mariomike said:
Is switching from job to job always seen as a positive?
I'm asking because the PRes was my first and last part-time job, and my career was my first and last full-time job.
Should the CAF be the second ( third, fourth... ) career of an individual?
Are young people with little "life experience" more easily "moldable" than older individuals to the CAF subculture?
By hiring young adults, perhaps the CAF secures more chances that those individuals will have less "baggage" in their background checks than those with life experience.
I believe that life experience, particularly life experience within the culture and society is neccessaryparticularly for a career military person and that a lack of understanding of the society one lives in can have significant issues for the organization. Where this becomes an issue is in the growing civilian-military gap, which admittedly has largely been studied/discussed in the US vice Canada. However, shades of the gap can be seen in our own military (arguably are more apparent with the difference in cultural views of military service). The attached links provide some reading material of much that is available.
The gap has roots in both military and civilian sides. As noted by Lt. Gen Dave Barno, "“troops and their families live and work on massive military bases, separated geographically, socially, and economically from the society they serve.” He also stated that “the military’s self-imposed isolation doesn’t encourage civilian understanding, and it makes it difficult for veterans and their families to navigate the outside world.” Moreover, as the members of the military are self-selecting, they tend to have a sense of moral arrogance and moral superiority (http://taskandpurpose.com/building-connections-conversation-review-new-film-civilian-military-divide/). This sense of exclusivity and being "special" further creates a divide between the military and civilian classes.
On the flip side, the lack of military presence in civilian universities, including Harvard and Columbia, when ROTC programs were cancelled in the 1960's has created a situation where the academic divide between the military and civilian academia grew.
In terms of the CAF, the demographics of the force must also be considered. It shouldn't come as a shock to anyone that the CAF continues to be largely a white male dominated institution with numbers far outside the society. To this end, in 2008 85.3% of the total force was male and only 6.4% of the forces were visible minority (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/2008107/pdf/10657-eng.pdf). The reserves had a larger proportion of minorities, which is not surprising, meaning the regular force had a total of 4.5% visible minority, with only 3.4% of officers being visible minorities at that time. The bulk of the majority come from rural or small urban centres (Tracey Wait, Canadian Demographic and Social Values at a Glance: Impact on Strategic HR Planning (Ottawa, Canada: Department of National Defence, 2002) so tend to be more homogeneous in thought than those from larger urban centres with more exposure to different cultures. So, with the volunteer force it is arguable whether the CAF has ever been truly reflective of Canadian society due to the recruiting patters of the force.
So, how does this all apply to RMC? The segregation of military leaders, who by our own leadership doctrine we want to be
transformational has the double edged sword of removing persons from that society at a young age and indoctrinating them into the military way of thinking. On the surface this would seem to be a largely positive thing. However, this contributes to further distancing the future officers from the population that they represent and creating a "warrior caste". Further, as noted, the majority of the force is still represented by a relatively homogeneous group within Canadian society who largely have similar socio-economic backgrounds and belief systems. This further separates the officer corps from society, particularly when they are grouped together to reinforce the beliefs that they arrived to RMC with. As the individuals are
generally from the same background and have the same beliefs than how can they be expected to represent the larger Canadian society? How can they be expected to be transformational and move the CAF to represent a society they themselves largely don't understand since they spent the bulk of their time isolated at RMC and Gagetown/Borden/Portage-la-Prairie/Esquimalt? And conversely, how do we expect the larger society, including academic society, to understand the military when there is little to no presence on civilian campuses? Situations like the WLU one seen recently are the flip side of the isolation of ideas and I would argue a similar dynamic in RMC, where a feminist presenter can be booed and harangued by a largely male audience with little to no ramifications (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/royal-military-college-cadets-struggled-with-questions-of-sexual-consent-educator-1.3083831). So, do we want future leaders who can be "molded" into the military or do we want future leaders who understand their society and can make decisions based on life experience? I argue the latter. Having officers, and by extension, a CAF that reflects Canadian society we strengthen the military, reduce the civilian-military divide, and improve our effectiveness by drawing in more diverse groups. This must be seen as a positive. I dont believe that we will ever get there by segregating the bulk of the officer corps in one institution.
http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo8/no3/jung-eng.asp
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/presidential-campaign/287817-the-overlooked-civilian-military-divide
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-warrior-main-20150524-story.html#page=1
http://taskandpurpose.com/unpacking-civilian-military-divide/