sailors and Marines of today. And oh yes: it’s Unconstitutional. There’s that too.

One midshipman asked, “when DADT—don’t ask don’t tell—is gone and there are openly gay sailors, does this mean we’ll recruit gay officers for them?” The Brigade laughed, but I’d say the question is the logical corollary of current policies.

All agreed their confidence in the Dant bottomed out when he shouted down a plebe (this after assuring that all questions would be respectfully entertained) asking a question that put side by side two quotes from the Dant, one to the effect that “we don’t discriminate” and the other acknowledging that he wanted a color guard that was “more diverse.” Of course Mr Nice Guy went away at this one and the yelling started: that’s the unanswerable.

They can’t have it both ways. Of course they discriminate. And the Dant’s stock is now zero with many midshipmen, they told me—only many of the firsties are looking forward to service selection next week, at which point, they tell me, they’ll be done with the whole sorry place. “Sir, I just don’t care any more”—their words verbatim.

This is so sad it’s scary. Ladies and gentlemen: you’ve paid close to half a million dollars per officer candidate (four times what the average ROTC officer costs) to produce this level of cynicism and discouragement. And you know what? If I were they I’d be just as cynical and discouraged.

Only I’m not. So I say: Fire the CNO, the Supe, the Dant, the Academic Dean. Let’s try this again, with people who can follow the Constitution they’ve sworn to obey.

---

Act III: A modest proposal by a commissioned officer.

Dear VADM Fowler and CAPT Klunder,

You have been leaders in the Navy's diversity initiatives. Since you are such strong advocates of ensuring the traditionally disenfranchised of our nation be given special consideration and casting aside white males because of their color and gender, please consider the following.

Benjamin Cardin was elected as a Senator from Maryland in 2006. He was an advocate of the same diversity initiatives you both favor. In the primary, he defeated Kweisi Mfume, an African-American. In the general election, Cardin defeated Michael Steele, an African-American. Benjamin Cardin is a white male. Had he stepped aside, either Mfume or Steele would have been a Senator and Maryland would have been represented by an under-represented minority. Instead, yet another older white man sits in the Senate.

You could both display the leadership that Cardin lacked by leading from the front. VADM Fowler, would you step aside from your position in favor of a more diverse flag officer? And CAPT Klunder, you too are an older white male selected for flag rank. If you become an admiral, you are denying the opportunity for a more diverse candidate to become an admiral among the ranks of our flag officers which is overwhelmingly white male.

You have both talked the talk to your command, to the community, and to the nation of applicants. It is now time to walk the walk and step aside for more diverse representation in the Academy's leadership if you really believe in what you say. If you're familiar with the analogy of using and egg and bacon breakfast to explain the difference between involvement and commitment - the chicken was involved, the pig was committed. If you are not committed to stepping aside, your words to your command, your admissions office, your brigade, are as empty as the false political concept of diversity that you both endorse. Or simply remember what Martin Luther King said: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

Our generation is generally blind to race and gender; we are not stuck in the 1960s. We elected an African-American as President. Did yours? Trust us to do what it right, not what your generation forces upon us based on the decades-old prejudices you saw as children or young adults.

VADM Fowler and CAPT Klunder, please make Martin Luther King's dream a reality and base admission, position, and promotion on merit and character, not on race and gender.

Very respectfully,
An officer in the United States Navy

---

UPDATE: So, does Fred make this stuff up too? I don't think so. Tell him that to his face - if you can run fast.

Look for the name of this blog - another person with first hand knowledge that shows the lie.

The mask slips at Annapolis

Sadly, I think Franz would fully understand where we stand WRT The Potemkin Color Guard of Annapolis. If this is a new subject for you, please read the post from last Thursday and then come back.

As of this Monday, there a few things we do know as fact.
- Two Midshipmen were discriminated against, openly, by their chain of command based simply on the basis of their race and gender.
- USNA officials have not denied that this happened, in spite of multiple inquiries by reporters and interested parties.

Over the weekend I had the opportunity to exchange a few emails and talk on the phone to some people close to this issue, in addition to a reporter for a major East Coast newspaper who was working on an article on this subject - but I will get to him later.

Let's for now go over some details that from this weekend that fleshed out a few things.

There is the "8 vs. 6" controversy. If you followed the links from last THU's post, you would have noticed a difference between "6 going or 8 going" between press releases and the PAO's statement.

Here are the simple facts for this case. As anyone who has been on a color guard or precision drill team will tell you - you do not change the number of people on a team on a whim or at the last minute. If you train as a team of 6, you perform as a team of 6.

You do not, at the last minute, throw two more in there and execute - especially at a high profile event - if ever. If you do, your timing is off, your movements are off, and your commands will be off. It would look like a complete c1^5terf^ck. If you train with 6 - you go with 6.

Why, the apologists would say, did they travel with more than 6 then? Well, you goof - because you almost always travel with backup, especially at high profile events. At any time, someone could - as in this case - forget parts of their uniform. Or, especially around Philly and Yankee fans - some drunk idiot could spill something on you, throw something at you, or throw up on you and destroy your uniform. Nice to have the backup. Double if you have Red Sox fans to deal with.

One of the two MIDN who was bumped to make place for "Diversity" did get to march - because he went on the trip and one the Diversity selectees forgot his cover and shoes. Again though - that does not make up for the fact that for a bit, the senior uniformed leadership at Annapolis let the mask slip; they do discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, and national origin. They do it intentionally and with forethought.

What is telling in this case is that those in charge at Annapolis cannot defend their actions, or will not defend their actions. They have ordered the MIDN to clam up and refer everyone to the PAO. As we have seen, the PAO does not answer questions. What we have as a result, is the shameful rope-a-dope sandbagging that is more in line with a politician in trouble than a military institution.

In the course of this weekend, there have been two lines of defense for USNA's actions. They boil down to; (1) What you saw on TV was an all white color guard - so what is the big deal? Go Navy! Beat Army!; (2) Picking on the basis of race to show Diversity - so what? What is the big deal with that - we do it all the time.

Well, the first one is easy; read the full background. What you see isn't the issue. The issues is the active discrimination that is taking place.

The second is the most troubling. Have we as an institution become so accustomed to discrimination that it has become acceptable? As a nation, didn't we accept the fact that ongoing institutional discrimination is no excuse for having it continue? Isn't that why we had a civil rights movement in the first place?

That second excuse shows not only intellectual cowardice - but it also shows moral spinelessness on par with those millions of American citizens who blindly accepted Jim Crow laws because "It is just the way we do things."

Shame on those who use that as an excuse.

Then we have the main stream media. There is one member that I spent a fair bit of time with this weekend, on the phone and email, trying to scare up some sources for him. I won't out him because he was an honest broker with me - I will return the favor.

What I will do though is quote from part of the email I sent him after he told me the story was on hold, as "they" can't publish it without "someone" involved willing to go on the record about it.

He agreed to keep things on background, so I will redact some of the specificity in my own email in line with that.

[REDACTED],
That could be very difficult.

The Midshipmen at Annapolis have been issued a legal order not to talk to anyone. If they did, they would be subject to [REDACTED] and all that entails. They will not talk to you, and I wouldn't pressure or suggest they should.

The staff personnel I have talked to [REDACTED] state that they cannot go on the record on this as [REDACTED] would be put in danger. Those are not idle threats, that happens there - and there is [REDACTED] on a different issue.

Those still on active duty cannot go on the record either because they fear their next Fitness Report will be downgraded from what it would be otherwise.

After over two decades of commissioned service, I would say their fear is well founded.

I would ask you two questions:
1. Is there anything that you have found out that point you in a direction other than that a decision was made by the uniformed leadership at USNA to discriminate against specific individuals on the basis of their race?
2. If you had everything you had right now, and the two people discriminated against were black, hispanic, or Muslim - and they were specifically removed from an official event based on the fact that they were black, hispanic, or Muslim ---- can you honestly tell me that [REDACTED] would not run this story as is?

As a side-bar, I had an interesting exchange with one of my sources yesterday. I asked him to talk to you, on background, as he is very close to the issue. Though I know him, his name, his background, and his present position - he stated that he did not want to talk to someone from the [REDACTED]. Nothing personal to you though (hard to get a tone through email) - but to paraphrase, he told me, "I don't trust the [REDACTED] to keep my identity on background, and I don't trust them to get the story out in a true form either. It isn't worth the effort."

That is him, not me, saying that. Sad to say, but the [REDACTED], in this case, is reinforcing its reputation among the rank and file military, and that is unfortunate.

This is a good, solid story, and you are missing it. By giving it a pass, you are reinforcing the stonewalling from Annapolis (send an email to [REDACTED] at [REDACTED] and he can give you the note-by-note song and dance that they give him on a regular basis), and you are letting two young men, who in under two years will be commissioned officers in the Navy or Marine Corps, know that, as they suspected, they cannot rely on the media to go after a story that has a theme that goes against the grain. These future leaders in the Navy will start their careers with a jaundiced view of the press, something they will take with them throughout their career - and an attitude they will share with their peers.

Sad, but there it is. It doesn't have to be this way.
...

And there we are. Will some other major paper take up the case? I hope so. Drop me a line - I'll give you everything I gave the other reporter - and more if I can get any.

Going back to the "Excuse #2" before I am done for the day. This is different than most Diversity outrages we know of. When the Navy selects for Diversity in most cases, it is almost impossible to identify a specifically wronged person. Usually you are dealing with percentages, quotas, cherry-picked picture backgrounds, select billet detailing, and personal race specific "select these guys" lists that promote "Specific Selection" vice "Specific Discrimination" where you can't put a name to the wronged party - it is just "some of Them" out of a larger group. You can't put a name to that person - it is just "X number out of the remainder...."

What is different here is that we have a clearly identified wronged party. We know the names - and those discriminated against know that they are the direct victim of racism - red in tooth and claw. It is personal.

And where are they now? By order, they are cut off from external support (as everyone knows, without information, a story dies). They are on their own to pursue whatever formal or informal grievance procedures they wish to. They are under huge pressure to just go away.

Is that really where we want to be in the 21st Century with a clear case of racial discrimination?

Oh, and for the Notre Dame game last weekend - from the reports I got, the two MIDN discriminated against during the World Series weren't on that color guard either. In exchange for your integrity and being to look yourself in the mirror - yea - that is a fair price to pay.

All they need to do is graduate with the highest GPA they can and get to the Fleet with their integrity intact. That is all that matters - yet they are standing on principle. Good for them - THAT is in the finest traditions of the Naval service.

At this stage, I would advise them to keep what they are doing, but don't be a martyr and give others a tool to beat you with. Also, don't sell your integrity cheaply - that is a cost you will carry your entire life. Let other's squirm and avert their gaze - keep your heads up and your eyes forward.

The story isn't over.

---

UPDATE: Welcome PowerLine readers! If you want the update from here after the Washington Post story ran - please click this.

Diversity Thursday

At this point in 2017, can well meaning people agree that Identity Politics is one of the last places our Navy needs to be moving towards and encouraging?

Can we agree that dividing people in to groups based on race, ethnicity and sex is divisive and prejudicial to good order and discipline?

Can we agree that showing favoritism to one group over another based on same is a cancer that leads nowhere but to division and strife?

Can we agree that you cannot contain Identity Politics to only one group; that if you encourage and reward one group for engaging in Identity Politics, that over time other groups will start to do the same - with or without your encouragement?

Can we agree that the primary reason people try to hide something that is naturally apparent to observers, derives from shame? Like makeup over a scar, paint over rust, or fragrance over smell - to hide, obscure, or artificially change a natural feature is simply a manifestation of shame?

What if the objects of shame are people? Is this an activity our Navy should be engaged in? Encourage? Proud of?

Regardless of who they are, do we want those serving our nation feel that we don't value their service simply due to their race, ethnicity or sex? Not imply or leave open to misunderstanding - but openly - red in tooth and claw - tell them that their presence is not wanted simply because of how they were born?

Why do we keep doing this to ourselves? Why do we lie to ourselves and others? Why do we have leaders who desire to enter every argument on the basis of something as meaningless as race and ethnicity?

For the folks new to DivThu and uninitiated, we should probably clearly define something first; "diversity" in the Navy is what is measured as such. Socio-economic background, State of residency, region, and academic background is not what what is tracked and accounted for; race, ethnicity, and increasingly sex and sexual proclivity is what is meant by the word "diversity." Mostly race and ethnicity.

Check out the Diversity Commissariat's calendar for approved and unapproved race and ethnicity.

We have a long history of building Potemkin Village photo-shoots that create a false impression of the actual makeup of our Navy. In many publications and videos, it is just plain laughable. USNA can be especially silly in this regard as we have covered through the years WRT the Color Guard fiasco and other occasions.

PAOs and other marketing types can't help themselves when it comes to counting jelly beans - but why do it for internal reasons? Are we so seeped in the worst aspects of academic Cultural-Marxism that we believe the people we bring in and the culture we mold them to allows people to be motivated, driven, and shaped by racial prejudice? As apposed to stamping it out, we encourage it?

Are we really OK with people who openly accept and promote a culture that encourages an individual's learned bigotry? If we have someone in the service who does or does not want to do a job based on the race of people who are presently doing that job - do we even want that person in the service?

The military has no use for those who are so driven by race and ethnicity that it impacts their job decision and performance. There are too many people who don't think that way that we can retain - they are the ones we want, not those guided by the most base brain-stem tribal instincts.

If we are a meritocracy, then we should only care about one thing; performance. What shade your skin is, if your last name as a vowel or not, or who you want to share an evening in Paris with should make no difference. If someone thinks it does, then that person needs more training, better leadership, or a different line of work.

If a leader is pushing a sectarian world view, then in the second decade of the 21st Century they have no reason to be in a leadership position where they can pollute minds of subordinates with their biases.

Not everyone promoting such actions are creating them out of whole cloth. Many junior personnel are just executing the orders of those above them; not illegal orders, just distasteful orders. So go on their own, but most only "go there" if they are directed to. As such,  I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the LT quoted in the below. 

This is an institutional problem.

-----Original Message-----
From: [redacted]
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 3:49 PM
To: [redacted], Christopher J CAPT STRIKEFIGHT, Commodore
Cc: Alex [redacted]; CSFWL_OCEN_SQUADRON_COS; CSFWL_OCEN_SQUADRON_XOS; [redacted], Kevin M CAPT STRIKEFIGHT, SFWL; [redacted], Joseph R CDR STRIKEFIGHT, OPS O; Samuel [redacted]
Subject: Re: USNA Social Date Change

CAPT [redacted],

Sir, can you please send us 6-8 diverse JO's with recent cruise experience. We are trying to overcome stereotypes about the composition of the VFA community, so we would like to represent broad of a JO population as possible (mix of pilots/ WSO's/ males/ females/ backgrounds/ ethnicities). It also helps to have a mix of squadrons. The most important factor to consider is that midshipmen resonate best with young JO's that have charismatic personalities and are excited about the leadership and career opportunities Naval Aviation holds.

We're looking forward to welcoming the VFA community back to the yard to kick off our Naval Aviation event series this year, thanks again helping us get the future generation into the cockpit.

V/R,

[redacted]


[redacted]
[redacted]
United States Naval Academy
[redacted]
​O: ​[redacted]
​
C: [redacted]​

"...overcome stereotypes..." - really? Why are we overcoming stereotypes?

Stereotype
nown
...
4. Sociology. a simplified and standardized conception or image invested with special meaning and held in common by members of a group:

Is there is implication that all stereotypes are bad? Not all are bad, they are simply a reflection of the reality created by individual choices and talents. Is the present stereotype in the VFA community "bad" to the degree it needs to be hidden? Why is it "bad?" 

Is this bad and unmotivating simply based on the DNA of who is at the table?



Who cares if everyone on a panel is a white male, Asian female, or some unknown but glorious all-American mixture of this, that and the other thing? We should not care, and the best of our young men and women will not care. If they do, then we've recruited the wrong men and women - or more likely - filled their heads with a bunch of sectarian garbage that needs to be untrained.

NB: I quoted the initiating email of a long thread by the time it got to me. I stripped the rest away an none of the people mentioned in this email sent it to me. I received a copy way down the thread forwarded through many levels. The Fleet LT who sent it to me shared some additional details I wish I could post as well, but that would expose them. 

The problem is not the racial attitudes of our junior officers or Midshipmen. The problem is with the senior leadership that encourages, requires, and derive personal gain from promoting sectarianism, division, and the strife that come with it. 

This is just another example in a long shameful record. 

Our Navy is better than this.