—Kerrith H. (Kerry) King

If you liked this story please press the "I liked . . ." button. Upon pressing the button the page will refresh as though nothing happened.

top

Close your browser's window or press the back key to return

cause

To Cause or Not to Cause—a story

Once upon a time in the land of Be, where everything is perfect, there lived a young person. We're not sure whether the person was a boy or a girl. Anyway, this person had an amazing talent; believe it or not they could cause people to do exactly what they were doing.

Now you may smile, or even laugh at this unusual seemingly obvious ability, but it's true. No matter what someone else was doing, this young magician could snap their fingers and, POW! They could even get adults to do what they were doing. Actually, most of the time it wasn't necessary to do the finger snapping. To tell the truth, it didn't make any "POW" noise either. They just silently, non-verbally, intended it.

Can you imagine walking down the hallway in school and someone yells at you, "Hey stupid! Yah, you!" And you saying, to yourself of course, "Thanks. I obviously needed that. Somehow I knew I could count on you to say that." Or your mother, calling you into the kitchen, and before she can open her mouth you saying, "Yup , I'll go clean my room." Would that blow her mind or what?

It was cool. Everywhere this awesome young  person went it was the same. In school, with a teacher who was grumpy, they thought, "I wonder why I'm causing that? I sure did a good job." At other times, in fact quite a lot of the time, they forgot that they could cause what was happening to be happening. For instance, when they got in an argument with their best friend, who wouldn't let them borrow their bike, they'd have to stop the argument and remember that they were causing their friend to be stingy. How can you get mad at someone who's doing what you're intending them to do? Now you may be thinking, yah, but why would someone cause that? Why would someone cause another person to be stingy? Well, you have to remember they could only cause what was happening to happen.

Actually, you the reader have the same ability, this magical power. You can choose to be exactly where you are right now, this moment. Go ahead, choose it, right now. Kind of simple isn't it. Almost silly, yes? Well, it's not so silly when you see two adults arguing. It's easy to see that both have forgotten they have the same ability; to stop, listen, and intend for the other to be saying exactly what they are saying.

If you want you can spend a lot of time trying to figure out why something is happening, or why it happened, but it's not necessary. Really! You don't have to figure it out. When the time comes for you to know, you'll know. The answer will magically appear as to what the genius in you was up to, the one who unconsciously intended something unpleasant to happen. Until then, just be willing to accept the koan—that you caused it because you caused it.

Here's your opportunity to be magical. The story's about end, would you like to have a shot at intending that? Once you choose to cause what's happening you too get to be magically transported to the land of Be where everything is as it is, perfect. —Kerrith H. (Kerry) King

If you liked this story please press the "I liked . . ." button. Upon pressing the button the page will refresh as though nothing happened.

top

Close your browser's window or press the back key to return

poop

The Zen Master Bird-Poop Story

Early one crisp morning a monk asked his Zen master, "Sir, will you teach me how to manifest an intention? The Master replied: "We're always manifesting our intentions, I assume you mean a stated intention, a result you consciously intend?" The monk acknowledged the difference and that often he got something other than what he envisioned because he had not been clear about his intention; he replied, "Yes." The Zen master said, "Sure. Sit down. I'll show you how to cause a bird to poop in that bowl on the table, on my command. How's that?"  The monk said, "Way cool," or something like that. And they sat down.

As dusk approached, the monk said, "Sir, I don't mean to be rude, but you said . . ." The Zen master interrupted him and said, "Yes. And I will. We're waiting for a bird to poop in the bowl. When it does, I'll command it to poop."

To manifest a stated intention you must begin by intending what's "happening" to be happening, to choose what's so to be so.

To create something you first must know how to create nothing. Until you know how to create nothing, the space (referred to as potential) from which everything is created, you can't be certain you are creating anything. Until you know how to create nothing life just happens.

For example: For most divorced couples love at the beginning just happened. We know this to be true because during the divorce process neither knew how to recreate the experience of love—at will, simply through communication. Some, not all, later discover, that they had become stuck, each doing his/her imitation of communication. —Kerrith H. (Kerry) King

If you liked this story please press the "I liked . . ." button. Upon pressing the button the page will refresh as though nothing happened.

top

Close your browser's window or press the back key to return

Parole

Parole—The First 24-hrs—a story

. . . the motivation behind the Community Support Group Project.

With a clean slate and within minutes of leaving the correctional facility a parolee, often believing they are intent on going straight, is usually picked up at the gate by a spouse, family member, or friend. Quite possibly they are asked, "Would you like to drive?" They are elated. They accept the offer and cautiously pull out on to the freeway. The experience of freedom is exhilarating. Soon they find themselves being passed by those going even faster than the 5 mph allowed over the posted limit. They dutifully obey the speed-limit signs resisting the urge to keep up with the flow. But their passenger says, as though they are joking, "Hey, you've been inside too long. You're holding up traffic." The parolee, now brainwashed to follow instructions without hesitation, unwittingly succumbs to the peer pressure. And so, within minutes of parole, they have been lovingly supported by a "true friend" in breaking a law, risking a sanction by their parole officer if they get a speeding ticket; most likely both forgot that the parolee's license had expired and that he doesn't have a Learner's Permit.

They ask their friend if they can stop off at a book store because they promised their parole officer they would buy a study guide for the upcoming Carpenter Journeyman's Test. The friend says, "Great, I'll treat you to some good coffee at Borders." He buys his book while his friend buys two cups of coffee and sets them on a table. His friend then leads him to the magazine rack and urges him to pick out a few magazines to read. Not wanting to be a stick-in-the-mud he does as expected, knowing full well that reading without paying is wrong, and that he's ripping off not only the merchant but the distributors and authors.  He feels uncomfortable doing it and keeps looking up, expecting, if not a Corrections Officer, possibly a clerk, to ask, "May I see your receipt please?" The friend notices his furtive looks and further encourages him, "Relax. Look around. Everyone does it." It doesn't occur to him that Borders is capitalizing on the unethicalness of customers—the implied but not posted browsing policy ostensibly generates more sales. A "No Browsing Please" or a "Please Browse" sign would support everyone's integrity. [Note: This story was sent to the CEO of Borders and they ignored it. Borders has since gone out of business.]

The "friend" is unaware that twice now they have supported the parolee in resorting to the same behaviors that contributed to his incarceration. Later they will say to others, "Yah, it's too bad. I could tell he was heading back to prison."

When at home an old friend stops by and asks if he wants to go see some of the guys. He eagerly accepts the invitation. The guys, one of whom is wanted for a parole violation, are drinking beer, some are smoking pot; he refuses both. Everyone laughs but they understand and seemingly accept his decision. However, they keep kidding him, and offering him tokes, trying to assure themselves he's still one of the guys. Later, when a few whom he respects have left the party, he finally has one beer and just two very-stony tokes.

Later, on the way home, the slightly tipsy driver of the car almost rear-ends another car; he casually mentions, "Damn, that was lucky, no got da kine insurance." This is a given for quite a few of the parolee's old friends so it's "No big ting." It's always been that way. The parolee remains silent, unaware of the friend's unethical dump, the unconscious test, to see just how straight the parolee is going to go. Silence assures the uninsured perpetrator that the parolee is still the same old accepting (enabling) friend.

Later, at home, sitting around the kitchen table, his mother mentions how helpful his brother had been while he was in prison, "He let me claim he lives here so I could get more food stamps and welfare money."  Again, silence is complicity. It is unthinkable to say anything about the fraud. It's always been that way with one thing or another. Nothing "really" serious, nevertheless, both illegal and unethical.

Each perpetration throughout the day eroded the experience of wholesome integrity that was there earlier in the morning. Each complicity having its own karmic consequence. Each perpetration begs to be verbally acknowledged to prevent compounding consequences. Not having anyone to clear with, to acknowledge the day's good deeds and perpetrations, the parolee falls asleep, but it's not the healthy sleep of a person committed to integrity—his mind trails off as it did after his very first unacknowledged childhood lie. "Yup." When his mother asked if he had brushed his teeth. He is neither whole nor complete, "But what the heck," he mutters to himself dozing off, "nobody else is either."

All this occurs within less than 24-hours. For our parolee tomorrow will not be a new day, merely more of the same. —by Kerrith H. (Kerry) King

Note: Nationwide, 42% of all parolees return to prison, in part, because they have not been acknowledged (caught) for all of life's perpetrations—other than what they were incarcerated for, or for the perpetrations they got away with during their incarceration. For more read: Prisontalk Forum posts.

If you liked this story please press the "Parole - The First 24-hrs . .  ." button. Upon pressing the button the page will refresh as though nothing happened.

top

Close your browser's window or press the back key to return

scandals

Military Academy Scandals—a story

With military precision (pun intended) one can count on an academy scandal every few years. They take turns—the Navy, then a few years later the Army. This story is about the Air Force "rape" scandal circa 2003. What follows is a point of view that I, a former Navy submariner, a "Frogman," and an Army Airborne Infantry Officer have not seen elsewhere. For many this is going to be extremely uncomfortable to read. It has to do with responsibility, cause, intention, and communication. Your challenge is to read the entire story, to be with, to choose to experience, the upsets it triggers (find the truth in it rather than argue with it).

Following is an overview of the '03 scandal: A female cadet reported that a senior male cadet had raped her, not once but repeatedly throughout the semester. When the female cadet finally reported the incident about 40 (yes, forty) other female cadets came forward and said that they too experienced similar, and worse, treatments by many male cadets.

The behavior of the male cadets is so reprehensible it's difficult to get to responsibility, to cause, in the matter. What has yet to be reported is the equally reprehensible out-integrity of each of the "victims" and, of the Academy's Commandant—the person responsible for communicating and supporting the academy's code of honor.

America's military academies operate from what's referred to as a Code of Honor. Specifically: "A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do." The code describes exactly how to handle a perpetration. I.e. If a cadet observes another cadet or a staff member breaking a rule, the cadet has agreed (pledged his/her word) to confront the rule-breaker and ask him/her to stop. If the perpetrator refuses to stop then they must be told that they leave the observer no choice other than to report them; or else, and here's the biggie, both the perpetrator and the observer will be reprimanded equally, possibly expelled.

So we ask: How dare a male upper-classman make sexual overtures, let alone rape in the form of sex-at-my-command (a most heinous misuse of control and power), towards a junior female classmate, except with the fear of knowing, with absolute certainty, that it will be reported?

We also ask: If both the victim and the perpetrator are equally bound by the same code of honor what choice does the female have other than to handle the infraction (the first leer, the first untoward communication) as pledged by her word of honor? Would she even want to belong to an organization in which, if she reported such behavior, she was not believed? Didn't each female cadet give her word to the Commandant of the Academy that she could be absolutely trusted to support the code—or, were all 40 female cadets lying? Most would agree that they were all ignorant about the correlation between personal integrity and mission results; few high school grads, no matter how smart, have an experiential knowledge of the subjects of integrity and agreements. I.e. Understanding responsibility is as far from knowing as is not knowing. BTW: It's not the cadet's fault. The Code of Honor was irresponsibly delivered instead of it being communicated.

Next we ask: Who communicated to the male cadets that such behavior was acceptable? This is tricky because it addresses one's (your) definition of responsibility, of cause. With these incidents the alleged "victims" did not make it absolutely clear, they did not communicate, they did not carry with them hourly, in their very countenance, that intimate socializing was absolutely not an option.  Ironically this, "Don't even think about it" communication, this position, is a leadership-communication skill that appears to come more naturally to most men. A homosexual male experientially knows that there is virtually no space, no possibility, for a sexual relationship with a well adjusted heterosexual man; there's not even a tiny hint (not a micro-tell) of a possibility. The same is true for a lesbian; most men intuitively know that there is no possibility—though many ego-bound males try. This countenance frees one to eliminate sex as a communication variable in their relationships. Just as men act differently around women so too do women (even unconsciously) act and dress different in the presence of some men. For women this difference in behavior is referred to as being "at effect" of men.

Now we ask: Who communicated to the cadets that such behavior was acceptable?  It was—unbeknownst to most everyone—the Commandant himself. How do we know? We know by the results he produced using his leadership-communication skills. It was in fact unconsciously communicated non-verbally. As Einstein might say, "it's spooky;" it's a nonlocal (no wires, no gravimetric or electronic signal) instantaneous ("Old-boy-network") kind of transmission—that he (the Commandant) doesn't know psychically emanates from his macho persona—until it's revealed.  Within a few conversations, during a typical three-hour communication consultation with a communicologist (a communication-skills coach) the Commandant would acknowledge that he held (and most likely still holds) unacknowledged prejudiced, biased and sexist views. Unawares (unacknowledged) these views get communicated non-verbally. Just as many women are addicted to unconsciously seducing men so too does a leader communicate his/her biases. Just because one doesn't know how they produced a result doesn't mean their leadership-communication skills didn't produce it.

Now here's big-time irony: The subject of non-verbal, to include conscious and unconscious intentional communication, is not included in any academy's leadership-communication curriculum. It wasn't until I left both the Navy and the Army, and the university education system, (see about me) that I even heard about the subject of leading (communicating) from intention. I first heard about this communication variable in the business world during a Communication Workshop for Educators presented by Werner Erhard (est Training, The Forum) —I had been serving as the Director of Training for Hawaii's then largest real estate company. Intention was not covered at all in any of my B.A. and M.A. speech-communication courses. Not even to this day do universities cover such important communication variables as acknowledgements, incompletes, integrity, perpetrations, withholds, and the biggie, responsibility—the variables that a communication-skills coach knows with certainty are the source of all breakdowns in communication.

This leads to the question: Why isn't the intentional communication model taught in our military academies and to education majors nationwide?

The answer is: A commandant, chancellor, university president, and a communication-skills coach, him/herself, must operate from impeccable integrity. Few leaders, professors or teachers who get paid, can afford spontaneous candor; fewer still would be willing to submit themselves to such rigorous coaching. A totally honest teacher can be perceived as a threat to some in today's leadership positions, in part because his/her students must agree to be willing to go absolutely straight, this includes cleaning up (acknowledging) a lifetime of perpetrations, from cause (zero blame).  In the presence of someone who operates from integrity any out-integrity soon reveals itself.

Herein lies (pun not intended) the rub, the cause of military academy scandals, the code of honor is not communicated. It is not delivered with an intention for it to be honored, therefore it's only understood. It's not co-created; it's neither gotten nor owned, therefore it's not recreated. If it is honored it's because of fear (evidenced by the fact that such a cadet will still have withholds in his/her personal/familial relationships).

Note: It would take a Communication-Skills Coach about three 17-hr days (a weekend-long communication intensive) to communicate the code to the academy's cadets, its staff, and administrators. A communication-skills coach is someone who has spent as much time studying/teaching communication as any professional has spent in his/her specific field including medical doctors and psychiatrists. Most college graduates (including politicians, education majors and mental health professionals) acknowledge that they've only taken the required Sp-Com courses, including the basic, "Intro to the Fundamentals and Principles of Communication"). I know of no university speech-communication curriculum that addresses the correlation between personal integrity and outcomes, nor any that require Leadership Training for education majors (courses, classes, seminars and workshops about leading? Yes. Training? No). That is to say, teachers are put in charge of 20+- students without having demonstrated the fundamental leadership-skills required of entry level enlisted military leaders (i.e. Private/Corporal/Seaman/Airman).  For example: No Army Corporal would allow a squad member to show up without all their equipment squeaky clean; whereas a certified high school teacher will accept a student turning in illegible homework partially done (the word "accept" here is inaccurate—a leader causes/intends). 

Most academy commandants are stuck somewhere in the process of becoming a leader: What you say? —a general is not a leader, they are only acting like a leader? Yes. They were promoted without the validation of a communication-skills coach; the same pertains to your high school "teachers," the ones from whom you did not learn. Senior military officers honestly (and arrogantly) believe that what they call communication is what it is. The way one can tell that an organization has a leader is that the agreements/rules are co-created and honored. This is because a leader co-creates/communicates the agreements as opposed to "announcing them," "putting them out," "telling them," "informing everyone," "saying them," "making them available," etc.  Just as a leader inspires integrity, so too do subordinates have no choice (WHATSOEVER) other than to mirror the out-integrity of their supervisors. An aura of integrity emanates from a leader. A leader can tell from experience if there is a withhold or an unacknowledged perpetration in a relationship. When a relationship starts from integrity any out-integrity is like a "mote in thine eye." It begs to be acknowledged (verbally communicated) and cleared.

For example: Most adults have yet to be acknowledged (caught) for their own first lie/perpetration. The majority of parents miss their child's first lie. You might ask, why is the change (obvious to an objective observer) from a countenance of innocence on their child's face to a look of guilt, missed by most parents? It's simply because most parents have accumulated so many unacknowledged withholds and lies that they have lost their ability to be-with, to experience, certain lies, to discern the difference in another who is out-integrity. Adults even have a category called, "white lies." At some point in time most parents and leaders lapse into their imitation of communication. A reader who experiences upset reading this denies the effects of both an unacknowledged perpetration and the correlation between personal integrity and outcomes; most likely they are both arrogantly ego-bound and out-integrity.  I.e. They are withholding one or more significant thoughts from one or more significant people.

BTW: Who have more of an interest in not providing Leadership Training at the college level—men or women? Such a course would guarantee truthful (faithful) relationships; both would have to surrender control 50% of the time. Wage parity would be the norm.

Put another way, each Academy Commandant who has experienced a cheating/abuse scandal has his own perpetration for which he/she has not been acknowledged (caught).  All generals have deceived a superior and have not been acknowledged for that specific deception. I.e. Doing a half-assed job of cleaning their weapon after which they have been presenting themselves as honest. Most senior officers have lied to expedite a request/order. Cadets have no choice other than to mirror their commandant's integrity. There are no exceptions to this entanglement phenomenon. The prevailing military communication model supports a leader in hiding his/her perpetrations (accumulated throughout childhood and their previous command experiences) for fear of not being promoted. Few generals have acknowledged to any present-day superior the deceits they perpetrated that caused a former superior to think of them as clever and resourceful.* 

* As in the TV program Survivor, it's understood that in the military deception strategies are required. The problem is that no military branch offers clearing (debriefing) processes during the discharge medical exam so as to eliminate the karma of personal perpetrations. I.e. A pilot who survives a crash in which others died, always wonders, for life, if the crash was a consequence of his/her mind being partially preoccupied with their marital infidelity or of having one or more "errors/sneaky omissions" on his/her application form. An officer can't cause (inspire) his/her troops to be any more honest than the officer is with his/her own parents/spouse.

Here's an example of a few minutes of a proposed three-day weekend-long leadership communication-skills workshop to be given at the beginning of each academy year. It would be titled, "The Honor Code of Conduct—a communication workshop." It would be facilitated by a communication-skills coach with military experience. It would include the following:

"Let's begin. Will the following individuals please go to the rear tables, there is an incomplete on your Academy Application Form.

Note to the reader: Communication can not take place when there is an unacknowledged error, perpetration, or withhold in the space.  Nationwide 98% percent of all Job Application Forms have one or more errors (to include a "lazy/accidental/purposeful" omission/error/lie) on them. It's not only that the cadet applicant made the error—that's what applicants do—it's that the staff is so unconscious they did not catch it. Such sloppy work condones sloppy performance and creates disrespect. With few exceptions a poorly performing subordinate has one or more errors on their paper work, beginning with their job application paper work.  The integrity of an organization begins with the integrity of its records—all failed goals reveal one or more incompletes having to do with paper work. It's not as though a paper work error causes an accident, it's that one can't eliminate the possibility, however remote, that it has something to do with the integrity of its leader, say, one who doesn't insist upon everyone doing complete work.

The following takes place sometime on day-two:

". . . now I'm speaking directly to you female cadets. If a male cadet in any way imposes himself sexually upon you and you don't handle it per the "code" you will be expelled. Typically, a cadet will begin with a subtle testing-the-waters seduction, something you experience to be uncomfortable. The communication is so innocuous it can be denied. It could even be an unconscious winking, something the male might be unaware of doing until it's pointed out. This is not hypothetical; it will happen. Some male cadet who needs to be caught for a life-time of sexist communications, condescensions, manipulations, abuses and unacknowledged perpetrations, will impose himself upon you in some fashion. More accurately, you will, using your leadership-communication skills (to include your unconscious emanations) cause a cadet to think there's a possibility; it's referred to as a setup. Women spend a lifetime purposefully not being too nice, too warm or too loving because it can be misinterpreted as a come-on; as such, they don't have much practice simply being, of not having an unconscious agenda to repel or to befriend, or to keep at arms length with no attachments. An unconscious woman who is not clear about how she attracts will "accidentally" give off misinterpreted vibrations. She most likely, during high school, abusively, argued with her parents (made them wrong) about the effects of certain revealing clothing. Walking around scantily dressed in a world full of men whom women know are unhealthfully preoccupied with sex is, as defense lawyers are wont to say, "inviting it." Such a woman is more interested in making men wrong for their behaviors rather than examining their own cause (her unconscious intentions) for unwelcomed advances. Immature women need their daily fix of making a man wrong for being sexually attracted towards them. Note: During the workshop these statements trigger upset and reactions; these thoughts must be verbally shared by all the workshop participants; they reveal certain points of view one holds. The point being, it's not wrong to have points of view; what doesn't work is to have them and not be aware of them thereby communicating them non-verbally and psychically (as in "creepy").

We can absolutely count on the above happening. What I need to know now is whether or not I can trust you to ask the cadet to acknowledge his uncomfortable communication. If he argues, denies or invalidates your experience, then you must ask him to report himself to a senior cadet who will ask the cadet to acknowledge his/her inappropriate communication. If the "senior" can't effect completion he/she must report it to a staff member who in turn will report it to the next in the chain of command; if I can't trust you to do that then the military doesn't want you. Leave now [a long pause here for anyone to leave]. We do not want covert saboteurs in the military. Silence condones. To be an honorable officer you must be willing at all times to not have the job. If you become attached to graduating then you will fail the Commandant. You will compromise your integrity. You will have thwarted and sabotaged the Commandant. We already know the male cadet of whom we speak isn't ready to be an officer. What's also true is the female who attracts and rewards by silence such behavior is also not fit to be an officer. We don't need another "tail-hook" incident in which you, yes you, let something slide, for fear of . . . for reasons. You either maintain your integrity or you have your reasons.

Men, you are making the same agreement with me. If any cadet, male/female, makes a sexual advance towards you then your responsibility is to stop it mid-communication. Cleavage that would be inappropriate when visiting the President or the Pope is inappropriate here. Here, bras are required. There are no "accidental" reveals or crotch shots.

For example: You would say, "This feels uncomfortable." If she says, "Thanks, I got it." and stops, then you've both honored the code. The incident does not need to be reported. If however she argues, blames, or rudely dismisses you with a "whatever!" and leaves you not feeling whole and complete, then your agreement is to ask her to report herself. To not is to intend it. You must be willing to source, to elicit (to cause), to be a safe space for another to give you feedback, about your verbal, non-verbal and psychic communications. In other words, it's unethical to non-verbally support another in walking around all day with bad breath. 

Note: When you report yourself it does not necessarily mean you will be punished. Most often a verbal acknowledgment, without any repeat of similar behaviors, will complete the incident.

We are going to spend this whole weekend going over just what the code of honor means.  The floor is open for discussions throughout out the 51-hour "Honor Code of Conduct—a communication workshop." No one leaves except that all are clear. To not share a thought this weekend is as good as deciding to not be an officer. I need and want to hear your biases, your prejudices, your philosophies, your belief systems. I don't care what they are. What's important is that you have the courage to share them verbally with all of us rather than communicate them non-verbally throughout your career. If you hide your thoughts you are as good as washed out.

Examples of withholds and unacknowledged perpetrations:

—often males don't take "No" for an answer, which is tantamount to date rape.

—many men believe that a woman wants a man to take her.

—many women have fantasies of being taken; these fantasies are sometimes, unconsciously, communicated non-verbally.
 
—another perpetration for most men and women (cadets) is that they have yet to verbally acknowledge to their parents that they conned their date/partner into having sex behind the backs of both sets of parents. This is unethical; the consequences are usually compounded.

—for females it's often that they manipulated their date into begging for sex; their first "no" was a lie and part of their seduction of the man, and then, in deceiving both sets of parents.

During such a workshop there is an out-pouring (each cadet standing and sharing with everyone) all the thoughts and beliefs you can imagine; workshops continue past midnight until everyone gets that their thoughts (good, bad, sick, noble, sexist, judgmental, evil) about men or women have been acknowledged.

More about the Air Force's honor code:

Here's a headline from the Honolulu Advertiser: (5/15/04)

"Air Force Academy head takes blame in test cheating scandal"

Here it is, only a few months later and we see that a Commandant is still using his old leadership-communication model.

Still recovering from the rape scandal, cadets once again unconsciously draw our attention to the academy's leadership. It's a shame because the source of the problem is not the cadets. Leaders lead and subordinates follow. Like misbehaving/failing children the cadets are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing. Most students try to do as little as possible—in this case, study. Leaders know this; however, those in the process of becoming leaders (the academy staff) cannot tell when a cadet (a subordinate) is jerking them around pretending to play the game. Cadets have absolutely no choice other than to mirror the integrity of the leader of the organization.

In this case, Lt. General John Rosa, the Academy Superintendent at the time, was missing the leadership-communication skills it takes to communicate, inspire and support the code of honor.

Cheating is a powerful communication of disrespect; it's an unconscious way of bringing to someone's attention the fact that something is wrong. The Superintendent has become stuck doing his imitation of communication. The cadets are presently faced with a dilemma. They are bound by oath to support their Commander-in-Chief yet at some level it's possible that a few hold the belief that something about the U.S. invasion of Iraq is out-integrity; therefore, getting expelled for cheating is ironically the most ethical, albeit unconscious, way of getting out of the responsibility of leading men in a battle they don't agree with. A part of an American's psyche is that a man's home is his castle; we just don't assassinate other presidents. There are other ways of communicating that will produce the desired result. —by Kerrith H. (Kerry) King

Even more about the effects of the leadership at the Air Force Academy

7/2012

The Air Force is once again confronting a sex scandal, this time at Lackland Air Force Base. 

". . . dozens of female recruits were sexually assaulted or harassed by their male instructors."

Col. Glenn Palmer had arrived at Lackland last year and was in charge when allegations involving more than a dozen instructors began to appear within his 737th Training Group.

Colleen McGee, chief of public affairs for Lackland's 37th Training Wing, said, "But Col. Palmer did not create the environment that created the misconduct," This statement reveals the prevailing gross misunderstanding of the word responsibility; she herself is oblivious of her responsibility for the out-integrity existing within her organization. Within hours of assuming command a leader communicates his/her standards, agreements, and rules, whereas, someone in the process of becoming a leader does not. Subordinates have no choice other than to mirror the integrity of their superior. Also, no leader accepts responsibility for a group's results except that he/she, as a condition of accepting the position, insists upon releasing and rehiring his/her choice of staff.

More

11/2012

This time it's a cheating scandal by General David Petraeus and his spouse.* David, a graduate of West Point, became a four-star general, who commanded all troops in Afganistan and later, while serving as the Director of the CIA, both he and his paramour continued cheating on his wife.

The root significance of this incident has yet to be mentioned in the media—the omission of which is of even greater importance to us all. Here we have one of West Point's most successful graduates who graduated without the experiential knowingness of the correlation between personal integrity and mission outcomes. One can only imagine what he would have accomplished had he been a man of integrity.

Again we see that the prevailing leadership-communication curriculum taught at our military academies doesn't effectively address the subject of personal integrity on outcomes; if it were, General Petraeus, as the commanding officer of all troops in Afghanistan, and again in Iraq, would not have dared risk the success of our military mission, and subsequently, the effects his continued infidelity had on our CIA, our nation's security. In other words, David has an understanding about the correlation between personal integrity and mission outcomes but he had/has not learned it at the level of knowing. I.e. Understanding that fire burns is different than knowing fire burns. Understanding responsibility is as far from knowing as is not knowing.

Given that all deceits have undesirable consequences we might ask ourselves, "How dare Petraeus risk the lives of all those under his command?" And the answer is—it's not his fault. He was designated as a leader without having been certified as a leader by a communicologist, a leadership-relationship communication-skills coach (a coach can, within a single three-hour sit-down consultation, experience a person's integrity and whether they are functioning responsibly). A coach facilitates Communication Processes that restores a person's integrity. The Commandants of our military academies are both unconscious and ignorant; they can't teach (communicate) what they have not learned from direct experience. They arrogantly believe that their understanding of communication is what it is. Like all cadets, Petraeus had been introduced to the subject of integrity but not as a communication variable that affects all outcomes. He himself, if given a choice, would definitely opt for a brain surgeon who wasn't cheating on their spouse.*  We can't know for certain the effects of Petraeus's unacknowledged perpetration against his wife; however, based upon personal experience we know that we are not as sharp, not totally conscious, when our mind is clouded (partially occupied with) a perpetration or a withhold (as was the case between himself and his wife); we intuit that karma will kick-in sometime.

*  I say spouse to remind the reader that a spouse is equally responsible for the integrity of the family and the results they co-produce—equally so of an officer's spouse. A spouse leads by example; she either inspires integrity or not. If her own integrity is out she automatically creates out-integrities between her and her spouse. Hillary Clinton unconsciously created reminders (Bill's cheating and her losing the election) to restore her integrity. An excellent indicator that there's an incomplete in the space is when neither partner can look the other in the eye for a full 15-minutes, read The Clearing Process for Couples.  A spouse who operates with integrity can tell through a micro-tell facial expression when there's an out-integrity (an incomplete) between them (read Clues that predict bankruptcy). More about infidelity "victims."

the story continues...

5/1994
"Two Dozen Expelled in Naval Academy Cheating Scandal"

3/2014
"Air Force personnel cheating on proficiency exams."

5/2021
"West Point has expelled at least eight cadets and are holding more than 50 back a year as a result of the military academy's worst cheating scandal in over 40 years."

8/2021
"The U.S. Naval Academy announced Friday that it has kicked out 18 Midshipmen following an investigation into allegations of cheating during a physics exam."

2/17/22
Reported Sexual Assaults at the U.S. military academies increased sharply during the 2020-21 school year, as students returned to in-person classes during the coronavirus pandemic.
 

For more: Communication Skills Tutorial for Vets, Supporting a Service Member and, Communicating with a Veteran.

If you liked this story please press the "I liked . . ." button. Upon pressing the button the page will refresh as though nothing happened.

It's obvious from the above that although Sp-Com professors understand how to teach education majors to communicate subject matter, they simply don't know how to teach to that skill level. The test? Most every teacher could, if assigned just 5 students, cause all 5 to get a passing grade. In other words, it's not that the majority of educators don't know their subject matter, it's that they haven't been taught how to communicate it to an entire class. The Interpersonal Communication Model for teaching 1-5 students is entirely different than the Leadership-Communication Model used to teach 20-30 students. And so once again we ask, why aren't education majors taught to communicate subject matter?