Posted on Nov 4, 2015
Can someone order you to answer a question that pertains to your personal ideas?
19.6K
182
116
10
10
0
So, the SITREP behind my question is as follows, during a sensitivity training, an instructor was using the "shotgun" method(asking members to answer questions directly), an E5 was called upon to answer a question that pertained to their personal thoughts on an issue, the member did not want to answer because they felt uncomfortable sharing their personal opinion on the matter, an O5 then interrupts the training and tells the E5 to answer the question, the E5 simply answers "No Sir" this happened three times until his E7 tries to convince the E5 to just answer the question, then the E5 response saying that he feels uncomfortable sharing his personal opinion on the matter and that it is insensitive to make him answer, then training then continues, now a week later that E5 has EMI for what happened in the training.
So the question is can someone order you to answer a question that is based on their personal opinion?
So the question is can someone order you to answer a question that is based on their personal opinion?
Posted in these groups: 
Orders
Orders
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 39
22
22
0
PO2 (Join to see) - First, the O-5 can certainly order the E-5 to answer the question, however, I think to do so was out of line and probably unenforceable if it went to non-judicial punishment or court-martial. I know that I would overturn it on appeal, if it came to me.
Requiring people to publicly state their personal opinions about certain issues (religion, homosexuality, politics, etc.) is wrong. In fact, that should be discouraged, not encouraged or required.
I would recommend that people confronted with such a question simply state, "I have no personal opinion about that".
Requiring people to publicly state their personal opinions about certain issues (religion, homosexuality, politics, etc.) is wrong. In fact, that should be discouraged, not encouraged or required.
I would recommend that people confronted with such a question simply state, "I have no personal opinion about that".
(22)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
COL Jean (John) F. B. - I completely appreciate what you're trying to communicate, and I like what you said about stipulating the intent to enforce policies, but I figure that would be more of a "qualifying remark" to add to what ever your feelings might be, after being directed to do so. I think it's pretty much a given, that we understand not all Soldiers think alike, but when we're put into a situation where it takes courage to speak an opinion that might differ from the majority, as leaders, we must be willing to demonstrate that courage (thinking of "group think" and the Columbia space shuttle).
(0)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
SSG (Join to see) - OK ... I understand what you are saying, however, I still think a leader's personal opinion about such matters should be kept personal, just as politics are. Leaders have to lead and have the respect of all they lead. Expressing personal attitudes about contentious issues would only serve to denigrate the leader's respect from those who disagree with those views. For example, if a leader says he/she thinks homosexuality is immoral and perverted, but has homosexual soldiers in his/her command, that would create a problem. The leader can overlook his/her personal feeling and follow Army policy, but letting his/her personal feelings be known would impact his/her ability to lead and gain the respect of his/her troops. Same goes for questions about religion, race relations, abortion, politics, and a host of other issues. In my opinion, leaders expressing personal opinions about such things should be prohibited, just as derogatory political comments and support/non-support of particular candidates/politicians are for commissioned officers.
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
COL Jean (John) F. B. - Roger COL, and I'd say that so long as the leader doesn't allow their prejudice to cloud their MDMP, then there's no problem. Regarding the respect issue, I see how that can become a problem, but just because a point of view isn't verbalized, doesn't mean the underlying behavior won't be observed and suspected based on perceived prejudicial decisions.. Likewise, I would LIKE to think, that Soldiers would have MORE respect for a leader who they see making appropriate decisions, despite their personal objections. "Be, Know, Do".
(1)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
SSG (Join to see) - Suspecting something and hearing it verbalized are two entirely different things. In addition, leaders should take care to not display/verbalize personal feelings about contentious issues, especially if their personal feelings are in contravention with Army policies.
I understand your position. I just think it best to just keep such things to yourself and do not think anybody should be forced to divulge personal feelings.
I understand your position. I just think it best to just keep such things to yourself and do not think anybody should be forced to divulge personal feelings.
(1)
(0)
21
21
0
I think that one can probably surmise what the subject of the class was.
Thing is, if the question is what is your personal opinion, you SHOULD be free to express it. If someone asks me what I think, I will tell them and it should not be in fear of reprisal. That Commander changed the game when he jumped in and asserted his will on that Petty Officer.
Guess what? I think marriage should be between a man and a woman.
I think that gay service members can serve admirably and with distinction.
I think transgender issues go far beyond what you "identify" as and those may well complicate service.
I think BOTH people are responsible when they get drunk and have sex, not just the male participant.
I think that it is cool that females are going to and successfully completing Ranger School. I also think that those same outstanding women would have a very difficult time hacking it on the line every day. On this, I am open-minded enough to be proven wrong.
BUT, none of that impedes my support and execution of Army policy, nor it's enforcement in my ranks.
Thing is, if the question is what is your personal opinion, you SHOULD be free to express it. If someone asks me what I think, I will tell them and it should not be in fear of reprisal. That Commander changed the game when he jumped in and asserted his will on that Petty Officer.
Guess what? I think marriage should be between a man and a woman.
I think that gay service members can serve admirably and with distinction.
I think transgender issues go far beyond what you "identify" as and those may well complicate service.
I think BOTH people are responsible when they get drunk and have sex, not just the male participant.
I think that it is cool that females are going to and successfully completing Ranger School. I also think that those same outstanding women would have a very difficult time hacking it on the line every day. On this, I am open-minded enough to be proven wrong.
BUT, none of that impedes my support and execution of Army policy, nor it's enforcement in my ranks.
(21)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
I am sure I could make a Soldier out of you, SN Greg Wright. And thank you very much for the compliment.
(2)
(0)
SN Greg Wright
1SG (Join to see) - I'm really not sure of the soldier thing, 1SG, lol. I prefer my terrain to be more...fluid. I need GPS and Radars and Greater Circles to find my way.
But at the very least, I could drive you where you needed to go!
But at the very least, I could drive you where you needed to go!
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Is an order that violates Army regulations, and exceeds the authority of the issuer, "unlawful"?...
What do you do when your state military department, imposes an "unlawful" order, that violates Army regulations (at least 40-501, 600-20, and 135-91) and after bringing it to your IG, the DAIG, and the office of Congressman Ami Bera, no one is willing to take the appropriate corrective measures? (In 2013, a two star general exceeded his authority, and completely reversed the requirement for Medically Non Deployable Soldiers to perform their AT...
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
SSG (Join to see) - Answered in that thread. Good luck on that one. It is a tough one if it goes all the way to the State Adjutant General.
(0)
(0)
13
13
0
Yes. Unless the order needlessly endangers self, others, or violates a regulation or law you can cite. Follow the order.
That said, you can lead with "I'm really not comfortable answering that question in public. May we discuss this issue privately."
Keep in mind there may be mitigating circumstances like information which is not theirs to share, or fear of reprisal, especially when asking questions in a Public forum.
The E7 & O5 never should have placed the E5 in that position (without knowing the exact content/context of the question). The Irony here is that it happened during Sensitivity Training.
That said, you can lead with "I'm really not comfortable answering that question in public. May we discuss this issue privately."
Keep in mind there may be mitigating circumstances like information which is not theirs to share, or fear of reprisal, especially when asking questions in a Public forum.
The E7 & O5 never should have placed the E5 in that position (without knowing the exact content/context of the question). The Irony here is that it happened during Sensitivity Training.
(13)
(0)
SN Greg Wright
COL Vincent Stoneking - The fact that you would have to go through such a convoluted process to answer that question speaks for itself. Having said that, you have, once again, proven yourself to be a wise leader, and someone who can influence my thoughts.
(1)
(0)
SN Greg Wright
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS - Well shit. I hate agreeing with jarheads.
Ok, I really don't, but it's the Navy/MC kitche, right? Let's just pretend I despise you for your weird haircut while secretly admiring you for your logical and thoughtful statement.
Ok, I really don't, but it's the Navy/MC kitche, right? Let's just pretend I despise you for your weird haircut while secretly admiring you for your logical and thoughtful statement.
(1)
(0)
CDR Kenneth Kaiser
Sargent Kennedy,
Well said, my only contention was that this training if I am correct was less technical and more shall we say "social" in nature. The CDR should have let it go and let the chief handle it As the result of the actions any gain made from the class was overridden by the Commander's actions.
The goal in these situations should be to educate not intimidate.
Well said, my only contention was that this training if I am correct was less technical and more shall we say "social" in nature. The CDR should have let it go and let the chief handle it As the result of the actions any gain made from the class was overridden by the Commander's actions.
The goal in these situations should be to educate not intimidate.
(2)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
@kenneth kaiser Concur.
That said, we weren't there, and "tone" is everything. The Commander may have been attempting a broader point, as part of the training (education) and accidently slipped into intimidation because of the situation which he "might" have perceived as disrespect.
That said, we weren't there, and "tone" is everything. The Commander may have been attempting a broader point, as part of the training (education) and accidently slipped into intimidation because of the situation which he "might" have perceived as disrespect.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google