Frat boy Navy captain gets relieved

[Bluewolf]

I am not sure that there is any value in banning someone permanently who has brought a lot to the forum because they let slip a word. A horrid word but in the end, a word

[Thanas]

Apparently you did not get the hint when phrased politely, so here goes:

Someone who nearly evaded permanent banning after several times insulting people with a banned word over a football game has no right to whine about punishment being "unfair", especially not when he himself was given leniency.

So STFU right now.

[mingo]

The factabout all there is to it that he wasn't disciplined 4 years ago is a problem. For the people who failed to discipline him. I see no reason why he cannot be disciplined now. Is there a statute of limitations on incompetency?

That's about it. Word should come down to the Navy Brass, "Remember "Tail Hook"? You tried to cover shit up and ended up losing the CNO and several other VERY high ranking officer BECAUSE they covered it up"

[Kamakazie Sith]

He wasn't "fired" per se. He was reassigned to a desk job.

True, and that is a huge difference. It just seems like a waste of experience over the non-malicious use of a slur. Should he be disciplined? Yes. I'd like to hear from those offended by these videos and see what damage was done to them. For all we know there were several complaints and they were all ignored by the Captain. Those complaints ignored by the USN are a different matter and should face a separate investigation.

Frankly the thing that you should be bothered by isn't the fact that he's being reassigned over a slur, but the fact that he probably wouldn't have been punished at all if the videos hadn't gotten out to the public.

Frankly, I'm bothered by both. Did I not make that clear?

[General Zod]

Frankly, I'm bothered by both. Did I not make that clear?

If you did then I'm not seeing it in any of your posts.

[aikijahara]

What the captain did is the textbook definition of sexual harassment. Here is the info that I found on about.com. The relevant portions are highlighted.

Punitive Articles of the UCMJ
Article 93—Cruelty and maltreatment

Text.

"Any person subject to this chapter who is guilty of cruelty toward, or oppression or maltreatment of, any person subject to his orders shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

Elements.

(1) That a certain person was subject to the orders of the accused; and

(2) That the accused was cruel toward, or oppressed, or maltreated that person.

Explanation.

(1) Nature of victim. "Any person subject to his orders" means not only those persons under the direct or immediate command of the accused but extends to all persons, subject to the code or not, who by reason of some duty are required to obey the lawful orders of the accused, regardless whether the accused is in the direct chain of command over the person.

(2) Nature of act. The cruelty, oppression, or maltreatment, although not necessarily physical, must be measured by an objective standard. Assault, improper punishment, and sexual harassment may constitute this offense. Sexual harassment includes influencing, offering to influence, or threatening the career, pay, or job of another person in exchange for sexual favors, and deliberate or repeated offensive comments or gestures of a sexual nature. The imposition of necessary or proper duties and the exaction of their performance does not constitute this offense even though the duties are arduous or hazardous or both.

Maximum punishment.

Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year.

Furthermore, as a midshipman, I guarantee that for every year he was in the academy, he had to sit through sexual harassment training, usually accompanied by some cheesy skits, that covered this exact thing. As an officer, he more than likely was in charge of organizing and/or presenting this training for his sailors.

Had I been a junior officer on board the ship, I wouldn't have said anything. Had I been a senior officer on board the ship, I would have told him that it was inappropriate. Had I been his commanding officer, I would have appreciated his attempt at humor, but told him to find another way to entertain the crew.

[hunter5]

The working theory here at Norfolk on the 4 year gap between the videos and punishment is someone got punished by the CO and that person leaked the videos as a means of retaliation. The removal of the Captain was political nothing more nothing less the only reason the videos are even considered homophobic is because the media said so to make the story more sensational.

[Flagg]

The working theory here at Norfolk on the 4 year gap between the videos and punishment is someone got punished by the CO and that person leaked the videos as a means of retaliation. The removal of the Captain was political nothing more nothing less the only reason the videos are even considered homophobic is because the media said so to make the story more sensational.

The fact that he uses homophobic slurs makes the videos homophobic, no media sensationalism needed. If a fucking manager at McDonalds had made these videos they'd have gotten outright shitcanned.

[Akhlut]

Plus, as multiple people have pointed out: there's a level of discretion one should have when one is that high up the food chain. Using bigoted slurs in jokes and making questionable comedy skits is definitely a line he should not have crossed, and if he can cross a line that should be fairly easy to see, what about other decisions he will have to make that require more finesse then whether or not one should release a CCTV comedy that might offend some of his crewmen? Especially since he was already high in rank when he made the video; had he been freshly commissioned or something and this was something he did in haste, then, yeah, I can buy being more lenient with him, but he has been in service for decades and should know better by now.

[Max]

Look, if you're in a position where you have subordinates reporting to you, you can't make off-color jokes with the words fag, or nigger in front of them. Like what has already been stated, it can (and will) create a toxic work environment since not everyone finds the same things humorous. This situation isn't even remotely comparable to what a comedian does, because people choose to see (and pay) the stand-up routine. Subordinates in the workplace (govenrment/public/private), 99.9% of the time, can't pick and choose who they report to. Anyone in a position of leadership should know that they are putting their career in jeopardy if they choose to sprinkle their jokes with incendiary or prejudicial words, regardless if it may boost the morale of a few people. Anyone who's actually defending this jack-ass, who demonstrates he doesn't have the commonsense to be an effective leader, needs to pick up a book on ethics in the workplace. I work at Cargill, and if any of the business leaders here decided to make a joke with the word fag in it, they'd be in the unemployment line. I don't see how this situation is any different, it's not as though these are his fucking fraternity brother drinking buddies.

[Simon_Jester]

Max has a really good point. Part of the problem here is that if you're in the 5% or 10% of the ship's crew who doesn't like the ship's executive officer making gay jokes... you don't have much of a recourse. And listening to the rest of the crew laugh about it isn't going to do your morale any good- you're getting your nose rubbed in the fact that you're surrounded by people who think it's funny, when to you it's not.

That's a great way to isolate and harass a fraction of the crew for the sake of mildly entertaining the rest... which is damned poor leadership.

[Beowulf]

I'm just going to point out that for at least another 60 days, the military is a place where discrimination against gays is still legal.

[bobalot]

The working theory here at Norfolk on the 4 year gap between the videos and punishment is someone got punished by the CO and that person leaked the videos as a means of retaliation. The removal of the Captain was political nothing more nothing less the only reason the videos are even considered homophobic is because the media said so to make the story more sensational.

The fact that he uses homophobic slurs makes the videos homophobic, no media sensationalism needed. If a fucking manager at McDonalds had made these videos they'd have gotten outright shitcanned.

hunter5 is a useless douche. The media "say so" because there ARE fucking homophobic slurs in the video, regardless if the release of the video was "political" or not.

If I were caught in a four year old video making homophobic slurs and it entered public circulation and embarrassed the government, there is a good chance I would get FIRED from my government job and blacklisted from all further employment.

[Todeswind]

The working theory here at Norfolk on the 4 year gap between the videos and punishment is someone got punished by the CO and that person leaked the videos as a means of retaliation. The removal of the Captain was political nothing more nothing less the only reason the videos are even considered homophobic is because the media said so to make the story more sensational.

The fact that he uses homophobic slurs makes the videos homophobic, no media sensationalism needed. If a fucking manager at McDonalds had made these videos they'd have gotten outright shitcanned.

hunter5 is a useless douche. The media "say so" because there ARE fucking homophobic slurs in the video, regardless if the release of the video was "political" or not.

If I were caught in a four year old video making homophobic slurs and it entered public circulation and embarrassed the government, there is a good chance I would get FIRED from my government job and blacklisted from all further employment.

Unless my memory fails me the use of more esoteric and offensive language is no simply common in military service it's damn near omnipresent. The US military is the ultimate boys club and while professionalisim ought to be expected these people are paid to be efficient killers not public servants in the sense we expect from other branches of the federal government. Saying a couple of rude words, even offensive ones should not be grounds for dismissal four years after the fact, especially within the context these ones were being used in. That being said it's a good thing in spite of it being both a political and abnormal use of military law.

Nothing else in this mans career indicates anything homophobic or untoward and frankly the use of this video as a grounds for dismissal from his employment is absurd. I'm not suggesting that he get off Scott free, it is a clear violation of sexual harassment code, but to fire the man is beyond extreme. Most cases of sexual harassment result in demotions or penalties even in the cases where someone has been physically touched or fondled, to dishonorably discharge a high ranking officer with a distinguished career is patently absurd when the only real crime committed is hurt feelings.

The decision to have him sacked is most likely a political one. There were a number of similar cases of firing high ranking officers after the integration of the armed forces between blacks and whites to ensure that people understood that here would be no tolerance to the old ways of thinking. More than likely a few well meaning jokes ended careers back then as well, it's unfortunate to lose competent officers but it's a sign of progress for gay rights.

[General Zod]

Unless my memory fails me the use of more esoteric and offensive language is no simply common in military service it's damn near omnipresent. The US military is the ultimate boys club and while professionalisim ought to be expected these people are paid to be efficient killers not public servants in the sense we expect from other branches of the federal government. Saying a couple of rude words, even offensive ones should not be grounds for dismissal four years after the fact, especially within the context these ones were being used in. That being said it's a good thing in spite of it being both a political and abnormal use of military law.

Nothing else in this mans career indicates anything homophobic or untoward and frankly the use of this video as a grounds for dismissal from his employment is absurd. I'm not suggesting that he get off Scott free, it is a clear violation of sexual harassment code, but to fire the man is beyond extreme. Most cases of sexual harassment result in demotions or penalties even in the cases where someone has been physically touched or fondled, to dishonorably discharge a high ranking officer with a distinguished career is patently absurd when the only real crime committed is hurt feelings.

The decision to have him sacked is most likely a political one. There were a number of similar cases of firing high ranking officers after the integration of the armed forces between blacks and whites to ensure that people understood that here would be no tolerance to the old ways of thinking. More than likely a few well meaning jokes ended careers back then as well, it's unfortunate to lose competent officers but it's a sign of progress for gay rights.

For fuck's sake, he's not being dishonorably discharged or fired, he's being reassigned to a desk job. Read the other articles that were linked in this thread.

[Todeswind]

I never said he did. I was replying more to the suggestion of the previous poster's statement that one ought to be shit canned for that at sort of language than to the article itself. Firing or dishonorable discharge is the military equivalent to that so I used those words.

It's still effectively the end of this mans career, I doubt he'll be promoted again any time soon. Even if the political stigma of this wares off it will most likely be too late for him to receive an important posting.

[Thanas]

The worst thing that can happen to him is that he retires on a pension of around 8000 dollars a month (credit to RogueIce for that figure).

[General Zod]

I never said he did. I was replying more to the suggestion of the previous poster's statement that one ought to be shit canned for that at sort of language than to the article itself. Firing or dishonorable discharge is the military equivalent to that so I used those words.

Then the previous poster's point completely went over your head, because he was saying that the Captain got off easy compared to any other government worker.

[Todeswind]

Which is why I tried to point out that the legal standards and common responses to transgressions committed by a bureaucrat in the US Gov are not the same as an officer of the US military.

[Cecelia5578]

Which is why I tried to point out that the legal standards and common responses to transgressions committed by a bureaucrat in the US Gov are not the same as an officer of the US military.

What I find so ironic about your statement, is that there are plenty of people in the military (though far from everyone) who think the military is a superior caste, set apart from us secular, liberal pansies. Its linked to the rightward drift of the armed forces over the past couple of decades, and the disconnect between large portions of America and military service.

I would hope that senior officers in the Navy conduct themselves with more professionalism than this.

[Todeswind]

The US military is designed to think of anything that isn't a target as something weaker than it that must be protected. They're pretty much garuanteed to be about as machista as you could hope for them to be. The glorification of the US military is a patriotic ideal, and like any patriotic ideal the reality is often somewhat less than the reality.

That being said I don't think it's a bad thing for government employees different types of employees to have different standards of behavior and different repercussions to that behavior. I do not expect a soldier, a professional killer by definition, or a sanitiation wirker to have the same sort if PC vocabulary that I expect a teacher or a Judge to have. It doesn't make them less professional or more professional than someone of a different type of government employment.

As I've already stated I firmly believe this man's removal from his position to be a political system in context considering the standards by which sexual harassment cases are usually treated by the US government (or not treated as the cases most often are), which is not a bad thing as it's symptomatic of greater ideology changes in US policy. Firing him would have been extreme but there is president to do so within context of similar pro integration reform environments.

[Cecelia5578]

The US military is designed to think of anything that isn't a target as something weaker than it that must be protected. They're pretty much garuanteed to be about as machista as you could hope for them to be. The glorification of the US military is a patriotic ideal, and like any patriotic ideal the reality is often somewhat less than the reality.

That being said I don't think it's a bad thing for government employees different types of employees to have different standards of behavior and different repercussions to that behavior. I do not expect a soldier, a professional killer by definition, or a sanitiation wirker to have the same sort if PC vocabulary that I expect a teacher or a Judge to have. It doesn't make them less professional or more professional than someone of a different type of government employment.

As I've already stated I firmly believe this man's removal from his position to be a political system in context considering the standards by which sexual harassment cases are usually treated by the US government (or not treated as the cases most often are), which is not a bad thing as it's symptomatic of greater ideology changes in US policy. Firing him would have been extreme but there is president to do so within context of similar pro integration reform environments.

From http://live.washingtonpost.com/outlook-06-28-10.html

Q.
Respect for Civilian Authority
I earned a Ph.D. in military history after returning from Vietnam 40 years ago, and have been teaching Active and Reserve officers for the past 25+ years. I think respect for civilian authority has eroded substantially, especially over the last 15 years. Also more coarse behavior and cynicism in the officer corps. You think that has anything to do with heavy emphasis on "warrior spirit" and "warrior ethos?" Has SF mentality become the norm? If so, is that a good thing?

* –
June 28, 2010 11:15 AM
* Permalink

A.
Andrew Bacevich :

I've wondered about this. The "warrior" business began when I was still on active duty (eons ago) and it left me uncomfortable in ways that I could never put my finger on. Certainly we want our fighting forces to have a spirit that will serve them well in combat. But in a democracy a soldier ought to be something more than simply a fighting man (or, today, woman). I think that's why I prefer the word soldier.
– June 28, 2010 11:46 AM

[Todeswind]

The US military is designed to think of anything that isn't a target as something weaker than it that must be protected. They're pretty much garuanteed to be about as machista as you could hope for them to be. The glorification of the US military is a patriotic ideal, and like any patriotic ideal the reality is often somewhat less than the reality.

That being said I don't think it's a bad thing for government employees different types of employees to have different standards of behavior and different repercussions to that behavior. I do not expect a soldier, a professional killer by definition, or a sanitiation wirker to have the same sort if PC vocabulary that I expect a teacher or a Judge to have. It doesn't make them less professional or more professional than someone of a different type of government employment.

As I've already stated I firmly believe this man's removal from his position to be a political system in context considering the standards by which sexual harassment cases are usually treated by the US government (or not treated as the cases most often are), which is not a bad thing as it's symptomatic of greater ideology changes in US policy. Firing him would have been extreme but there is president to do so within context of similar pro integration reform environments.

From http://live.washingtonpost.com/outlook-06-28-10.html

Q.
Respect for Civilian Authority
I earned a Ph.D. in military history after returning from Vietnam 40 years ago, and have been teaching Active and Reserve officers for the past 25+ years. I think respect for civilian authority has eroded substantially, especially over the last 15 years. Also more coarse behavior and cynicism in the officer corps. You think that has anything to do with heavy emphasis on "warrior spirit" and "warrior ethos?" Has SF mentality become the norm? If so, is that a good thing?

* –
June 28, 2010 11:15 AM
* Permalink

A.
Andrew Bacevich :

I've wondered about this. The "warrior" business began when I was still on active duty (eons ago) and it left me uncomfortable in ways that I could never put my finger on. Certainly we want our fighting forces to have a spirit that will serve them well in combat. But in a democracy a soldier ought to be something more than simply a fighting man (or, today, woman). I think that's why I prefer the word soldier.
– June 28, 2010 11:46 AM

We don't want a fighting force that has no respect for the civilian authorities, that's an unquestionably bad thing. That being said it is not a negative thing for members of the US military to have all the brass and bravado we expect from alpha male types. The people who are drawn to military service are often poor or uneducated me who don't have a lot of other career options. Officers are (at least theoretically) better educated but there is a definite "type" of person who becomes a career military officer or a command officer. The threads title "frat boy" reference could easily be used to refer to a lot of active duty officers and things they've done or said.

In this particular case the man does not seem to have demonstrated any extraordinary malice beyond the general grabasseery one expects to find from any sort of military institutions interpretation of humor. It's unsophisticated but military service doesn't exactly breed sophistication.

[CmdrWilkens]

The fact that he wasn't disciplined 4 years ago is a problem. For the people who failed to discipline him. I see no reason why he cannot be disciplined now. Is there a statute of limitations on incompetency?

Nope but just as there is, based on your statements, an inherent standard to which the Captain should have conducted himself there is ALSO an unwritten and inherent standard that actions from years ago should not be suddenly addressed now. These videos aren't new news, they've been in circulation for 4 years and aside from the one statement indicating there were previous complaints (and even that statement could be taken to mean concurrent complaints rather than older complaints) it looks like everyone has been fine with them.

[bobalot]

Which is why I tried to point out that the legal standards and common responses to transgressions committed by a bureaucrat in the US Gov are not the same as an officer of the US military.

Unless my memory fails me the use of more esoteric and offensive language is no simply common in military service it's damn near omnipresent.

Engineers and tradesmen swear all the time here. Nonetheless, homophobic and racist bullshit is not tolerated by management, especially not by people who are in positions of power.

All I see is bullshit hand waving.