I think the part about expelling cadets for underage drinking must be a typo. What I've read is that they're going to give amnesty to cadets who've broken rules on underage drinking, fraternization, etc. so they can report sexual assault.

The women were compromised by breaking their cadet oath. So in a sense they were complicit in their trouble. No doubt they got more than they bargained for. No doubt the culture at the academy needs to change.

One must not forget though that combat is just as unforgiving of "minor" mistakes. In combat one breaks the rules only for very good reasons.

I think the lesson these women got is harsh for the seriousness of the infraction. Life is like that sometimes.

The second point though is much harsher on the men. Placed in a position of privledge by the women's indiscretions they took advantage and assaulted them. This is not in the best tradition of our military, especially given that they not only fight for us but are our ambassadors. The men involved need to be drummed out of the service. The respect for women is one of the selling points of our civilization. The men who did the raping cannot represent us. Ever. In addition they ought to do some years of hard time.

The rapes as I undestand the situation did not happen on the watches of the current (now former) commanders. What they are guilty of is not taking a firmer hand in changing the culture of the academy. Perhaps they can still serve some useful function in the military. They could be good officers not suited to the effort required. The fault in this instance is not totally the officers. It is tthe fault of what in the Navy is called the Bureau of Personel. I don't know what the Air Force equivalent is. The problem is that an Einstein might be good at atomic bomb design but not so good at leading an Army division. The personel office must know a man's limitations.

The officers who need to be severely punished are those in charge when the rape allegations were ignored. They are probably retired. I don't know how you punish retired officers. As far as I know it is rarely done.

The whole under age drinking bit in the US of A is toatal BS.

As we learn more about the brain we know that chemical stress relief can actually enhance over all performance. Stress can lock pain into the brain. Chemicals can relieve that stress until it naturally decays in the brain.

The use of all kinds of drugs peaks in the 18 to 24 year old age group and declines there after. In addition the effect of a given stressor on an individual is in part genetically determined. Thus a stress that might not bother one individual might drive another to drink.

During about 1/2 the period of maximum stress for most individuals the stress reliever alcohol is denied to people who may need it most. And god forbid that you should prefer pot to alcohol.

Given our current beliefs about the nature of alcohol as a drug in particular and drugs in general I'm not surprised that under age drinking is an expelling offence.

M. Simon commented: "I don't know how you punish retired officers. As far as I know it is rarely done."

It can be done, although, as you say, it is rare. The retired officer is re-activated to the service, then punished, if a court martial returns a conviction.

As far as I know, not a single rape has been proved in court.
Technically, then, they didn't officially happen.
What we have are allegations, some of which are short of the kind of evidence which can be investigated after the fact.
Rape happens in the military at about one-fifth the rate it happens among civilians.
Most other crime happens at a tenth or less the rate in the "world". So rape is an anomaly in this regard.
One USAF study found that one-third of reported rapes were false reports, the criterion for the judgment being recantation by the women in question.
Applying this correction factor, we have a very low number of actual rapes, of which some substantial portion cannot, because of individual circumstances, be investigated to the extent a solid conclusion can be reached, or a prosecution begun.
Most of the reports I've seen in the news are versions of date rape. In date rape,both parties usually agree that sexual intercourse happened, while disagreeing on the subject of consent. However, proving that consent was not given is nearly impossible without the confession of the man.
This is beginning to sound like Tailhook, where no prosecutions were attempted due to lack of evidence, except for one guy who turned out to have been the wrong guy. That's a pretty good defense and a solid indictment of the hysteria-driven rage to prosecute somebody, no matter who.
Tailhook was, however, the answer to NOW's dreams.
Let's see if the Academy's situation is addressed as crime or as a political opportunity.
My money's on the latter.

that guy's name was Sylvanus Taco Gilbert?

Why is there ANYTHING wrong with the expulsion of ANY student, male or female, for under age drinking? How is that putting an unfair burden on the women? As a woman who was in the enlisted ranks of the US Navy, I seem to recall underage drinking infractions being more than enough to get me expelled from my "A" school training program. Why should an enlisted female be held to a higher standard than that of a female officer? Rape allegations should have nothing to do with that issue.

However to address the issue of rape allegations, it is completely unfair to place all of the burden of responsibility on those officers in charge at the time of the allegations. That would be similar to placing the burden of a civilian rape between two coworkers on their boss. My understanding is that none of the alleged rapes took place during training exercises, but rather during the cadets' off duty hours. And while I agree that any man found to be guilty of rape should be thrown out of the military and forced to do time at Leavenworth, I also think that any woman who is considered responsible enough to represent our country should also be responsible enough to take the appropriate actions following a rape (hospital visit and law enforcement notification as soon as feasibly possible) so that the alleged rape can be found to have enough evidence for prosecution to take place. I realize that the emotional ramifications of a rape make it more difficult to think clearly (and I speak from experience here), but I also feel that if these women cannot handle those ramifications and still follow the appropriate procedures, then they certainly do not belong in a combat situation, or any other military situation which may require clear thinking and appropriate action in the wake of major emotions. And while no woman is ever at fault for being raped, any intelligent woman knows that it is not necessarily smart to put yourself in a position where you have been drinking and then go into a situation that may be conducive to sexual assault.

If the Air Force is taking steps to handle the issue of these past allegations and to prevent the same from occurring again, I think that is all anyone should reasonably expect of them. It's a heckuva a lot more than is being done to prevent reoccurrences of rape crimes in the civilian sector.

The last part pf the blog entry asks what should be done to female cadets who are raped while drinking under 21? What should happen is that the rape allegation should be investigated regardless, and the cadets concerned should be punished for the underage drinking under the UCMJ.

The existence of a serious offence like rape does not excuse another rules breaking like underage drinking. Whether 21 or 18 is an appropriate drinking age is another, entirely different question. The fact of the matter is that for the moment, it is illegal to buy alcohol under 21 in the US. Until and unless that changes, the rules breakers should be prosecuted.

Military officers are expected to be leaders who are respected by the enlisted personnel they are commanding. People who break rules like those on underage drinking are no more likely to be respected than those who commit a more serious crime like rape. Whilst the breach of the rules varies in scope and seriousness, the loss of respect that said breach entails does not.

As a former cadet and an retired NCO, the entire situation has left a bad taste in my mouth. The entire military chain of command is based on trust. Violating the rights of another human being, which is what rape is, regardless of all the other fancy words, is a violation of trust. When anyone misuses a position of power to subvert the rights of a subordinate, that should automatically remove that individual from any position of trust, including serving as an officer in any branch of our military.

Being a member of any military service is both a privilege and an honor. Those who misuse that privilege should be expelled. Those who have committed criminal acts should also be tried, and if convicted, encarcerated for the maximum period allowed.

Some considerations:

Cadets are included under those subject to the UCMJ, not just the cadre at the USAFA (Art. 2, UCMJ). Rape is a capital offense, Art. 120; failure to investigate and prosecute is arguably a crime under failure to obey regulations, Art. 92; cruelty and maltreatment of subordinates, Art. 93; or, being principals, accessories after the fact, or conspirators under Arts. 77, 78, 81 respectively. The best case law from the last 3 all come from the Air Force Court of Military Review. (Cases at 5 M.J. 895 and 8 M.J. 822).

Sexual harassment might be an included offense under Art. 133-134 ("conduct unbecoming") but isn't explicitly mentioned in the UCMJ. In fact, those two Articles are so broad that they might be found void for vagueness. That's what happened when a Navy court-martial for sex harassment got to the Navy/Marine Corps appellate level (United States v. Peszynski, 40 M.J. 874 (1994)).

The commandant of the USAFA, or the next command level higher, is quite
capable of convening general courts-martial, certainly capable of ordering an Art. 32 (pretrial) investigation.

The USAFA doesn't have to feel that its "existence is at stake." They simply have to enforce military law. It may be an argument for junking the honor system and the "honor courts" that have abetted the harassment (e.g., the 2002 case of Andrea Prasse).

(Traditionalists will protest, but frankly, show me a cadet "who lies, cheats or steals, or tolerates those who do" and I'll show you someone in violation of punitive Articles of the UCMJ who deserves at least an Art. 15 if not a court-martial. We do have an honor code, it's the UCMJ, and maybe cadets should learn how to live under it as part of their training).

Judging by the comeback comments to Trent’s posting, we do need to make these points. Maybe it'll take some cadets getting sent to Ft. Leavenworth on life or capital sentences.

I've written a rather lengthy article on this for my law review, some of which Trent has mentioned in past posts (i.e., [TT, 2003-03-09] The Air Force's Serbian & Saudi Values). It involved re-writing Art. 125 to be a seamless ban on all forms of sexual harassment in a punitive statute. Let me just summarize it by saying that yes, it's true you can't teach a pig to sing; it only wastes time and annoys the pig. But you can teach the pig he'll behave, or he'll be bacon.