Frat boy Navy captain gets relieved

[Flagg]

I don't see how the punishment "doesn't fit the crime". The fact is that he has shown himself to be an incompetent leader by making these videos. His judgment is now in question and the Navy shouldn't entrust him with a nuclear powered warship with thousands of crewmembers.

The punishment doesn't fit the crime because we haven't identified a single person that has been damaged by this nor to what degree. You haven't shown that his command has been compromised. You haven't shown why this is suddenly enough to warrant dismissal from his station when it happened four years ago. Has he continued to do this?

You're a fucking idiot. Every single homosexual serving under him was harmed by his usage of homophobic slurs. He used remarkably poor judgment in doing so, so he doesn't get to have a boat, end of story.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Yes, as long as he only bashes minorities and the straight, WASPy majority feels warm, comfortable and cushy, it's all smiles and sunshine. Why can't those "fags", "wogs", "niggers" and "gooks" not see how their wacky antics bring warm sunrays into the miserable lives of the "not-abnormal" crewmen? Why do they have to ruin it for the poor, oppressed majority? Damn political correctness, it's all gone mad!


...and they say I know nothing about leadership. I guess it's so, I only know about good leadership.

Let's clarify our positions. I don't think he should be let off with a smack of the wrist. I just haven't seen justification to removing him from command and basically turning on the training, money, and sacrifice into waste. He should face punishment. If I were his commanding officer I would take two months pay.

[Kamakazie Sith]

You're a fucking idiot. Every single homosexual serving under him was harmed by his usage of homophobic slurs. He used remarkably poor judgment in doing so, so he doesn't get to have a boat, end of story.

Are you speaking for them, Flagg?

[Flagg]

You're a fucking idiot. Every single homosexual serving under him was harmed by his usage of homophobic slurs. He used remarkably poor judgment in doing so, so he doesn't get to have a boat, end of story.

Are you speaking for them, Flagg?

If you cannot see how using a homophobic slur to mock homosexuals harms homosexual members serving under him then there's no help for you.

[Kamakazie Sith]

If you cannot see how using a homophobic slur to mock homosexuals harms homosexual members serving under him then there's no help for you.

I can see how it can. I haven't seen that this is the case nor have I seen to what degree this harm is and if it justifies the response...four years later.

Sorry, but having your feelings hurt is not cause for serious action.

[Serafina]

I can see how it can. I haven't seen that this is the case nor have I seen to what degree this harm is and if it justifies the response...four years later.

Sorry, but having your feelings hurt is not cause for serious action.

If you deliberately risk that those under your command have "their feelings hurt" without any necessity, then yes, that should be cause for serious action.
And "having your feelings hurt" doesn't do it justice: Keep in mind that both large parts of the american public and especially the military are already quite anti-gay. Officially supporting that as an officer can easily create an enviornment of heavy discrimination -and that's more than just having ones feeling hurt by a word someone used.

Note that that doesn't actually have to happen - he took the risk that it MIGHT happen. It's hardly some outlandish thing no one could possibly expect, it's a real possibility a good commander should be aware of.

[Aaron]

I can see how it can. I haven't seen that this is the case nor have I seen to what degree this harm is and if it justifies the response...four years later.

Sorry, but having your feelings hurt is not cause for serious action.

If you deliberately risk that those under your command have "their feelings hurt" without any necessity, then yes, that should be cause for serious action.
And "having your feelings hurt" doesn't do it justice: Keep in mind that both large parts of the american public and especially the military are already quite anti-gay. Officially supporting that as an officer can easily create an enviornment of heavy discrimination -and that's more than just having ones feeling hurt by a word someone used.

Note that that doesn't actually have to happen - he took the risk that it MIGHT happen. It's hardly some outlandish thing no one could possibly expect, it's a real possibility a good commander should be aware of.

So do you feel the punishment was appropriate? Keeping in mind that (barring a miracle) his career is effectively over, he'll be passed over for promotion and let go.

[Serafina]

Given that he made a significant command error while not being under any pressure and that might have crossed over into misuse of authority (not sure on that one), i do not see why he deserves any further promotions. His career might be over, but he wasn't fired, so his life isn't entirely ruined.

[Aaron]

Given that he made a significant command error while not being under any pressure and that might have crossed over into misuse of authority (not sure on that one), i do not see why he deserves any further promotions. His career might be over, but he wasn't fired, so his life isn't entirely ruined.

Thats not what I asked. I want to know if you would consider this to be fair?

[Cecelia5578]

So do you feel the punishment was appropriate? Keeping in mind that (barring a miracle) his career is effectively over, he'll be passed over for promotion and let go.

Well, he gets to retire with his O-6 pension, which is pretty damn good by just about any measure. Plus, there's obviously no guarantee he'd have been promoted to admiral had he stayed in.

[Aaron]

Well, he gets to retire with his O-6 pension, which is pretty damn good by just about any measure. Plus, there's obviously no guarantee he'd have been promoted to admiral had he stayed in.

Oh, aye no guarantee of promotion. I actually consider the punishment to be appropriate, if he's let go he'll get his pension and not barred from further employment elsewhere. I'm just kind of put off by the odd people in the thread calling for outright dismissal. Even in the CF, where we've had gays serving openly for around a decade, you wouldn't be booted.

[SCRawl]

We are going to tone things down a little bit -- Flagg, I'm mostly looking at you -- and discuss things in a civilized manner. Go and take a breath (two if you want, they're free) before posting in here again. This thread is useful enough that I don't want it to end up in the HoS over an episode of shit-flinging.

[General Zod]

Nobody would have cared, at least nobody capable of doing anything about it. Mocking Islam has become a running gag within the US military including, but not limited to, sprinkling bacon bits in one of Saddam's palaces, drawing pigs or portraiture of mohammed on bombs about to be dropped, and so on. Removing someone from a command position for being insulting to "terrorists" would be politically unviable, the Tea Party would have a riot and the GOP would come to his defense.

As usual you're missing the point, and you're clearly unfamiliar with the incident over soldiers flushing the Quran. If officers are going about mocking anyone they feel is an acceptable target then they're risking public relations disasters. Especially if they're going to videotape themselves doing it. If someone's in a command position why should the military trust him to not damage relations with other groups?

[Todeswind]

Nobody would have cared, at least nobody capable of doing anything about it. Mocking Islam has become a running gag within the US military including, but not limited to, sprinkling bacon bits in one of Saddam's palaces, drawing pigs or portraiture of mohammed on bombs about to be dropped, and so on. Removing someone from a command position for being insulting to "terrorists" would be politically unviable, the Tea Party would have a riot and the GOP would come to his defense.

As usual you're missing the point, and you're clearly unfamiliar with the incident over soldiers flushing the Quran. If officers are going about mocking anyone they feel is an acceptable target then they're risking public relations disasters. Especially if they're going to videotape themselves doing it. If someone's in a command position why should the military trust him to not damage relations with other groups?

Zod I'm not claiming that the discrimination against Muslims is right and I don't think its productive but I really doubt that anti-muslim sentiments would be met with the same force and fervor as it is simply not politically viable. Just because I don't believe that a racist statement agianst muslims would be treated with the same seriousness as a statement against homosexuality does not mean that I believe they are justified in making statements against either. I happen to agree with you that those people should not be in command.

True it turned out to a PR nightmare for a while, there were some riots, but when all was said and done not a whole hell of a lot happened. Gitmo was still open, still using "enhanced interrogation techniques" and, other than producing a PDF discussing how a Quran ought to be treated, pretty much the same in the long term political scheme.

[Big Phil]

Yes, as long as he only bashes minorities and the straight, WASPy majority feels warm, comfortable and cushy, it's all smiles and sunshine. Why can't those "fags", "wogs", "niggers" and "gooks" not see how their wacky antics bring warm sunrays into the miserable lives of the "not-abnormal" crewmen? Why do they have to ruin it for the poor, oppressed majority? Damn political correctness, it's all gone mad!


...and they say I know nothing about leadership. I guess it's so, I only know about good leadership.

I'm glad you recognize that you know nothing about leadership, especially since you completely missed the point that an effective leader gets results. You're defining an effective leader as someone who offends no one, which is a very strange definition of leader.

[Bakustra]

Yes, as long as he only bashes minorities and the straight, WASPy majority feels warm, comfortable and cushy, it's all smiles and sunshine. Why can't those "fags", "wogs", "niggers" and "gooks" not see how their wacky antics bring warm sunrays into the miserable lives of the "not-abnormal" crewmen? Why do they have to ruin it for the poor, oppressed majority? Damn political correctness, it's all gone mad!


...and they say I know nothing about leadership. I guess it's so, I only know about good leadership.

I'm glad you recognize that you know nothing about leadership, especially since you completely missed the point that an effective leader gets results. You're defining an effective leader as someone who offends no one, which is a very strange definition of leader.

A major problem that I see with your perspective is that Patton was relieved of command for striking shell-shocked soldiers and only continued in his career because he was so extraordinarily effective. Being a competent leader doesn't and shouldn't mean that you're free from the considerations of appropriate behavior or maintaining a healthy working environment.

[Big Phil]

Yes, as long as he only bashes minorities and the straight, WASPy majority feels warm, comfortable and cushy, it's all smiles and sunshine. Why can't those "fags", "wogs", "niggers" and "gooks" not see how their wacky antics bring warm sunrays into the miserable lives of the "not-abnormal" crewmen? Why do they have to ruin it for the poor, oppressed majority? Damn political correctness, it's all gone mad!


...and they say I know nothing about leadership. I guess it's so, I only know about good leadership.

I'm glad you recognize that you know nothing about leadership, especially since you completely missed the point that an effective leader gets results. You're defining an effective leader as someone who offends no one, which is a very strange definition of leader.

A major problem that I see with your perspective is that Patton was relieved of command for striking shell-shocked soldiers and only continued in his career because he was so extraordinarily effective. Being a competent leader doesn't and shouldn't mean that you're free from the considerations of appropriate behavior or maintaining a healthy working environment.

Of course not, and this captain has been (appropriately, I think) relieved of his command for his actions. But to argue that he's a terrible leader because he used shitty judgment and insulted a good portion of his crew is absurd. Leadership isn't a black and white, like Metahive and others seem to be arguing, where you're either good (and offend no one), or bad (if you so much as offend a single person). Captain Honor can be both an effective leader and a first class asshole who denigrates and mistreats his subordinates - he should have been punished (four years ago) for what he did, but that doesn't automatically make him a terrible officer.

[bobalot]

Why is this worthless thread still continuing? Any other government worker would have probably received:

1) a harsher punishment (especially for someone in a position of power who should be setting an example)
2) an instant dismissal

For some reason, people think the military should be immune to this.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Why is this worthless thread still continuing? Any other government worker would have probably received:

1) a harsher punishment (especially for someone in a position of power who should be setting an example)
2) an instant dismissal

For some reason, people think the military should be immune to this.

Bobalot, nobody here that has spoken out against this has done so because he is military. To clarify...had this been you in your current posting then I would speak out against it. I don't believe that anyone under these circumstances should be hit with a serious punishment.

[Kamakazie Sith]

If you deliberately risk that those under your command have "their feelings hurt" without any necessity, then yes, that should be cause for serious action.

Only if serious harm has been done.

And "having your feelings hurt" doesn't do it justice: Keep in mind that both large parts of the american public and especially the military are already quite anti-gay. Officially supporting that as an officer can easily create an enviornment of heavy discrimination -and that's more than just having ones feeling hurt by a word someone used.

At this point it does it justice just fine. You, and others have claimed severe damages but haven't supported it.

Note that that doesn't actually have to happen - he took the risk that it MIGHT happen. It's hardly some outlandish thing no one could possibly expect, it's a real possibility a good commander should be aware of.

I disagree. In order for you to punish someone with a discipline four years after a fact it does actually have to happen because your punishment is causing harm. Thus, the harm caused by the punishment must be justified by the crime.

[bobalot]

Why is this worthless thread still continuing? Any other government worker would have probably received:

1) a harsher punishment (especially for someone in a position of power who should be setting an example)
2) an instant dismissal

For some reason, people think the military should be immune to this.

Bobalot, nobody here that has spoken out against this has done so because he is military. To clarify...had this been you in your current posting then I would speak out against it. I don't believe that anyone under these circumstances should be hit with a serious punishment.

If any of 17,000 workers in my organisation had made such a tape with blatant homophobic slurs in it would have been dismissed and blacklisted for from all further government employment. The ongoing embarrassment to the government would be reason enough. It would be no different reaction than if a tape with racial slurs was discovered*. This is the standard expected of public servants, who are supposed to be reflecting the values of the broader public through their conduct.

What this guy is getting is a relatively minor punishment for acting like a dipshit.

*BTW, I suspect if this tape was of this officer hurling racist slurs, there wouldn't even be an argument in this thread about his reassignment. I guess creating an hostile environment for homosexuals is not really considered "harm". In reality, it's actually making an already hostile environment even worse because it gives the appearance of official sanction for homophobia.

[Kamakazie Sith]

If any of 17,000 workers in my organisation had made such a tape with blatant homophobic slurs in it would have been dismissed and blacklisted for from all further government employment. The ongoing embarrassment to the government would be reason enough. It would be no different reaction than if a tape with racial slurs was discovered*. This is the standard expected of public servants, who are supposed to be reflecting the values of the broader public through their conduct.

What makes you think I agree with the current procedure? I do not. I think it is unreasonable to dismiss someone and ban them from government work over a non-malicious video. If you can show me that the video was malicious in nature and was served to create a hostile work enviroment for homosexuals then I'd be on your side. However, that does not seem to be the case.

As I said before. Bigots deserve such action. People who make a mistake should be evaluated off the harm that was caused. Example - Did someone feel forced to seek reassignment due to these videos? If yes, then that is something. However, if it resulted in shoulder shrugs then I don't see how that justifies removing someone from command four years after.

What this guy is getting is a relatively minor punishment for acting like a dipshit.

Given the hulk smash approach to these issues, yes, it is minor. That's doesn't mean it is justified.

*BTW, I suspect if this tape was of this officer hurling racist slurs, there wouldn't even be an argument in this thread about his reassignment. I guess creating an hostile environment for homosexuals is not really considered "harm". In reality, it's actually making an already hostile environment even worse because it gives the appearance of official sanction for homophobia.

You suspect incorrectly. Also, you're assuming that a hostile work enviroment was created and you're exaggerating the effects of the use of the word on the crew without substantiated it. In short. Did any of what you said actually happen on the Enterprise? Did the homosexuals aboard the Enterprise feel like they were in a hostile work enviroment due to the video? Was there an increase in blantant homophobia?

[Aaron]

Why is this worthless thread still continuing? Any other government worker would have probably received:

1) a harsher punishment (especially for someone in a position of power who should be setting an example)
2) an instant dismissal

For some reason, people think the military should be immune to this.

Bobalot, nobody here that has spoken out against this has done so because he is military. To clarify...had this been you in your current posting then I would speak out against it. I don't believe that anyone under these circumstances should be hit with a serious punishment.

If any of 17,000 workers in my organisation had made such a tape with blatant homophobic slurs in it would have been dismissed and blacklisted for from all further government employment. The ongoing embarrassment to the government would be reason enough. It would be no different reaction than if a tape with racial slurs was discovered*. This is the standard expected of public servants, who are supposed to be reflecting the values of the broader public through their conduct.

What this guy is getting is a relatively minor punishment for acting like a dipshit.

*BTW, I suspect if this tape was of this officer hurling racist slurs, there wouldn't even be an argument in this thread about his reassignment. I guess creating an hostile environment for homosexuals is not really considered "harm". In reality, it's actually making an already hostile environment even worse because it gives the appearance of official sanction for homophobia.

I'm sorry but I have a hard time believing that any Western government would summarily dismiss someone from service without being obligated to offer remedial training. Would you mind posting the relevant Australian policy?

[bobalot]

I'm sorry but I have a hard time believing that any Western government would summarily dismiss someone from service without being obligated to offer remedial training. Would you mind posting the relevant Australian policy?

Link - Page 4 - Introduction

...will take action in relation to any breach of the Code. For employees such action may range from performance counselling to disciplinary action (including dismissal).

I have worked there for years and I know how these punishments go and I have seen people get dismissed. An embarrassing video with homophobic slurs would be an instant dismissal because it would embarrass the government and offend the public. Something like verbally abusing another employee (which resulted in a complaint) would result probably in a less harsh punishment (depending on the employee's history etc).

The age of "safe" public sector jobs where people could act like douchenozzles and never get fired is over. Ever since the corruption scandals from of the early 2000's, it has been pretty much zero tolerance on employee conduct.

[Aaron]

Fair enough. Thanks for posting that.