I agree with you about the luck of the draw as far as to the troops that you get, and the chain of command definitely looks at the wrong things when it comes to those kinds of issues, especially since everyone above the rank of PFC lives off post, and you have very little control over what they do in their downtime. A lot of the problems that we have are based on the radically changing demographics of the force. A much larger percentage of troops were single, and used to live in barracks, where the chain of command could exercise more control over their activities. We still expect commanders to maintain good order and discipline when the troops are off duty, but how is that supposed to happen when the troops are scattered to the winds at the end of the duty day? We've made all kinds of changes to the army, without looking at the consequences. For example, we have a zero-tolerance attitude towards DUI, as well as drinking on government property, but when our squadron had its own O Club and NCO club, we didn't have to worry about DUIs because I could make sure that my troops had designated drivers. Eliminating those clubs eliminated a lot of control that officers had over their Soldiers. Raising the drinking age on post simply meant that younger troops would find places to drink where they couldn't be seen, and where I couldn't keep them out of trouble. It was a change that looked good on paper, but had real world implications that the chair warming pogues didn't grasp.
Talk about PC lemmings. Vassar has become an intellectual sinkhole of leftist indoctrination. Here's part of guest column about it from the campus newspaper:
The recurring theme here is diversity, diversity and more diversity. But, is Vassar’s culture truly this open-minded? Is Vassar College actually some sort of utopian society in which tolerance is exhibited toward all of its residents?
To answer these questions, let’s consider an average Political Science course in Rockefeller Hall which discusses certain aspects of domestic policy in the United States and the nature of political differences between Democrats and Republicans, particularly contemporary politicians at the federal level (say, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney). Oftentimes, a class on Monday will kick off with a recap of political events and news from the weekend, which can include a statement released by the Romney campaign or a policy proposal by the Obama administration. It’s up to the professor and students to collectively analyze these happenings. As the professor opens up the floor, students exhibit their eagerness to weigh in on the day-to-day back-and-forth between Democrats and Republicans, quickly pointing out a gaffe by Mitt Romney’s campaign team or divulging a snideremark about something that Paul Ryan said three weeks ago to an insignificant news station. The classroom, or at least the resounding liberal majority, then erupts in laughter. In response to the students’ jabs at the Republican Party, the professor follows up with a sarcastic comment of his or her own, revealing a deep urge to lash out at “misguided” conservatives nationwide.
Laughing and snickering is soon compounded by more and more laughing and snickering.
With the perfect storm of criticism by the participation-happy students and all-too-eager professor, the classroom transforms into a house of jibes and taunts at the expense of Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Newt Gingrich, their families, Ronald Reagan’s policies from 1980, and some random Republican candidate from 1916. In extreme cases, the students begin to resemble a pack of wolves, lunging at the first sight of Republican weakness. When a conservative falters, they are always there to pounce with their words.
If you knew nothing about the United States’ political history since the 18th century and attended the start of one of these Political Science classes, you would be led to believe that almost everyone in the U.S. is a registered Democrat.
If the average Political Science course at Vassar served as a model of the nation’s electoral landscape as a whole, you would assume that almost every American leans to the left when it comes to social issues and economic policy. According to Vassar’s model, an overwhelming majority of Americans support gay marriage, abortion, and expansionary fiscal policies. Using the typical professor and batch of students in a Rocky classroom as the adequate sample size, American society becomes one in which conservatives are ridiculed and shunned. Anything right of center is construed as fundamentally wrong and inexplicable.
So, does this fit the definition of diversity?
Diversity, diversity, and more diversity should be Vassar’s motto by now, but this perception of Vassar College as some sort of utopian society is just that. It is merely perception, falling far short of reality.
If you take into consideration the fact that the average Political Science course described above may contain a conservative or three (that’s probably a reach), any notions of open-mindedness, tolerance, and diversity seem downright absurd. If a registered Republican is confronted with a classroom full of liberal college students, potentially ranging from left-leaning centrists to passionate Marxists, all of whom impatiently wait in line to criticize the “other,” then Vassar College seems to failin its promotion of diversity. A student like this looks more like a bullied non-athlete being hounded by a rowdy group of high school football players than an enthusiastic learner in an accepting, tolerant academic setting.
In truth, the Political Science department may very well be home to some of the most blatant acts of closed-mindedness on Vassar College’s historic campus. Conservatives are often alienated and made to feel like unintelligent nobodies, with the attacks being led by professors and students in unison. If you are in any way leaning to the right,socially or fiscally, and would consider voting for a candidate like Mitt Romney, then you will find yourself on the fringes of the bubble.
For the Vassar conservative, the phrases “being included” or “being a part of” often seem foreign and unfamiliar.
What will other students even think of me after reading this piece? It’s funny that I have to ponder this question at an academic institution that prides itself on the diversity of its student body and the open-mindedness at the core of its social makeup. Where’s the diversity in Rockefeller Hall? Forgive me, but I can’t seem to find it.
Would you send a kid into that kind of environment? The only differences between what's described there and the Vietnamese reeducation camps are the tuition and the barbed wire.
I would be equally happy if she graduated MIT with an engineering or computer science degree.
Real sciences don't count derisive laughter as participation: they have labs.