Fiasco at the Army War College?

[SWJED]

We’ve been tracking two Posts by Tom Ricks at his new blogosphere home (The Best Defense) at Foreign Policy. The first post, Fiasco at the Army War College concerns one of our Council members – Dr. Steven Metz. The second post, an offshoot of the first, Fiasco at the Army War College: The Sequel concerns Mark Perry, an author of several books on defense issues, who wrote to say that a series of experiences two years ago at the college so concerned him that he sent a letter outlining his worries to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mike Mullen.

If you feel compelled to comment here or at the SWJ Blog on either post keep it professional and in context of the issues presented by Ricks – personal attacks won’t cut it. Thanks much.

[Stan]

Having read this 7 hours ahead of you folks, I had time to reflect on my 23 years in the military and the blunders of free speech (in the service of the USG).

Steve did a great job explaining the realities of PME and his rather "State of Sierra".

Don't let the bastards get you down.

Steve, how's the Beemer running ?

Regards, Stan

[Cavguy]

We’ve been tracking two Posts by Tom Ricks at his new blogosphere home (The Best Defense) at Foreign Policy. The first post, Fiasco at the Army War College concerns one of our Council members – Dr. Steven Metz. The second post, an offshoot of the first, Fiasco at the Army War College: The Sequel concerns Mark Perry, an author of several books on defense issues, who wrote to say that a series of experiences two years ago at the college so concerned him that he sent a letter outlining his worries to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mike Mullen.

If you feel compelled to comment here or at the SWJ Blog on either post keep it professional and in context of the issues presented by Ricks – personal attacks won’t cut it. Thanks much.

I'm kinda curious why Steve Metz dropped off the board about a year ago and has not returned? He was a really active poster at one time.

[jmm99]

The link for "The second post, an offshoot of the first, Fiasco at the Army War College: The Sequel" is here.

[SWJED]

The link for "The second post, an offshoot of the first, Fiasco at the Army War College: The Sequel" is here.

Thanks, fixed.

[RTK]

I'm kinda curious why Steve Metz dropped off the board about a year ago and has not returned? He was a really active poster at one time.

I figured it had to do with the book his was writing.

[Cavguy]

I figured it had to do with the book his was writing.

I did too - except his book has been complete (and published) for quite awhile.

Thinking he doesn't like us anymore ...

[Steve Blair]

The whole concept of academic freedom is an interesting one, and it's often misunderstood by folks outside of the ivy towers. In short, the vast majority of institutions practice freedom to research, but there can be institutional pressures applied when it comes to what is actually published. And until a professor gets tenure, he or she is often employed at the will of the institution...meaning in short that if you piss someone off, you might not get tenure or have your contract renewed for the coming year. And given the competition for professor positions in most of the liberal arts...losing that job might derail your only real shot at a tenure-track position.

Pressure can come from administration, or just from your colleagues in your particular academic department. For an interesting (and inflammatory) look at some of these issues you might google Ward Churchill, although his case is certainly extreme. I seem to recall that the authors of "The Bell Curve" also came under fire from the opposite end of the political spectrum. And having reviewed some of the comments regarding Ricks' post, I can only conclude that there is a "warm and fuzzy" understanding of academic freedom out there that doesn't agree with reality on the civilian side. While there is a general agreement (at least from what I've seen) regarding academic freedom to research, if you're going to publish you'd better have your ducks in a row and be prepared to take some hits...especially if any of your conclusions are controversial. It's different once an individual has tenure, but prior to that it's a very careful balancing act. That doesn't make it right, mind, but that is the reality of the situation.

[Schmedlap]

I don't understand why this is an academic freedom issue, nor do I understand why Metz thinks that he should have spoken up about the conduct of the war when it was going poorly. I think he got it right when he raised the analogy of a state university professor airing his views versus a faculty member at a national defense institution doing the same.

The role of the intellectual is to challenge, question, test, research. The intellectual has knowledge, but not all of the information. If you're going to "speak out" then you need a good dose of both. If you have only the latter, then you don't "speak out" because, in spite of your vast knowledge, you lack the timely information to develop a clear picture of what is happening. It is more appropriate, in that case, to challenge and question by drawing historical analogies, finding parallels in similar activities, observing patterns and asking what is causing them.

I smell an ulterior motive in this piece by Ricks. It seems like a well-crafted piece of drama that serves to tell an ongoing narrative of pressure upon those in the National Security arena to toe the line on administration policies. Some don't want us to forget - or stop harping on - the real or imagined sins up through 2006. Otherwise, they might need to find a new dead horse to beat. This one should have been sent to the glue factory a couple years ago.

[SWCAdmin]

I did too - except his book has been complete (and published) for quite awhile.

Thinking he doesn't like us anymore ...

He has been missed and we would be glad if his SWJ bad habits reappear, but this line of discussion is off topic and sort of unfair. No explanation of absence should be sought or expected, let's just enjoy presence when we are lucky enough to have it.

CIVILIAN FRIENDS: Get upset if you're too busy to talk to them for a week.
VETERAN FRIENDS: Are glad to see you after years, and will happily carry on the same conversation you were having the last time you met.

[SteveMetz]

Let me try and put this to rest. I believe two points are important.

First, the email that I sent to my colleagues in 2005 (which, I believe, was dredged up and sent to Tom Ricks by a disgruntled employee seeking to embarrass me) was NOT about academic freedom at the Army War College. It was about journalistic methods. Several of us had experiences with Tom where what we said was portrayed as more critical of the administration than we intended, or things written by individual War College authors were portrayed as official positions. I was attempting to draw that to the attention of my colleagues.

Was that a purely time and context specific problem? I noticed that Tom's Foreign Policy blog entry of 31 December is headlined, "The U.S. Army Speaks Up For Hamas." It was summarizing a recent publication by an Army War College professor that includes the following disclaimer on p. ii: "The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government" so everyone can decide on their own.

In Tom's blog, I see that his major source for the fact that there is an academic freedom problem at the Army War College is someone who was a guest speaker for a few days a couple of year ago. This fellow drew his conclusion from the comments of some unidentified people who came up to him during lunch.

I've been in the Professional Military Education system for nearly 23 years. I've been on the faculty at the Army War College for nearly 18 of those. In my opinion, academic freedom in PME is, by necessity, different than in a secular, civilian university, but it is robust and rigorous. I think that DoD and senior military leaders deserve great credit for allowing, even encouraging their employees to second guess and critique their decisions. I doubt few industries or even civilian universities would be equally open to that kind of free discourse.

So when it comes to academic freedom in PME, my personal opinion is that there's nothing to see here folks--let's move along and discuss issues that really need it.

[SteveMetz]

I think this discussion thread and most of the others sparked by Ricks' blog have missed the crucial point: it's about journalistic ethics, not academic freedom.

Specifically, should a reporter use a faculty member in the professional military educational system or a serving military officer as a cudgel against the administration if the opportunity presents itself? In my experience most (but not all) reporters recognize that academic freedom in the military educational system is important but fragile, and using faculty members as anti-administration cudgels can damage not only them personally, but also the acceptance of academic freedom by senior defense leaders.

Should the ethical standard be that the journalist is free to use anything said to him or her in any way they see fit and is under no moral obligation to consider the way their use of the words will effect the person who said them? If so, and people decide it's best not to speak to the journalist and communicate this to their friends and colleagues, does that constitute "blackballing" (assuming the person was only offering advice and not commanding people to avoid the journalist)?

Second, should a reporter portray something written in the professional educational system under the policy of academic freedom as the government position? To take one example, Tom's Foreign Policy blog entry of 31 December is headlined "The U.S. Army Speaks Up For Hamas." It was summarizing a recent publication by an Army War College professor that includes the following disclaimer on p. ii: "The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government." Is this within the confines of journalistic ethics? If not, could it potentially cause senior defense leaders to rethink their support for academic freedom at government educational institutions?

[Ken White]

Journalistic ethics. That is IMO...

Those folks have lost the bubble, they're failing as a business case, TV or print, their credibility is totally shredded and they can't understand why.

Sad or scary, I'm unsure which.

Steve Metz said:

"In my experience most (but not all) reporters recognize that academic freedom in the military educational system is important but fragile, and using faculty members as anti-administration cudgels can damage not only them personally, but also the acceptance of academic freedom by senior defense leaders."

That seems logical to me and would also seem to be something that a reporter would be loath to impugn for fear of losing or antagonizing some important sources who tend to agree with them on most issues...

As I say, those folks appear to be wandering about lost.

[marct]

Hi Steve,

I think this discussion thread and most of the others sparked by Ricks' blog have missed the crucial point: it's about journalistic ethics, not academic freedom.

Absolutely bang on, Steve. What is interesting, for me at least, is that the ethical system is quite highly related to that of Anthropology since both journalists and anthropologists "report" on the people they interact with. The primary differences are in the assumed audience for that reporting, the genre of the reports and the assumed goal of the reporting.

Specifically, should a reporter use a faculty member in the professional military educational system or a serving military officer as a cudgel against the administration if the opportunity presents itself?

This is certainly something we have run into in our debates. In general, we assume that anything we say or write will be used by someone with a political ax to grind, and many of the AAA's ethical "guidelines" are designed to control our political use of what we find.

Should the ethical standard be that the journalist is free to use anything said to him or her in any way they see fit and is under no moral obligation to consider the way their use of the words will effect the person who said them? If so, and people decide it's best not to speak to the journalist and communicate this to their friends and colleagues, does that constitute "blackballing" (assuming the person was only offering advice and not commanding people to avoid the journalist)?

Technically, "blackballing" refers to the process of excluding a person from group membership. I don't really think that that is an accurate word to describe the events. Advising colleagues not to talk with someone as a result of past (mis)use of such discussion isn't blackballing - it's environmental information .

Second, should a reporter portray something written in the professional educational system under the policy of academic freedom as the government position?... Is this within the confines of journalistic ethics? If not, could it potentially cause senior defense leaders to rethink their support for academic freedom at government educational institutions?

In that instance, it's poor fact checking which, I believe, is contrary to journalistic ethics. Your final question is interesting, because I believe that it is a question that is purposefully not examined that much. I suspect that the assumed goal of reporting - the public "right to know" - is held as the end point in a chain of responsibility. I'd actually be very interested to know Tom's take on this.

Marc

[Ken White]

Advising colleagues not to talk with someone as a result of past (mis)use of such discussion isn't blackballing - it's environmental information .

not stated is whether the advice was a result of perceived intentional or inadvertent 'misuse' thus it appears that umbrage was perhaps unnecessarily taken...

[SteveMetz]

not stated is whether the advice was a result of perceived intentional or inadvertent 'misuse' thus it appears that umbrage was perhaps unnecessarily taken...

The advice I gave was the result of a series of events spanning an extensive period of time. And, as suggested above, the use of the word "blackballed" in the blog was a distortion. No one in a position of authority said don't talk to Tom Ricks. It was me giving advice to a small group of colleagues. That doesn't fall within the normal use of the word "blackball" (although clearly the use of the word was more publicity generating than a more accurate portrayal would have been).

[Ken White]

well. Leaves me with the impression that either Schmedlap or Mark O'Neill are correct above and / or that I am with the 'undue' umbrage remark -- emphasis on the undue...

As I tried to point out and as you said:

"So when it comes to academic freedom in PME, my personal opinion is that there's nothing to see here folks--let's move along and discuss issues that really need it."

I also agree with Rank Amateur...

[selil]

The advice I gave was the result of a series of events spanning an extensive period of time. And, as suggested above, the use of the word "blackballed" in the blog was a distortion. No one in a position of authority said don't talk to Tom Ricks. It was me giving advice to a small group of colleagues. That doesn't fall within the normal use of the word "blackball" (although clearly the use of the word was more publicity generating than a more accurate portrayal would have been).

I think Mr. Ricks has hurt his standing much more than you have Dr. Metz.

Those who feel negatively towards SSI likely always felt so, but it is unfortunate that this happened.

I have to admit that knowing somebody in SSI is sending out internal emails has made me reconsider ever taking PME position for sabbatical or scholar swap. I'm to much of a curmudgeon to deal with that kind of backstabbing behavior.