Dave Cullen: Air Force Academy

Columbine at the Air Force Academy

Tue, 07 Oct 2003 19:04:49 GMT

I wait too long to get back in the field sometimes.

In this case, it wasn't about researching a story, but . . . hmmmm, I hate to use this word but (promoting?) one.

As I mentioned in the last post, I spent the afternoon yesterday talking to three classes at the Air Force Academy about Columbine. I had been toying with the idea that the public seemed overripe for a book finally addressing what that tragedy was really about, and nothing could have convinced me more.

The professor warned me in advance that like any other college students, they could be both apathetic class material and shy about speaking in class. They were positively riveted. Right out of the gate, they were jumping in with questions, and we could have gone on for hours. And I was surprised, too, by the extent of their knowledge, and the depth of their probing. They were really fascinated by the whole topic.

If this is any indication of the interest level out there among young adults--and I have no doubt that it is--there is a considerable market out there for the book I've been messing with for years.

So, I'm going to take the advice many of you have given me here, get off my ass and get that book proposal together. (And start pitching it to magazines as well.)

There are several new movies surfacing on the subject--I'm going to see Gus Van Sant's Elephant at the Denver Film Festival next week--the five-year anniversary is coming up next April, and I have so much more to tell on this topic. (Particularly about what drove Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold to do it.)

I'll let you know how it goes.

A contrasting view of the Air Force Academy

Tue, 07 Oct 2003 18:23:24 GMT

I spent about six hours inside the Academy again yesterday--in some rather unusual situations--and it's always refreshing when I do.

They have a very real problem with the rape situation there, and also an enduring problem with the climate toward women, but that really is not the whole story about the place.

I don't want to come off as a member of the booster squad, but I think it's important to put things in perspective. And I think much of the country just sees that place as some sort of horrifying den of evil, where young robots are lobotomized and marched around to the beat of somebody else's brain, where the only original thought a cadet ever has is "Who can I rape tonight?"

Hardly. I have been developing some contacts there for awhile, and yesterday I was the guest speaker for three classes on Columbine (more on that in a separate post in a minute), and also sat in to observe three lengthy sessions where some of the brightest cadets were grilled by a small faculty panel (I'd rather not go into details.)

Wow. Actually sitting down and talking to--or listening to--cadets down there will turn your head around in a hurry. The classes were in a discussion format, where I mostly responded to questions from both the professor and students, and they were one of the best audiences I've spoken to in years. Bright, thoughtful, highly engaged. You can learn a lot about how people think just by listening to their questions, and these were three really dynamic and impressive groups.

And if you think military cadets must be some mindless automatons, you just need to let go of that stereotype. They laughed, they smiled, they furrowed their brows--one big tough guy in the front row teared up when I responded to a question about Principal Frank DeAngelis, and described how he handled the crisis.

I'm tempted to say that they're just like the students on any other campus, but that's not entirely true. They tend to be more conservative than most college populations, more Christian, more rigid in their thinking unfortunately, and way, way, way more polite. But I have to dredge up the old cliche here, that their similarities to other students are far greater than their differences.

I wish everybody could sit down and have a disucssion with groups of them for an afternoon. Not discussing their own situation, because they can get defensive and sometimes denialistic about that, and they are going to parrot back the party line much of the time. Don't talk about that, just talk to them. At heart, they're just normal 20-year olds struggling with all the same problems as any other 20-year old. Plus the whole military regimine added on top.

And as for the kids facing the panels, of course they were among the top students selected for the opportunity, but two of the three cadets I saw were just stunningly impressive. Sharp, witty, funny, open-minded and wise beyond their years. The cadets are not all like these two, but if this kind of cadet can rise to the top of the Air Force, I feel very secure about the direction the service will take.

Check out edodo for the insider's take on the Air Force Academy rape scandal

Fri, 26 Sep 2003 02:05:39 GMT

Of course they'll hate me for calling it a "rape scandal," but they'll get over it.

If you haven't checked out edodo.org, it's a very interesting place. It's the underground gathering spot for former (and occasionally current) Academy cadets. The current are less common because the Academy bans it and won't allow it to transmit over their lines, so only the most tech-savvy cadets can get to it during the school year (I'm told).

The gist is, they are none too happy with the Fowler report, though most of the people posting tend to focus on details, not so much on the bigger picture. And to most of them it's about blame rather than looking forward. Still, it's an eye-opener. Civilians tend to be highly ignorant of what the military is all about, and that's a bad thing. This will give you a glimpse. It will be an extremely angry glimpse, so you might take it with a grain of salt, but it's worth recognizing how angry some members of the military are, and sometimes for good reason. It's a start.

Just be careful about posting. Most vicious message board I've ever encountered, including the rabid political boards. You might learn something, but you will come out feeling like you've been to war. You have been warned.

Air Force Academy Responds

Fri, 26 Sep 2003 01:32:25 GMT

Two days ago, a panel empowered by Congress to investigate the rape scandal at the Air Force Academy issued a scathing report. It charged the Pentagon charged with knowing about the problem for ten years and doing very little, and then accused it of a coverup on this issue this summer. It also issued 21 new recommendations. Yesterday, the Academy announced that its top general would hold a press conference today to respond. And the general said . . .

He agrees. Enthusiastically. He is totally behind the new report, and in already ramping up measure to implement its recommendations.

Which could be utter bullshit or PR, but I don't think so.

I have met this guy three times now since he arrived in July (and commented very briefly each time), and he has earned more and more of my respect each time.

He is candid, honest, straightforward . . . and frankly, thoughtful and wise. His answers aren't typical canned bullshit responses, they're frequently illuminating and insightful.

I've talked to other reporters who have been covering the story (every major news org in the country had people there today--look for the story tonight and tomorrow), and that seems to be the consensus. And cadets I have spoken to have also been impressed. I hope I'm not proved wrong on this, but so far, I really think they found the right guy for this mission.

(Dare I say he reminds me a lot of General Wesley Clark? I swear, he does. Every time I listen to him, that's who I think of. And that's high praise.

They have a whole lot to do there to bring about lasting cultural change, and that will take awhile, but they're definitely moving in the right direction, and moving at warp speed for a glacial institution like theirs.

There is one area that I think he's all wet on, though, and it's a whopper, which is victim confidentiality. I'm scrambling to try to sell an op-ed-type piece for a magazine or major paper on that though, so I won't say more about it yet.

Stay tuned. This story is not dying any time soon.

Air Force Academy responding to blistering report

Thu, 25 Sep 2003 17:57:42 GMT

Lt General Rosa--top man at the Air Force Academy--is holding a press conference today at 1 mountain time to respond to the blistering report on its rape crisis, which was released this week by the independent panel installed by Congress.

I'll be there, and report back later today.

Scathing report on Air Force Academy rapes; The Pentagon is charged with responsibility and accused of a coverup

Tue, 23 Sep 2003 07:49:27 GMT

Where to start with the report released Monday afternoon on the Air Force Academy rape scandal? This one comes from the panel ordered by angry Congressmen this spring, tired of the BS they were getting from the Air Force. (The prime movers were Colorado Senator Wayne Allard, and Senator John McCain. You can read the entire 141-page report in PDF, or the NYT story, or the better Denver Post story (yes, the Denver Post did a much better job than the NYT on this one.))

The first thing to say is that it really is a breakthrough. It is the first independent review from outside the military, and it shows. (It was hand-picked by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, but composed of outsiders who obviously felt no obligation to cover his butt. It was led by former Florida congresswoman Tillie Fowler.)

It gives credit where credit is due--praising much of the pentagon's spring solution, the Agenda For Change--but slamming the hell out of not just Academy leadership, but Pentagon leadership, who were repeatedly made aware of a severe problem for at least a decade and ignored it. And then it accuses the Pentagon of a coverup.

It also delivers a thorough assessment of the Agenda being implemented to improve the culture, identifying key holes in the plan. Rape advocates will be overjoyed that they have finally been heard. I spoke to both local and national rape advocates this spring in my Salon story analyzing the Agenda, and they were thrilled with some provisions of the Agenda, but dismayed that seemed doomed to failure because it did nothing to get women to come forward to report their rapes. In fact, it made reporting less likely, by eliminating the only confidential options. Today's report discloses that a 1997 Inspector General report acknowledged that as few as one in ten rapes were being reported, a figure validated again late last month, by another IG report. If much of your solution addresses fails to address 90 percent of the problem, that's a gaping hole. This report finally addresses the insanity of that approach (using much milder language, of course, but highlighting it in the exec summary).

Now about that coverup:

Late this spring, the Air Force dispatched its own "Working Group," to investigate the problem, and in June, the Air Force general counsel released its report clearing itself of "systematic acceptance of the problem." This group flatly rejected that finding and stated, "This Panel believes that the Air Force General Counsel attempted to shield Air Force Headquarters from public criticism by focusing exclusively on events at the Academy."

The new report dedicates more than a quarter of its executive summary to details of the coverup. It then concludes that the Pentagon is responsible and "Those responsible should be held accountable." It laments that many of the culprits are retired and out of reach, and again states "there must be further accounting."

It's hard to know exactly how to read that, but they could be calling for the head of Air Force Secretary Jame Roche, who President Bush has attempted to promote to Secretary of the Army, pending Senate approval.

The Denver Post say, "The report makes 21 specific recommendations for change at the school," though I have not read all of them yet. It praises the Agenda For Change several times, while noting some key flaws, which is exactly what my analysis showed last spring. Which has to make me wonder--couldn't the initial Air Force team involved more outsiders and avoided some of its inherent myopia in the first place?

All I did was talk to an assortment of nationally-recognized military scholars, rape advocates, faculty and cadets. They spoke to a lot of the same people, but it was exclusively Air Force officers conducting the interviews and making the decisions (along with AF Secretary Roche). If they could have accepted the existence of their own blinders and included some outsiders in the decision-making, they could have arrived at the current, more enlightened report months earlier.

There's a nice summary of the Agenda in the new report, which goes to the heart of what still needs to change:

The Agenda for Change is evidence that the Air Force, under Secretary Roche's leadership, is serious about taking long-overdue steps to correct the problems at the Academy, but in certain respects it does not go far enough to institutionalize permanent change. The most important of these shortcomings are:

Culture and Climate of the Academy. The Agenda for Change recognizes that the sexual assault problems at the Academyare related to the culture of the institution, yet it does not go far enough to institute enduring changes in the culture and gender climate at the Academy.
Command Supervision. The Agenda for Change does not address the need for permanent, consistent oversight by Air Force Headquarters leadership. [Because Academy leaders roll over every two years, so there is no consistency for a long-term solution.]
External Oversight. The Agenda for Change does not address the need to improve the external oversight provided by the Academy's Board of Visitors.
Confidentiality Policy. The Agenda for Change effectively eliminates the Academy's confidential reporting policy for sexual misconduct. In doin go, however, it reomves critical options for sexual assault victims to receive confidential counseling and treatment, and may result in the unitended consequences of reducing sexual assault reporting.

They're dead-on with all of those, particularly the last one.

Here are the other passages I found most illuminating:

The Panel examined and reviewed the culture and environment at the Academy. It found an atmosphere that helped foster a breakdown in values which led to the pervasiveness of sexual assaults and is perhaps the most difficult element of the problem to solve. . . .

The Panel has found deficiencies in the Honor Code System and in the Academy's character development programs that helped contribute to this intolerable environment. . . .

The situation demands institutional changes, including cultural changes. these changes are incremental and cannot be made overnight.

Lot of wisdom coming from this panel. I'm really impressed. They demand aggressive change now, while facing the reality that true cultural change takes a long time--and that actually effecting it is a delicate art form.

Nice work independent panel. Very nice work.

Air Force Academy report out

Tue, 23 Sep 2003 06:54:38 GMT

The panel appointed by Congress to investigate the rape scandal at the Air Force Academy released its report this afternoon.

I'm reading it now, hope to have first impressions within the hour.

12% of Air Force Academy women faced rape/attempt

Fri, 29 Aug 2003 07:10:49 GMT

Wow, these are pretty horrifying numbers. And directly from the Pentagon. (Thanks to TalkLeft for the heads up.) Story from Friday's NYT:

WASHINGTON, Aug. 28 — Nearly 12 percent of the women who graduated from the United States Air Force Academy this year were the victims of rape or attempted rape in their four years at the academy in Colorado Springs, with the vast majority never reporting the incidents to the authorities, according to a survey by the inspector general of the Defense Department. . .

The survey of some 579 women at the academy found that nearly 70 percent of them said they had been the victims of sexual harassment, of which 22 percent said they experienced "pressure for sexual favors." There were 659 women enrolled at the academy at the time of the survey.

Of the entire enrollment, 19 percent said they had been the victims of sexual assault and more than 7 percent said that assault took the form of rape or attempted rape. Four out of five women never came forward to report that they had been assaulted, the survey shows.

Want to hear the bigger scandal? Send your daughter--or yourself--to another university, and your chances for rape are probably even worse. Much worse.

I have spent much of the past six months covering the Academy for Slate, Salon, and others, and unfortunately, the story goes much deeper and gets much grimmer. In my opinion, there are at least three major scandals here:

First: The Academy's response to rapes. Also from the Times story, via the IG report:

The survey, given to women in May 2003, appeared to confirm the claims of the half-dozen or so former cadets who initially came forward earlier this year, revealing a problem of sexual assault at the academy that they described as widespread and the product of a culture hostile toward women. The women said victims of rape who came forward were routinely punished for minor infractions while their attackers escaped judgment, prompting most victims to remain silent. . .

That has got to stop. It was well documented all spring, starting with an excellent cover story breaking the scandal in Denver's alt weekly Westword. Since then, the Pentagon installed a new regime at the Academy, and began implementation of an Agenda For Change, and hopefully it will work. It is pretty extensive, though some of the measures have been tried and failed before. Worse, it fails to provide an environment likely to spur many cadets to report. But it's a complex, difficult problem that every university is grappling with poorly, and this is an aggressive start.

I have also met the two new generals a handful of times. Not enough to know them well, but my initial impression of the top general, Rosa, is very high. Until proven wrong, I trust the guy.

The bigger scandal: college women are in much greater danger than this new story suggests. Check out this Department of Justice study published in Dec 2000, The Sexual Victimization of College Women. Figures on reported rapes are notoriously unreliable, because (according to the same study), fewer than 5 percent of rape victims report to the police. That makes for one hell of an extrapolation. The most reliable data comes from anonymous surveying. The Justice Dept study used a similar methodology to the IG report; a random phone survery of 4,400 women attending 2- or 4-year colleges or universities across the country. Key finding: it estimated that nearly 20% of women would be raped during a 4-year college career. (The report indicates the total is probably higher because five years is more common now, but it's not at the Academy. Most cadets graduate in four years, so we'll stick to a four-year comparison).

The least-necessary scandal: The press knew about this all through the Air Force Academy scandal all spring. They focused on the horror of dozens of women reporting sexual assault (last I checked the number was up to 56 reported over ten years, including sexual harassment). We should be so lucky that it is only 56. That's a BS number and the press knows it. The number across the country is in the millions. We'll see how much that gets reported. Watch the press on this story. Watch them fixate on the Air Force Academy, ignoring Harvard, Princeton and everywhere else. Just watch.

UPDATE:

Please read the comments (and follow the link), for some insights from people who probably know more about the methodology in gathering rape data than I do. I'll try to address it better once I'm over the flu and can think clearly.

Denver Post takes on the Air Force Academy

Sun, 17 Aug 2003 19:23:11 GMT

The Denver Post published a magazine-length (4,200-word) would-be expose on its front page today:

A culture of hostility
For 27 years the Air Force Academy has allowed female cadets in its ranks. The roots of the current sexual-assault problem are deeper still, a tangle of abused power and misplaced loyalties.

I'm just making my way through it and will have more later.

The Good General

Wed, 06 Aug 2003 16:47:52 GMT

Attended my second press conference with the General Rosa, the new guy in charge of the Air Force Academy, yesterday. It was very brief, but just long enough to feel that same rush of sincerity and candor.

Either he's an incredibly good bullshitter, or a really good guy. There was no faking that smirk when I asked him what the new troops asked him when he briefed them yesterday, and he said something like: This was a one-sided conversation. There are times when I'm going to ask their opinions, but this wasn't one of them.

He didn't hesitate to answer it, either. Somebody trying to effect an air of openess (a key talking point at the Academy right now) might have worried about the image there. But how stupid that would be: sometimes you come in as the commander and order the troops to do some things, sometimes it's a give and take session. He wasn't about to fake that, and the smile on his face expressed everything.

Some people you just know you can trust from the moment they open their mouth. My early instincts are usually on the money about that. And I really trust this guy. Please don't let me be wrong.

New Feature here--AF Academy

Tue, 05 Aug 2003 20:46:21 GMT

I'm spending a lot of time down at the Air Force Academy again--just got back after a full morning there, and it's quite interesting. And very different than I think most civilians imagine.

So as I work on some magazine pieces about it, I'm going to start posting some of my observations here, pretty regularly, if all goes well.

Surprising new general at the Academy

Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:46:04 GMT

When the rape scandal boiled over at the Air Force Academy this spring, the Pentagon siezed control, canned the top two generals and two colonels. They brought in a new commandant, one-star General Johnny Weida, quickly, but the confirmation of his boss, three-star John Rosa was stalled. He arrived a week ago, and I met him Tuesday and was pleasantly surprised.

All I have to go on is a 20-minute press conference with a small group of reporters and a brief chat afterwards, but my impression of the guy so far is very good--especially in contrast to Weida. Weida tries to affect this Patton mystique, and Rosa definitely appears to be the thinker. Very thoughtful, level-headed, reminded me of Jimmy Carter. I know that comparison will be anathema to most of the AF guys who read this, but I mean it in the best possible way. He seems to respond to every question with a very long view: he's drawing on a wealth of knowledge and experience, and his wisdom and intelligence come through immediately. The guy may or may not have flaws I'm unaware of, he may or may not do well at his job. But this guy really seems like the right man for the job, and frankly, the perfect compliment to Weida. A Patton in the military isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's nice to see him balanced.

Rosa also promised a radical change in openness to outside eyes, particularly via the media. He said we could talk to any cadet we wanted, but we'll see. Minutes later, we were prevented from doing that by public affairs, who said they had not gotten that directive through their chain. Good lord, military bureaucracy. We'll see whether he was just bullshitting us or whether it's really going to happen. I'm cautiously optimistic for the moment.

(They have also changed the whole tenor of the Basic Training for the new cadets, which I have very mixed feelings about, but I'm going to have to address that later.)

(The occasion for this press conference was the final big day of field training for the new class of cadets, who arrived in late June. They took us out there to watch the fun stuff: big tug of war, losers hurling themselves into a mud pit, and finals of some really hardcore pugil stick battles. The two generals were available to talk to us first. The Denver Post has a moderately interesting story about some of it here.)

Richard Allen Lehmkuhl, aka, Reichen

Sun, 20 Jul 2003 18:31:07 GMT

Reichen sure got a lot hotter since he left the Air Force Academy.

Thanks to the boys at eDodo for posting the pic--along with some highly unflattering commentary. (Wise choice to get the ears pinned back, no disagreeing on that. But some people just need to grow up into their looks. My college photos are like kryponite to me. I'd wager Reichen looks a hell of a lot better than most '96 grads. Go easy on the guy.)

EDodo is the underground website dedicated exclusively to the Air Force Academy, by former Academy cadets, for former and current Academy cadets, banned by the Academy. (It has actually created a firewall preventing cadets from accessing the site through any Academy line. Of course they recruit incredibly smart little bastards, and rumor has it many have maneuvered their way around it.)

The eDodos were even more brutal than I expected about Reichen. You'll find the (slightly larger) picture and a more complete commentary under the "Strivers and Losers" category of its Folklore section. Nice, guys.

There are only a handful of posts on Reichen--not a word on what's gone on on The Amazing Race--but this anonymous posting is typical of what you'll find at eDodo (though it's rarely anonymous):

I knew(not in the Biblical sense) this dude at the zoo. He was known as a possible closet queen. Rumors of goings on with another dude in Raging Bull 6, Capehart. Running around the halls naked as a firstie, etc. Of all the cadets I knew definitely the "most likely to be gay."

I must admit though, someone there named Clamboy Vinyl has a pretty trenchant analysis of the yearbook comments. I bet at least one of these is dead on:

It was all foretold in his little yearbook blurb:
"Jay, thanks for taking risks with me" - indeed.

"The Kook, thanks for your energy...in [all] those different ways" - OK, who remembers someone known as 'the Kook'? Energy in 'all those different ways' so I'm thinking, doggy style, reverse cowboy, 69, lucky Pierre, and who knows what else.

"Jerry, we'll meet again someday" - probably in the Castro or the Village, I'll be wearing the cowboy hat and the cowhide thong.

"Rachel, never forget the good times" - if that isn't a 'it's not you, it's me, see, I'm gay so I'm leaving you' line, I don't know what is.

Not that there's anything wrong with it.

Enter eDodo at your own risk: they'll eat you alive. Seriously.

All my recent Reichen & Chip posts here.

Another Academy rape case involving alcohol

Thu, 17 Jul 2003 19:57:21 GMT

One more court-martial proceeding under way. I did not attend this hearing, but the case sounds like it could be sadly similar. Hard to tell from the really shitty AP account. Aside from calling it an attack and him an attacker, all it says about how the rape occurred is:

She said she drank at least three glasses of wine and doesn’t remember what happened after the two began kissing. She said she came to during the rape. Segal later took her back to her dorm room, she said.

God, could the reporter be any more vague? And then what? Did she say stop and he refused? Does she think he slipped her a drug? If not, how does she know there was a rape? I know lots of people who can't remember half the crap they do when they're drunk. But everybody else does. They're very conscious and in control when they're making jokes, whooping it up on the dancefloor . . . The next day, no memory. That doesn't mean they were unconscious or out of control at the time. From this story, it's completely unclear how she got there. Maybe she was lying unconscious and he raped her, maybe she suggested it herself, maybe anything in between. I realize it's just a prelim hearing, but couldn't the reporter have provided the absolute basics on what each side is contending?

'Honorable' lies?

Thu, 17 Jul 2003 19:02:06 GMT

Julie Jargon, one of a handful of outstanding Denver writers, has a big new feature story just out this morning. She's the investigative reporter who scooped the national press corp in January to break the whole Air Force Academy rape story in Denver's alt-weekly Westword.

The latest issue just hit the streets with a big new cover story she's apparently been at for weeks (I'll check with her and confirm the time later today):

Honor Rolled

These Air force cadets were ready to fly. Then the honor board crashed their careers.

BY JULIE JARGON

The cover headline makes a much stronger charge:

Code Red

The Air Force Academy doesn't tolerate lying -- except in its cadet-run honor system.

I'm on deadline, so I only have time to read the intro, but I've only seen good work from her in the past, and it looks really interesting. A brief excerpt:

As a result [of numerous charges, roughly 137 students per year], many cadets, such as Andrea Prasse (see sidebar), have lost faith in the honor system. They claim that it's a moribund tradition with unevenly applied sanctions -- a fact that academy officials and members of Congress have known for years. In response to critical task forces and studies, honor-system procedures have been tinkered with but never seriously overhauled. Now, in the aftermath of the rape scandal, critics worry that the honor code will be applied even more broadly. In his "Agenda for Change," a set of reforms intended to improve the climate for female cadets at the academy, Air Force Secretary James Roche stresses the importance of not tolerating criminal behavior. He emphasizes that it's not the letter of the code that matters, but the spirit.
That has some cadets wondering just what this new spirit might mean for them.

AF Academy general DEMOTED!

Fri, 11 Jul 2003 21:42:17 GMT

The big news: Three-star General John Dallager, who ran the Academy the past three years, is being demoted upon retirement. He'll lose a star, a bit of his pension, and completely lose face among his peer group. (D Post story, RMN story.)

Why it's important: Promotions and demotions are everything in the officer corps. That's about all anybody pays attention to. It's such a precarious career, because there's only one company to work for, and if you do one (big) thing wrong, your career is over.

(Of course there are actually four companies to choose from, but once you're commissioned into the army, navy, air force or marines, you've locked yourself out of the other three. (Though oddly, not just by going to the academy. Dd you know that when you graduate, you're eligible for any service? And maybe half a dozen from each academy change their mind each year, and go, say, from West Point into the navy. Not so great for your career, though. The whole point of going to an academy is to get tight with your whole peer group, especially the ones two to three years above you. They'll be two to three years ahead of you your entire career, because each promotion is governed chiefly by your time in rank. So when you're up for colonel 20 years from now, and general 25 years in the future, it's going to be those same (mostly guys) who were your upperclassmen at the academy who are still going to be deciding on your promotion. And the slots get very, very few by the time you get to general.))

That's how the officer corps works, and that's how the system keeps its members in line: they screw one guy over to scare the shit out of everyone below him.

The AF sort of did that in April, when it sacked the two generals and two colonels (i.e., yanked them all out of their positions, or as they like to say, "relieved them of command.") Actually, nix that "sort of." They did it pretty damn strongly then, but not quite as strongly as they could have. In their world, the first round was actually plenty. I have no doubt the whole corps got the message then. But this move REALLY drives the signal home. For Dallager it's just a disgraceful way to end a career. It's a very small-town club, those generals, and he'll never live it down. (And probably never be asked to comment on the network news garbagecasts.)

So freaking green

Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:16:42 GMT

I got all excited when I saw that MSNBC.com had picked up my Slate story. I was actually typing up an email to my agent asking if I could add them to my resume when I noticed that most or all of the stories on the MSNBC.com opinion page were Slate stories. I guess Slate IS their opinion page.

I feel like such a goof. Haven't had a good story bring in a lot of readers in awhile. Not like the glory days of Salon. This spring my Academy story generarted maybe half a dozen letters. And I actually thought it was going to be more controversial. I'm just excited to have readers again.

It's nice to have the story labelled "Opinions" there, though. Maybe those readers won't write to me complaining that my news story was highly biased and opinionated, as several of the Slate readers have. (Isn't Slate well known as an opinion journal? At least among Slate readers? Maybe they got wind of it somewhere else or through a search or something, and didn't know what Slate was. But wouldn't reading it make it obvious that it was an opinion piece? If you're (not YOU of course, but those other bad you's) about to scream, "Hey! This if full of opinions!" Maybe you should consider the possibility that it was intended to be full of opinions.

(And here's a request for you more ambitious friends. Click on the MSNBC version of the story and vote for how well you liked it at the very bottom. Just click on a number from 1 to 7. (Please don't vote 1.) At the moment, it would take a 5.94 score to make it to the Readers' Choice page.

Some thoughtful responses too

Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:24:07 GMT

I'm getting a few really thoughtful, insightful posts mixed in with the hate mail as well (to my Slate piece. By the way, I still like my title better--Scapegoats of the Academy--but they thought otherwise. It just carries such wonderful echoes of Scapegoats of the Empire. Maybe they never saw Breaker Morant. I'd like to read the book, but Amazon has just 5 used copies, ranging from $115 to $650.)

Just got a great response from a female Academy grad, with lots of wisdom to offer. I'm going to keep adding them to the Hate mail! post below, so they're all together. I'll keep adding them for the next day or two, or as long as interesting mail on it comes in.

There's also a town-hall meeting down at the Academy on Friday that I'm going to, so I'll probably have more thoughts and fresh perspectives then.

Go to Slate right now!

Thu, 10 Jul 2003 04:21:56 GMT

On a much brighter note, I was a slightly sad this afternoon to see my story kinda drift down the Slate page and not get a lot of visibility. I never expected it to be the cover story, but they've got six different slots right below the cover graphic to highlight pieces. I was hoping I'd get one of those.

And now it's the cover!

Quick go see, before they change it!

Hate mail!

Thu, 10 Jul 2003 04:02:17 GMT

UPDATE: I'll getting some insightful email responses too, and will continue adding the best for a few days, continuning chronologically, with most recent lowest.

My Slate piece, The Air Force Academy's Show Trial has been up several hours, and man, it's just pouring in.

I thought it was the military people who were going to be irate at me knocking their prized institution. Surprisingly, it has been mostly positive from that quarter so far. This one was pretty typical:

As a retired Air Force officer, I applaud your account of the upcoming

show trial.

I only hope that the officers who serve on the court have the integrity

to render a just verdict based on the facts. If they are "careerists",

justice may not be served. Please stay on top of this story.

That caught me by surprise. That is so refreshing to hear someone from the military unafraid of prying eyes, even encouraging them. When I hear a person asking for his own institution's feet to be held to the fire, I know I'm talking to a person confident in that institution. And more interested in justice than their own friends' hides. Gotta love people like that.

But the pleasant military responses were not half as surprising as the level of venom coming from a lot of young men and women. Many staunchly believe that if you have sex with a drunk woman you're automatically a rapist. I find that perplexing. Then with all the people hooking up at singles bars, getting drunk and going home together, all the men are rapists? And what are the women?

It doesn't seem like a rational response to me, but I guess that's the point. They're responding emotionally, and reason doesn't necessary play a big role when you're infuriated. And are they furious. Try this one:

hey nice article, asshole! maybe you should have suggested that the victim actually be sentenced to prison. i mean, being raped and humiliated and having her career dreams shattered really isn't enough punishment for a woman for enrolling in a MAN'S academy. i mean, women don't even deserve to be there in the first place, right?

FUCK YOU. that was the most one-sided opinionated article i have ever read. you should be banned from any further attempts at "journalism". . . .

more more more! of this post

Scapegoats of the Academy

Wed, 09 Jul 2003 23:30:19 GMT

My first story on Slate!

Feels like I've been working on this story forever. Just posted:

The Air Force Academy's Show Trial
The academy's new mascot should be the scapegoat.
By Dave Cullen

I'm eager to hear what everyone out there thinks.

And one request. It's my first piece for them, and I'd hate it to be my last, so traffic would be a good thing!

If you can pop over there to check it out, that would sure help.

If you could pass on the news to anyone you know interested in rapes, show trials, the Air Force, the Academy, Reichen, pilots, airlines, vacations, sex, or injustice, that would be great. If anyone you know has no interest in any of those things, what the hell are you doing wasting time with them?

He likes it! He likes it!

Tue, 08 Jul 2003 19:46:21 GMT

Just having a Sally Field moment here. I'm always terrified new editors will hate my stuff.

And this story. Don't know why I tortured myself with it, just wanted it to be perfect. And of course I couldn't stick to my word limit, so fresh terror he'd be pissed about that. It was supposed to be 1000-1200, with strict orders not to bog down in too many details. I sent 1,450, asking him to help me figure out where to cut. Sometimes editors hate that, but usually they seem OK, as long as it's good. I'd rather have them guide me a bit, because once I get emeshed in a story, it's a bit hard to get the 40,000-foot view.

But I went to bed picturing him yelling at me, asking why I thought they'd accept that. Other visions of him just not liking the approach. I was told to structure it around and argument, very differenly than my Salon stuff--where they've trained me to keep most of that to a minimum. I was surprised at how awkward it felt to be writing in a such a different style, and how unsure I was a my narrative. By 5:30 this morning, I thought I had a winner, but not sure I was qualified to judge.

So I just called to pester him--actually I had a new development I needed to let him know about, but it sure was good to get the feedback. He likes it! It's going to run. He did say I "bogged down in the weeds" a few times, but he's helping me fix that.

I so relieved. And exited. A new magazine! Haven't added one of those in a long time (except the one coming this September, but it's great to suddenly have two.)

So that's my news that only matters to my friends and family. The story should be out late tomorrow, hopefully, and then I can say who's running it, and all that crap.

We hold these truths . . .

Sat, 05 Jul 2003 20:41:16 GMT

. . . to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I get chills just saying that. Every time.

I quote it sometimes on Thanksgiving, when we go around the table saying what we're thankful for, but only in certain company because it's hard not feeling pretentious. But that really is what I'm most thankful for in this world. To have been born into a time and a place where a group of people have banded together to rule themselves by those words. That's simply extraordinary. Hard to picture the world ever topping that one.

Except when it actually makes them all come true, of course. I know I complain a lot, but half the complaining has to do with us not living up to those words. (The other half is about failing to realize artistic potential, or selling out and not trying to.) We're not doing bad, considering how close the rest of humanity has gotten most of the past 10,000 years or so. But we can sure do a lot better.

We veer so far from that vision so often, that I frequently wonder whether the people I find myself arguing with most of the time have a different vision of what those words mean, or just don't truly buy into them. I realize some of my Christian friends, for example, put that document way down the list below a lot of religious documentation. Many of them do not buy into that sentence, they do not see their Creator endowing them with those rights, the see the world through a very different lens. A very muddy one, unfortunately. Which I don't mean as a knock--I think most of them would agree that the bible is wildly complex and contradictory. So many interpretations of what it means. And then--particularly among the Catholics--there's that whole other body of religious dogma that has built up based on God knows what, that they're trying to governing behavior by. Kind of hard to keep the central message straight sometimes in that realm.

That's the wonderful thing about the unalienable rights sentence: couldn't be more crystal clear, could it? And it really does capture the whole breadth of human existence, at least as much as any one sentence could reasonably hope to. (Although I would have written it as several sentences. Would read a lot more powerfully with some periods in there. Not to nitpick or anything.)

And like any truly great sentence, the blockbuster arrives at the very end:

. . . The Pursuit of Happiness

I wish I could remember who--some ferner, they've always got the best vantage point to see us--made a wonderful point of how extraordinary the inclusion of that phrase was. I've always thought so, but I hadn't realized (and I am not at all certain it's true, but in this rare case I'll pass on an unsubstantiated rumor) that no (known?) government had ever before established happiness as one of its a guiding principle. Civilizations were always championing wealth, power and occasionally the glory of their god (or paying lip service to Him). Security and food were always primary concerns. Gold a quick runner-up. Land, obviously. Liberty was a relatively new and radical concept. But happiness. As a central right of existence. Endowed directly by our Creator, trumping the right of any man to restrict it? That was totally off the map.

Revelatory. But really, that's what we're all shooting for, isn't? That's what I really want, is the opportunity to pursue whatever course I think it is that's going to bring me some sort of happiness. And fulfillment--which is found at precisely the same destination. (Or along precisely the same path, for those of you obsessed with the whole journey! journey! life is a journey! metaphor. (I agree with you, by the way, but could the phrase possibly have grown more tiresome?))

In fact, the only reason I really need the Liberty is to make my way successfully to the happiness. If there's anything redundant in that sentence up top it's the Liberty. But thank God it's in there, or some damn fools interpretting the document would surely be arguing its utter dispensibility. In practice, Liberty is the most important word in the document, because hopefully it's a guiding principle on the road to happiness, though quite a few groups in this country are intent on abridging it.

The Happiness line, though, that's the one that brings the brightest smile to my eyes.

You know the one big problem with The Sentence? Someone lacked the foresight to append it to the constitution. I guess they figured it went without saying: If we formally issued the document to declare our existence as a nation, then it automatically rose to pre-eminent status in interpretting how we should be governed. Unfortunately, our chief governers, those nine men and women on the supreme court do not see it that way.

So many frivolous constitutional amendments out there, that's an unfrivolous one I would love to see appended. Just that single glorious sentence.

AF Academy story coming

Fri, 04 Jul 2003 04:50:29 GMT

Hey, I just sold a story today. Woohoo! It's on the AF Academy rape scandal, specifically the first court martial of an alleged rapist since the scandal broke this January. The Academy Commandant surprised everyone yesterday by overruling the investigating officer and sending the case to court martial.

I've been wanting to do this story for a month now. Needs to be told. Should be out Monday. Watch this space and I'll link to myself. (heeheehee.)

I've also got a little story I've been meaning to tell about a very different aspect of the Academy that I didn't pitch last month when it had a new peg, because I couldn't quite get the handle on it I wanted. I'll try to write it up for the blog this weekend.

I was surprised the court martial announcement yesterday didn't get bigger play. I expected it splashed across the front page of the D Post, but it was front page of the metro section. They put the lamest nothing stories on the Academy on the front page, every little tidbit lands there. (Rumor is they're gunning for a Pulitizer, which has drawn a lot of chuckling since they came to the story about a month late and haven't seemed to add much.) Didn't see the paper copy of the RMN, not sure what they did with it.

If you're not up to speed on the scandal, my long Salon piece came at the tail end and hopefully lays it out pretty thoroughly. And the excellent Westword story that got it all started is here. Westword is the Denver alt weekly. Sometimes their stories are as rambling and unedited as this blog, but Julie Jargon did a really nice job on this one.

Air Force Academy cadet WILL face court martial

Wed, 02 Jul 2003 20:13:48 GMT

This is a stunner. (Seriously.)

General Weida, the new highly-moralistic new commandant, overruled the investigating officer's recommendation and ordered a court martial of Douglas Meester, on all four counts. (Overruling is fairly rare, but does happen.)

Rocky Mountain News story here.

My Salon piece on the full rape scandal, and solutions being implemented here.

Here's the press release the Academy sent a few hours ago:

U.S. AIR FORCE ACADEMY, Colo., -- A general court-martial has been referred for Cadet 3^rd Class (sophomore) Douglas L. Meester by Brig. Gen. John Weida, who is the general court-martial convening authority. No trial date has been set.

Charges were preferred against Meester May 13, for violations of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. Charge 1 is a violation of Article 120, rape; Charge 2 is a violation of Article 125, forcible sodomy; Charge 3 is a violation of Article 133, conduct unbecoming (providing alcohol to minors); Charge 4 is a violation of Article 134, indecent assault.

Meester’s Article 32 hearing was conducted May 14, at the Academy to determine if the case should be referred to court-martial or an alternate action. The investigating officer for the Article 32 was Maj. Todd McDowell.

If convicted in the trial, Meester faces a maximum punishment of confinement for life, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and dismissal from the Air Force.

More later.

These Air force cadets were ready to fly. Then the honor board crashed their careers.
BY JULIE JARGON