USAFA '80 Female Grad Responds To 'Affinity Group' Incident In Letter To AOG

From Armed Forces Press: The email below was sent to AOG CEO Mark Hille by AFA ’80 graduate Tanya Regan for publication in Checkpoints, the Air Force Academy Association of Graduates magazine.

Political Conduct by AOG Women’s Affinity Group Demands Accountability

As a proud graduate of AFA ’80, the first class including women, I cherish our shared memories and experiences and am deeply grateful for the opportunities the AFA provided.

However, I am disturbed and saddened by a divisive political activity by a few attendees and the photographer who “paraded around the terrazzo” a huge sign stating “USAFA WOMEN: YOU BELONG HERE (NO MATTER WHAT SECDEF SAYS).”

The display of this sign, especially in view of cadets, is political, insubordinate, embarrassing and reprehensible. It angers me that graduates were so disrespectful to the institution that gave them their opportunity to serve.

The AOG and an AOG sponsored womens’ affinity group co-sponsored the events at which the above occurred, and are responsible for dealing with them. A full explanation of who displayed this sign at the AFA, who allowed or failed to prevent its display, and what is done to hold those responsible accountable, should be made known to AOG members.

During the reception on Thursday, Lt. Gen. (ret) Michelle Johnson told me, unsolicited, that she has been helping Cathy Almand, the AOG BOD Chair, “deal” with some “difficult old men on the Board.”

My questions: What is not working on the BOD, and why? Why does the Board Chair need guidance from Lt. Gen. Johnson instead of leading the group herself? The characterization of “difficult old men on the Board” is revealing and suggests the division on the BOD is perhaps ideological.

More broadly, AOG directors and members should engage in a professional dialogue about whether the AOG should sponsor any affinity group based on race or gender.

I am 100% for proper treatment of women and all other military members, but affinity groups based on race and gender undermine the unity and readiness necessary for an effective military and is opposed by official military policy. They are antithetical to core principles of military unity and cohesion.

So, why is the AOG sponsoring those affinity groups? The AOG BOD should conduct a comprehensive review of these issues and provide AOG members a full accounting of this divisive political behavior and its policies regarding sponsoring gender and race based affinity groups.

Tanya S. Regan, USAFA ’80

First published on Armed Forces Press