Did Todd Starnes Expose Air Force Politically Correct Agenda?
Todd Starnes has reported a controversial story about an email that was sent by a senior Air Force leader to an untold number of personnel at Lackland Air Force Base (AFB), which should cause observers to wonder if it is a politically correct agenda that shows partially towards those who care more about sensitivity, than service.
Starnes alleges that an incensed Airman sent him a copy of an email which did not address integrity, service before self, or excellence—the email addressed issues that could be construed as offensive to others. It would be expected for the military to ensure compliance that sexual harassment, slander, and moral turpitude would not be tolerated. It is ironic that the email did not address any of the aforementioned compliances. Instead, the Air Force advised the Airmen to study a list of words, which should cause observers to be vexed:
- You People
- Sounds Greek to me
- Blondes have more fun
- Too many chiefs, not enough Indians
Out of all of the alleged words that could be construed as offensive, how can the reference to boy or girl be offensive? Is the Air Force sending a message that they will seek adjudicating discipline upon Airmen who use the words boy or girl? According to the email sent to Starnes, this could be the disposition:
“Please be cognizant that such conduct is 100 percent zero tolerance in or outside of the work climate…”
“Let’s capitalize on our richly diverse climate, and help others seek assistance if they are struggling with compliance.”
As a result of the email, Starnes contacted the Lackland AFB to investigate the trifling issues of using the words boy or girl. Starnes claims that the public affairs spokesperson told him that, “The Air Force has no list of prohibited terms…” If the Air Force has no list of prohibited terms, then why would a senior officer send an email to an untold number of personnel at Lackland AFB that such conduct is 100 percent zero tolerance in or outside of the work climate? According to Starnes, the public affairs also informed him that, “It was sent out by an individual simply reminding Airmen to be respectful to others.”
This is a case of the Air Force getting caught red-handed trying to advance a politically correct agenda. And now that I’ve got a copy of the evidence, they are attempting to whitewash the situation.
Based on my interpretation of the email, it’s pretty clear that Airmen have been advised not to use those words in any sort of context – on or off base.
It is ironic that the public affairs response to Starnes does not comport with the email sent by the senior officer to the untold number of personnel at Lackland AFB. When the Air Force sends a 100 percent zero tolerance “in or out of the workplace” email by a senior officer, Airmen are expected to obey the orders of the officers appointed over them or else face administrative sanctions. It would be interesting to see if the public affairs will elucidate further if Airmen will be punished if they use the words boy or girl in or out of the workplace to settle this confounding issue for the Airman who contacted Starnes.
Objective observers may wonder if the Air Force is pandering to a politically correct agenda? “It’s time for Defense Secretary James Mattis to root out political correctness in the Armed Forces. We must never again allow the greatest fighting force on the planet to be used as a social engineering petri dish,” said Starnes.
Airmen are in need of prayer. Airmen are trained to bear true faith and allegiance, and to serve with integrity, selfless service, and to excel in all that they do. Airmen are not trained to worry about violating a zero tolerance mandate that would require them to live in fear being punished for calling another Airmen boy or girl. May God have mercy, and grant repentance for the manifold sins that exists in this nation.
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read More