Earlier this week, I attended the second day of the Service Academies Global Summit. Throughout the plenary sessions and the panel discussions, I observed a common theme, the need for more diversity and the importance of communication (or language) in today’s leadership. I was particularly interested in the plenary session about developing leaders at the different service academies which included the Superintendents from the U.S. Air Force Academy (USAFA), U.S. Military Academy (USMA), U.S. Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA) and U.S. Coast Guard Academy (USCG) and the Commandant from the U.S. Naval Academy (USNA).
Lt. Gen. Silveria from USAFA identified the ability to adapt to changing environments as the foundation of the graduates of his academy. RADM Buono from USMMA, who also served as President and CEO of SeaRiver Maritime Inc., reflected on the difference between leadership in the military and leadership in corporate America where no one wants to make decisions. He argued the importance of the academies is to enable midshipmen (and cadets) to cultivate their decision-making abilities relative to the task at hand. With this in mind, Lt. Gen Silveria conveyed one of the roles of the academies is to be a “leadership laboratory”. As a laboratory, midshipmen and cadets can practice, as CAPT Buchanan from USNA states, leadership among peers which incorporate character development, core values, and professional competence.
I was particularly struck by Lt. Gen. Silveria recalling an incident from 2017 when he addressed the entire academy after a student at the USAFA Preparatory School wrote racial slurs on the message boards of African American cadets. In the video, his message is clear, “If you can’t treat someone from another race or different color skin with dignity and respect, then you need to get out.” During the panel, he extended his message and included individuals of different gender and sexual identities. In so doing, Silveria (re)defines USAFA as an institution where diversity is not only accepted, but embraced. He further indicates what practices are institutionally sanctioned. In other words, cadets at USAFA are expected to treat their peers of different ethnic, gender, and sexual identities with dignity and respect. Lastly, he’s defining his role, as superintendent, as the moral compass of the institution. And by agreeing with Silveria, the superintendents and the commandant extend Silveria’s sentiments to their own academies.
RADM Kelly, the superintendent at USCG, commended Silveria and remarked about the quality of the message in regard to the immediacy after the incident which further reflects Silveria’s outstanding leadership. Recalling Robinson’s (2001) definition, “Leadership is exercised when ideas expressed in talk or action are recognized by others as capable of progressing tasks or problems which are important to them” (p. 93). Silveria was able to succinctly address the incident, reinforce values, and provide direction for the cadets moving forward – to “engage in open discussion about the topic and focus on solutions”.
Ten years ago, prior to the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, military leaders would not extend the same acceptance of diverse individuals to gay and lesbian servicemembers. And, women weren’t even able to serve in a variety of military roles until 2016. This stands in sharp contrast to the military (specifically the Army) of 1976 when then Army Chief of Staff, General William Westmoreland, stated, “The purpose of West Point is to train combat officers, and women are not physically able to lead in combat. Maybe you could find one woman in 10,000 who could lead in combat, but she would be a freak, and we’re not running the Military Academy for freaks” (Department of Defense, 2010, p. 86).
While Silveria’s remarks reflects the milestones and achievements in the military in regard to diversity, there is still much work to be done. The cultural values expressed by top brass military leadership emphasizing acceptance of diversity and inclusivity does not always play out in cultural practice. This is reflected in the various accounts of toxic leadership and increase in sexual assault in the military, as well as the micro-aggressions in gendered and homophobic language common in a masculine gendered institution. I’m not recommending a revamping of all things “gendered”, culturally insensitive or homophobic (although those things need to go). I’m recommending that linguistic awareness should be included in the the character development of our officers. That when we use specific types of discourses, we aren’t just using words, we’re perpetuating meaning and creating new meaning. In other words, when an individual uses racist, sexist, or homophobic language – they’re not only expressing themselves in an offensive manner, they’re also defining the workshop, office, or command as an environment where the ideologies of that type of language is acceptable.
Department of Defense, U.S. 2010. Report of the comprehensive review of the issues associated with a repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”.
