Educate Leaders, Not Snowflakes

by Donald Smith“My generation just had thicker skin. These young kids today are getting caught in the moment. They take it more personally,”

Those are the comments of Ron Carter, the first Black battalion commander at the Virginia Military Institute (VMI). Carter was a star basketball player for the Keydets. He was drafted by the Los Angeles Lakers, and eventually VMI retired his jersey. He later served as an administrator with the Department of Housing and Urban Development. That’s the resume of an adult with accomplishments.

Those are not the comments you want to hear, if the commenter (Carter, in this case) is commenting on your behavior, judgements and temperament. They are especially not the comments you want to hear if you’re the graduate of an institution that prides itself on training future leaders. A place like VMI.

I am not a VMI man  I’m a Virginia man; I graduated from the University of Virginia. But for much of my professional career, I’ve either been an Army officer or taught them. For much of the past 20 years, I’ve taught Army lieutenants and captains. And, if I were an VMI graduate, or prospective Keydet, I’d be really concerned about the impact of this past year’s hysteria on my school’s reputation.

I grew up in Virginia, and my mom is from outside of Lexington. She dated a cadet in high school. (To liven up family discussions, she’d occasionally make comments about the “cold brass buttons” of VMI uniforms, and watch my father, a non-VMI man, frown.) VMI was always special to us. We saw it as a unique, powerful part of Virginia culture. We still do.

But, once you leave the Old Dominion and go out into the wider world, you’ll find that VMI becomes just another military college. My experience in the Army, as a teacher of officers and an officer myself, is this: when soldiers consider an officer’s background, they think of three basic groups — West Pointers, Officer Candidate School graduates, or ROTC graduates from regular colleges. Military schools besides West Point tend to be viewed as just another ROTC commissioning source. Also, they tend to be viewed equally. VMI graduates aren’t any more special than graduates of the Citadel, Norwich, North Georgia College (now the University of North Georgia) or the cadet corps at Virginia Tech. To the typical Army lieutenant or captain- — or sergeant or private — they all blend together.

But that may be changing. And, not in a way that’s good for VMI.

Across America, people are rebelling against “wokeness.” They’re rising up to fight Critical Race Theory, and other assaults on America’s history and heritage. They are rejecting the shallow and narrow thinking that drives cancel culture and spawned assaults on visible signs (statues, building names) of American heroes. They recognize that many of America’s great figures had major flaws –but that doesn’t mean they weren’t great. They have heard, and are heeding, the warning of womens’ rights and anti-cancel culture activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who told Congressman Dan Crenshaw that we are “litigating people in the past, using the moral framework of today.” They want leaders who think broadly and deeply, and make decisions based on reason instead of emotion.

Carter’s comments at the top of this article came from a Washington Post article on April 26th. In that article, he said, in the Post’s words, that “VMI’s current cadets of color have been swayed too much by Black Lives Matter and police brutality protests.”

What sergeant or private wants to be led by officers who can be swayed? What boss wants to hire a management trainee who (to paraphrase Carter) might be thin-skinned, takes things personally and is prone to getting caught in the moment? The questions answer themselves.

VMI risks establishing a unique identity for itself, amongst American civilian military colleges: the woke military academy, which creates snowflakes instead of leaders. That may not be fair, but neither is life. Good leaders know that.

Donald Smith is a graduate of the University of Virginia and the Joint Military Intelligence College. A native of Richmond, he a retired Army Reserve officer.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

29 responses to “Educate Leaders, Not Snowflakes”

  1. The VMI you fear compliments perfectly the latest USMIL cartoon recruitment video.

    1. And the CIA on-line recruitment video!

  2. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    For supporters of VMI, do you think VMI is considered “different” from other Military academies like West Point or the ROTCs at places like Tech?

    Is there some reason why a kid would choose VMI over the others
    (or vice versa)?

    So can others share their views on this?

    My impression has been that VMI is a premier Military Academy with some strong traditions, some of which are tied to the Confederacy.

    Am I wrong?

    1. Matt Adams Avatar
      Matt Adams

      It’s not a military academy. Like the Citadel, Norwich, North Georgia College mentioned above it’s a commissioning source that utilizes ROTC. You are not required to enter the military if you attend. If you choose to contract (to be an officer) you’ll be required to attend all the training that other ROTC commissioned officers do.

      Service Academies are the only places where military membership is required.

      It was founded in 1839 in a state which was a member of the Confederacy, of course it’s history has that interweaved.

      1. dsmithuva75 Avatar
        dsmithuva75

        VMI was founded to be an institute, not a college. Antebellum higher education in America came largely in three forms: (1) colleges (W&M, Hampton-Sydney, Washington College), which were to give a general, classical education to men in preparation to join the tiny professional class that was to lead the nascent U.S. (half of all college graduates before the Late Unpleasantness went into the ministry); (2) academies or seminaries (Litchfield Female Academy, Farmville Female Seminary [Longwood College]), which were meant to educate women to be refined, suitably matched mates in the professional class or secondary teachers; and (3) institutes (VMI, Virginia Tech started as the Olin and Preston Institute), which specialize in military, agricultural, or pedagogical preparation for life. As usual, the past is far more complicated that we perceive….

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          I though Va Tech started as a Land Grant College, no?

          oops…. wiki……

          1. dsmithuva75 Avatar
            dsmithuva75

            Yes, VPISU had more humble beginnings. The Morrell Act was implemented by States in two fashions: (1) bestow land-grant status on an existing institution (so it won’t have to pay founding costs) as it did with Tech and Penn State; or (2) start an institution from scratch, as they did with Ohio State, Purdue, and NC State (initially part of UNC).

  3. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Here’s an interesting article:

    ” Buffalo Soldiers taught horsemanship at segregated West Point. Soon a statue will honor their service.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/05/27/buffalo-soldier-statue-west-point/

    of course it’s from that leftist rag WaPO.

    ” Most people have no idea that Buffalo Soldiers were at West Point, Gorden said. “They served … quietly, confidently, skillfully,” he said. “They were standard-bearers.”

    ” Chiefly members of the Black 9th and 10th U.S. cavalry regiments, the Buffalo Soldiers are known for fighting Native Americans in the American West in the late 1800s.

    The Cheyenne and Comanche named them for what they saw as a similarity of the soldiers’ hair and skin color to that of the American Bison, historians say. “They looked like buffalo,” Dixon, who is Black, said.

    But starting in 1907, a detachment of Buffalo Soldiers was posted at segregated West Point to instruct the cadets in the fine points of horsemanship — and to do menial work across the campus.”

    1. smagar Avatar

      If the sight of Stonewall Jackson’s statue makes some people feel unsafe and unwelcome, then what will happen to any Buffalo Soldier statues on Army bases, or other federal property?

      What happens when a modern-day Cheyenne, Comanche or Apache who works on an Army base says that it sickens him when he has to go by the Buffalo Soldier statue on base, because he remembers his grandparents’ stories of how the U.S Cavalry drove his ancestors from their lands and into a miserable life on the reservations?

      If Jackson has to go, then how can the Buffalo Soldier stay?

      If we’re living by new rules now, then EVERYONE needs to follow the new rules. Or, explain why they deserve to be treated by a weaker standard than everyone else.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Well, there IS a difference between memorializing a battle or conflict between two combatants and a Civil war fought over the enslavement of an entire race of people, i.e. the RIGHT to enslave people.

        Other places have changed in response to such one-sided perspectives.

        Consider the Battle of Big Horn. If you’ve ever been to that memorial site? They now recognize both battle participants of that conflict but it did not happen overnight. It was a process that involved reconciliation and healing and still ongoing as the hillsides are dotted with tablets to white soldiers and much less so for the fallen Native Americans.

        Here’s an article describing it:

        https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/little-bighorn-reborn-79240914/

        It did not start out that way or change happen overnight. Originally, the site was about the American soldiers and the Native Americans were depicted as the “enemy”.

        One might call this one of the earlier examples of adding “context”!

        Some folks who might continue to view the wider conflict between Americans and “Indians” might find memorializing both sides as “valiant and heroic” as opposed to good Americans and bad Indians as problematic similar to how some want a one-sided memorial perspective at places like VMI and other.

        If we can do it at the Little Bighorn site – why not others, like VMI?

        Do we want to heal? Do we really want to try to find common ground or do we just want to continue to insist that “history” is only what the ancestral enslavers and aggressors and their descendants thought it should be?

        We ought to work to fix this and for those that refuse – change will just go around them and should, in my view.

        1. smagar Avatar

          The US Cavalry forced thousands of people off their lands and into reservations. The Indians who didn’t die lived in a condition that reminds one of slavery. Compare the life of the Plains Indians before the US Cavalry (and the Buffalo Soldiers) arrived and after.

          My point is—if the standard nowadays is to interpret history primarily by the viewpoint of the aggrieved or offended party, then we’re not going to have many historical monuments left. For anyone’s ancestors.

          I’m thinking specifically of Jackson’s statue at VMI. This past year, the powers-that-be have interpreted him solely as (in the words of the Washington Post) “an enslaver.” No mention of his battlefield exploits or creation of a Sunday School for slaves.

          So, if Jackson’s statue can’t stand under the new rules, how can the Buffalo Soldiers’? Jackson didn’t kill or harm any slaves; the Buffalo Soldiers killed and harmed many Indians.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            It’s just not true though. There are LOTS of monuments to people across the country and they are not at issue.

            What is at issues is the memorialization of people who were associated with fighting for and defending the right to continue to enslave people.

            And , we actually NOW are going back and dealing with some of the wrongs – like the treatment of the Native Americans or later the Japanese internments and not necessarily in the most complete or satisfying manner but when it comes to dealing with the issue of the Confederacy, many are obstinate and defiant and insist it’s “history” that should not be “destroyed” – as if removing a monument changes written history anyhow.

            The Buffalo soldiers were not about enslaving the Native Americans. They had no history or ambitions to do so. They were combatants in a war not unlike the Tuskegee Airmen (who ironically WERE discriminated against) – as were the Buffalo Soldiers.

          2. smagar Avatar

            “The Buffalo soldiers were not about enslaving the Native Americans.”

            In your opinion. The opinions of the Indians who were forced off their lands may differ.

            And, back to my point–if the standard nowadays is to interpret history primarily by the viewpoint of the aggrieved or offended party, then the opinion of the Indians and their ancestors would be the deciding factor.

            “What is at issues is the memorialization of people who were associated with fighting for and defending the right to continue to enslave people.”

            Again, in your opinion. Who put you in charge? Who said you get to decide what is “at issue?”

            But, if that’s the standard nowadays, the statues of the Buffalo Soldiers symbolize the men who wiped the Indians from the face of the American West. They are a symbol of conquerors, who brought misery.

            I know of no responsible historian that contends that Stonewall Jackson fought first and foremost to defend slavery. But you seem to want to confine the discussion of his legacy to that, and only that. OK, then…pull down the Buffalo Soldier statues.

            We all must live under the new rules.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            re: ” The US Cavalry forced thousands of people off their lands and into reservations. The Indians who didn’t die lived in a condition that reminds one of slavery. Compare the life of the Plains Indians before the US Cavalry (and the Buffalo Soldiers) arrived and after.”

            No. Not at all slavery but seriously bad treatment I agree.

            And it was done by the US GOVT not the individual soldiers or units.

            And we HAVE done some reparations for the Native Americans.

            Would you support something similar for actual descendants of slaves?

          4. smagar Avatar

            “Would you support something similar for actual descendants of slaves?”

            No. If there were slaves who were still living, that would be another matter.

            I wouldn’t support reparations for Native Americans who were forced off their land over 100 years ago, either.

          5. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            You’ve got a fair point, imo. If the Native American community voices these concerns over this memorial, they should be engaged and perhaps their issues should be addressed. It will be interesting to hear from them. I believe they have bigger fish to fry, however.

            https://crazyhorsememorial.org/

        2. smagar Avatar

          Do you think that the current treatment of Jackson’s legacy at VMI is an example of recognizing and respecting both sides of the issue, and a product of reconciliation and healing? To me, it looks like a petty, mean-spirited sandblasting of his legacy, motivated more by spite than reason.

          There were five visible signs of Jackson’s legacy at VMI, according to its review of Confederate iconography. From what I can tell, VMI has decided to remove or significantly downgrade ALL FIVE. Where is the compromise in that? Where is the reconciliation in that?

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Well no but do you think there was ever a prior attempt to do some context and balance or was it staunchly opposed until outside forces intervened?

            I think if VMI had INITIATED change some time ago, purposely and visibly involved others and made good-faith efforts instead of being perceived as obstinate and defiant… maybe different.

          2. smagar Avatar

            “but do you think there was ever a prior attempt to do some context and balance or was it staunchly opposed until outside forces intervened?”

            The only attempts I’ve seen covered in the media were attempts to remove Jackson’s statue completely, not recontextualize it.

            “I think if VMI had INITIATED change some time ago, purposely and visibly involved others and made good-faith efforts instead of being perceived as obstinate and defiant… maybe different.”

            Sorry, but that’s wishful thinking to me. It appears that activists, supported by the Northam administration, took advantage of the George Floyd murder and a Washington Post story, to bully VMI. I don’t think they were interested in compromise—they wanted to push VMI around.

            There’s no honor in bullying anyone.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            No, long before Northam and company came along. Long before VMI got caught up in the Confederacy/memorial issue. Did they, on their own volition, deal with the issue and try to add balance and context?

            After they got drawn into the maw, way too late!

          4. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            No, long before Northam and company came along. Long before VMI got caught up in the Confederacy/memorial issue. Did they, on their own volition, deal with the issue and try to add balance and context?

            After they got drawn into the maw, way too late!

          5. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            No, long before Northam and company came along. Long before VMI got caught up in the Confederacy/memorial issue. Did they, on their own volition, deal with the issue and try to add balance and context?

            After they got drawn into the maw, way too late!

          6. smagar Avatar

            So, that justifies bullying?

          7. smagar Avatar

            So, that justifies bullying?

          8. smagar Avatar

            Let’s remember the point of my article—the rush to remove Jackson’s statue from VMI, and sandblast almost all mention of him, puts VMI at risk of looking petty, small-minded and hypersensitive.

            That’s OK for Sweet Briar grads, I suppose. But a school that trains leaders?

          9. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Right, but if years ago, VMI had more proactively addressed the issue with some less radical but meaningful measures that did add context and toned down some of other, would they have somewhat inoculated themselves from more radical top-down changes downstream?

            I think VMI will survive this and go on to even be the better for it but it won’t be the same VMI that some of the Alumni revere but then again, it’s for the future military which is also seeing changes.

          10. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Let me give an example of what I think is a good way to memorialize without the downsides we are seeing in others:

            https://stonesentinels.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/15th_New_Jersey-LS1k_8543.jpg

            It is the New Jersey Volunteer Infantry Regiment along the Bloody Angle walking trail, The New Jersey monument is probably about 100 yards north of where the regiment made its charge. The monument was dedicated on May 12, 1909, the 45th anniversary of the battle. During the dedication the captured flag of the 14th Georgia was returned.

            The 15th New Jersey was commanded by Colonel William H. Penrose, a civil engineer from Michigan. Penrose would take command of the brigade at Spotsylvania. The regiment is also honored on the New Jersey Brigade monument at Gettysburg and with a monument at Salem Church, Virginia.

            This is one monument in that NPS Battlefield Park. There are others. There are no Confederate generals on horseback just simple memorials to the soldiers (of both sides) who engaged in battle and died there.

            As far as I know, not a soul has advocated taking down any of those memorials – whether to Confederate or Union.

            I’m sure there are other viewpoints perhaps some that are negative but to me it appears as a fitting tribute without really offending folks – and yes there are a few kiosks depicting the impacts of that battle on the slaves who lived on the farms there.

          11. smagar Avatar

            “As far as I know, not a soul has advocated taking down any of those memorials – whether to Confederate or Union.”

            Oh no, plenty of souls have. There are ongoing efforts by Democrats in Congress to remove statues to Confederates in the national battlefield parks.

            “Rep. Betty McCollum, a Minnesota Democrat who leads the House subcommittee that oversees spending for the Interior Department, included language in the agency’s fiscal 2021 spending bill that would require the National Park Service to remove from public view all Confederate statues, monuments and plaques.”

            https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2020/08/29/proposal-to-remove-confederate-statues-from-national-parks-gains-traction/#:~:text=It%20requires%20the%20park%20service%20to%20remove%20from,undertaking%20a%20larger%20process%20to%20decide%20their%20fate.

          12. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Okay. This particular Battlefield Park has no overt “Confederate” statues. There are several memorials to several different troop units – Union and South.

            It has quite a number of kiosks that interpret the battlefield at various locations. The memorials just denote where the troop units were.

            Here, take a look:

            https://www.nps.gov/frsp/learn/photosmultimedia/angle.htm

            I think this battlefield has been done “right”.

Leave a Reply