Air Force Cadets on Edge After Scandal

Air Force Cadets on Edge After Scandal
By ROBERT WELLER
Associated Press Writer
Jan 2, 4:36 PM

AIR FORCE ACADEMY, Colo. (AP) -- A year after the rape scandal at the Air Force Academy broke, some cadets say the atmosphere is so poisonous that they are afraid a simple request for a date or a sip of alcohol could end their careers.

And some cadets warn that the once-punishing training regimen has been relaxed so much that the Air Force's effectiveness could suffer. Yet, some freshmen say they are pleased they no longer are treated "like dirt."

In recent interviews with The Associated Press, a dozen cadets, from freshmen to seniors, described their struggles since female cadets began complaining they were reprimanded or ostracized after they reported being raped.

The cadets gathered in two separate groups in a lecture hall. Academy officials arranged for volunteers to participate but left the room before questioning began.

The sweeping changes imposed last year to curb assaults, drinking and other problems have cadets walking a tightrope.

"A lot of guys are afraid to even ask a girl out because she will take it wrong," said freshman Paul Zielinski of Erie, Pa.

Janelle Hyde of Palm Desert, Calif., said she cannot go anywhere alone with a male upperclassman, while fellow freshman Katherine Smith of Paris, Texas, complained: "Some guys say, `I won't date her because she will call rape.'"

In a statement, the academy's new superintendent, Lt. Gen. John Rosa, acknowledged there have been growing pains with the new policies, which were prompted by at least 142 assaults - many of them involving alcohol - between 1993 and 2002.

"I would hope that our young men are not afraid to approach our young women, but it's understandable, given all the attention given to gender issues here, that some might be overly cautious in their contacts," he said.

In January 2002, cadets began contacting members of Congress with complaints of assault and indifference from commanders. A year later, cadets began going public, touching off several investigations. The Air Force ultimately installed four new leaders and drew up the new policies.

Among other things, the academy issued sterner warnings about sexual assault, harassment, fraternization and supplying alcohol to underage cadets. It also ordered cadets to keep the doors to their rooms open all the way whenever they have a visitor, and for the first time said cadets may not enter the room of a student of the opposite sex without knocking, announcing themselves and waiting for the door to be opened.

"If there was ever a time in the history of that school for overzealousness to set things right this is the time," said retired Maj. Gen. Josiah Bunting, who served on an independent commission that investigated the school.

Former cadet Kira Mountjoy-Pepka, who left school after she said she was sexually assaulted and punished for reporting it, said cadets are being unfairly blamed for the failures of previous leaders.

"They are refusing to address the real issue - crimes committed by officers after we reported the sexual assaults," she said. "Instead, they are making the lives of cadets miserable."

In the fallout from the scandal, the academy has tried to make the place more humane for freshmen. They are no longer screamed at by their superiors, and the grueling physical training was eased in hopes of giving new cadets a chance to better absorb information on military law, sexual assault, gender sensitivity and other issues.

Some changes, including the removal of the academy's famous sign that said "Bring Me Men," are seen as cosmetic, even silly, by cadets. One campus joke is that the sign will be replaced with one saying: "Bring Me Mom."

"Most of the upperclassmen are frustrated with all the change," said senior Monessa Catuncan of Dallas. "We will be known as `the last class with training'" - a twist on a crude slogan adopted by the last all-male class.

Upperclassmen argue that the old system produced well-qualified officers. "It taught us how to handle stress so you don't freak out if you have surface-to-air missiles coming at you," junior Richard Kerr of Shippensburg, Pa., said.

Some younger cadets are happy because they are receiving more privileges. "We are not held like dirt anymore," said freshman Jonathan Bergkamp of Brighton, Colo. "We can be better leaders because we aren't just doing push-ups."

Hyde, the freshman, said: "I think things are changing. I find myself walking around smiling. I am happy to be here."

As a graduate of this institution (more that three decades ago) I feel qualified to comment on part of this post. First, the original “system” at USAFA was adopted/adapted from the ones at West Point and Annapolis. Even today, all of these “systems” remain very similar. Consequently, those who think the problem is only at USAFA are deluding themselves. However, the point I wish to address is not where it is, but what ultimately drives the problem and a solution.

The core of all of these “systems” was to take smart young men who had been very successful physically and intellectually in high school (with some from the enlisted core and colleges) and break their inflated opinions of themselves on the “rocks of reality” exemplified by physical and (mostly) psychological stress. As a number of these young men were quite physically talented and smart, the stress levels were intentionally set to be, well, “demanding.” Once that concept of “self” was whittled down to an appropriate size, then there occurred a long, proven, guided and somewhat painful growth into, first, a “team player” and, then, a “team leader.”

The stress, both physical and psychological, typically “washed out” 30 to 40 percent of a class before graduation. Those that made it to graduation were proud to have met the challenge and the USAF gained a core of extremely physically and mentally fit junior officers well grounded in the discipline and character of military “followership” and leadership.

The details changed but the underlying philosophy of this model for developing junior officers was essentially unchanged for many decades from its origins in the 19th century. The reason was obvious: it worked. However, something came along that forced change on this model that was completely unrelated to the previous ultimate measure: combat success. The change was forced on the “system” by “political correctness” and that ultimate measure, combat success, was left unconsidered.

The chief change was the addition of females to previously an all male cadre and the requisite adjustments stemming from this addition. The fact that success in combat frequently involved physical upper body strength and endurance was shoved aside because the “modern” warrior was going to a “button pusher.” “Button pushers” would not be required to engage in hand-to-hand fights or escape and evasion or prisoner-of-war resistance to torture. Therefore, all of that physical “stress” was one of the “details” that could be dispensed with to allow females to succeed in the “system.” Of course, the role that physical stress played in building the character of a “team player” and, then, a “team leader” was relegated to the proverbial “trash heap” of outdated, non-politically correct concepts. Then there was the psychological stress. That is just so “insensitive” and so un-feminine. It obviously has to be changed as well.

Well, as the saying goes, “the chickens have come home to roost.” The model, so successful for so long, so thoughtlessly abandoned, cannot easily be re-established. The model that was so successful at developing character is, arguably, completely gone with return possible only under the most courageous leadership. To reinstate the success model would require segregating the females (at least physically). Such a move would offend the “gods of political correctness” who had the power to force the change to begin with. So what’s next?

Either someone gets the guts to destroy the oppressive, politically correct atmosphere or the character development of a major source of the military’s junior officers is obviously compromised. Depending on luck to bring a better model for the future is awfully risky.

I, for one, never understood trying to fix something that wasn’t broken. Furthermore, if you messed with it and it quit working, put it back like it was. However, the only apparent way to do that is with pressure on Congress (if enough can be generated) to kill the political correctness.

I guess you could classify this post as a “figurative” call to arms. It is only the defense of our country and the lives of the young people doing it that we can save. Write your Representatives and Senators. Demand an end to the tyranny of political correctness at all of the academies.

You bring up a good point. A lot of what is supposed to be learned in a military environment is how to work together toward a common goal. Society has continued a downward spiral where fewer of the young women and men entering the military have any sense of community or respect for the needs of others.

The unfortunate reality is that when men and women are mixed in this environment focus is lost on learning these skills. At least some of those involved will stop saying "yeah, team," and will start saying "Hey, there..."

Does this mean that we need a separate academy for females? No, but we should try to enforce the anti-fraternization rules that are in place already. Easing up on the indoc program is not the answer.

I would love to see the treatment the freshman they quoted is getting now. What an idiot. What do they call freshmen there? Doolies? Annapolis grad.

I wish they would convene a panel of pre-77 (pre-female) grads

I doubt they are interested in solving the problems by returning to the tried and true ways of a previous era. They would rather attack the symptoms and forge a new era. If nothing else, it reminds me of the decades-long failed quest of the old Soviet Union to develop the "New Soviet Man". It's an unattainable dream, but a very powerful one which drives the ideological train!

As a highly visible government institution, there is "no way" the Academy will go against the politically correct grain on this subject as long as they can maintain their delusion, probably until death do them part. They have been preaching and working the "new" way so long they have bought into it completely, top to bottom. They will never admit the strategic error by returning to common sense and standards they once had or even seriously modifying the present system which could give the appearance of a two tier system, with women as "second class" cadets. It is politically unfeasible. They would rather forge ahead and require everything fit the mold they have set and bought into, and do it despite all contrary evidence.

I just want to know how the Marines can get away with it and the other services can't.

Probably a couple of reasons, IMHO.

First, they don't run a Service Academy so they don't have that sort of political visibility. They take the small minority of Midshipmen who want to go Marines (probably most of them more gung-ho than the others anyway) and then read them the riot act from the get-go.

Second, they decided long ago they weren't going to participate in this game. They closed ranks at the very beginning and made it stick. They probably had enough support in Congress so they could be considered a "special case" because they consider all Marines riflemen first. When the integration was happening, women were still restricted from combat MOSs.

In other words, they had the b@lls and foresight to see the end game before they got enmeshed in the details and early on told the whiney feminists and Liberals to "get lost". Because the Marines are not as big as the others and have a specialized mission, they got away with it. The Liberals then probably figured they would take most of the loaf today and not take a chance of losing everything over a phalanx of stubborn Marines. They expected to waltz back later and eat the Marines when the pro-Marine political pressure cooled.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.