Google

Thursday, April 12, 2012

The Honor Code Is Cracking.

There are cracks in the honor Code. The Air Force Academy's honor system appears to be losing its hold on the nation's future officers.

Can honor be taught? Can you test for it? Can you detect when it's been forsaken?

For Fred Malmstrom, Air Force Academy Class of '64, the answers to those questions are: yes, yes, and if you want to.

Malmstrom is a psychologist, researcher and historian of his alma mater's falls from grace. He has found the academy — where, until last week, he's served as an unpaid visiting scholar for honor since 1999 — doesn't seem interested in his documentation of a decline in cadets' respect for the honor code and an increase in infractions.

Academy officials have twice told the Independent that they weren't familiar with Malmstrom's work. Yet Malmstrom says that in early March, officials wanted to "clear" his findings prior to his presenting them at an upcoming conference.

Based on thousands of anonymous surveys filled out by graduates of the AFA, the U.S. Military Academy (West Point) and the Naval Academy between 1959 and 2010, Malmstrom has found that each academy is seeing an increase in alums who say they violated the code and didn't get caught. But it's particularly steep at the Air Force Academy, where nearly two-thirds of surveyed cadets who graduated between 2007 and 2010 say they violated the code.

Now, another barometer has delivered more bad news. The Defining Issues Test, a scientific yardstick for measuring moral thinking, has found no significant difference in the highest level of moral reasoning between academy seniors and seniors at other colleges and universities. It's also found that one in four members of the Class of 2010 regressed to lower levels of ethical decision-making while at the academy, despite 60 hours of honor and character development training.

All at an institution where taxpayers pay more than $400,000 per graduate to create "leaders of character."

Only one academy program was shown to improve cadets' DIT scores — the Scholars Program, which includes about 200 cadets or about 5 percent of the Cadet Wing, who are chosen as the peak academic performers and given intense instruction from the most qualified professors. They also attend off-campus seminars and travel internationally, unlike other cadets.

Academy officials say it's too early to fully understand why cadets didn't do better on the DIT. And, they say, it's not a reflection on the honor system. In a prepared statement in response to questions, Academy Superintendent Lt. Gen. Michael Gould says the academy is "constantly reviewing" the honor program.

"At the moment, it appears that we have shown a steady decline in both honor cases and convictions since 2005," he says. "As always, we will continue to review the data to identify ways we can improve our processes."

Gould's comment actually conflicts with honor data provided by the academy, which shows cases and convictions went up in 2006-07 before falling in the next two years, going up again in 2009-10 and then declining.

Asked about the discrepancy, academy spokesman Meade Warthen says in an e-mail, "The trend averages for both cases and violations over the span of 7½ years is on a downward slope."

Honor forsaken

All three military academies stress honor as the keystone in developing national leaders of character. The Air Force Academy's code states: "We will not lie, steal or cheat, nor tolerate among us anyone who does."

Those words are bolted over the entrance to the academy's terrazzo, a route I take on a snowy February day to hear academy leaders talk about character and the honor code. After being escorted to a conference room, I am seated at the head of the table — a spot traditionally reserved for the highest-ranking officer in the room. In this case, it's Col. Joseph Sanders, director and permanent professor at the academy's Center for Character and Leadership Development.

He and his staff mount a PowerPoint presentation, prepared just for me, giving an overview of the system. It also features bar charts of the past 10 years of honor code violations that illustrate the ups and downs of trying to keep cadets honest.

In 2002-03 and 2003-04, when the academy's sexual assault scandal was in full swing, violations weren't exceptionally high, 76 and 66, respectively. (The honor code doesn't deal with crimes; those are handled through the Uniform Code of Military Justice.)

Then came 2004-05, when violations hit 94, due largely to a freshman cheating investigation. Seven cadets resigned voluntarily, and another 19 were found to have violated the code. The academy never disclosed how many were disenrolled.

In 2006-07, violations peaked with 115. Again, freshmen were caught cheating: 27 admitted to it, including 25 athletes; 17 had been found in violation of the honor code as of March 15, 2007. No update is available even five years later.

As those incidents suggest, cheating is the biggest identified problem: Of the 423 violations substantiated between fall 2006 and January 2012, 51 percent were for cheating. Another 44 percent were for lying, 3 percent for stealing, and 2 percent for tolerating others who violated the code.

Sanders' staff explains that the honor system, premised on peer pressure, is run by 182 cadets who serve on panels that hear cases and determine if violations have occurred. If so, another cadet panel, drawn from the 182, recommends punishment to the commandant, who decides what sanction to impose. Only the superintendent decides whether a cadet is kicked out.

If a cadet admits to a violation, a cadet panel reviews the case and recommends action to the commandant. One possible avenue is six months' remediation, which requires the cadet to keep a journal, to be counseled by mentors and peers, and to undergo a review for release from probation.

"We want to make sure the cadets going through those programs are fixing their character flaws that led to them having an honor violation in the first place," says Wing Honor Chairperson Sean Knowles, a senior, "and making sure they don't fall into the pitfalls or pressures they were exposed to during their violation. We want to make sure they're ready to face those kind of ethical moral challenges and dilemmas that officership inevitably will bring."

Knowles speaks well of remediation, because he went through it himself after he self-reported lying about the source of alcohol he obtained at the end of his freshman year. "There was a group of us who lied," he says. "It got to the point it was too stressful and my conscience weighed on me, and we all decided to admit."

He hasn't broken the honor code since, he says, because his probation was so effective.

"I was given a senior mentor, a retired major general from the class of 1959," Knowles says. "He provided the grandfatherly wisdom — 'Been there, done that.' You had your AOC [Air Officer Commanding] to get mentored with. You have peer counseling to discuss everything, too. You have the journaling process as well.

"A lot of it is personal soul-searching. It gets back to self-awareness. We like to say the people we accept back into the Cadet Wing aren't the same ones who violated the honor code in the first place."

Sanders says the honor system works because cadets "own" it. "There's a sense of pride at being at an institution with an honor code," he says. "That's an indication that we're doing something right."

But the academy can't provide data to show the honor code is a success other than violations numbers, which show a decline from 72 in 2009-10 to 34 through Feb. 2 this year. And the latest drug investigation (see "A history of headlines") could reverse that trend.

Honor division director Lt. Col. Bryan Huntley speaks of an honor survey given to cadets every two years, but the academy has refused to release the most recent completed survey, from 2005-07. In 2009, the academy skipped it, academy spokesman Lt. Col. John Bryan says in an e-mail. Bryan says the academy is withholding the 2005-07 survey outcome until it's integrated into a report with the 2011 results this summer.

"All indications are they show our programs and training/education are better," he says, "and we plan on releasing those and believe it will give a better picture of our hard work and efforts — showing just 05/07 wouldn't give a current, accurate picture of what's happening today."

Surveying for character

Malmstrom, a snowy-haired 72-year-old who carries his papers in a beat-up canvas satchel, came through the academy's Preparatory School when it was a pipeline for promising enlisted personnel. It's since also become a staging area for athletes and students who need additional study and training to succeed at the academy.

After graduating, Malmstrom flew bombing missions over North Vietnam and earned masters and doctoral degrees in experimental psychology. He's written more than 100 professional papers and articles, counseled prison inmates, and taught in universities from Florida to California, including his alma mater.

But he stayed in the active-duty Air Force only 11 years before moving to the reserves. He says he was disillusioned by the 1975 embezzlement case of Maj. Louis Wailly, a research officer in the academy's Life and Behavioral Sciences Department.

According to Malmstrom's paper, "The Problems With Whistle-Blowing: U.S. v. Wailly," based on Office of Special Investigation files, Wailly pleaded guilty to several charges in an investigation that revealed widespread dereliction of duty and possible conspiracy to defraud the government by him and others at the academy. Wailly was accused of stealing research funds and using academy resources to run his real estate business. He also bought two pigs for research projects, then had them slaughtered and sold the meat to his colleagues, pocketing the money. He also went on 453 trips in six years on Air Force funding. He did six years in federal prison.

But Capt. Alvin Young, a research officer who blew the whistle on Wailly, was ostracized and lectured by superiors for being disloyal, then was transferred to another base, Malmstrom writes. As he notes, "Loyalty is much easier to enforce than honesty."

He tried to get his article included in the academy's Journal of Character & Leadership Integration, but says he was told by officials that it was "too controversial." Instead, he had it published last year in the Journal of Psychological Issues in Organizational Culture.

As in the Wailly case, Malmstrom's research — which he undertook on his own, starting in 1984 — shows that acceptance of other people's violations is a big problem.

His data is based on 2,465 surveys filled out anonymously by those who graduated from all three academies over the last 51 years, which he classifies as a scientific sample. Malmstrom reached graduates by using published registers provided by graduate associations. Roughly a third of responders graduated from each academy.

Malmstrom's survey results were recently statistically analyzed by David Mullin, a former economics professor at (and current court foe of) the academy. Among the findings:

• The percentage of AFA graduates who said they committed honor violations while cadets more than doubled from the class of 1959 to the class of 2010, from 29 percent to 66 percent. At West Point, the increase went from 26 percent to 43 percent. The Naval Academy saw an increase from 36 percent to 54 percent.

• The percentage of AFA grads who said they tolerated others' infractions without reporting them grew from 5 percent in the class of 1959 to 68 percent in the class of 2010. West Point's increase went from 5 percent to just under 50 percent. The Naval Academy's results aren't comparable, because its honor concept doesn't contain a toleration clause.

• Respect for the code by Air Force Academy graduates hovered between 90 percent and 100 percent for nearly 50 years before plunging to 70 percent for the classes of 2007 to 2010. At West Point, the drop was from 100 percent to 92 percent; at the Naval Academy, from 98 percent to 77 percent.

• Motivation of Air Force Academy grads to make a career of the service has dropped from 90 percent to 50 percent. The other academies saw similar drops. For over four decades, motivation at the Air Force Academy was higher than at West Point and the Naval Academy, but since 2006, it's been the lowest.

Deaf to bad news

While conducting his research at the academy, Malmstrom felt compelled to share his survey with officials. He says he's briefed top-ranking figures, including the previous commandant and a past superintendent, and leaders in the academy's character development program.

"They say, 'Gee, that's interesting. I'll get back to you,' and then nothing happens," he says. "Some people say, 'Well, I'm not surprised,' and that's the end of it."

Malmstrom says he gave a formal presentation of his findings four years ago to the entire Center for Character and Leadership Development staff. Part of the problem, Malmstrom says, is that the military's practice of rotating personnel to new assignments every two or three years gives the academy a short memory. But this year, he says, he spoke with several people at the academy about his work, including Huntley, Sanders and others.

In February, without mentioning Malmstrom by name, the Indy asked academy character development officials including Huntley, Sanders and Tom Berry, a retired colonel who serves as deputy director of the CCLD, whether they were familiar with research comparing honor violations and toleration among the three service academies. Huntley said the academy had produced no such comparative research.

Asked if they would be interested in such research, all said they would.

On March 6, Malmstrom says, he was called to the academy to meet with Huntley, Sanders, Berry and retired Lt. Gen. Ervin Rokke, Class of 1962, a senior scholar. He was scolded for talking to a reporter and was asked to sign a document imposing privacy restrictions that he thinks would prevent him from disclosing his research publicly. "The upshot was intimidation," he says. He didn't sign.

The academy refuses to confirm or deny the meeting occurred.

In March, when the Indy submitted questions asking for a reaction to Malmstrom's work, giving specific findings from his surveys and identifying them as coming from a visiting scholar, spokesman Bryan responded in an e-mail, saying, "We're not familiar w/this study--what's the source?" The Indy then identified Malmstrom.

On March 30, Bryan said the academy believes some information to which Malmstrom has had access as a visiting scholar is covered by the Privacy Act of 1974, and academy officials "feel confident he will be responsible in its use."

Malmstrom says he has conducted his survey research without the help of the academy, except for partial funding for postage. Regardless, he will go public Saturday, April 14, in an address at the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association conference in Reno, Nev. He gave a similar speech in 1991 to the same group in Denver, when an earlier set of data covering 1959 to 1988 showed nearly half of Air Force Academy cadets had admitted to violating the code, with one in 20 cheating on academics at least once. The academy called the findings "vague" and "questionable," according to newspaper reports at the time.

What the DIT says

Malmstrom aside, the academy's now faced with another measurement of cadets' ability to think ethically.

The Defining Issues Test, developed in the 1970s by the late Dr. James Rest, a psychology professor at the University of Minnesota, has been given to academy seniors eight times and to freshmen seven times between 2002 and 2011.

"We wanted to provide some kind of empirical information to senior leaders about how well we're meeting the vision of developing leaders of character," says Terry McFarlane, a personnel research psychologist at the academy.

The test ranks moral reasoning with three labels. The lowest is "personal interest," which means the subject is acting purely from self-interest. The second is "maintain norms," showing a reliance on clear-cut rules in a defined structure or chain of command. The highest is "postconventional," which Rest described as making moral decisions based on shared ideals and principles, such as the basic human rights of life, liberty and justice.

Over the years, academy cadets, whether freshmen or seniors, have scored lower than their civilian peers in "personal interest," viewed as a good sign; they've scored higher in "maintain norms," which might be expected given the military environment; and they've scored about the same for "postconventional."

But last year, for the first time, the academy was able to see the growth of 328 cadets who took the DIT as freshmen and again as seniors. Less than half, 45 percent, moved up at least one stage; 30 percent remained at the same stage (though half of those were at the highest stage to start with); and 25 percent regressed to lower stages.

Lt. Col. Patricia Egleston, chief of the Analysis and Assessments Division, says the outcome isn't that bad.

"There's a lot of philosophical discussions you can have with this test," she says. "Because we're a military institution, you expect 'maintain norms' to be possibly higher, and there's a logical reason why we might argue that. 'Postconventional' should be strong, too. The only one we definitely, I think, don't like is the 'personal interest.'"

But data provided by the academy shows that one in 10 seniors in the matched set of 328 tested "personal interest."

"I would look at this and say, 'That doesn't seem very good at all,'" says Col. Michael Therianos, with the academy's Strategic Plans and Programs, Requirements, Assessments and Analyses Directorate. "But we're not at the stage of peeling back all the layers of the onion to see, 'Is there a problem, and can we fix it?'"

The Air Force Academy's scores led McFarlane to note on a briefing report: "Because the ability to reason morally is a basic building block in having character, we have to wonder why all of our efforts [except the Scholars Program] don't have more of a direct impact on the results of this particular test."

One study, by Ernest Pascarella of the University of Iowa and Patrick Terenzini of Penn State University, reported in 2005 that the largest freshman-to-senior gains are seen in private liberal arts college students. Lesser but substantial gains are seen by students attending large public universities. (The smallest gains are made at Bible colleges.)

Other factors can impact DIT scores. Teaching the Theory of Moral Development, upon which the DIT is based, can drive growth, McFarlane says. The academy resumed that practice this semester after dropping it from the curriculum several years ago, she adds.

Another is for students to discuss moral and ethical dilemmas, which Therianos says has become more prevalent at the academy.

A third way to influence outcomes is to thrust students into intense learning situations and times of reflection on what they've learned, says Stephen Thoma, professor at the University of Alabama's Department of Educational Studies in Psychology, Research Methodology, and Counseling, who has written extensively about the DIT. Also, students who have a great deal of faculty interaction historically do better on the test than students who don't.

Asked whether academics and off-site learning experiences typical of the Scholars Program might be extended to more cadets, Therianos says, "We can't go there yet. We're way too early in the game."

In his statement, Gould says the academy is in "the beginning stages" of analyzing the effectiveness of multiple assessment tools, including the DIT. "Once this analysis is complete," he says, "the recommendations will be vetted through our USAFA Corporate Process to ensure all of the USAFA senior leaders are aware of the effectiveness of our efforts."

But Mullin, the former professor who unsuccessfully sued the academy last year over a religious issue, says the DIT results underscore his contention that many academy instructors aren't qualified to teach the subjects to which they're assigned. His claim led to an Air Force Inspector General's investigation and subsequent finding of negligence in February against Dean of Faculty Brig. Gen. Dana Born and Vice Dean Col. Richard Fullerton for asserting publicly and to an accreditation agency that all faculty have advanced degrees in subjects they're assigned to teach.

Mullin, who's suing over his contract not being renewed after 13 years at the academy, says the DIT results suggest only those cadets in the Scholars Program receive academic instruction at a level that impacts character development. "It begs the question," he says, "Why is it that all the faculty don't have the same standards, so that the remaining 95 percent of the cadets have that exposure? Is that the best they can do?"

— zubeck@csindy.com

So, what would you do?

The Defining Issues Test is based on work done by college psychology professor Lawrence Kohlberg in forming his Theory of Moral Development. James Rest and three other professors at the University of Minnesota further refined Kohlberg's interview format into a test in the late '70s and '80s.

The test consists of five scenarios in which a moral judgment must be made. The DIT-2, a new version of the former test, is copyrighted and can't be reproduced in full, but here's a brief outline of each scenario:

• Whether a man, whose starving family lives in the same village as a rich man who hoards food, should steal the food.

• Whether a school board member should hold a second public meeting on school closures after the first one erupted in threats of violence.

• Whether a reporter who discovers a 20-year-old shoplifting infraction by a political candidate should publish the story.

• Whether a doctor should give a cancer patient an overdose of pain medicine, at her request, that would likely end her life.

• Whether college students, who took over the administration building to demonstrate against the country's foreign policy, should be allowed to continue demonstrating.

When taking the test, you first choose whether to take the action, not take the action, or say you "can't decide." You then rank in order of importance which 12 factors played a role in the decision.

For the starving-family scenario, some of the factors are:

• Does the man have enough courage to risk getting caught?

• Isn't it natural for a father to steal for his family?

• The community's laws should be upheld.

• Does the rich man have a right to keep the food when others are starving?

• Does the rich man deserve to be robbed?

The DIT places you in one of three stages of development:

• Personal interest — acting selfishly.

• Maintains norms — acting from a desire to follow uniform rules through a chain of command.

• Postconventional — acting from shared ideals and principles.

(Pam Zubeck)

Labels:

Sunday, April 08, 2012

Lawyers Fight Among Themselves Before They Fight The Opposition





Seattle-based John Henry Browne is the civilian attorney representing Staff Sergeant Robert Bales, the U.S. soldier accused of murdering 17 Afghan villagers. Attorney Browne wants to replace the military lawyer assigned to the case. They are having serious disagreements over how to handle the defense.

"You are fired, sorry, but we have much more experience than you," Attorney Browne, said to military lawyer Major Thomas Hurley. Major Hurley is an experienced military lawyer. He has handled more than 60 military courts-martial; three involved homicide charges; however, none were capital cases.

The Army assigns defense counsel such as Hurley to soldiers facing court martial but defendants also have the right to hire additional civilian counsel. The military assigned counsel is called the Detailed Military counsel (DMC). The hired civilian counsel is called the Individual Military counsel (IMC).

"Major Hurley is not a team player and has no experience in murder cases, we do," Attorney Browne has said. "We have gotten 17 not guilty verdicts in murder cases and have gotten life verdicts in all our death penalty cases."

Browne unleashed a unilateral public attack on the way U.S. prosecutors are handling the investigation into the shooting and accused U.S. authorities of blocking access to potential witnesses. There is also disagreement over the decision to put Bales' wife on the television talk show circuit.

Major Hurley believes making public statement on television before the trial "limit our options at trial or expose important witnesses to effective cross-examination that they would otherwise not have to face".

I faced similar situations when I was a retired officer Coast Guard Law Specialist representing Coast Guard members in Coast Guard Base New York in courts-martial. However, I never had to assert my authority as lead counsel, Individual Military Counsel (IMC). The Coast Guard always detailed the most junior and inexperienced military counsel to the members that I represented. They were only qualified to carry my brief case and take notes, and they knew it. They were content to observe and listen and sometimes offer a helpful comment. I had just retired, I knew the Uniform Code of Military Justice; I knew the accused; and I knew the judges and all of the members of the Prosecution team; so, I was better qualified to represent the accused. And the military counsels knew this, so , they never challenged my decisions in conducting the defense of the accused.

In the case of the Coast Guard Academy court-martial of Cadet Webster Smith there was similar tension and disagreement between CDR Merle Smith, (IMC) and LT Stuart Kirkby, (DMC). LT Kirkby was not even a Coast Guard Law Specialist. He was a Navy Judge Advocate General from the Naval Submarine Base at Groton, CT..

There was serious tension between CDR Smith and LT Kirkby. The tension and friction became so acute that it required several emergency sessions with the parents of Cadet Webster Smith to settle the issues. (THIS SUBJECT WILL BE TREATED IN DETAIL IN MY NEXT BOOK, THE SEQUEL TO CONDUCT UNBECOMING an Officer and Lady)

There were disagreements about who to put on the witness list, who to call as a witness, who wouldl make the Opening Statement, who wouldl make the Closing Argument, who would argue which motion, which motions to bring, who wouldl examine which witnesses, who would make objections to statement and questions by the Prosecution, whether to give interviews to the news media, which questions to ask which witness; and , the biggest issue of all, whether to put the Accused, Webster Smith, on the witness stand. That is always a crucial decision. In the Webster Smith Case, it may have been the one issue decided the final verdict in the case.

http://www.amazon.com/CONDUCT-UNBECOMING-Officer-Lady-ebook/dp/B006VPAADK





This review is from: CONDUCT UNBECOMING an Officer and Lady (Kindle Edition)

CONDUCT UNBECOMING an Officer and a Lady: A Review.



I read this book. Judge London Steverson, the author, a 1968 Coast Guard Academy graduate, and retiree, did an outstanding job of parsing the facts of what is arguably a judicial tragedy.



According to the book, leaders at the Coast Guard Academy failed to follow the recommendation of the investigating officer, which was not to prosecute the accused of sexual assault, among other allegations, because evidence of the alleged crimes seemed insufficient; failed to follow procedures in responding to the defendant's Article 138 claim and failed to allow the defendant the customary grace period before reporting for confinement. There are a few other apparent missteps--like failing to instruct the jury that the defense does not have a burden of proof in criminal cases--that are capably documented in the book. Rather, according to the author, the Coast Guard Academy leadership chose to prosecute on the recommendation of a staff attorney in spite of the recommendation of the investigating officer the leadership appointed.



As for the defendant, some of his alleged conduct could, conceivably, call into question his judgment and discretion. To that end, he seemed to overlook a common, conspiratorial axiom: "There is no honor among thieves." As it relates to discretion, at his age he may not have heard the axiom, "Loose lips sink ships." The defendant was popular and athletic according to the book. These are traits that some others usually find attractive. Judge Steverson details how these traits attracted several cadets to the defendant. Consequently, one of the attractees had a mishap that directly involved the defendant and the two entered into a secret pact not to reveal the mishap because it could have an impact on both of their lives as cadets. Well, the defendant's second error seemed one of indiscretion because this particular attractee subsequently got wind of the tale involving the shared secret and turned her apparent affection into unabated vengeance. Not only did she turn to vengeance towards the once popular, now vilified athlete, but another five or six attractees also seemed to act in concert, according to the text. According to the author's account. All it took to convict the defendant was the allegations of sexual assault among other allegations.



The gist of the book is the author's plea to the Coast Guard to live up to the Constitution that its members, including the Court Martial's convening authority and the defendant, swore to uphold and protect. He pleads with Coast Guard Academy leadership not to substitute their personal feelings of how they think the world should operate for justice. The author asks them to remain faithful to this nation's long-standing creed of "Equal protection under the law." Finally, the author pleads with the Coast Guard Academy leadership to adhere to established legal procedures. Rather than answer the author's pleas to uphold and protect the Constitution, ensure equal protection under the law and adhere to established legal procedures, the author asserts the Coast Guard seemed to want to send a message to this cadet. Why this cadet? We may never know. He was talented, athletic and popular, but it is fairly certain most cadets are talented and athletic, even if not popular. Perhaps, the timing was wrong; perhaps the Coast Guard thought it was time to address the issue of sexual assault at the Coast Guard Academy or was it just bad timing for this cadet? That this cadet was the first cadet in Coast Guard history to be court martialed and had a distinguishable ethnicity is germane. Wrong place? Wrong time? You decide.



The author gives you a lot to work with. It is readily apparent the esteemed author thoroughly researched this matter and presented exhaustive explanations of law and fact. Transcripts of the legal proceedings are provided in the appendixes. This book is recommended to anyone interested in military legal proceedings or simple justice. The author's assertion that this case will live in infamy does not seem like an exaggeration. Only time will tell if it is the Coast Guard Academy's or the defendant's infamy.

Labels:

Wednesday, April 04, 2012

STEVERSON FOUNDATION Supports Coast Guard Foundation



VADM Manson K. Brown, Pacific Area Commander U.S. Coast Guard, will be an honored guest at the Coast Guard Foundation's 10th Annual Tribute to the United States Coast Guard’s (USCG) Fourteenth District on Friday, April 6, 2012 in Honolulu, Hawaii.

The STEVERSON FOUNDATION supports the Coast Guard Foundation.

The Coast Guard Foundation, a non-profit organization committed to the education, welfare and morale of all Coast Guard members and their families, announced today that its 10th Annual Tribute to the United States Coast Guard’s (USCG) Fourteenth District will take place in Honolulu, Hawaii. This event supports Coast Guard members of the Fourteenth District who protect the shores of Hawaii to the distant reaches of Guam and American Samoa. The gala will showcase Hawaii’s unique history and culture.

The event is chaired by Gary North, executive director of the Hawaii Harbor Users Group, and is supported by Coast Guard Foundation. Also in attendance will be ADM Robert Papp, commandant U.S. Coast Guard; VADM Manson Brown, pacific area commander U.S. Coast Guard; and Rear Admiral Charles W. Ray, commander of the U.S. Coast Guard 14th District.

VADM and Mrs. Manson K. Brown with Judge London Steverson.

In addition to celebrating the service of Coast Guard personnel who enforce maritime law, protect our homeland and preserve the environment, the tribute will raise funds to support the Coast Guard Foundation’s important projects and programs that benefit the members of the Fourteenth District and their families. The Coast Guard Foundation supports many projects in District 14 including providing college scholarships for children and grants for enlisted members. In 2008, following a fatal Coast Guard helicopter crash off the Honolulu coast, the Foundation established the Family Disaster Relief Fund, which provides assistance to family members of fallen servicemen and women lost in the line of duty.

“We are proud to honor the dedication and heroism of the extraordinary Coast Guard men and women of the Fourteenth District,” said Anne B. Brengle, president, Coast Guard Foundation. “This event promises to be a meaningful evening to recognize the heroic efforts of the guardians who protect our shores and keep us safe on the water. The dinner is a great opportunity for all of us to give back to them.”

The Tenth Annual Tribute to the USCG’s Fourteenth District will be held on Friday, April 6, 2012 at the Lu’au grounds of the Hale Koa Hotel, 2055 Kalia Road, Honolulu, Hawaii. For more information on the Coast Guard Foundation’s tribute to the Fourteenth District, the Coast Guard Foundation or to help support its work, please visit the Coast Guard Foundation website at www.coastguardfoundation.org.

The Coast Guard Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization founded in 1969. It was initially created to provide funds for academic, athletic, and morale needs of the Coast Guard Academy and its cadets, which were not covered by federal operational funding. In 1986, the Foundation expanded its charter to support projects that enhance the education, welfare and morale of all Coast Guard members and their families. A Board of 100 Trustees from all parts of the country governs the Foundation. The Trustees elect from their members a 30 person Board of Directors to oversee the management of the Foundation. Located in Stonington, Connecticut, the Foundation employs a staff of twelve civilians responsible for meeting the Foundation’s objectives and working closely with the Coast Guard on all issues.

WHO: The Coast Guard Foundation

WHAT: 10th Annual Tribute to the United States Coast Guard’s Fourteenth District

WHEN: Cocktail reception 5:30 pm, Dinner and Program 6:30 pm — Friday, April 6, 2012

WHERE: Lu’au grounds of the Hale Koa Hotel, 2055 Kalia Road, Honolulu



2012 Tribute to The Coast Guard’s 14th District

Foundation

Directors and Trustees

James Andrasick

Bob Halcro

CAPT F. David Hoffman, Jr., USCGR (Ret)

CAPT John P. Mihlbauer, USCG (Ret)

Committee Members

Fred Anawati

Vic Angoco

William F. Anonsen

Steve Baker

CAPT Sandy Brodie,

USCGR (Ret)

Dudley Fullard-Leo

CAPT Allan Gifford, USCGR (Ret)

Dale Hahn

Glenn Hong

Karl Kiyokawa

RADM Jim McClelland, USCG (Ret)

Bob C. McDermott

Cheryl Uyehara

Lee Webber

Labels:

Tuesday, April 03, 2012

Coast Guard Honors First Black Academy Graduate.

NEW LONDON, Conn. — The Coast Guard Academy in New London honored its first African-American graduate on April 1st with a new award that is named after him.

The Day newspaper of New London reports that CDR Merle James Smith Jr., USCG (Ret.) received the inaugural Merle J. Smith Pioneer Award at the Academy on Sunday, April 1st. The 67-year-old Mystic resident graduated in the Academy Class of 1966 and served 23 years of regular and reserve active duty in the Coast Guard.

This recognition is well deserved and long overdue. Honoring the first Black graduate honors all Black graduates. The Academy was founded in 1876. The exclusion of African Americans from the Academy from 1876 until 1962 is a tragic fact of American history. The meager resources allotted to Black recruitment is just as tragic.

CDR Smith was the first Black cadet to be admitted to the United States Coast Guard Academy. He was not an Affirmative Action cadet. He was not appointed in direct response to President Kennedy's directive to find qualified Black high school graduates for the Academy.

The Academy was not aware at first that there was an African American cadet at the Academy. He had not been recruited as a "Black cadet"; nor, was he recognized as one by the Coast Guard Academy Admission's Office. He was not recognized as an African American because he did not physically resemble one. None of his school records labeled him as Black, and he had not been recruited as a minority candidate. When Black spectators came to watch the entire corps of cadets march in parade, they frequently mistook Anthony Carbone and Donnie Winchester as the possible Black cadet. Carbone was an Italian, and Winchester was a Native American. They both were considerably darker than Merle Smith.

CDR Smith's appointment had been tendered before President Kennedy issued the directive to find and appoint Black candidates for the Coast Guard Academy. His father, Colonel Merle Smith , Senior, was the Professor of Military Science at Morgan State College in Baltimore, Maryland; and, he had formerly been an Army Staff officer at the Pentagon.

The only two Black cadets to have been recruited under President John F. Kennedy's Directive were London Steverson and Kenneth Boyd. they both entered the Academy in 1964 and graduated in 1968.

CDR Smith is a 1974 graduate of the National Law Center at George Washington University, Washington, DC. He attended law school while serving in the Coast Guard. He became a Coast Guard Law Specialist.

After graduating, his Coast Guard career took him to Vietnam in 1969, where he commanded a patrol boat for a year. He became the first sea-service African-American to be awarded a Bronze Star. After receiving his law degree from George Washington University in 1974 he became a Coast Guard Law Specialist. Later, he returned to the New London, CT area to work as an attorney for Electric Boat, the Groton-based submarine builder.

It was after retiring from active duty in the Coast Guard, he became an adjunct law professor at the Coast Guard Academy.

In 2006 while teaching law at the Academy CDR Smith was retained as the Individual Military Counsel for Cadet Webster Smith who became the first Coast Guard Academy cadet to be court-martial in the history of the Coast Guard Academy. CDR Smith is no relation to Cadet Webster Smith. Cadet Webster Smith was detailed a Navy Judge Advocate Ggeneral (JAG) officer as his detailed military counsel. The Individual Military counsel is the lead counsel. He is a civilian and he is in charge of the defense team.

CDR Smith received a Pioneer Award. What does that mean? A "Pioneer" is a person who is among those who first enter or settle a region, thus opening it for occupation and development by others. What was the criteria for selection? Who was on the Selection Committee? Was there anyone else in contention? Will there be subsequent recipients? How many times can one do something for the first time?

The Award could have been called the Trailblazer Award. Trailblazer is a synonym for Pioneer. The term trailblazer signifies those who strike out on a new path or break new ground, either literally or symbolically, using skills of innovation or brave constitutions to conduct their lives off the beaten path. Often known for independent thought, rugged individualism and pioneering ways, trailblazers throughout history have included cutting-edge inventors, explorers and healers. Trailblazers throughout history all have shared an innovative spirit that kept them going when told their endeavors would be fruitless or against impossible odds. All have made their mark on history and mankind by refusing to quit and pushing ahead, most often into uncharted territory. When Merle James Smith entered the Coast Guard Academy in June 1962 he was sailing into uncharted waters. He had no chart, compass or navigator; yet, he reached his destination.

Minority recruitment remains an area that the Academy alleges is the impossible dream. Thirty-three percent of Coast Guard cadets are female; one out of three cadets is a female. The first female classes produced several flag rank officers. We have a plethora of female admirals. In February, 1976 the Coast Guard Academy announced the appointments of female cadets to enter with the Class of 1980. Fourteen women graduate as part of the Academy's Class of 1980. in 1991 a Women's Advisory Council established. In 2000 the first female Coast Guard officer to be promoted to Rear Admiral was Vivien S. Crea. She was not an Academy graduate. in 2009 CAPT Sandra L. Stosz was promoted to Rear Admiral, becoming the first female graduate of the Coast Guard Academy to reach flag rank.

The Coast Guard was the first to select a woman superintendent of a military service academy. Rear Adm. Sandra L. Stosz, Coast Guard director of reserve and leadership was selected as Superintendent of the Academy. Rear Admiral Stosz graduated from the Coast Guard Academy in the Class of 1982.

In 2008 the Academy hosted a free, public Women's Equality Day information fair on August 26 in Munro Hall at the Academy.

Each year since 1971, when President Jimmy Carter designated August 26 as Women's Equality Day, the United States has recognized the struggle for equal rights for women.

In the Coast Guard Academy is celebrated the event with the theme "Strengthening Our Communities" by hosting various Coast Guard and regional community groups on campus.

"This was billed as a great opportunity for members of our Coast Guard and surrounding New London community to network and learn from the organizations that help support and strengthen Academy leadership," said LTJG Colleen Jones, Assistant Civil Cights Officer at the Academy and the event organizer.

The various organizations in attendance were the Greater New Haven National Organization of Women, the General Federation of Women's Clubs of Connecticut, National Naval Officers Association, Academy Women, Toastmasters, CG Educational Services, CG Child Development Center, and the League of Women Voters.

Labels: