Author Topic: Bigoted emails from Army recruiter outrage gay man  (Read 8795 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

hnumpah

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • You have another think coming. Use it.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Bigoted emails from Army recruiter outrage gay man
« on: March 28, 2007, 07:25:25 PM »
By CHARLES HACK
JOURNAL STAFF WRITER

Jersey City resident Corey Andrew, like thousands of other job seekers, recently posted his profile on a popular career-based web site, hoping to nab some work as a copywriter. But the response he received was anything but typical.

The posting on CareerBuilder.com brought several potential suitors, including an Army recruiter who replied in late February.

However, Andrew had no interest in joining the Army for a number of reasons, including the military's ban on openly gay and lesbian citizens from putting on the uniform. Andrew identifies himself as gay.

His lack of interest didn't stop him from asking the recruiter whether he was able to serve in the Army as a gay man. The question sparked a bizarre three-day exchange, escalating into a bigoted tirade from the recruiter and an official military investigation.

Using a military email address, U.S. Army recruiter Sgt. Marcia Ramode fired off an email in capital letters that " IF YOU ARE GAY WE DON'T TAKE YOU. YOU ARE CONSIDERED UNQUALIFIED."

After more prodding from Andrew on the Army's recruitment policy, the messages escalated into a bigoted tirade. For example, Ramode told Andrew that "being gay is disgusting and immoral."

In a separate email, Ramode wrote, "You must be a total idiot and so stupid to presume that you do not know what gender you are." Ramode added that Andrew should be more grateful to the military for defending his freedoms, but that as a gay man "he should leave the United States."

The insults were not only flying one way, as Andrew criticized her vocabulary and poor spelling and, after finding out she was a Native American, wrote:

"So take that to your next rain dance."

Ramode didn't limit her email attacks to insults about Andrew's sexual preferences.

Andrew, who is black, criticized Ramode's word choices and poor spelling. In response, the apparently enraged sergeant said in graphic language that Andrew should "GO BACK TO AFRICA AND DO YOUR GAY VOODOO LIMBO TANGO AND WANGO DANCE AND JUMP AROUND AND PRANCE AND RUN ALL OVER THE PLACE HALF NAKED THERE."

The U.S. Army Recruiting Command's Staff Judge Advocate has referred the email exchange to Ramode's commander for "review, investigation and appropriate action," Sgt. Douglas Smith, a public affairs officer based Fort Knox, Texas, said in a statement.

Under the Department of Defense's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, recruiters do not ask applicants any questions about their sexual orientation.

"If an applicant makes a statement that he or she is homosexual, the recruiter must inform the applicant in a professional manner that they are not eligible for enlistment," the statement said.

Andrew, who is also a singer-songwriter and has worked for New York's advertising giant Young & Rubicam, said he thinks the Army contacted him because the Iraq war has made it harder to recruit.

Steve Ralls, a director of communications for the Service Members Legal Defense Network, which helps victims of discrimination under the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, says Ramode should be fired.

"The recruiter's remarks were outrageous and offensive in almost every way," Ralls said. "Anti-gay harassment throughout the military is well documented but this is particularly egregious because the recruiter's language is so homophobic and racist."

Ralls is relieved the Army appears to be taking the email exchange seriously.

"The command expects its recruiters to conduct themselves in a professional manner in all dealings with potential applicants and members of the public," said Smith of the Army. "We are ambassadors for America's Army."

Ramode did not return phone calls seeking comment.

http://www.nj.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news-3/1174888852111830.xml&coll=3&thispage=1
"I love WikiLeaks." - Donald Trump, October 2016

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8010
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bigoted emails from Army recruiter outrage gay man
« Reply #1 on: March 28, 2007, 07:56:40 PM »
IF YOU ARE GAY WE DON'T TAKE YOU. YOU ARE CONSIDERED UNQUALIFIED."

thats the statement that sink the recruiter

the word unqualified means lacking the ability to do a task or position.
it`s simply the wrong statement to use in this situation
especially since a good deal of gays kicked out of the military are in specialized fields ,proving these people are extremely capable.
I recall one was a admiral.

Stray Pooch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 860
  • Pray tell me, sir, whose dog are you?
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bigoted emails from Army recruiter outrage gay man
« Reply #2 on: March 29, 2007, 06:56:08 AM »
The word "unqualified" in the military context does not refer to one's abilities.  It refers to meeting all of the qualifications for a particular circumstance.  Homosexuals are, by law, unqualified for military service.   A person who is not a native-born American is unqualified to be President of the United States, even if they might well be otherwise very capable.

That statement was not a problem.  Though putting it in CAPS could be considered "shouting" it could also be nothing more than emphasis.  That statement alone could easily be a neutral statement of policy.

The problem is that the NCO used insulting language in addition to the neutral stuff.  The "disgusting and immoral" language was obvioulsy unecessary.  It is not a recruiter's job to lecture people on moral decisions.  That alone was unprofessional and would be grounds for consideration for removal from recruiter duty (an important career step for NCOs). 

But when she chose to attack his race as well, she sealed her fate.  Obviously she is compromised as a recruiter, but more importantly, she is compromised as an NCO.  Any attempt on her part to evaluate or discipline an African-American soldier would be subject to challenge on grounds of racism.  Soldiers of any color could be reluctant to serve under her. 

Since support for equal opportunity is part of one's NCO Evaluation, she clearly deserves to have that noted as a deficiency.  Further, her conduct was unprofessional and unbecoming of an NCO.  It is possible that she might face actual charges.  At the very least, she will be relieved as a recruiter and receive a letter of reprimand that will go in her military record.  Coupled with a sure-to-come substandard evaluation that will spell the end of her effective career.  If her rank is listed correctly as SGT (which, in civilian publications it often is not) she is unlikely to finish her military career.  SGT (E-5) is too low a rank to continue past 15 years without a qualitative review.  Sometimes a person can remain E-5 past that point for reasons beyond their control (like downsizing after the cold war or career path shifts).  But in her case a board would not be at all likely to retain her.   

This NCO should have exercised self-control.  Her problems are of her own making and the fact that the other party was just as idiotic does not in any way excuse her.  NCOs are expected to have professionalism, maturity and common sense.  She displayed none of these traits.
Oh, for a muse of fire, that would ascend the brightest heaven of invention . . .

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8010
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bigoted emails from Army recruiter outrage gay man
« Reply #3 on: March 29, 2007, 02:53:45 PM »
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/qualification

true but it kinda vaguely made definition
qualification usually means ability
if another phrase was used
ex. at the moment the military cannot recruit gays.
and I am not in any position to change this.
maybe this incident would end up differently.
unqualified just gives a in accurate impression.
I don`t ever recall anyone using unqualified for the context of non-natives not able to become president.

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bigoted emails from Army recruiter outrage gay man
« Reply #4 on: March 29, 2007, 03:03:23 PM »
I don`t ever recall anyone using unqualified for the context of non-natives not able to become president.

One of the qualifications for holding the office of President is being born in the US. If you do not meet this qualification, you are unqualified for the office.

One of the qualifications for being a member of the armed forces is being non-gay. If you do not meet this qualification, you are unqualified for joining the armed forces.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

_JS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Salaires legers. Chars lourds.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bigoted emails from Army recruiter outrage gay man
« Reply #5 on: March 29, 2007, 05:05:09 PM »
Quote
The U.S. Army Recruiting Command's Staff Judge Advocate has referred the email exchange to Ramode's commander for "review, investigation and appropriate action," Sgt. Douglas Smith, a public affairs officer based Fort Knox, Texas, said in a statement.

As someone who used to live there, I'm pretty damn sure that Fort Knox is in Kentucky. I've never heard of a Fort Knox, Texas, though someone may correct me if there is one and if the recruiter's commander would likely be based there.

I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
   So stuff my nose with garlic
   Coat my eyes with butter
   Fill my ears with silver
   Stick my legs in plaster
   Tell me lies about Vietnam.

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bigoted emails from Army recruiter outrage gay man
« Reply #6 on: March 29, 2007, 05:10:50 PM »
As someone who used to live there, I'm pretty damn sure that Fort Knox is in Kentucky. I've never heard of a Fort Knox, Texas, though someone may correct me if there is one and if the recruiter's commander would likely be based there.

Well, for a number of years the MSM insisted that Charlotte was in VA instead of NC. Now that we've gotten bigger, they've gotten more accurate.

(They obviously confused Charlotte with Charlottesville.)
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

larry

  • Guest
Re: Bigoted emails from Army recruiter outrage gay man
« Reply #7 on: March 29, 2007, 10:11:22 PM »
Its o'kay for gays to serve in the military as long as they stay in the closet. Its not about qualifications or abilities. Its about submission to the rule of military law. The more important issue is, is the military rule of law just or unjust?

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bigoted emails from Army recruiter outrage gay man
« Reply #8 on: March 29, 2007, 10:36:26 PM »
Its o'kay for gays to serve in the military as long as they stay in the closet.

Actually, it's not. It's just against policy for their superiors to ask them about their orientation.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bigoted emails from Army recruiter outrage gay man
« Reply #9 on: March 29, 2007, 10:43:39 PM »
Actually, it's not. It's just against policy for their superiors to ask them about their orientation.

I'm frequently fascinated by that PC nomenclature, "orientation".  Are we asking them if they prefer standing straight up towards Orion, or if they lean more to the south, than they do to the west?    ;D
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bigoted emails from Army recruiter outrage gay man
« Reply #10 on: March 29, 2007, 10:53:06 PM »
I'm frequently fascinated by that PC nomenclature, "orientation".

It's a perfectly legitimate use of the word. One of the definitions for orientation is "a tendency of thought; a general inclination."
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Stray Pooch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 860
  • Pray tell me, sir, whose dog are you?
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bigoted emails from Army recruiter outrage gay man
« Reply #11 on: March 30, 2007, 06:00:22 PM »
Actually, Kimba, the word "Qualified" has a very specific meaning when used in a military context.   Homosexuality is STILL illegal in the military (sorry, Larry, Ami is right).  It is not legal to ask (as it used to be) whether a person is gay, but if the gay person tells, or if it is found out in some other fashion, homosexuals will be discharged. 

"Qualification" in military terms means not just meeting ability standards, but also meeting the appropriate requirements.  You cannot be an infantry soldier if you are a woman.  (That is to say, you are not allowed to be.)  You cannot hold a security clearance if you have bad debt problems.  You cannot be promoted to Sergeant if you have not been to leadership training.  You may not join the service if you are under 18 (17 with parental permission) or over 35 (with some exceptions).  All of these things are considered "qualifications" and have nothing to do (necessarily) with ability.  A 45 year old who wanted to join up would be told "I'm sorry, you are unqualified to enlist." 

Of course, Larry's question is the more important, but within the context of this thread, the issue is whether what the SGT did was wrong.  The qualification statement probably isn't.  The rest definitely is.   
Oh, for a muse of fire, that would ascend the brightest heaven of invention . . .

larry

  • Guest
Re: Bigoted emails from Army recruiter outrage gay man
« Reply #12 on: March 30, 2007, 06:29:57 PM »
Its o'kay for gays to serve in the military as long as they stay in the closet.

Actually, it's not. It's just against policy for their superiors to ask them about their orientation.

Ami, gay people are not a product of orientation. Gay people are (non-conformist) who do not hadhere to the bigoted orientation of bias religious and political leadership. The archetypes of a society are reflected in the behavior of the society. There was a time both church and state thought slavery was o'kay, and the people of the nation were divided between slaves and slave owners. There was a time when women could not vote, men thought that women were to stupid to understand politics, that's what the church and state told the people. There was a time when homosexuals could be put to death, because the church said they were posses by demons and the people of the nation believed the church leaders. One thing we have learned. Church and state are not always correct in their judgments and both church and state are still mired in bigotry. George (The Burning) Bush, is a anti-gay zealot, conservative, republican, Christian. Fascism is a philosophy of sanctioning, only those who are deserving and persecuting all of those who do not conform. That is why both the U.S. Domestic and Foreign policies have failed and the conflicts of interest continue. This will not be resolved until the mindset of the leadership evolves beyond the bias of the current thinking.

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Bigoted emails from Army recruiter outrage gay man
« Reply #13 on: March 30, 2007, 07:08:06 PM »
Ami, gay people are not a product of orientation. Gay people are (non-conformist) who do not hadhere to the bigoted orientation of bias religious and political leadership.

So, in a non-religious, non-political world, we would all be gay?

I find that hard to believe.

Even animals (who do not have religion or politics) only have a small percentage of homosexuals in the general population.

And as I pointed out earlier, orientation is the proper word to use.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2007, 08:32:51 PM by Amianthus »
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

larry

  • Guest
Re: Bigoted emails from Army recruiter outrage gay man
« Reply #14 on: March 30, 2007, 07:20:03 PM »
So, in a non-religious, non-political world, we would all be gay?

No, there would just be no institutional anti-gay indoctrination. It would be up to the individual to make their own choice about who they have sex with. People already make those choices and they don't care what church or state think about it.