USAFA – Micro-Aggressions are a Weapon System

By Sam Frescoe

http://samfrescoeproject.blogspot.com/

#SamFrescoe #microaggression #socialjustice #USAFA

Here it is again. The United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) is back in the news. This time it’s about a micro-aggression committed by a Senior Non-Commission Officer (SNCO).

The Incident

On 14 Feb 2018 at 0849, the USAFA First Sergeant published an e-mail to all USAFA Cadets (plus three other groups and individuals). Within this message the First Sergeant clearly stated that any willful disregard for violations of hair grooming and appearance was unacceptable; he testified about the adverse impact of slack grooming standards; he offered specific guidance for corrections and maintenance; he provided an example of excellence and the importance of a professional appearance; and finished with an invitation to depart the Academy should any particular Cadet be unwilling to embrace the prescribed standards.[i]

Then, on 14 Feb 2018 at 1420 (just over six hour later), the USAFA Vice Commandant of Cadets for Culture and Climate published an e-mail to all USAFA Cadets (plus 15 other groups and individuals). In this message, the Vice Commandant apologized for the conduct of the First Sergeant, and described his conduct as disrespectful, derogatory and unprofessional. Additionally, the apology carried forth the name of the Commandant’s office and Senior Leadership.[ii]

Both exchanges were confirmed by the Academy media relations office.[iii]

The Complaint

According to the Vice Commandant’s message, I believe that the following allegation can be reasonably built: on 14 Feb 2018, the First Sergeant engaged in “very disrespectful, derogatory and unprofessional” behavior against the Cadet Corps (at large) which was a violation of the Commandant’s micro-aggression views. The complaints seems to infer that the violation was reported by multiple persons on the “TO” and/or “CC” listings.

Side Note: While the actors named in the allegation do matter, I cannot find public information that is sufficient or suitable to support a discussion of the actors. Therefore, I’m going to constrain this discussion to the violated standard: the Commandant’s micro-aggression views.

So What?

What are the Commandant’s micro-aggression views? – Multiple web searches failed to return directly attributable information.  However, the Vice Commandant did describe micro-aggressions at the Academy as “blindspots/unintentional biases that are not often recognized, and if they are recognized they are not always addressed.”

So…what does that mean? – I have no idea.

Micro-Aggressions, an Air Force Definition

Bottom Line Up Front: An official, Air Force level definition or policy describing micro-aggressions does not exist. – Multiple open source searches, to include the Air Force ePubs site, provided no returns. That’s right…zero…zilch…nada…nothing.

Micro-Aggressions, an Academy Definition

Bottom Line Up Front: According to the Academy definition, and the evidence offered, the SNCO could not have committed a micro-aggression. The evidence presented is weak and fails to establish the facts of the case. Additionally, the standard in play fails to mitigate or eliminate emotive reasoning or logical fallacy making it impossible for an ombudsman to determine if a violation did, or not, occur. – A detailed analysis is located at the end of this article.

Micro-Aggressions, a Reflection of Ideology in Practice

Bottom Line Up Front: The SNCO is the victim of an ideological hit job condoned the Commandant.

In the ideological sense, a micro-aggression is any statement that disagrees with a narrative. – In this case, the SNCO held up Michael Jordan, a black man, as an ideal example of professional appearance and its value across various professions. Assuming the response of the Commandant’s office was proportional, the narrative seems to be as follows: regardless of any mitigating factor, all perceived instances of racial discrimination against Blacks shall not be tolerated.

In my view, at least the following are contributing circumstances:
1) micro-aggressions, as a term and a concept, are directly associated with racial discrimination in practice;
2) the SNCO’s message showcased a Black;
3) the angry reaction and resulting “get out” speech delivered by Lt Gen Jay Silveria in response to the racist slur event at the Academy Prep School in Nov 2017; and the later determination that the event was executed by a single actor, a Black Cadet; and

5) that Lt Gen Jay Silveria is the primary and secondary supervisor for the Commandant and the Senior Leadership, respectively.

An Academy in Trouble

When group justice is more important than individual justice, no one is safe from harm. In this case, because the narrative was more valuable than the objective truth of the event, the use of force against the SNCO was deemed acceptable.

What’s more troubling is the vocabulary that surrounds the case. The vocabulary of Commandant’s office required no clear definitions, logical arguments, or empirical verifications. Its role was to be a substitute for all these things. Its intention was to hyper-elevate the Commandant’s office to a superior level of concern and righteousness without engaging in any higher, principled thinking or due process whatsoever.

Bottom Line: Racism is alive and well at the USAFA.

Going Forward – A Watch, A Solution

The Watch: I’m especially interested in any harm experienced by the SCNO, now or at any time in the future. In my view, if the SNCO does experiences harm as a result of this event, then the SNCO will have a solid equal opportunity case that can be brought against multiple aggressors, the Academy, and the Air Force.

The Solution: First, relieve the Commandant and Vice Commandant of Cadets for Culture and Climate of their respective duties immediately. Second, launch a Commander Directed Investigation (CDI) in order to determine how the “Commandant’s micro-aggression view” became a governing standard. Third, based on that CDI, relieve, reprimand, and/or charge all those involved accordingly.

Enough is enough. It’s time to solve the leadership problem at the USAFA.

Your View

Your thoughts and perspectives are important. I invite you to tell me what you believe with the comment section.

© 2018 – SamFrescoeProject.Blogspot.com – All Rights Reserved

Related Posts

Racism – Hatred and Stupidity

Analysis: Micro-Aggressions, an Academy Definition

The Academy definition of a micro-aggression is multi-faceted with the following attributes: it’s a blindspot or unintentional bias; it’s not often recognized; if it is recognized, then it’s not always addressed; it’s characterized as disrespectful, derogatory and unprofessional behavior; there is at least an aggressor; and there is at least a victim.

Because there is not an official definition, let’s look at each facet in common language.

-       Blindspot: an area where a person’s view is obstructed
-       Unintentional Bias: an inadvertent and unintended partiality or unfairness
-       Not Often Recognized: not habitually documented or established
-       Not Always Addressed: not dealt with each time detected
-       Disrespectful Behavior: rude (impolite, offensive, vulgar) conduct
-       Derogatory Behavior: disparaging (disapproving) or offensive conduct
-       Unprofessional Behavior: unethical, amateurish conduct
-       Aggressor: attacker, assailant, antagonist
-       Victim: injured party (the beholder of the offense)

Now, let’s use the above to build-up definitions and common attributes.

      -       Definition-1: A micro-aggression is an area where a person’s view is obstructed.
-       Definition-2: A micro-aggression is an inadvertent and unintended partiality or unfairness.
-       Common Attributes: Micro-aggressions…

o   …are not habitually documented or established; or dealt with each time detected.

o   …are associated with rude (impolite, offensive, vulgar) conduct; and disparaging (disapproving) or offensive conduct; and unethical, amateurish conduct.

o   …must have an attacker, assailant, or antagonist; and an injured party.

So what did the SNCO do that violated the Commandant’s micro-aggression view? Let’s start with the common attributes.

      -       The first attribute is worthless. Because cases may be documented or not, established or not, or dealt with or not, this attribute cannot mitigate or eliminate emotive reasoning or logical fallacy. Therefore, this attribute cannot assist in determining if a micro-aggression exists or not.
-       The second attribute is worthless. Because the attribute offers no definitive basis to mitigate or eliminate emotive reasoning or logical fallacy, this attribute cannot assist in determining if a micro-aggression exists or not.
-       The third attribute is useful. However, the evidence presented (e-mails only, no other exhibits are present) does not present the SNCO as an attacker, assailant, or antagonist; nor does the evidence identify any specific injured party. Therefore, the SNCO could not have committed a micro-aggression.

---

[i] MSgt Zachary Parish. E-mail. SUB: ACTION//: Hair Grooming Standards. 14 Feb 2018 / 0849 (downloaded from Facebook 180217)

[ii] Col Julian D. Stephens. E-mail. SUB: CW Response: Hair Grooming Standards. 14 Feb 2018 / 1420 (downloaded from Facebook 180217)

[iii] Ryan Pickrell. The Daily Caller. “Air Force Academy First Sergeant Reprimanded for Telling Cadets to Dress Properly”. 15 Feb 2018. http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/15/air-force-michael-jordan/ (accessed 180217)