This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
We’ve all poured our heart out to our boss, spouse, chaplain, or kid and asked, “Right?” only to be told, “I’m sorry, I wasn’t listening.” Nobody listens any more. But a few do read. If nobody seems to care what you think about anything, perhaps you ought to contribute to our “Nobody asked me, but . . .” column.
Maybe what you have been saying isn’t worth listening to. But, if it is, we may print it and pay you $60.00. If it isn’t, you’ll feel better for having gotten it off your chest.
Don’t Do It!
Remember how thoroughly fraternization was discussed at Officer Candidate School? The lesson probably took all of three minutes. This was more than enough time for the company officer to say, “Fraternization . . . don’t do it. Any questions? The rest of this period will be admin time.”
What is fraternization? From a practical point of view, it is any interaction between different paygrades that has a negative effect on the mission of the command. When fraternization was first explained to me, it meant: the chiefs did not pal around with junior personnel or officers; petty officers associated with other petty officers; junior officers socialized with other junior officers; and senior officers just went home and watched television after work. No interaction equaled no fraternization problems.
Maybe this was too harsh a doctrine. Recently, we’ve all gotten to know each other better. The idea seems to be to appreciate each other as people, with professionalism growing out of a sincere respect for each individual.
This sounds fine in theory; the problem comes in the application. These days I see chiefs involved in pyramid- type sales operations with airmen,
Avon catalogues passed out by the leading petty officers, and lieutenant commanders soliciting in the wardroom for Amway representatives. (“Would you like to earn $1,000 extra each month for only 12 hours of your time?”)
What kind of pride and professionalism does this reflect? Financial dealings between junior and senior level personnel have always been a bad idea in practice as well as prohibited technically. With little or no instruction in this area, the newly minted ensign can easily commit errors as tragic as trying to use Brasso on butterbars. (Did anyone else ever try that?)
Even if the activity is completely above-board and does provide a much- needed moonlighting income, the danger of fraternization extends beyond any possibility of financial coercion or trickery. In short, such dealings look bad.
Many fraternization problems start with using first names. First names may be used initially at a work center or section party. Here the transgressor will generally rationalize, “After all, we’re all adults. We’ll use first names off-duty, and everyone will be professional enough to go back to the correct title/last name at work. Besides, the skipper calls his yeoman by her first name, so it must be all right.”
Outwardly, this works just fine. Everyone has a few beers, gets to know each other, and none of the troops say, “Hi, Jane!” the next day at work.
But inwardly, the deterioration of authority has already begun. That small crack in the bridge between the khaki- crowd and the troops can lead to problems that even the most naive new officer would never willingly tackle.
Avoiding work center parties is not the answer. Off-duty social functions can be a great way to get to know your people and can be real morale boosters. The division officer should attend, socialize, drink sparingly if desired, stay a polite amount of time, and leave.
But once on a first-name basis with an enlisted member, it’s easier to rationalize going to the parties that aren t work center related. A purely social occasion, coupled with a keg of beer, can lead to more off-duty interaction. The possibility of romantic attraction, the most serious form of fraternization, increases.
And when is it correct and permissible for an officer to date an enlisted member? Not when stationed at an isolated command with no other prospects. Not if it were love at first sight- Not if you share a mutual obsession with rare Guamanian artifacts. Simply’ never.
The junior portion of the unrestricted line community is perhaps the most at risk in developing the “but it’s on my off-duty time” syndrome. The problemlS not caused by the number of women in the unrestricted line community but by a training and assignment pipeline that fails to address the problem adequately-
After pre-commissioning training, men generally attend primarily male training commands like Surface Warfare Officer School. The ultimate duty station for most officers with warfare designators is usually a ship, again often an exclusively male environment- The male officer usually finally rotates to shore duty after about four years of intensive socialization into the Navy way of life. What the commissioning source may have omitted, the wardroom supplies.
Women, however, are generally commissioned as GURLs ([General Unrestricted Line] I would like to men1 the person who devised that acronym!) A GURL officer is ordered straight to her/his first duty station with those skills that Officer Candidate School has been able to teach. Does the three-minute discussion of fraternization survive the periodic data dump that takes place after each set of exams? Not likely-
The double-standard still exists. It s not as universal as it used to be, and it’s not strictly gender-oriented. If fraternization occurs, the senior person involved is primarily at fault. In addition, a liaison between a male officer
108
Proceedings / April 1^5
and a female enlisted member meets with less virulent reaction than fraternization between a female officer and a male enlisted person.
So, it’s not fair. So what? Playing the ostrich, however, doesn’t change perceptions.
To avoid fraternizing, or even the appearance of it, try the following:
► Go to social functions that are command-sponsored or are work center get- togethers. Drink sparingly, and don’t be the last to leave.
- Avoid using first names at work. Addressing one of your leading petty officers by his first name can be effective on rare occasions to punctuate a discussion or when done intentionally to make a point. But do it to create a specific one-time effect. Don’t make it a habit.
- Recognize that senior officers may call your people by first name on occasion. Their seniority and age create distance that the junior officer doesn’t have. ► Don’t become involved in any business venture or financial dealing with your enlisted personnel, no matter how innocent or lucrative.
Fraternization almost always leads to morale problems. “Good friends” may not be very understanding when the division officer has to reprimand or counsel them. Fraternization also gives the appearance of favoritism. It’s a condition that never stays a secret.
Nobody asked me either, but . . .
By Rear Admiral S. A. Swarztrauber, U. S. Navy (Retired)
What’s in a Name?
Politics, that’s what’s in a name. William Shakespeare may not have agreed, but that would certainly be the Navy Secretary’s answer. Hardly a ship’s name is proposed before competing interest groups spring forth with better suggestions.
Gone, sadly, are the simpler days when submarines were sea creatures, cruisers were cities, and ammunition ships were fiery volcanos. My favorite was naming ships for famous battles: Lexington (CV-16), Cora! Sea (CVB- 43), Midway (CVB-41). The very words inspire emotion, pride, and professionalism; they make a sailor stand tall.
True, every congressman wants the next hull named for a constituent county, city, or state. And there have been precious few hulls coming off the ways to satisfy the growing demand.
But there is another reason.
No one has been quite prepared to bite the bullet of Vietnam. You have to wonder if people ask themselves, “You mean, to actually name a ship after a battle of the Vietnam War? That ugly war? That ugly, humiliating war we lost?” In fact, this has been proposed, but it seems that Vietnam has been too hot a political potato—until now.
Certainly, Vietnam War veterans know this well. The public revulsion against the Vietnam War was so heated that Congress considered it necessary to pass legislation to protect us Vietnam veterans in equal employment opportunity. For service rendered, we have become a minority group in need of protection against discrimination!
And consider the Vietnam Memorial in Washington, D.C.; it is below ground level—out of view. You can’t see much of it when you pass by only a few yards away on Constitution Avenue. You would not even know it was there. It is like the war itself has been treated by the American people— pushed out of sight and out of mind. Unlike other war memorials that reach toward the heavens and inspire goose bumps of pride, the Vietnam Memorial’s morbid catacomb-like nature inspires nothing but emotions of pity, sorrow, and remorse.
Yet the men who fought on the rivers and coasts of Vietnam feel no shame; they are proud of their service. They find their scapegoat status both a curiosity and something to be resented. “Their” memorial, lurking in the shadows of the Lincoln Memorial, strikes most of them the same way.
There is little we can do about the Vietnam syndrome except to let time mellow the hurt and heal the wounds, though the Vietnam Memorial is dug in to stay. However, there is something we of the Navy can do about this fix. We speak a lot of pride and professionalism. There was plenty of pride and professionalism at Da Nang, at Khe Sanh, and in the Mekong Delta. Why not name ships to commemorate battles like these from the Vietnam War?
After all our earlier wars, we named a ship or ships for battles fought during those wars. Some examples:
- Revolutionary War: Yorktown
- War of 1812: Lake Champlain
- Mexican War: Monterey
- Civil War: Antietam
- Spanish-American War: Manila Bay
- World War I: Argonne
- World War II: Midway
- Korean War: Inchon
Winning the war was never the criterion for naming ships; it was winning the battle. No one claims we won the Korean War. Our retreat from the Chinese border for hundreds of miles was our longest in history, but we won the battle of Inchon.
In the case of the War of 1812, it depends on whose history books one reads—British or U. S.—as to who won. But we most certainly won on Lake Champlain.
And we won at Da Nang. We won at Khe Sanh. And we won the biggeSt of them all, in the Mekong Delta, where thousands of soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen wrested control o the vast Delta from the Viet Cong, paying a bloody price to win. We lost only the battle of Washington.
It is not enough—although it’s a fme beginning—that we have named ships for some Vietnam heroes. Names for ships like Ouellet and Peterson, the names of two men who served and died in the Mekong Delta, are likely not to be recognized by the American public as having a special Vietnam significance. But everyone knows where the Mekong Delta is!
We must soon name a capital ship for the epic battle of the Mekong Delta. I know of no better morale booster for the Vietnam veterans who have known all along that what they did there was right and that someday so will the rest of their countrymen. This gesture would further the healing process, be a sign of reconciliation, and increase pride and professionalism-
That’s what’s in a name.
110
Proceedings / April