The God Squadron
by Anne C. Loveland
In
November of 2004, just as the 2002-04 sexual harassment-and-assault scandal
at the Air Force Academy seemed to be winding down, journalists began to
shift their attention to a new problem: the climate of religious
intolerance documented in a survey of cadets
conducted by the
academy the
previous August.
In the survey, half
the respondents said they had heard some type of religious slur or joke,
more than 30 percent cited unwelcome proselytizing by evangelical Christian
cadets, and some non-Christian cadets charged that Christian cadets received
preferential treatment. On November 17, Mike Soraghan of the Denver Post
reported that after revealing the survey results, Superintendent John W.
Rosa, Jr., told the academy’s Board of Visitors that a sensitivity
training program was being developed to “ensure a climate free of
discrimination and marginalization.”
Early coverage of the new scandal was led by
Colorado newspapers, including the Rocky Mountain News and the
Colorado Springs Gazette as well as the Post. Indeed,
during the eight months the academy remained under press scrutiny,
the Gazette’s Pam Zubeck had the beat on the story, often writing
several stories a week and scooping the bigger papers.
Also notable for its coverage was the Air
Force Times, an independent weekly owned by Gannett. Although the
Times waited until May 2005 to take up the story, its thorough and
objective reporting eventually provided its 60,000 subscribers—most of them
active-duty and retired Air Force personnel—with a useful counterweight to
the pronouncements of academy officials and Air Force higher-ups.
It was in early 2005 that the national media
started to focus on the story, beginning with Mindy Sink’s February 5
dispatch in the New York Times, which reported that academy officials
were planning to begin “mandatory religious sensitivity sessions for cadets
as well as faculty and staff members.”
According to Sink, the sensitivity training
program (called “Respecting the Spiritual Values of All People,” or RSVP)
would feature 50-minute classes designed “to create a culture of tolerance
and respect.” Religious intolerance at the academy, said senior chaplain
Col. Michael Whittington, was “just a lack of respect…of understanding and
sensitivity, not really malicious.”
Soon other national papers were running
stories on the RSVP program and reviewing what had led up to it. Among the
events most frequently cited was an action taken by football coach Fisher
DeBerry the day after Superintendent Rosa announced plans for sensitivity
training. DeBerry installed a banner in the team’s locker room emblazoned
with the Fellowship of Christian Athletes’ “Competitor’s Creed,” which read
in part, “I am a Christian first and last….I am a member of Team Jesus
Christ.”
In late April, after
it had been up and running for a month, the program was blasted by a Jewish
alumnus of the academy. “It’s Jim Crow, it’s lipstick on a pig, it’s eye
candy,” Mikey Weinstein ’77 told the Los Angeles Times April 20. “I
love the academy, but they are lying when they say it isn’t a systemic
problem.” Weinstein re-
counted how
his son Curtis, a sophomore cadet, had told him of being called a “filthy
Jew” who was “responsible for killing Christ.”
The same day Weinstein dropped his
bombshell, the Gazette’s Zubeck revealed the existence of a report
sent to Chaplain Whittington on July 30, 2004, by a Yale University Divinity
School team that had observed cadet basic training in order to advise
chaplains on pastoral care. The report, which the Gazette published
in full and which other newspapers quoted extensively, cited “stridently
Evangelical themes” observed during General Protestant Services attended by
some 600 cadets.
Chaplains leading the services had, for
example, encouraged the cadets to witness to and proselytize fellow cadets,
and to remind them that those not “born again will burn in the fires of
hell.” The report expressed “concern that the overwhelmingly Evangelical
tone of general Protestant worship encouraged religious divisions rather
than fostering spiritual understanding among Basic Cadets.”
On April 21, Dick Foster of the Rocky
Mountain News quoted the Yale team leader, Professor Kristen J. Leslie,
as saying that the RSVP program was only “one step” in addressing the
problem. Although academy officials had announced that everyone at the
school would undergo religious sensitivity training, Leslie claimed that the
program was geared to “those with the least ability to affect [sic] change,
that is, the cadets.” She added, “When you want change, you work with those
with the most amount of power.”
Over the next two months, newspaper coverage
of the scandal intensified as other voices weighed in. On April 29, Jean
Torkelson reported in the Rocky Mountain News that Americans United
for Separation of Church and State had sent a report to Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld demanding an investigation of what it called the “atmosphere
of discriminatory conduct” at the academy—“or face a lawsuit or
congressional scrutiny.”
On May 4, the Washington Post, the
Los Angeles Times, and the New York Times published lengthy
stories on the Pentagon’s decision to send an Air Force task force to
investigate and make recommendations regarding the religious climate at the
academy.
Then, just as the task force was beginning
its investigation, Capt. Melinda Morton, a chaplain who had worked closely
with the Yale Divinity School team and helped develop the RSVP program,
spoke out publicly for the first time in an interview with Laurie Goodstein
in the May 12 New York Times. According to Goodstein, Morton
“described a ‘systematic and pervasive’ problem of religious proselytizing
at the academy” and revealed that the RSVP program had been “watered down”
after being vetted by academy officials.
The next day, T. R. Reid reported in the
Washington Post that Morton had been “removed from administrative
duties” earlier in the week, an action Morton interpreted as retribution for
her public criticism of the academy but which an academy spokesman claimed
was simply “a standard transition.”
Congress got into the act in early June when
the House appropriations committee amended a bill to urge the Air Force
secretary (according to the June 9 Denver Post) to “develop a
plan to ensure that the Air Force Academy maintains a climate free from
coercive religious intimidation and inappropriate proselytizing by Air Force
officials and others in the chain-of-command at the Air Force Academy.”
“A Holy War in D.C.,” read the Rocky
Mountain News headline on M.E. Sprengelmeyer’s June 21 story describing
the full House debate on the amendment. “Work in the House of
Representatives ground to a halt for 30 tense minutes” after Rep. John
Hostettler (R-Ind.) charged Democrats with waging a “long war on
Christianity” and “denigrating and demonizing Christians.” Democrats
objected vociferously, and Hostettler eventually asked that his demonization
remark be stricken from the record. After further deliberation, members
approved a Republican version of the amendment omitting all criticism of the
academy but requiring it to submit reports on its religious climate to
lawmakers.
On June 22, the Air Force task force
released the report of its investigation at a Pentagon news conference.
Newspaper accounts homed in on the finding that while “religious
insensitivity” had been a problem at the academy, there had been no “overt
religious discrimination.”
“We believe that people were doing things
that…were inappropriate,” task force head Lt. Gen Roger A. Brady told the
New York Times June 23, but “they had the best intentions toward the
cadets.”
Writing the same day in the Colo-rado
Springs Gazette, Pam Zubeck pointed to nine recommendations that the
task force had issued to improve the religious climate at the academy and in
the Air Force generally. These included the formulation of guidelines on
permissible ways for service members to express their religious faith and
the development of a program at the academy to teach “awareness and respect
for diverse cultures and beliefs.”
Reactions to the
report varied widely, and, for the most part, predictably. On the one hand,
a spokesman for Focus on the Family, the powerful evangelical organization
headquartered near the academy in Colorado Springs, said, “We
fervently hope that
this ridiculous bias of a
few against the religion of the majority—Christianity—will now cease.” On
the other, Mikey Weinstein and Americans United criticized it for minimizing
the problems at the academy. (The Anti-Defamation League, how--ever,
approved its “substantive recommendations for reform.”)
Congress was unappeased. “It is not a
whitewash, but it does resemble milquetoast,” pronounced Rep. Steve Israel
(D-N.Y.). Rep. John McHugh (R-N.Y.) announced that the House Armed Services
Committee would hold hearings, while Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Col.) called upon
the Senate Armed Services Committee to do the same.
Newspapers were even less impressed.
From the first, editorialists agreed that a
government-run institution should not endorse religion and that religious
intolerance at the academy had to be dealt with promptly and decisively. The
April 21 Portland (Maine) Press Herald and the April 25
Roanoke Times and World News called attention to the fact that
high-ranking officers had been involved in the elevation of evangelical
Christianity above other religions. The May 7 Denver Post found
religious intolerance “especially disturbing when it comes from the brass.”
Early on, papers like the Denver Post
and Houston Chronicle had expressed some hope for a timely in-house
remedy. But after Chaplain Morton spoke out, editorial opinion stiffened
across the board.
“It is hard to believe that there can be
true reform from within,” declared the New York Times on May 14. “It
is time for the higher chain of command to deproselytize this institution of
national defense.” Two days later, the Air Force Times expressed
skepticism that academy officials could investigate and reform themselves,
especially since many of them were alleged to have contributed to the
scandal: “With charges being made against cadets, faculty, leadership and
even chaplains, an independent review of the matter is the only way to
definitively determine what violations have occurred and what changes should
be made.”
On May 19, the Chattanooga Times Free
Press doubted that the task force report would be “unbiased.” Observed
the paper, “The Air Force, like other institutions, has a history of
protecting its own.” Meanwhile, a June 4 Washington Post editorial
criticized the task force for virtually ignoring “those who have been most
outspoken” about the academy’s religious climate, namely Morton, Weinstein,
and Leslie.
Release of the report led the Denver Post
and the Roanoke Times and World News to note the disparity between
the finding of no “overt religious discrimination” and the numerous
instances of religious intolerance cited by the Yale Divinity School team as
well as other groups and individuals. The report “goes on for page after
page describing cases of obvious and overt religious bias,” noted the June
23 New York Times, but “tosses all of these off as ‘perceived
bias,’ as if the blame lies with the victims and not the offenders, and
throws up a fog of implausible excuses, like ‘a lack of awareness’ of what
is impermissible behavior by military officers.”
For defense of the academy on the opinion
pages, it was necessary to turn to the occasional conservative columnist or
outside contributor. For example, James Kelso, a retired Air Force officer,
contended in the June 13 Atlanta Journal-Constitution that “what the
cadets and others at the academy are doing is totally within the boundaries
of the Constitution.”
From the outset, reporters pursuing the
story had, not surprisingly, to contend with authorities intent on
suppressing information on the religious situation within the academy. All
interviews with cadets, faculty, and staff had to be approved by the
academy’s public affairs office, and, as early as November 18, 2004, Zubeck
reported that cadets and graduates feared “reprisal” for talking to her and
therefore requested anonymity. After Chaplain Morton spoke up without
authorization—and was transferred—such fears became even more pronounced.
New York Times reporter Goodstein noted in her May 12 story that “nearly
all students and faculty members contacted independently…said they were
afraid to speak because it could harm their careers.”
Lacking direct access to most academy
personnel, reporters had to rely for information on “academy spokespersons”
who gave the leadership’s official position and individuals and groups
outside the academy who voiced criticism of the religious climate. But if
there was a shortcoming to the coverage, it resulted not from the absence of
inside accounts but from journalists’ failure to set the scandal in larger
context.
Although some news stories and editorials
suggested links between religious intolerance at the academy and earlier
scandals or with the ongoing “culture war” in civilian society, these
subjects received little or no elaboration. More importantly,
most reporters remained narrowly focused on the Air Force Academy despite
speculation in some quarters that problems might be found elsewhere
in the military. Recounting a meeting with Superintendent Rosa,
Anti-Defamation League national director Abraham Foxman told the Rocky
Mountain News on June 4 that “the Air Force Academy may not be
unique”—but the paper left the hint dangling.
Several reporters did enlarge their focus.
In a lengthy story in the Air Force Times May 16, Bryant Jordan put
the academy scandal within the larger context of evangelicals in the
military chaplaincy. In the July 12 New York Times, Laurie Goodstein
documented the already large and growing number of evangelical chaplains in
the Air Force. And in a report on National Public Radio July 27, Jeff Brady
reported on evangelical influence in the Army and Navy chaplain corps as
well as in the Air Force chaplaincy.
I had the pleasure of talking with all three
of these journalists, who sought me out because of my book on evangelicals
and the U.S. military from 1942 to 1993. In my view, the Air Force Academy
story represents a significant new chapter in the history I traced.
In the latter part of
the 20th century, military evangelicals were never shy about asserting
themselves, but they were nowhere near as brazen as today’s academy faculty
and administration—nor nearly as powerful. Evangelicals began their
spiritual offensive in the armed forces in the 1940s, when the newly
established National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) and other
conservative Christian denominations and churches endorsed chaplains to
serve, in effect, as missionaries to the military.
Like all of the other men and women who
joined the chaplaincies, the evangelicals remained clergymen of their own
denominations or faith groups, but, in recognition of the religious
diversity of the armed forces, they were expected to cooperate with other
chaplains in ministering to service men and women of many different
religious persuasions. This arrangement, termed “cooperative pluralism” by
historian Richard G. Hutcheson, was designed to discourage chaplains
from espousing narrowly denominational or sectarian views. Ecumenical
accommodation was the order of the day.
Beginning in the early 1950s, evangelical
chaplains, aided by other military evangelicals and civilian groups like the
NAE, challenged the military leadership (which at the time was predominantly
mainline Protestant and Catholic), denouncing the ecumenical and
theologically liberal orientation of the armed forces’ religious programs.
Some evangelical chaplains refused to participate in the General Protestant
Service or other interdenominational or interfaith assemblies, while others
protested against the curriculum used in armed forces Sunday schools.
Cooperation with such programs, they insisted, would compromise their faith.
Evangelical chaplains
were per-mitted to withhold participation, because, at the same time that
the chaplaincies urged cooperative pluralism, they also supported, even
encouraged, denominational loyalty. For example, the 1977 Army chaplains’
field manual stated that chaplains were to perform their duties “in accord
with their conscience and the principles of their church.”
By the 1960s,
evangelical chap-lains had become somewhat less confrontational. Although
they did not succeed in abolishing ecumenism, they found ways of
circumventing it, such as by incorporating into the General Protestant
Service evangelistic preaching designed to provoke “decisions for Christ,”
or by adding an “altar call” or “invitation” at its conclusion. They also
seized opportunities offered by the military leadership to organize Bible
studies, prayer meetings, revivals, and retreats, as well as separate
denominational services in which they were free to promote their sectarian
beliefs.
Still, under the regime of co-operative
pluralism, chaplains were prohibited from proselytizing, at least to those
who belonged to other faith communities: Evangelizing the
“unchurched” was acceptable, but “sheep stealing” was not. Yet, like all
evangelicals, evangelical chaplains believed they were called by God to
carry out the Great Commission handed down by Jesus in Matthew 28:19—to
“go…and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Many, perhaps most, evangelical chaplains
flouted the no-proselytizing rule.
Lay evangelicals in the military and
parachurch groups such as the Navigators, the Officers’ Christian Union, and
Campus Crusade for Christ Military Ministry were, of course, unhampered by
the system of cooperative pluralism. Aggressive proselytizers, they
converted hundreds of service men and women.
Only when such zealous proselytizers
provoked a public outcry did the leadership take action. In the early 1970s,
Gen. Ralph E. Haines, the commander of the Continental Army Command, began
making numerous speeches, in uniform, to civilian groups around the country,
in which he referred to himself as a “private in the Lord’s army” and to God
as his “Commander-in-chief”; boasted of giving his “personal testimony to
Jesus Christ” throughout the army; and declared that “the Lord is using me
to rekindle spiritual zeal and moral awareness…at scores of military
installations” across the United States. In 1973, the Pentagon asked Haines
to retire six months early.
By then, evangelicals had reached a point of
accommodation with the military leadership, thanks in large measure to two
factors. First, unlike the mainline denominations, evangelicals had
wholeheartedly supported the Vietnam War. And second, the armed forces now
included many officers who were themselves either professed born-again
Christians or sympathetic to evangelicalism.
Over the next couple of decades, the
influence of evangelicals in the armed services grew incrementally alongside
their increasing share of the military population. But they never gained the
kind of dominance within a military installation that they appear to have
acquired at the Air Force Academy.
At the academy, many, if not most, of the
leaders appear to be evangelicals. The commandant of cadets, Brig. Gen.
Johnny A. Weida, has proudly described himself as a born-again Christian,
and the academy’s Board of Visitors includes professed evangelicals. Among
the academy’s 16 chaplains, Chaplain Morton told the Washington Post
May 13, the evangelicals have “a much bigger voice.”
This religious dominance at the academy gave
evangelicals free rein to take their longstanding spiritual offensive to a
new level. Not content to limit their efforts to proselytizing, they began
to encourage a climate of religious intolerance and to practice religious
discrimination against non-evangelicals—in effect, creating an
“establishment of (evangelical) religion” at the academy.
That such a thing should have happened at the Air Force Academy is, in one
sense, no surprise. In recent years, Colorado Springs has become the Mecca
of American evangelicalism, home to countless evangelical lobbies and
non-profits, of which the largest and most important is James Dobson’s Focus
on the Family. Dobson, who was engaged to help develop an army program for
families over 20 years ago, moved his organization to Colorado Springs in
1991 in no small part because of the Air Force Academy and the conservative
values he saw it embodying.
It’s
worth mentioning, as well, that the academy occupies a special place
in the American religious landscape. Its modernist chapel, built in 1956,
has become one of the most famous ecclesiastical buildings in the country
and the most visited tourist site in Colorado. “Massed,” as one website puts
it, “like a phalanx of fighter jets shooting up into the sky,” and featuring
separate Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish worship areas, the chapel is a
kind of paean to the civil religion that came into being to fight the Cold
War. The takeover of this place by evangelical Protestantism carries some
heavy symbolic freight.
On August 29, the Air Force issued new
guidelines instructing officers to make sure that nothing they say or do be
“construed as either official endorsement or disapproval of the decisions of
individuals to hold particular religious beliefs or to hold no religious
beliefs.” While allowing for “a brief nonsectarian prayer” at special
ceremonies or under “extraordinary circumstances,” the guidelines discourage
public prayers at official Air Force events outside of worship services.
It remains to be seen whether and to what
extent the guidelines—along with other corrective action—will bring about a
change in the evangelical religious regime at the academy. On October 6,
some additional pressure was brought to bear when Weinstein filed a lawsuit
against the Air Force, claiming that senior officers and cadets had
illegally imposed Christianity on others at the academy.
Last spring, in a moment of candor,
Superintendent Rosa told the Anti-Defamation League that the problem at the
academy would take six years to resolve. But even that may be optimistic.
Not only do evangelicals believe that their brand of Christianity is the
only true one and that all other religions are half-truths at best, they are
also convinced they have been commissioned by God to bring the rest of the
world to accept their belief. This kind of thinking does not encourage
tolerance of or respect for other religions.
One thing seems
certain. The evangelical mission to the military is not likely to disappear
any time soon. On August 30, the Washington Post published a lengthy
article by reporter Alan Cooperman on how the growing influence of
evangelicals was “roiling the military chaplain corps.” Cooperman reported
that whereas mainline Protestant chaplains are increasingly difficult to
recruit, and Catholic priests are in shorter and shorter supply, “many
evangelical denominations place a high priority on supplying chaplains to
the military.”
As much as anything else, the force of the
story lay in the numbers. According to Pentagon data, Southern Baptists have
become the single largest source of military chaplains, with 451 out of
2,860 on active duty. Active-duty Catholic chaplains now number only 355.
Bear in mind that of the 1.4 million people on active duty in the military,
300,000 identify themselves as Catholic, 18,000 as Southern Baptist.
|