Air Force Academy Blamed for Sex Scandal

Associated Press ^ | December 7, 2004 | John Lumpkin

[heye2monn]

Air Force Academy Blamed for Sex Scandal Dec 7, 5:33 PM (ET) By JOHN J. LUMPKIN

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Pentagon's inspector general says a series of commanders at the Air Force Academy failed to recognize and deal with reports of sexual assaults against female cadets on campus, officials said Tuesday.

"We conclude that the overall root cause of the sexual assault problems at the Air Force Academy was the 'failure of successive chains of command over the past 10 years to acknowledge the severity of the problem,'" Inspector General Joseph E. Schmitz wrote in a Dec. 3 memo to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, quoting his own report.

"Consequently, they failed to initiate and monitor adequate corrective measures to change the culture until recently," Schmitz wrote.

Last year, nearly 150 women came forward with accusations that they had been sexually assaulted by fellow cadets between 1993 and 2003. Many alleged they were punished, ignored or ostracized by commanders for speaking out.

Schmitz's full report was not released. A summary blamed - but didn't name - eight Air Force officials for their roles in the program that oversaw sexual-assault reporting at the academy.

In a press conference, David Chu, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, said the Pentagon would soon implement a new military-wide policy protecting the confidentiality of people who report being sexually assaulted.

"First and foremost, we want victims to come forward for help," Chu said.

Outside investigations concluded the culture of the academy created conditions that contributed to the problem. That included lingering resistance to having female cadets at all: Last year, a survey of cadets found 22 percent did not believe women belonged at the academy, more than a quarter of a century after they were first admitted.

Academy officials say matters have improved since the assaults came to light.

Schmitz's report said academy leaders should have been better role models and should have kept a closer watch on their commands.

The Air Force also released a second report, from its own inspector general, finding that formal investigations of sexual assault at the academy were generally handled properly.

Chu, however, said, "The problem is deeper than handling of individual cases."

Gen. Michael "Buzz" Moseley, the Air Force's vice chief of staff, noted that all senior leaders at the academy had been replaced since the allegations came to light.

The military has had to deal with sexual assault issues across the services.

In May, a Pentagon task force found that victims of rape and other forms of sexual assault in the military have too often suffered additionally from a lack of support from commanders, criminal investigators and doctors.

The report, ordered in February by Rumsfeld after a number of sexual assaults against soldiers in the Iraqi theater came to light, described inconsistencies throughout the military in the treatment and investigation of such assaults.

[demecleze]

At some point, yes technology may negate these advantages. But there may still be psychological hurdles if wars are like computer games or programming. As men seem to by and large enjoy these activities even as hobbies.

To tell you the truth, it is almost impossible to find objective assessments of women in combat. Although I believe my position is correct I really have no concrete evidence (in my opinion) that women are inferior to men in combat.

Women are better at many positions are no doubt can be a vital asset to the military in various positions. This has been the case for a long time with nurses and during WWII with women manning anti-aircraft guns quite well.

But I think it is key that the positions that women are allowed to take be compatible with their characteristics relative to men but also their special place in society.

[Lucky Dog]

The racial problems of the South in the 60's did not exist until blacks started sitting at the front of the bus and at the same lunch counter as white folks. Therefore, logically, it appears that those who did not believe black folks belonged in such places had a valid point. Yeah, I think it sounds ridiculous, too, but it's your logic.

You are incorrect from a number of perspectives.

First, the apparent premise of your argument is that there is an analogy in the fact that denying blacks their civil rights was not a problem until someone objected. Since serving in the military is not a right, but a privilege, your analogy appears to be faulty from this perspective. Additionally, there are other fallacies in your attempted analogy, but this issue, alone, is sufficient to defeat your analogy. Therefore, it seems there is nothing in my logic that supports your postulated reasoning.

However, maybe you see something that I don’t. Would you care to expand and/or expound on your point?

Second, beyond the needs of the military for maximum combat efficiency and effectiveness, the military service privilege is predicated upon how well an individual’s physical characteristics and mental abilities meet the military requirements. Consequently, the core of my argument revolves, in particular, around whether the female physical characteristics adequately meet the needs of the military for maximum combat efficiency and effectiveness.

Perhaps, you could elucidate the readers of this thread on exactly how female physical characteristics enhance the military’s combat effectiveness and efficiency to an equal, or greater, degree than those of males.

Third, and directly to point of the origin of this thread, is, regardless of whether females meet the military’s physical requirements or not, the question of whether their presence degrades the military’s combat efficiency and effectiveness.

Perhaps, you could expound on how the presence of females at the academy and in the military, in general, does not potentially degrade the military’s combat efficiency and effectiveness. Be sure to address in your arguments the increased injury rate females suffer in basic training and by implication would in combat, the degradation of readiness due their absence from combat units and ships due to pregnancy and child care, the combat unit morale degradation issues of accusations of sexual harassment, both founded and otherwise, etc.

[Owen]

Again, a valid point. But he once could, and in the officer ranks there is a generally accepted precept that field grade officers and above are managers. Company grade officers are leaders.

A Captain should be able to do the bomb loading. A General, who is managing, not leading, need not.

[heye2monn]

I don't mean to excuse wrong behavior, and so you make a good point. I'm just talking about percentages. Place hormone-addled young men and women together in close quarters and a certain portion will get pregnant, cry rape (or commit it) and embarrass the Air Force.

The Bible has some wise rules about sexual relations outside of marriage -- avoiding temptation, dressing modestly, eschew impure thoughts, lustful looks etc. Getting kids so physically close for the sake of political correctness, not military strength, throws that common sense out the window.

[BobS]

It's very stupid to have communal barracks or housing, where the nearest sweetie is 6 feet across the hallway. Seperate the housing into different buildings. Our tax dollars spend over $60K per year on each cadet trying to make them learn advanced concepts. Getting horny is something to be done without tax dollars. They should go to class together, but not live within feet of each other.

In the 80's I saw so many women get pregnant and leave the AF during my nine-month tech school after basic training.

And make the courses stricter. I had 6 hours of class and 5 hours of homework every single day.

Whatever happened to that?

And I recently learned the University of Brasil is 50% tougher than California State University. It takes a month to learn any language, and almost all technical terms are English.

[MonaMars]

"However, maybe you see something that I don’t."

Apparently so. I have no interest in debating military issues with you. I was merely attempting to point out with my little example that logic is not truly logic when it is based on induction rather than deduction.

[Lucky Dog]

Salient discussion points review:

Lucky Dog: The “problems,” as you put it, did not exist until women were admitted to the academy. Therefore, logically, it appears that those “who do not believe women should be at the academy” have a valid point.

MonaMars: The racial problems of the South in the 60's did not exist until blacks started sit-ting at the front of the bus and at the same lunch counter as white folks. Therefore, logically, it appears that those who did not believe black folks belonged in such places had a valid point. Yeah, I think it sounds ridiculous, too, but it's your logic.

Lucky Dog: First, the apparent premise of your argument is that there is an analogy in the fact that denying blacks their civil rights was not a problem until someone objected. Since serv-ing in the military is not a right, but a privilege, your analogy appears to be faulty from this per-spective. Additionally, there are other fallacies in your attempted analogy, but this issue, alone, is sufficient to defeat your analogy. Therefore, it seems there is nothing in my logic that supports your postulated reasoning.

MonaMars: I was merely attempting to point out with my little example that logic is not truly logic when it is based on induction rather than deduction.

As a point of emphasis, inductive logic is a perfectly valid form of logic when properly em-ployed. However, in this particular case, it appears that you are quarrelling not with inductive versus deductive logic, but with the implied logic chain preceding my first statement rather than inductive logic versus deductive logic.

Let me formalize my syllogism:

Major Premise: Problems with sexual assault at the USAF Academy did not exist prior to the admission of women to the cadet wing.

Minor Premise: After the admission of women at the USAF Academy sexual assault problems began.

Conclusion: Therefore if women had not been admitted to the USAF academy there would be no problems at the academy with sexual assault.

I think you will find that this syllogism meets all of the requirements to be correctly considered a valid bit of deductive logic.

[Goodgirlinred]

Let me get this right, are you saying that , psychologically, women are not very good at computer games or programming, or that we are not inclined to enjoy the more violent types of games that men and boys enjoy? Because if you are saying that our brains are wired the wrong way, then I will have to strongly disagree. There are quite a lot of females in the computer business who can prove you wrong. As for enjoying violent games just for their own sake, well, I guess that is a testosterone driven thing. However, I don't believe that has anything to do with one's ability to carry out one's duties to one's country.

I have given in to you on the physical strength issue. However, female police officers are very successful. They are partnered with males. You don't hear of any problems there. Female police officers have to be able to handle themselves in physical encounters with criminals, and their partners have to depend on them to watch their backs. However, I do realize that combat is quite a different ballgame.

What exactly is women's special place in society? I am not being antagonistic, just curious.

[af_vet_rr]

Getting kids so physically close for the sake of political correctness, not military strength, throws that common sense out the window.

It doesn't matter how close they are to one another.

If they can't follow orders, a code of conduct, or an oath, then they should be at Fort Leavenworth or some other appropriate location, finding out just what the consequences for their actions are, and then dishonorably discharged and forced to pay back the taxpayers of this country for the money they've wasted.

We expect "kids" in the Marines or Army to follow orders in Iraq and to follow certain codes of conduct. We should be able to expect the same of "kids" at a military academy.

[heye2monn]

No one here thinks that rapists should go unpunished. I'm talking about the politically correct POLICY of putting opposite sexes so close in the first place.

You are apparently with the liberals on this. You think women should be bunking and training and fighting side by side with men.

[af_vet_rr]

You are apparently with the liberals on this.

Actually, it's just the opposite, and people are naive if they think the problem would go away if women weren't there. Those cadets who committed adultery, rape, or engaged in illicit behavior in general, would just move their activities elsewheres. The problem is fully with them, regardless of the circumstances.

In fact, saying that there wouldn't be a problem if there weren't female cadets, is just like your typical liberal saying that crime and violence would go down if we didn't have access to legally owned firearms, when the problems are not with law-abiding citizens or cadets who follow orders and their code of conduct.

I take the view that if they can't follow orders and handle discipline and a code of conduct at 18, 19, 20 years old, then they are unfit to be officers just a few years down the road. I don't care who they share a campus with.

A commander should be able to give an order and have it followed, and should be able to expect somebody to live by a code of conduct that they gave their word on. It doesn't matter if it's clearing a building in Iraq or going to college in Colorado Springs. Anything less, they should find themselves on the way to Fort Leavenworth.

[af_vet_rr]

Actually, to sum up my view in one sentence: Removing women from the Academy (or military as many are saying) does about as much to reduce the problem, as taking firearms from private owners would reduce crime and violence - in other words, it does nothing.

[heye2monn]

removing young women from close quarters with young men in the military does not do nothing. It reduces rape, pregnancy, court martials, embarrassment for the services and the feminist delusion that women should serve in the trenches with men.

[af_vet_rr]

removing young women from close quarters with young men in the military does not do nothing. It reduces rape, pregnancy, court martials, embarrassment for the services and the feminist delusion that women should serve in the trenches with men.

So your saying that young men in the military are predisposed towards rape, adultery, fathering children out of wedlock, etc., just because women are around?

[demecleze]

This is an exhausting issue for me but I will try hard to elaborate.

I have taken womens studies (have minor is history) and am a pHD biophysics student. So I work with programmers and such on a regular basis, this includes scientific conferences as well. In my observations I have noticed that females simply do not have the inherent interest in computers or even programming that the men do. And as an aside female brains are in fact wired quite differently. I started out trying to treat women the same but they are very, very different. I also teach as a Grad student and observe these differences first hand on a regular basis.

As for police officers, I once was a witness to a man being paralyzed by a driver on new years. Two female officers arrived and I told them where he had run off too and they did not give chase. It was only 10 minutes later that a male officer came by and asked me which way he went. This is often the case which I am aware of by virtue of the fact that my father has worked in jails all his life and I have many friends who are police officers. From these sources I have been told women are better at dealing with people and they are much more likely to diffuse a bad situation. It is also unlikely that they will be attacked in a jail and even the other inmates will retaliate for any attack on them.

In short my views are those that largely belong in ages past (correcting for technological advances) so I guess I would offend you if I delineate all of my arguments and the statistics (raw) that I have found to support my particular view.

I am often wrong, but I have always paid a heavy price for my honesty and I'm too old to start dancing around what I see as the truth now.

A little bitty secret that I have learned is that, in my opinion, feminism is all about respect not about who can carry a water hose up 2 flights of stairs. I make my views quite clear and I get along better than anyone else with the females in my department and in my life. I think this is because I respect them.

[Goodgirlinred]

That was a wonderful answer! I can see why you get along so well with the females in your life. I am not a feminist, I just don't like being talked down to just because I am female.

Personally, since I did not grow up with computers and am teaching myself, I have an awful time with mine. I am not mechanically inclined, either. I can't even get my great big dog to mind me because I don't have a commanding voice. However, that is just me. I do believe there are females out there who can do these things.

I expect your ideas on the way women should be treated fall somewhere in there with mine. LOL! I am of the 60's generation. I am 55. Hope you did not get too exhausted.

However, these younger women do deserve to fly higher than my generation did, if that is what they wish, and if they are qualified. Thank you again.

[heye2monn]

You bet. It's human nature. A certain small percent will cause a lot of trouble. That's all it takes in any large organization, military or not. So why encourage it, especially when most women can't do combat very well, any way?

[af_vet_rr]

ou bet. It's human nature. A certain small percent will cause a lot of trouble. That's all it takes in any large organization, military or not. So why encourage it,

I'm a bit shocked that you think that it's "human nature" for men in the military to commit rape, adultery, etc. Coming from a long line of ex-military, along with relatives still in the military (including some gradutes of the service academies), coupled with my own career, that is just not the case.

That is a dead issue though - my position won't change that the majority of people in the military are honorable and I doubt your position won't change that we men are prone to those kinds of things ("human nature" as you called it) since your only solution is to remove women from the military.

Just for giggles, I'll pretend that removing women from the Academies and from the military happened. Does your solution fix the problem?

Not a chance. If your wondering why I think your position would fail, it's because having spent a large chunk of my youth living on various military installations, as well as my adult life, I know something that you apparently don't.

What is the secret I know, you may ask? That any sizeable military installation, with the exception of a very select few, has a decent-sized civilian population living around it. Among those civilian populations, there live women. That's right, women. So, rather than address the situation, you've simply moved it off campus or off base, into the civilian population.

So, we are back to square one, and maybe now you see why my solution - coming down hard on those who can't follow orders, the UCMJ, or their code of conduct, is the best solution. I would make examples of the scum involved, by sentencing them to the fullest extent to Fort Leavenworth or whereever, by taking pictures of where they are going, notifying their hometown newspapers, and then sending letters out to all cadets at all service academies saying "dishonor your country, disobey your orders and ignore your code of conduct, here's what you can expect."

Besides, removing women from the military would put us in a dangerous situation. Losing 15% of our armed forces is not something that could be made up all that easily.

P.S., don't think women in the military can hack it? Tell that to those who served in Vietnam, Iraq, Korea, World War II, and oh the Israelis. They might be interested in your findings.

[Future Snake Eater]

That was a documentary........wasn't it?

/sarcasm

[heye2monn]

[I'm a bit shocked that you think it's "human nature" for men in the military to commit rape, adultery etc.]

I said a small portion of any group makes trouble -- particularly humans. How on earth can you deny that? We are sinners all. Even college educated officers-in training in military academies can succumb to temptations of Susie in the next bunk (your off the base point is silly and irrelevant-- I am talking about men and women in dorms, tents or trenches).

I do not advocate removing women from the military entirely, just from serving with men in close quarters, namely in combat as you seem to want. There are plenty of jobs that women do well, in fact better than men -- they just shouldn't be thrown in with men because some feminists in Congress get upset. Columnist Mona Charen lays numerous reasons why women should not be in combat below.

Our Brave Women by Mona Charen
http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com |

Pfc. Jessica Lynch has won the hearts and the gratitude of a whole nation. If initial reports are accurate, she showed enormous courage when the Iraqis ambushed her maintenance unit. Though she'd been shot, stabbed and sustained at least two broken bones (though it is not yet clear in what sequence), she reportedly fired her weapon until she was out of ammunition.

As one official told The Washington Post, she was "fighting to the death ... she did not want to be taken alive." They're talking about a Medal of Honor for her. This 5 foot, 4 inch 19-year-old gal from West Virginia sure did us proud. God bless her and her family.

But she should never have been anywhere near the battlefield. Women do not belong in combat.


It isn't that one doesn't respect women -- some of my best friends are women, and oh yes, I am one myself -- and I've no doubt that women are as courageous and as cool under fire as men. But far from representing a new frontier in the struggle for women's rights, putting women in combat represents the victory of a few zealots over common sense and right reason.


How did we get here?


Under current regulations, women are not permitted in direct combat units. But they're allowed to get very close. Until 1994, women were forbidden even in units that were "at risk" for contact with the enemy or capture. Under pressure from feminists who seek to erase all sexual discrimination from the military, President Clinton's secretary of defense, Les Aspin, eliminated "inherent risk of capture" from the risk assessments of non-combat units. Accordingly, women now staff many positions that are close to the front lines, and at least three women have been captured in the first two weeks of fighting.


Have you seen the face of Army Spc. Shoshana Johnson? An army cook who likes to make jerk chicken and curry rice for her dad, she, like Lynch, was captured following an ambush. Her terrified face has since been broadcast around the world. The Iraqis reportedly put her on camera just after they had killed some of her companions. At this writing, her status is unknown. She is the single mother of a toddler. The other missing woman is Pfc. Lori Piestewa, a 23-year-old mother of two preschoolers.


Yes, these women are all volunteers, but the question is not whether they are willing but whether we should ask them to take these risks.


Pentagon studies have consistently found that only about 10 percent of the women in the military services would choose combat if they could. Studies at the military academies have found that women are far less likely to be interested in war fighting courses like strategy and tactics than their male counterparts. And more surveys than you can name have shown that women lag behind men in upper body strength, size and weight. Many women are not strong enough to carry a fallen comrade over her shoulder. Some cannot throw a grenade far enough to be safe from its explosion. Many become pregnant while in the service, eroding readiness.

But the deepest reasons for objecting to women in combat come down to women's inherent delicacy -- a quality we should not lightly dismiss. Captured women are virtually certain to be sexually abused or even tortured. And men will go to extra lengths to protect the women around them -- sometimes at the sacrifice of their own safety, which is why women should be kept well back from the fighting. Feminists say men should stop worrying about us, that we're fully capable of handling ourselves. But most of us don't really want a world in which men stifle all chivalrous feelings for women.

Finally, there is the matter of motherhood. The two remaining women captives are mothers of small children. One is a single parent. The military has traditionally preferred single men to married men, the childless to those with children. Now we are sending not just young fathers but also young mothers into harm's way. This is so unnecessary, and such a terrible price to ask our children to pay. Anne Applebaum declared in The Washington Post that the argument over women in combat is over. Let's hope not.