The unique systems we have in place here at VMI ultimately secure one thing: respect. However, in these times, we are seeing a deterioration of respect among the Corps. We should hold ourselves at fault for this, as well as members of the administration. I’m not saying we all have to like everybody and be buddy-buddy with almost every single cadet in the Corps, but despite whatever differences we might have, we need to have respect. That’s a key part of leadership, and leadership, even if we aren’t the hoo-ah, high-speed contracted ROTC cadets, need to learn before we go out into the real world.
The mission of VMI is to produce leaders; leaders need to do two things: show respect, and by doing so earn respect – they tie into each other, without one the other will not exist or fail. How do the subordinates effectively accomplish the tasks set out for them if they think their leader is a fascist, bureaucrat dictator? They won’t, they’ll do the absolute minimum required because they have no motivation nor desire. Now if they were shown some respect then they that is what they’d show in return, in addition to more motivation and desire to get the job done.
Where this all gets tricky is with the rank structure and military system. Officers and NCOs are granted an automatic respect due to their job, that is called courtesy. They can still be thought of as tyrannical assholes as mentioned above, getting piss-poor results from those under them if they don’t show some resemblance of respect to their people. Here are some examples:
One time L-Train stopped me on the stoop because I was improperly dressed. There were pre-strains here and I was talking to one of them. He said, “Hey, you need to be properly dressed to be with the pre-strains, just run back to your room real quick and get properly dressed before you come back out here with him.” No bone, no snide, and nothing that made me feel inferior. He was PROFESSIONAL, showing me respect but at the same time doing his job. I promptly saluted and did what he asked because I was showing him the same respect he showed me. A similar instance was at 0100 in the morning when I went to make a head-call and Frid-dog stopped me. I was flamed for a good 5 minutes and boned, what he did that made me pissed off was the snide he showed me and tone: “Hey high-speed get over here”. I was made to feel inferior and he clearly was exercising his power over me, but not in the manner L-Train did.
From looking at these examples, which one would you prefer to go through, having the L-Train stop you and in a professional matter, showing you respect, tell you to get properly dressed? Or would you rather be insulted and treated like crap? Now don’t misinterpret me, I’m not saying we should not do what any of these people say, the point is to show leadership styles and traits. You can do two things as a leader: one is what L-Train did by asserting his authority but showed respect, being professional, the other is being degrading and exerting power over someone showing no respect at all.
The reason this is all very crucial is that respect is all but non-existent in the Corps today. I’ve seen cadets argue and get into pissing contests with each other over the most ridiculous of things, and what is the purpose? Here is an example:
During this weekend a 1st saw a 2nd outside of barracks on a cell phone. The 1st went down and in a respectful manner said, “Hey, you can’t do that, not even a 1st can do that outside of barracks and also this isn’t your privilege.” The key thing was that he was respectful and not a jackass about it. The 2nd got back in his face and started to argue and became belligerent about it; to top it off? His friends got in his face too. The cadets escalated the issue and created a scene, although they stated that the 1st was the one creating the scene – now what has happened? Those cadets are going to the GC for disrespect and taking a 1st class privilege. The 1st said he wasn’t going to send them up until they raised it to the next level, and the reason for him to send them up now is to prove a point that this is what happens to people acting like idiots. Not so much for the phone, but rather not showing common respect: for the 1st as well as all the parents and guests that were outside watching this.
To take this idea of respect further, let’s look at leadership in general here at the Corps. Ever since the step off a few years ago, the administration has done everything in their power to put in place measures to ensure this doesn’t happen again. How have they done so? By removing crucial leadership in the Corps – not by removing people, but by changing how things are done.
Example 1: The GC is the ultimate enforcer of the Corps. They provide the leadership for the classes and the Corps. Their ultimate theme is respect for one another, and how hard is that? But where does respect come in when we see the GC President act as accuser, judge, and jury? The GC President sent a rat up for disrespect to the GC president – not disrespect to a 1st classman. I never even knew that was a send-up, disrespect to a president? Now Oaks is not a bad guy, but, this is where I respectfully disagree with him. How was that rat to get a fair chance when his accuser was also the judge and jury? Another incident involved the Historian.
Example 2: During a football game he went around telling cadets to stand up. Well a 1st classman was sitting down during the game. This cadet asked Dunlap if he was doing it to enforce the system or because it was a personal opinion? Dunlap said it was his personal idea that we should all stand to show respect. He then continued to harass the other 1st, only getting the respectful reply, “Hey, I don’t feel that I need to explain myself to you”. Keyword: RESPECT. Dunlap got irate and said, “What are you drunk?” The 1st said “No, and again, I don’t need to explain myself to you.” Finally the 1st got fed up and replied, still in a respectful manner, “I’m sick, I’m not feeling well and I just want to sit down and chill out.” The argument was over. The following game Dunlap was walking around again and performing the same police action as the last game, but this time he had other GC members with him. When he saw the same 1st, sitting down, yet another conflict began. Dunlap planned on having other members of the GC send people up for him, so it wouldn’t be a reflection of his own personal opinion. Of course, we all know that is ridiculous. He already made two mistakes, he didn’t show respect and the second time around didn’t act professional. I don’t know Dunlap, and I do not have any real opinion of him, but I do have an opinion about that action. It was a bad call.
Example 3: COL Moncure is the Govt. Advisor for the Corps to make sure everything runs smoothly. His job is to advise, not enforce, nor take part in. However, every meeting the GC has, it seems that he has something to say about the punishment and somehow the punishment is magically changed. Now we are crossing from advising, to dictating. The Corps sees this and now respect was lost for the GC, because instead of having our representatives enforce the system, we are letting an outside enforce it. We elect those to the GC to act on our best interests, not for the administration to do so. So what is his job, to advise or to dictate? And what is the job of the GC, to act on our behalf or be puppets?
Example 4: In the past, the RDC has primarily been consisted of privates in the Corps. If a rat screws up, the RDC sets them straight. They are supposed to be passionate, emotional, and instill something in the rat to in the end make them a better person. However, if you look around you now, they are all rankers. Have you EVER seen a sergeant or officer in the military work out the lowest private and become overly emotional with them? No, that isn’t their job. Drill sergeants are an exception. The RDC aren’t DIs though, they’re enforcers. Saul Newsome is the prime example of what the RDC should be. If you all know him, yeah we might thing he’s a bit of a tool, but he’s professional, stern, and overall? Fair. Does he have rank? No, he’s a private. Last year the Echo company XO (before his promotion to Reg. XO) was a member of the RDC, he threatened to send rats up and personally work rats out. That goes back to the idea of being accuser, judge, jury, and now executioner. It detracts from the system and the idea of the system.
Example 5: The cadets involved in Rat Bopp’s workout on the stoop were punished by the administration, using the GC and EC as puppets. Then the Commandant continued to punish them even after so. First of all that’s Double Jeopardy and blatantly a violation of all rights we have. Second, even those who didn’t partake but were standing in the same vicinity (i.e. 10-15 feet away) we’re punished the same. Think about toleration, with the new policy for alcohol consumption on post and combine it with this incident – even the innocent are guilty. While we’re at it? Let’s create a secret police organization and have them run around the Corps to enforce the bidding of the administration. How is this leadership? How is this respect? If a man shoots someone on the street, and there are witnesses, do we charge the witnesses too? No, because if we did we would be infringing upon the freedoms and protections of the individual person. We respect their rights and protection under the laws given and do not punish them for someone else’s crime. That brings me to another example.
Example 6: Last year when the rats wanted to go to Jackson’s statue the Commandant singled out one cadet and said if the rats went on to do it he’d be boned, HARSHLY. Punishing one for the acts of others even though the individual is not responsible is just as the same as punishing the body for the action of the one. That tramples on their rights and thus causes the whole to lose respect for the authority figure who does this.
Example 7: General Peay spoke to all the classes last year. The 2nds, whom are now 1sts, had a meeting with Gen. Peay. Peay, however, did not show up, but had a cadet pass on his condolences and said how excited he was and how he was looking forward to spending time in barracks with the cadets and in the class room with them, as well as talking to them individually about his policies and changes to the Mother “I”. Of course, this never happened, and in the second meeting, they were informed the changes were going to take place regardless. What is that called? Totalitarian dictatorship.
“Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed”.
Example 8: Last year when the rats were being issued field jackets, they were chilling out in Cocke Hall. One of the rats was talking and goofing off, as some others were doing. Two others began to harass that one rat saying they’d all be worked out and punished for him. He ignored it and then the two others began to say he didn’t know about being worked out because he was a permit. We’ve all seen this, we’ve seen how others treat permits, especially permit rats. The rat who was the permit remembered this and still to this day has a loss of respect for those two, who now are corporals. So if these guys ever plan on being leaders, they’ve already lost the respect of those who are permits, and if they want something done the animosity of their permit cadets will show and the mission will not be done in the best manner possible, or, a future conflict will arise.
Example 9: General Peay decided to put all females in one section of barracks. There are two problems with this: one arose during Hell Week. The female rats took a longer time to get their gear or get something done if they had to return to their rooms because they had to go to the other end of barracks to accomplish the task, making them late, and getting harsher treatment; two: if the women here want to be accepted and feel a more integral part of the Corps, then why the hell are we segregating them from everyone else? Cadet Laura Mack addressed this issue and managed to have something fixed, but the women are still lined up in rows nick-named “Red-light Districts”. They are still segregated. On top of that, the idea of the new barracks for all females is an idea rejected by them, and what was Peay’s reaction? Too bad I’M doing it anyway. Do you think the women here will respect him now? Or be more kind in their response to the women’s integration at VMI?
Example 10: The VMI cheerleaders obviously have lost respect of the Corps. A reason for this is because traditionally Rats were supposed to cheer for the athletic teams. Why this is important? We are trying to teach the Rats unity. If they feel they don’t need to cheer, they won’t do that one, simple, act of unity. The backlash against the cheerleaders has caused them to respond by saying “Alright, you screw with us it’s GC offense.” It is a bigger GC bone to show any form of disrespect to them instead of a 1st Classman. Also, and many have noticed this, during the playing of the Star Spangled Banner they NEVER salute, even if they are in a cadet uniform – while everyone else pays their due respects and salutes the flag. These two strikes against them cause a few problems. One obvious one is the lack of respect for them and also those who said we MUST respect them. Do we HAVE to respect them? Essentially our right to not show endorsement as well as share our opinions of them has been made a bone, infringing on our rights and furthering our lack of respect to the administration, causing us to lose faith in the GC, and finally it gives us proof that the basic rights we are guaranteed do not exist.
What do all of these examples have in common? They are examples of poor leadership due to not showing respect: for the individual, the body, and the rights of the individual as well as the body. If VMI is to produce good leaders, using the key value of respect as the building block and fundamental trait of good leadership, how are we to become good leaders if this is what we are taught – that leadership is of authoritarian rule showing little to no respect to the individual?
In war, what happens to the leaders who lead their soldiers into combat and they do not have the respect of their men? What happens to them if they lead them into the wrong direction, more specifically, into harms way? In Vietnam they were “fragged”. If we are to be modeled after a Spartan society, I wonder what the ancient Spartan soldiers would do to their leaders if they thought them to be incapable leaders, especially in a situation where their leadership could directly affect their fate or well-being. Here at VMI, I personally wonder what will happen if these gross example of disrespect and trampling on rights, as well as poor leadership will result in when we decide things have gone too far.
- Dr. Gonzo
