What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

West Point Controversy, Fair or Foul? (1 Viewer)

fantasycurse42

Footballguy Jr.
http://m.nydailynews.com/news/national/photo-black-west-point-cadets-raising-fists-controversy-article-1.2626836

A photo of 16 black West Point cadets raising their fists is causing controversy, with many offended viewers linking the image to supporting the “Black Lives Matter” movement.

The image would violate West Point’s policies against participating in political acts or movements while in uniform, if the cadets' raised fists represent support for the activist group.
Then this dude, former soldier John Butk has this to say http://www.inthearenafitness.com/index.php/racism-within-west-point

-A member of the Armed Forces on active duty may:
4.1.1.3. Join a partisan or nonpartisan political club and attend its meetings when NOT iN uniform, subject to the restrictions of subparagraph 4.1.2.4. (See DoD Instruction 1334.1 (Reference (c).)

-A member of the Armed forces shall not:
-4.1.2.12. Display a partisan political sign, poster, banner, or similar device visible to the public at one’s residence on a military installation, even if that residence is part of a privatized housing development.

The ladies before you are class seniors and have been making their voices heard more and more on an app called “Yik Yak” where users are kept anonymous, yet no one dares speak up in public against them due to them being accused of being racist and risk being expelled from the academy from hurting someone's feelings.
This is pretty interesting stuff. Students at West Point are held to some really high standards, so if they are violating the rules, does kicking out a group of seniors right before graduation fit the crime?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's out of bounds but nothing is more feared in the DoD, not ISIS, not Al-Qaeda...than a black female soldier. 

 
It's out of bounds but nothing is more feared in the DoD, not ISIS, not Al-Qaeda...than a black female soldier. 
The punishment feels a little extreme if it is expulsion.

eta: I don't know much about the military though, so I don't know what type of wiggle room this stuff has.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Expulsion?  Nah.  They should do punishment the typical way - an all night marching and pushup exercise.

 
Maybe, but the rules are very clear at the military academies.  Free tuition, free books, Ivy League education.  You have to follow the rules to get all that, pretty simple math IMO. 
Well that sucks for them. I guess if they're all West Point students though they're pretty bright, so they really ####ed this one up. Kinda feel bad for someone getting the boot from West Point weeks before graduation after four rigorous years on something like this... Although, I'm sure others have gotten the boot on similar infractions of a momentary lapse of judgement, regardless of how small it might've been.

 
Maybe, but the rules are very clear at the military academies.  Free tuition, free books, Ivy League education.  You have to follow the rules to get all that, pretty simple math IMO. 
Now if they played football instead of getting shot at we would say they are being taken advantage of...

 
Maybe, but the rules are very clear at the military academies.  Free tuition, free books, Ivy League education.  You have to follow the rules to get all that, pretty simple math IMO. 
Now if they played football instead of getting shot at we would say they are being taken advantage of...
I'm not sure what this means.  In general athletes enjoy no advantage over their peers at the academies.  Guys like Keenan Reynolds, sure but that's nature.  But at the academies all of these people are on some sort of team or squad, that's the nature of the beast.  The guy sitting next to you in class at the academies doesn't giuve a #### what sport you play, that's why it's probably the best educational experience in these United States. 

 
I'm not sure what this means.  In general athletes enjoy no advantage over their peers at the academies.  Guys like Keenan Reynolds, sure but that's nature.  But at the academies all of these people are on some sort of team or squad, that's the nature of the beast.  The guy sitting next to you in class at the academies doesn't giuve a #### what sport you play, that's why it's probably the best educational experience in these United States. 
I thought you might read it that way.  On the drive home from work once of the ESPN guys was railing on about how the ADs and NCAA are making slaves of the athletes (all colleges) and taking advantage of them.

My point was two types of thoughts regarding free books, tuition, room/board...

1) Serve your country and maybe get shot at - you need to follow "the man's" rules.

2) Play a really fun sport and maybe get to earn millions - you are being taken advantage of by "the man".

 
Posted 7 hours ago (edited) · Report post

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/national/photo-black-west-point-cadets-raising-fists-controversy-article-1.2626836

A photo of 16 black West Point cadets raising their fists is causing controversy, with many offended viewers linking the image to supporting the “Black Lives Matter” movement.

The image would violate West Point’s policies against participating in political acts or movements while in uniform, if the cadets' raised fists represent support for the activist group.
Then this dude, former soldier John Butk has this to say http://www.inthearenafitness.com/index.php/racism-within-west-point

-A member of the Armed Forces on active duty may:
4.1.1.3. Join a partisan or nonpartisan political club and attend its meetings when NOT iN uniform, subject to the restrictions of subparagraph 4.1.2.4. (See DoD Instruction 1334.1 (Reference (c).)

-A member of the Armed forces shall not:
-4.1.2.12. Display a partisan political sign, poster, banner, or similar device visible to the public at one’s residence on a military installation, even if that residence is part of a privatized housing development.

The ladies before you are class seniors and have been making their voices heard more and more on an app called “Yik Yak” where users are kept anonymous, yet no one dares speak up in public against them due to them being accused of being racist and risk being expelled from the academy from hurting someone's feelings.
This is pretty interesting stuff. Students at West Point are held to some really high standards, so if they are violating the rules, does kicking out a group of seniors right before graduation fit the crime?

Edited 7 hours ago by fantasycurse42

 Like this


I have no idea who John Burk is, but he lost me when: (1) he argues that they should have been punished for anonymous posts; and (2) he actually uses the phrase "per say".

Also, a serious question for someone (maybe DD) who knows, because I'm too lazy to research: What qualifies as a "political" sign?  Is taking a position on a social issue "political"? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting.

Folks are SPECULATING that this may be solidarity with the BLM movement.  They do not know, they speculate.  One could easily speculate there are other reasons for the raised fist.  Now me, I remember the 60's, I remember olympic podiums and movements in the streets.  I remember black power, black panthers, and others.  Certainly I can, therefore, understand the reasonableness behind the speculation.   Further, I understand the concept of appearances of impropriety, whether actual impropriety exists or can be proven.  Some of us sign up for positions where we know we can be judged on such.  Doing so voluntarily we can hardly complain when the standard is applied.

Here's the thing, though.  A raised fist is, in my view, an inherently ambiguous symbol in and of itself.  It may be defiance, it may be solidarity with a particular movement, or it also, and not infrequently, is a sign of victory.  Could one speculate that they are representing their victory over an imposing program of education.  Victory that they made it through four long and hard years.  I suppose that they could.  The message may not be what has been proposed, but one of celebration.  I would submit one could find pictures of our military personnel showing raised fists after military battles and after athletic victory.

Now I know some say the message is clarified if one references some social media posts.  I say exercise caution.  We humans are not single issue creatures.  We are capable of holding, at the same time, a multiplicity of interests and motivations. It is possible the one has nothing to do with the other, at least for some in the picture.

Here's my hope.  If the picture was one expressing solidarity with the BLM movement I would hope the persons in the picture will have the conviction of their beliefs and will stand forward and proclaim it so, forthrightly and courageously.  Then the issue can be well joined, but among the analysis in determining what to do will be that the young ladies were forthright and courageous.  To be heard one must speak clearly and must own the responsibility of one's words.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The whole point of keeping things like this out of the chain of command is to promote unity in the service and units. It really doesn't matter to me whether it was about the BLM or not- it is divisive and needs to be corrected. That being said, I would hate to see these young women be kicked out of the academy because of a mistake like this. I don't see any reason, on it's own, that this should end a persons career.

 
If these cadets were able to navigate the rigors of the West Point education program for the full four year term then kicking them out right at the finish line weakens the military for what amounts to be a correctable offense.  As was noted up thread, a simple call in to the office for some reeducation on what it means to be a leader in this man's military should be sufficient and allows those in the picture the opportunity to make an informed choice as to whether they want to continue their career at their employers discretion or whether they want to throw it all away in solidarity with their cause. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Myself, I turned down the opportunity to pursue an Annapolis appointment precisely because I knew I lacked the discipline and commitment to abide by their rules and expectations.  I sometimes wonder how my life might have turned out had I had the discipline and maturity to pursue that path.  No guarantee I would have been admitted, but being a national merit scholar and one of the top sailors in the country, with a Senator asking whether I would want his sponsorship, it seems possible I would have been admitted.  A H.S. classmate of mine who graduated lower in our class, though still quite high, and who supplemented his application with some marksmanship awards from various youth competitions did get admitted and attended, and graduated.  He was much more straight-laced and disciplined than was I. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The whole point of keeping things like this out of the chain of command is to promote unity in the service and units. It really doesn't matter to me whether it was about the BLM or not- it is divisive and needs to be corrected. That being said, I would hate to see these young women be kicked out of the academy because of a mistake like this. I don't see any reason, on it's own, that this should end a persons career.
I agree, but I'm not in the military and never have been - they don't play by the same rules as you and I... We might be able to circumvent some rules at our jobs and not face harsh consequences, I don't get the sense that they can, regardless of how minor and this appears rather minor to me.

DD knows military - his quote:

Maybe, but the rules are very clear at the military academies.  Free tuition, free books, Ivy League education.  You have to follow the rules to get all that, pretty simple math IMO. 
These people at West Point are held to the highest standards. I'd guarantee he has seen people get the boot for what we would consider small inconsequential infractions - West Point is one of the most elite institutions in the country (they have a 9% acceptance rate, to give that context, MIT has an 8% acceptance rate), if they knowingly broke the rules (and we don't know this, but I'm sure they'll get to the bottom of it) then they need to accept the punishments as they're pretty cut and dry. Almost everyone who attends one of these elite academies is very intelligent, they all need to adhere to these standards - that is one of factors that keeps these places so elite. I feel bad for the girls, I really do, but in regards to keeping our most prestigious military academies at the top, they have strict rules in place and nobody is allowed to bend or break them.  

 
I agree, but I'm not in the military and never have been - they don't play by the same rules as you and I... We might be able to circumvent some rules at our jobs and not face harsh consequences, I don't get the sense that they can, regardless of how minor and this appears rather minor to me.

DD knows military - his quote:

These people at West Point are held to the highest standards. I'd guarantee he has seen people get the boot for what we would consider small inconsequential infractions - West Point is one of the most elite institutions in the country (they have a 9% acceptance rate, to give that context, MIT has an 8% acceptance rate), if they knowingly broke the rules (and we don't know this, but I'm sure they'll get to the bottom of it) then they need to accept the punishments as they're pretty cut and dry. Almost everyone who attends one of these elite academies is very intelligent, they all need to adhere to these standards - that is one of factors that keeps these places so elite. I feel bad for the girls, I really do, but in regards to keeping our most prestigious military academies at the top, they have strict rules in place and nobody is allowed to bend or break them.  
They knew the rules. That is not in question. If they didn't know the rules that is much more egregious to me as it shows gross incompetence. They could be an argument that they did not think it was political- and I could understand that. Sure there is a lot of political links to that but at it's core it has always been a sign of pride/solidarity among AA. For me, I still think that it violates the spirit of the rule if not the actual rule (which is debatable).

I am just really sick of the "I disagree with this person- so I must crush them!" that our society has turned into. We, as a nation, have already invested in these young women. I would love to see more young women like them to be leaders in the military and after their military careers in our society. I think there is a place for understanding and grace- even in the military. I am further not saying that there is no punishment but I don't think it also needs to be automatic release from the academy.

 
Myself, I turned down the opportunity to pursue an Annapolis appointment precisely because I knew I lacked the discipline and commitment to abide by their rules and expectations.  I sometimes wonder how my life might have turned out had I had the discipline and maturity to pursue that path.  No guarantee I would have been admitted, but being a national merit scholar and one of the top sailors in the country, with a Senator asking whether I would want his sponsorship, it seems possible I would have been admitted.  A H.S. classmate of mine who graduated lower in our class, though still quite high, and who supplemented his application with some marksmanship awards from various youth competitions did get admitted and attended, and graduated.  He was much more straight-laced and disciplined than was I. 
Same here.  I turned down Annapolis for the exact same reasons.  At the time I was very Liberal - during the height of the Reagan Revolution - and I knew it would be an issue.  My Dad, a WWII vet who was on the Missouri and was a Guidance Counselor who placed a ton of kids at the Academy, was so disappointed.  Still bothers me to this day.  And the ultimate irony and sat in the wound is that I eventually became strongly Conservative.

As for this issue, I agree with what a lot of people have already said.  The punishment here doesn't fit the crime.  Expulsion a week before graduation is way too harsh.

 
It is possible to be liberal and still be a good officer in the military.  My BIL fits that bill nicely and he makes no bones about his political leanings when engaged in a discussion on the issues.

 
They knew the rules. That is not in question. If they didn't know the rules that is much more egregious to me as it shows gross incompetence. They could be an argument that they did not think it was political- and I could understand that. Sure there is a lot of political links to that but at it's core it has always been a sign of pride/solidarity among AA. For me, I still think that it violates the spirit of the rule if not the actual rule (which is debatable).

I am just really sick of the "I disagree with this person- so I must crush them!" that our society has turned into. We, as a nation, have already invested in these young women. I would love to see more young women like them to be leaders in the military and after their military careers in our society. I think there is a place for understanding and grace- even in the military. I am further not saying that there is no punishment but I don't think it also needs to be automatic release from the academy.
I agree with most of this, but I'm an outsider and my opinion is that of regular Joe Citizen, I don't know the intricacies of how West Point operates. I'd be willing to bet that there are a handful of seniors who get the boot every year on what I'd consider a ridiculous infraction. 

What I do know for certain is that there is a zero percent chance I could go four years at West Point without getting kicked out.

 
It is possible to be liberal and still be a good officer in the military.  My BIL fits that bill nicely and he makes no bones about his political leanings when engaged in a discussion on the issues.
As I understand it, while being liberal may not be an issue (and should not in an of itself, and depending what one means by the phrase) I understand that being a drunken stoner with a taste for hallucinogens and a disdain for authority and tradition is not a profile for success at the service academies, well, the Air Force Academy aside.

 
As I understand it, while being liberal may not be an issue (and should not in an of itself, and depending what one means by the phrase) I understand that being a drunken stoner with a taste for hallucinogens and a disdain for authority and tradition is not a profile for success at the service academies, well, the Air Force Academy aside.
Was more responding to Higgs but I get where you're coming from.  If you don't fancy be ordered about then I'm thinking the military life may not be to your liking.

 
Was more responding to Higgs but I get where you're coming from.  If you don't fancy be ordered about then I'm thinking the military life may not be to your liking.
At the time I indulged myself far too much to appreciate that lifestyle.  It was an opportunity lost due to immaturity.

 
It is possible to be liberal and still be a good officer in the military.  My BIL fits that bill nicely and he makes no bones about his political leanings when engaged in a discussion on the issues.
The military obviously leans heavily to the right but there are plenty of left leaning military out there. Some noteworthy top leadership in recent years have been left of center.

 
I hate contemplating all the opportunities I squandered due in main to immaturity.  I grew up way too late for a lot of things but I've managed to make my way in spite of my earlier self so I do take pride in over coming adversity of my own making.

 
Myself, I turned down the opportunity to pursue an Annapolis appointment precisely because I knew I lacked the discipline and commitment to abide by their rules and expectations.  I sometimes wonder how my life might have turned out had I had the discipline and maturity to pursue that path.  No guarantee I would have been admitted, but being a national merit scholar and one of the top sailors in the country, with a Senator asking whether I would want his sponsorship, it seems possible I would have been admitted.  A H.S. classmate of mine who graduated lower in our class, though still quite high, and who supplemented his application with some marksmanship awards from various youth competitions did get admitted and attended, and graduated.  He was much more straight-laced and disciplined than was I. 
Same here.  I turned down Annapolis for the exact same reasons.  At the time I was very Liberal - during the height of the Reagan Revolution - and I knew it would be an issue.  My Dad, a WWII vet who was on the Missouri and was a Guidance Counselor who placed a ton of kids at the Academy, was so disappointed.  Still bothers me to this day.  And the ultimate irony and sat in the wound is that I eventually became strongly Conservative.

As for this issue, I agree with what a lot of people have already said.  The punishment here doesn't fit the crime.  Expulsion a week before graduation is way too harsh.
Wow, that makes three of us.  An acquaintance who finished behind me in the high school class rankings and had fewer extracurriculars was admitted.  He washed out in the third year and ending up transferring to the college I did attend.  He said it was the total suck but obviously was biased.  I wasn't looking forward to being ordered around and the thought of living on a ship repulsed me.  I was much more interested in the Air Force academy but didn't get a sniff of the place as I recall.  May have been vision related.  May have been tougher entrance requirements.

 
Wow, that makes three of us.  An acquaintance who finished behind me in the high school class rankings and had fewer extracurriculars was admitted.  He washed out in the third year and ending up transferring to the college I did attend.  He said it was the total suck but obviously was biased.  I wasn't looking forward to being ordered around and the thought of living on a ship repulsed me.  I was much more interested in the Air Force academy but didn't get a sniff of the place as I recall.  May have been vision related.  May have been tougher entrance requirements.
Same here - I got bounced from the Air Force because of vision.  You really need to have hawk eyes to get into that place.  I went down to Annapolis for the recruit program in the summer before my Senior year.  You spend a week there getting the full treatment of what life is like.  It was pretty rough.  I grew up in a family of 7 and my table manners weren't so hot.  It was a brutal every single dinner at the Academy.  Those guys were all over me and it was borderline abusive.  One of the guys pulled me aside at the end of the week and gave me kudos for the way I handled myself, which meant a lot, but that experience may have been the determining factor in my decision not to go there.  In hindsight I think I probably would have benefited greatly from the discipline, because I went off the rails in college with a lot of bad behaviors that affected the rest of my life.  Oh well, c'est la vie.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BassNBrew said:
I thought you might read it that way.  On the drive home from work once of the ESPN guys was railing on about how the ADs and NCAA are making slaves of the athletes (all colleges) and taking advantage of them.

My point was two types of thoughts regarding free books, tuition, room/board...

1) Serve your country and maybe get shot at - you need to follow "the man's" rules.

2) Play a really fun sport and maybe get to earn millions - you are being taken advantage of by "the man".
You're bringing some weak stuff in this thread.

 
Chadstroma said:
They knew the rules. That is not in question. If they didn't know the rules that is much more egregious to me as it shows gross incompetence. They could be an argument that they did not think it was political- and I could understand that. Sure there is a lot of political links to that but at it's core it has always been a sign of pride/solidarity among AA. For me, I still think that it violates the spirit of the rule if not the actual rule (which is debatable).

I am just really sick of the "I disagree with this person- so I must crush them!" that our society has turned into. We, as a nation, have already invested in these young women. I would love to see more young women like them to be leaders in the military and after their military careers in our society. I think there is a place for understanding and grace- even in the military. I am further not saying that there is no punishment but I don't think it also needs to be automatic release from the academy.
agreed.

It used to be very common for Soldiers, including junior officers, to make mistakes, get blasted on the spot and learn from their mistakes.  Many senior officers and Noncoms would not be where they are if they weren't allowed to make mistakes.  Our military is currently downsizing so many good officers and Soldiers are getting booted, and it's a tough question of who to cut - any form of misconduct can make the decision easier. 

The fact that a decision to expel these cadets would cut roughly 10% of the graduating female (and black) cadets will be considered.  I don't know the actual demographics, but it's plausible that these 16 cadets encompass all of the graduating black females.  That would be huge. 

Frankly, I doubt they get expelled even if the investigation shows they knowingly violated the policy. 

 
They could be in a serious world of hurt. If I recall correctly, certain expulsions can led to the expectation of repaying the cost of your education. So they could possibly lose more than a commission. But things have changed over the years, so I don't know anymore.

 
Don't look back with regret.

These kids should not be expelled, they should be run into the ground to the point of puking, which used to be SOP.

 
Chadstroma said:
They knew the rules. That is not in question. If they didn't know the rules that is much more egregious to me as it shows gross incompetence. They could be an argument that they did not think it was political- and I could understand that. Sure there is a lot of political links to that but at it's core it has always been a sign of pride/solidarity among AA. For me, I still think that it violates the spirit of the rule if not the actual rule (which is debatable).

I am just really sick of the "I disagree with this person- so I must crush them!" that our society has turned into. We, as a nation, have already invested in these young women. I would love to see more young women like them to be leaders in the military and after their military careers in our society. I think there is a place for understanding and grace- even in the military. I am further not saying that there is no punishment but I don't think it also needs to be automatic release from the academy.
Millennial? 

 
I am just really sick of the "I disagree with this person- so I must crush them!" that our society has turned into. We, as a nation, have already invested in these young women. I would love to see more young women like them to be leaders in the military and after their military careers in our society. I think there is a place for understanding and grace- even in the military. I am further not saying that there is no punishment but I don't think it also needs to be automatic release from the academy.

Yes, that was a question. You do understand this is the elite of the elite within the military.  There is no room for ah, lets give them a pass.  This is much different from every day life and, I would wager, much different than even standard military life.  My $.02.

 
They could be in a serious world of hurt. If I recall correctly, certain expulsions can led to the expectation of repaying the cost of your education. So they could possibly lose more than a commission. But things have changed over the years, so I don't know anymore.
If they're expelled for misconduct and unable to serve their commitment, they will owe a lot of money.  

 
I am just really sick of the "I disagree with this person- so I must crush them!" that our society has turned into. We, as a nation, have already invested in these young women. I would love to see more young women like them to be leaders in the military and after their military careers in our society. I think there is a place for understanding and grace- even in the military. I am further not saying that there is no punishment but I don't think it also needs to be automatic release from the academy.

Yes, that was a question. You do understand this is the elite of the elite within the military.  There is no room for ah, lets give them a pass.  This is much different from every day life and, I would wager, much different than even standard military life.  My $.02.
On one hand, sure. 

On the other, the army has invested a lot of time and money into training these cadets.  Sure they should know better but they're also college kids.  The commandant will consider whether this incident means they're unable to serve as expected.  It's a tough choice but I suspect (really just an educated guess) that these individuals will not be expelled. 

You have to consider that this group has seen a lot of changes during their time at the academy.  IIRC tavon Martin was shot just before or as they entered, combat jobs previously off limits are now open to them. Women are making it through ranger school. 

The BLM movement has grown, we're about to close the chapter on the first black president and will (probably) either have a woman or a bigot in office next. In short, this group lived in the academy during a time of massive change. The symbol is one of solidarity, and they've presumably shown solidarity through their tenure at west point.  

If this is the first infraction for these cadets, the first time they've made a political statement, this is a mostly understandable mistake from which they can learn.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The 16 black female cadets who posed for a photo with their fists raised and sparked a nationwide debate will face no punitive action.

The 16 black female cadets who posed for a photo with their fists raised and sparked a nationwide debate will face no punitive action, West Point officials announced Tuesday. The women will, however, receive additional counseling prior to graduating this month.

The image was taken April 26 during an “Old Corps” photo shoot, a tradition where seniors strike serious poses reminiscent of early 19th Century cadets who attended the U.S. Military Academy.

After the photo went viral online, the women faced accusations they were trying to make a political statement in uniform and were violating Defense Department rules. Some noted that raised fists are associated with Black Lives Matter, the grassroots organization that seeks to expose police brutality. Others saw it as an imitation of Beyonce's nod to the Black Panthers during her Super Bowl performance.

Many others vehemently defended the cadets, arguing the photo was nothing more than a display of triumph and pride.

The academy opened an investigation on April 28 and interviewed the cadets involved as well as the photographer. There was no evidence these cadets intended to make a political statement, according to a memo that summarizes the inquiry's findings. The investigator also concluded there were no violations of Defense Department Directive 1344.10, which spells out the rules for service members engaging in political activities. Instead the photo was deemed a "spur of the moment" pose with the intent,as one cadet put it, to "showcase the awesome black women in our class."

Even so, the photo pose was "inappropriate," according to the major who conducted the official inquiry.

West Point Superintendent Lt. Gen. Robert Caslen agreed.

"While the inquiry did not find that these cadets violated a policy or regulation, it did determine that they demonstrated a lapse of awareness in how symbols and gestures can be misinterpreted and cause division," Caslen wrote in a letter Tuesday to the Corps of Cadets. "The impact of this photo, regardless of its intent, is evident. It is unfortunate that this perception brought attention to our Alma Mater for all the wrong reasons."

Based on the inquiry, some of the cadets involved knew what they were doing could prove incendiary.

Two cadets reportedly proposed the "raised fist" stance during the shoot and two others immediately expressed concern, according to the investigator. They asked, "Are we really doing this?"

A cadet defended the photo, telling the other women, "This isn't an [equal opportunity] violation and we won't get in trouble for it." The cadet's name is redacted in the report.

There were nine photos taken during the shoot and three poses, referred to as "Serious," "Raised Fist" and "Silly" in the report.

One consequence

Prior to their graduation, all 16 cadets will receive additional instruction from the academy's Commandant, Caslen said.

"As members of the Profession of Arms, we are held to a higher standard, where our actions are constantly observed and scrutinized in the public domain," he said. "We all must understand that a symbol or gesture that one group of people may find harmless may offend others."

Caslen did note, however, that clenched-fists have been used in other ways at West Point in the past year as a display of pride for the Army and nation.

"For instance, last July, the class of 2019 spontaneously raised their fist in pride upon the playing of the Army Strong song during the Fourth of July Concert," he wrote in his letter. "Last December, on the night before the Army-Navy game, I joined hundreds of staff and graduates in raising our fist in support of the Army football team during the Army-Navy pep rally video. The time, place and manner of a symbol can also hold significant meaning and influence perception."

The investigator recommended no delays to the women's May 21 graduation, provided "they display an understanding of how their actions as Cadets and future Officers were inappropriate, at the conclusion of the instruction."

This controversy could complicate the "Old Corps" photo tradition.

"I recommend all future 'Old Corps' photographs be reviewed by the West Point public affairs office prior to release to any Cadet or outside agency," the investigator wrote in his memo.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top