Edition 11 15 Oct 2021

"We are united over duty, integrity, excellence, and service BEFORE self. Any focus on DNA is all about self." – Maj Gen (Ret) Tom O’Riordan

Our Educational Mission in Action
What is STARRS Doing? Meet External Affairs

Chris Petty, Brig Gen, USA (Ret), USMA '87


     Last week, a West Point classmate of mine shared a disheartening story. A little over two years ago, her son went into one of our nation’s military academies. He entered full of patriotic pride, traditional values, and the ability to think critically about complex problems. In just two years, however, he’s changed. He no longer believes his parents “understand” him. His arguments are emotional, devoid of reason and logic. He has come to terms with his white privilege, and the fact that he lives in a systemically racist country. He is now a social justice warrior.

     I was lucky. Two of my sons graduated from academies. Fortunately, it was before “wokeness” had infiltrated ‒ before professors taught Critical Race Theory, before speakers were brought in to talk about the dangers of toxic masculinity and the evils of white privilege. Sadly, our military academies ‒these national treasures that have produced exemplary warrior-leaders for over two centuries ‒ are being turned into social justice factories.

     Let me introduce myself. I’m Brig. Gen. Chris Petty (USA, retired), the STARRS Vice President of External Affairs. I graduated from West Point in 1987 and served on active duty and in the National Guard. I commanded troops in Iraq during “the surge”, as well as commanding the NATO headquarters in Bosnia. I have served at both the combatant command staff level and the Department of the Army headquarters level in the Pentagon. As someone who understands how the military works, I know the urgency of the STARRS mission.

     Our task at External Affairs is to educate our military’s senior civilian and uniformed leaders, members of Congress, and leaders throughout the military’s education and training base, on the dangers of these racist and radical ideologies that are infiltrating the force. Beginning with this newsletter, I will send each superintendent a personal note each month introducing myself and STARRS, with the goal of building a key alliance in the fight against this nefarious propaganda. Some of our members have said, in effect, that “the superintendents can’t be saved.” I disagree. They grew up in my era of service, before wokeness and social justice had taken root, when American ideals were lauded, and patriotism was a compelling call to serve. As experienced leaders, these superintendents understand the importance of unity, trust, and morale in forming teams that can win in combat. And in their guts, they know the “woke” agenda undermines and destroys it all. Our job is to support them in this difficult battle ahead. They will need it. And thanks to your support of STARRS, we will all have a fighting chance.

A DOD Official Exposes The Intellectual Bankruptcy Of Diversity

By Claude M. McQuarrie III, STARRS Supporter 


     It is rare that U.S. Department of Defense officials, blinded by their zealous pursuit of the latest variant of U.S. military diversity policy, reveal that policy’s intellectual vacuousness. Recent comments by the Navy’s top, uniformed personnel officer, however, did just that, exposing the Pentagon diversity policy’s intellectual bankruptcy and providing a focus for those who, following their commitment to the Constitution and the rule of law, genuinely believe America’s sons and daughters in uniform deserve the best leadership available.

     On August 3, 2021, VADM John Nowell, Jr., Chief of Naval Personnel, made public comments arguing for reinstating the use of photographs in selection boards, justifying that position by saying that not using photographs is hurting “diversity.” He lamented that the Navy’s recent “data” (accumulated after the policy had been changed so official photographs no longer were included in personnel files the promotion boards used) show the new practice has hurt “diversity.” Rather than acknowledging that such evidence proves “diversity” policies undermine meritocracy in the military, Admiral Nowell’s further comments revealed the dishonest disregard for objective evidence and truth that pervades the pursuit of anti-white, racial discrimination in the name of “diversity” in our military. He said, “It’s a meritocracy. We’re only going to pick the best of the best, but we’re very clear with our language … that we want them to consider diversity across all areas. Right?” “And therefore … I think having a clear picture on this just makes it easier. So, actually, our data show that it would support adding photos back in.” Admiral Nowell also said, “I think we should consider reinstating photos in selection boards.” “We look at, for instance, the one-star board over the last five years, and we can show you where, as you look at diversity, it went down with photos removed.” (Emphasis added)

     So, the Navy’s data show that when “color-blind” promotion boards do not use photos, they select the “best” – but that these results differ (fewer minority selectees, i.e., “diversity … went down”) compared to the selections (more minorities) when promotion boards do use photos that show candidates’ skin color (facilitating the use of racial preferences). The Navy’s data are strong evidence of the negative effect that using racial preferences has on meritocracy and therefore the quality of the selection board outcome. Shockingly, that conclusion apparently escaped this 3-star flag officer whose job is to oversee Navy personnel policy. Ever true to the mantra that diversity policies never lower quality or involve lowering standards to make minorities “more successful,” he predictably claims the process, when influenced by photo-enabled racial preferences, is still a meritocracy.

     Admiral Nowell’s explanation of the Navy’s data proves that “diversity” (when considered by a promotion board) means “racial preferences.” Would he admit that considering “diversity” (race) in a promotion board is, in practice, the extension of racial preferences? Not likely. Just call it “diversity.” That places the topic beyond the reach of critical thinking (and legal) analysis and discussion. If only the “best of the best” will be chosen, why does a board need to know each candidate’s skin color? There is no evidence showing that skin color correlates positively with demonstrated performance and/or performance potential at a higher rank. Nor is there evidence to show that skin color correlates with the various traits and characteristics that make one an effective leader, such as integrity, judgment, professional competence, empathy, loyalty, et al.

     Instead, these comments reveal the intellectually bankrupt attempt by those in power to deny that “diversity” inspired, race-based affirmative action in military promotions involves both anti-white discrimination and lowering standards. Admiral Nowell gives no substantive rationale for how and why skin color must be considered to identify the “best of the best.” He gives no explanation for how what is called “diversity” makes one candidate better than other candidates (the “best”). All that is said is the word “diversity,” and we are then expected to accept that as justifying ending the discussion and warranting a change in policy. No, Admiral, the use of racial preferences in promotion boards is not a meritocracy. Racial preferences are, instead antithetical to meritocracy. To claim that their use is (or is even consistent with) a meritocracy is a lie. Racial preferences use skin color where there is no evidence that race has anything to do with one candidate’s merit versus that of another. Injecting race is nothing more than a substitute for merit, using subjective, dubious (and clearly unproven, as to merit) notions that are based on skin color.     

     Defense Secretary Austin’s recent guidance that senior military leaders, and officers in general, will “look like” the rest of the force (i.e., racial demographic parity -- apparently wearing the same uniform is no longer enough) is apparently the driving force. It, too, is intellectually vacuous and an undeniable admission that quality is being sacrificed for the sake of racial demographic parity. 

     Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen want competence in their leaders’ ability to get them on and off the battlefield, accomplishing the mission with minimal loss of life. They care little for “diversity-hired” substitutes for the leadership they need and deserve. Hal Moore’s men, and those who have studied the battle at LZ X-Ray, would attest to the fact that his battalion’s soldiers cared not at all what his (or his subordinate leaders’) skin color was. Those who survived did so because of Colonel Moore’s superior leadership and the bravery of Soldiers and Airmen of all colors and ethnicities. 

     The Chief of Naval Personnel’s “meritocracy” claim is dishonest doublespeak. It is untrue on its face. Its context -- race-based preferences in military promotions -- is extremely bad policy for a long list of reasons. His words also reflect a betrayal of our Constitution and DOD’s systemic violation of Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Until our courts intervene, for so long as the U.S. military continues down its current path, its ability to defend the Nation will “progressively” weaken. 

     Equally troubling is the Pentagon’s implicit moral failure. One of America’s legendary combat leaders, Medal of Honor recipient Maj. Gen. James E. Livingston, USMC (ret.), has observed: “America’s Moms and Dads gift their children for the purpose of defending the country. Our moral responsibility is to provide them the best possible leadership and, to the extent possible, return them safely to the gifting family.” Substituting the best possible leadership with diversity promotions to satisfy a political agenda would be an egregious moral failure, worsened only by DOD’s facially dishonest claims of meritocracy.


Mr. McQuarrie is a former U.S. Army officer, having served first in the Infantry and then in the Judge Advocate Generals Corps. He is a retired litigation partner from the international law firm Norton Rose Fulbright. The opinions expressed are his alone and are not those of the Department of Defense or of Norton Rose Fulbright.


Article as Originally Published in American Thinker
Book Review
The Diversity Delusion by Heather MacDonald

Review by STARRS member, Brent Ramsey


     The Diversity Delusion has a rating of 4.7 out of 5 on Amazon with 1158 reviews and 3.96 out of 5 with 238 reviews at Goodreads.


     Heather MacDonald explores the roots of the pervasive diversity culture on college campuses, it’s evolution and increasing radicalization. The book critically examines our education systems, including STEM, and the intellectually dishonest nature of the racism scam is laid bare.  Meticulously researched, brutally honest, and laser focused on the corruption of higher education, the author exposes the false narrative of a racist nation. Topics covered include the outrageous attacks on free speech on campuses including violence against conservatives condoned and excused by administrators, abuses of affirmative action lowering admission standards for minorities resulting in sanctioned discrimination against whites and Asians, practiced victimology by legions of minority students, the bizarre micro-aggression/snowflake phenomenon, college leaders abdicating their responsibilities, and the wholesale abandonment of a classical liberal education at US colleges and universities. MacDonald exposes how the morally bankrupt diversity concept undermines our nation and is actually the antithesis of America’s foundational ethic of equality of opportunity. The Diversity Delusion is featured in the STARRS Book Club at starrs.us. Click the link below to read more, or to order a copy.


Book's Page at Manhattan-Institute.org
Honor Code Series
Part 3: There Is No "I" In Honor Code

By Doug Goodman, STARRS member, USAFA ‘72

By Scott Sturman M.D., STARRS BOA member, USAFA ’72


“Duty, Honor, Country. Those three hallowed words reverently dictate what you ought to be, what you can be, what you will be.”

Douglas MacArthur


     When Americans are asked to categorize the most respected professions, the responses are based on the perception of trust, integrity, and honesty endemic to each occupation. The public equates these three ideals as the best measure of ethical behavior. A Gallup poll released in 2019 found nurses number one for the nineteenth consecutive year with military officers rated at number two.

     In the aftermath of the 1972 USAFA cheating scandal, Superintendent Lt Gen Albert Clark acknowledged the historical precedent for military codes of conduct when he cited a document from the 500 BCE Persian Officer Training School, “Here we teach men how to use the sword and how to tell the truth.” Throughout history armies tasked to protect its citizens have incorporated an oath of honor that teaches the art of war and requires its members to tell the truth.

     In her book The Code of the Warrior, Professor Shannon French, who taught at the USNA for eleven years, points out in a podcast that from the time of Homer, warrior codes have been ubiquitous throughout history. Codes universally are not imposed from outside but developed organically from within the ranks. These codes protect the warrior from moral injury and help maintain their humanity. Typically, codes do not entail a list of rules but rather are based on the Aristotelian precept to embody certain virtues in order to identify oneself as honorable. These codes set a minimum standard and inspire the warrior to behave ethically.

     Using the Iliad as an allegory, Professor French contrasts the ethical behavior of the honorable Hector with that of Achilles, who abandons the warrior code, and as a result, dies an ignominious death by the hand of Paris. The stoic concept of the virtuous warrior, a prevalent ethos within the Roman Army, prescribes “always to do the right thing.” The Knights of the Round Table adhered to a Code of Chivalry, where they took an oath not to abuse power and take advantage of others. The Bushido Code, although demanding a strong sense of duty to its leaders, melded Shintoism, Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism to establish basis of acceptable conduct. Shakespeare summarizes this ethos succinctly in Henry V:


But if it be a sin to covet honour,

I am the most offending soul alive.


And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by,

From this day to the ending of the world,

But we in it shall be remember’d;

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers.


     The British Army’s Values and Standards Document is emblematic of contemporary military codes of conduct: “Our war fighting doctrine is…dependent on mutual trust between leaders and those they lead. Such trust is developed from strong bonds of mutual respect and confidence in each other to do the right thing…that sets us apart from the rest of society. It demands a higher standard of behavior than that which is expected of those who are not soldiers - at all times whether on or off operations, on or off duty.” And finally, “The pressures or achievements of operations are not an excuse to tolerate poor discipline, low professional standards, or unacceptable behavior.”

     Brigadier Patrice Mompeyssin, member of the Board of Directors of the International Society for Military Ethics in Europe, points out that codes of conducts from countries around the world stress honor and ethical behavior and apply values such as patriotism, professionalism, honesty, integrity, and solidarity. In the 1980s French Foreign Legion leaders witnessed a lack of moral principles in young candidates. The result was the publication of the Legionnaire’s Code of Honor that dictated honorable behavior, not only for elite soldiers in combat, but in daily life.

     There is a reason why the Cadet Honor Code begins with “We” and not “I.” The Honor Code is a code of conduct shared amongst the members of the Cadet Wing, not the faculty, coaches, leadership, or staff. It embodies a revered trust between fellow cadets that is not based on fear or intimidation, but mutual respect. It is through this trust that cadets experience the strength that comes from a unity of purpose forged in an environment of integrity. Upon taking the Oath at Acceptance the new 4th class is inducted into a unique society that holds honor, integrity, and unity to be sacrosanct. Lying, cheating, stealing, or tolerating break this trust and foster a climate of disunity. Each new member of the Cadet Wing is trusted implicitly and can only lose this approbation through his or her own malfeasance. Under real world military conditions this trust becomes a pragmatic requirement, not a debatable philosophical principle.

     The academy forms the crucible in which future officers are trained and evaluated, and members of the Cadet Wing have the duty to report those cadets who do not meet the standards of the Honor Code. The experience of over two and a half millennia demonstrate a warrior’s needs for codes of behavior and conduct do not change with the times. For these codes to be effective, they must be administered by those who abide by them. The Cadet Wing is no different and must be responsible for its administration and the resolution of reported violations within its ranks. In this context the Cadet Wing cannot enforce punishments for violations, but only report disposition recommendations for violators to the superintendent.

     The toleration clause has been the focus in all commissions and investigations following large scale Honor Code scandals. Following the 1965 cheating scandal, Air Force Chief of Staff General Thomas D. White issued the “White Report.” He pointed out the public does not condone dishonorable conduct perpetrated by judges, doctors, prosecutors, airline pilots or Air Force personnel, and those alerting authorities to its presence cannot be considered to be informers or squealers. General White then applied these examples to a cadet who breaks the trust the of Cadet Wing, “The toleration clause in emphasizing that the Honor Code is a community possession of the Cadet Wing, is calculated to develop more fully this awareness in each cadet."

     According to research conducted by Dr. Frederick Malmstrom, USAFA ‘64, the Honor Code has deteriorated to the point that over 60% of graduates admit violating the code as a cadet. Fourth class cadets take an oath, but discover the upper classes routinely violate the Code and senior military leaders tolerate dishonorable behavior within their own ranks. Since its inception the academy has experienced a series of Honor Code scandals, whose patchwork solutions brought no relief. In 2014, the unchecked deterioration of the code led to a full-scale breakdown of morality that was covered extensively in a Gazette investigative report, “A Broken.” The trajectory descended further, when in 2020 a predictable and avoidable cheating scandal involved nearly 250 cadets.

     The Honor Code is broken and with it the academy’s ability to train a future generation of ethical officers. Passive retraining and re-commitment are not sufficient. It is naive to contend that the Honor Code is not under assault by the doctrines of moral relativism imbued in the Social Justice Movement. Since influential forces in politics, the media, and academia contend the 1619 Project represents a legitimate replacement for the Founding Documents, what guarantees the Honor Code will be immune to these threats? An Honor Code, defined by historical precedent and administered by the Cadet Wing, is inextricably linked to the viability of the Academy. Repairing these fractured bonds is a prerequisite for restoring the Academy’s mission.

STARRS Leadership Spotlight
Dr. Ron Scott, PhD, Col, USAF (Ret)
Vice-Chairman, Board of Directors, Vice President


      Dr. Scott is Vice President and Director of Operations, American Constitution Foundation; Founder and Principal Consultant, Vectored Solutions LLC, where he consults on international and national security matters; and Founder, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Leading-Edge Research Institute, a think tank focused on accelerating international development, employing complexity, complex adaptive system, and social network theories. On behalf of the Institute, he has presented papers on development-related concepts at national conferences. Two papers have been published in peer-reviewed journals: “International Development in a Complex Adaptive System” in Public Administration Quarterly (2008); and “The Science of Muddling Though Revisited” in Emergence: Complexity & Organization (2010).

     Dr. Scott recently retired as professor of public policy and administration with Northcentral University, teaching ethics, policy analysis, public administration, and research methods. He served as chair and subject matter expert on dissertation committees. He also served as the lead faculty member for the public administration curriculum.

     From 2004 to 2008, Dr. Scott served as a Principal Scientist with Applied Research Associates, Inc. (ARA), as a charter member of their “Futures Group” at North American Aerospace Defense Command-United States Northern Command. The Futures Group completed a CBRNE (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, enhanced explosive) Detection Study that became a major national-level framework for understanding and mitigating the WMD (weapons of mass destruction) threat. Dr. Scott then became a member of ARA’s “Chairman’s Group,” providing strategic analysis on counterterrorism concepts and architectures in support of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and the Department of Homeland Security’s Domestic Nuclear Detection Office. Some of his work led to advanced concepts for intelligence considerations and attracted major interest from the Office of the Director for National Intelligence. He authored or edited 25 technical papers.

     From 2002 to 2004, Dr. Scott completed a Ph.D. from Arizona State University. His dissertation dealt with strategic communication and provided strong empirical evidence to support his theory of a reverse Hawthorne Effect (e.g., while well-intended, senior-level strategic communication alienated people). He also conducted a program evaluation of Arizona’s economic security program, published (with Laura Peck) as “Can Welfare Case Management Increase Employment? Evidence from a Pilot Program Evaluation” in Policy Studies Journal (2005).

     From 1973 to 2003, Dr. Scott served in the United States Air Force as a pilot (primarily in the OV-10, F-4E, and C-130E/H), war planner, strategic analyst, and commander. Assignments included the Pentagon (where he directed the Air Force 24/7 operations center and stood up a readiness center) and operational commands in the United States, Middle East, Europe, and Asia. He commanded operational C-130 units in Saudi Arabia during the Persian Gulf War and in Turkey, providing humanitarian airlift to Kurdish refugees in the mountains of northern Iraq. He retired as a colonel.

     Dr. Scott also holds a B.S. in life sciences (molecular biology and genetics) from the USAF Academy and an M.A. in psychology from the University of Northern Colorado. He is the author of The 2012 Political Contest in America: Conversations with a Gadfly. He currently serves as the President, Class of 1973, United States Air Force Academy.

     He has been married to the former Mary MacIsaac from Aurora, Colorado for the past 48 years. They have two married daughters and five grandchildren.


Yet Another Scandal at West Point?
You Be The Judge (Part 1)

Bill Prince, Colonel (Ret), US Army, USMA ’70


     Scandal, cover-up?! Certainly, the apparent quibbling and stonewalling on the part of West Point officials regarding the teaching of Critical Race Theory (CRT) to cadets forces even the casual observer to ask what exactly is West Point trying to hide; and why? Given the catastrophe in Afghanistan, should not West Point put politics and currently trendy theories aside to ensure that the Army’s future leaders are as well prepared as possible to go into harm’s way.

     Bill Prince here - commissioned in the Infantry from West Point, served in Vietnam with both Ranger and Special Forces units, a two-year tour in El Salvador during the war there, decorated for “extraordinary heroism” during operations in Somalia, and finishing up with 11 deployments between Iraq and Afghanistan. I provide that background as, at least, partial bona fides for stating as my fixed opinion that CRT, if allowed to fully infect our military, will have a devastating impact on troop morale and unit cohesion.

     Given the CRT threat to our military, I thought it worthwhile to investigate CRT at West Point. The following is Part 1 of the results of my investigation. The editors of the STARRS newsletter have graciously agreed to publish these results in two parts. If the reader finds the following to be troubling, I believe Part II will solidify the impression that at least some of the individuals charged with training our cadets have lost focus on the mission of the Military Academy "to educate, train, and inspire the Corps of Cadets so that each graduate is a commissioned leader of character committed to the values of Duty, Honor, Country and prepared for a career of professional excellence and service to the Nation as an officer in the United States Army."

     I had hoped to get most of the information for this article directly from West Point officials. Regrettably, the West Point administration has provided only limited assistance to me in this endeavor, despite my repeated requests for additional details and an offer, on my part, to provide the Academy’s Public Affairs Office (PAO) with the draft of this article for their review prior to publication. And I seem to be in good company. West Point has failed to provide “substantive details” in responding to Congressional inquiries and now finds itself subject to a Judicial Watch lawsuit for failure to respond to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. (West Point facing an obstruction lawsuit is clearly embarrassing for those of us trying to promote the Academy in our communities).

     So how did a demonstrably racist, extremist ideology make it from the fringes of academia to the training of West Point cadets? In preparing this article I twice contacted the West Point PAO with specific questions and wrote a personal letter to the Academic Dean. Regrettably, neither responded, nor did the PAO even acknowledge my request for confirmation that they had received my emails. A subsequent request to Dr. Jeffrey D. Peterson, Director of the Character Integration Advisory Group (CIAG), elicited a terse response recommending I contact the already unresponsive PAO. I did receive some help from officials of the West Point Association of Graduates (AOG) but could not help feeling that “higher ups” were restricting them to a carefully approved set of responses.

     In my second request to the PAO, I asserted that their lack of response would only fuel charges that the West Point administration was trying to cover-up a series of questionable decisions. The following summarizes the questions I have raised. These provide an overview of the more controversial aspects of CRT at West Point - aspects which I had hoped West Point would confirm or deny, explain or at least put into context. Perhaps the strongest evidence for a cover-up is the fact that should there not be evidence of wrongdoing, West Point would be delighted to set the record straight by showing those concerned (like the author), where we are misinformed.

     West Point Superintendent LTG Darryl A. Williams has admitted that cadets attended a lecture given on 11 Feb. 2021 by Dr. Carol Anderson of Emory University. A slide from Dr. Anderson’s presentation reportedly contained the seminar title, “Understanding Whiteness and White Rage.” In a 25 Aug. 2020 tweet, Dr. Anderson described (then Commander-in-Chief) President Trump as a white nationalist and the Republican Party platform as a platform of white supremacy. Further, she has claimed that the motivation behind the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution was the insistence by Southern whites on having access to the weapons they might need to quell slave revolts; a claim not supported by historical records.

     West Point has not provided me with any information on who invited Dr. Anderson, nor details of any vetting process which would have easily uncovered her radical, racist views. However, my investigation uncovered a possible link. HI 463 – “Race, Ethnicity, & Nation” contains a class “Not a Control Group: Whiteness as Race.” Required reading for the class are pages 1-38 of White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of our Racial Divide by none other than Dr. Carol Anderson. Professors listed for HI 463 are Dr. David Frey and Dr. Peggy O’Donnell. Dr. Frey received his PhD. from Columbia and Dr. O’Donnell received her PhD. from UC Berkeley. I believe it is fair to say that neither of those institutions are noted for producing “rock-ribbed Republicans.” I have asked if Dr. Anderson would again be invited to lecture to cadets but did not get a response.

     This ends Part 1 of what has been for this “old grad” a very disturbing inquiry into the state of training of our future Army leaders. The most troubling aspect has not been what has been fed to the cadets. People of good will can disagree on what is, and what is not, of value in cadet instruction. As misguided as I believe Critical Race Theory to be, the most damaging aspect of this investigation has been the lack of transparency on the part of Academy officials. Had Academy officials responded with “Oops, we made a mistake on pushing this theory” I would have accepted that. Had Academy officials stated clearly, “this is what we did, and we stand by it” I would not have agreed but would have respected their integrity. What I find unconscionable is the stonewalling and apparent desire to hide their actions. Part 2 will provide additional details. I hope the reader will stay tuned.


Evidence of Indoctrination
in the Military

      The STARRS team was recently made aware that the US Air Force Academy has created new cadet leadership positions called Diversity & Inclusion Officers/NCOs. We haven’t been able to find a “job description” for these cadets yet. Here we provide a link to the Academy’s Office of Diversity and Inclusion website. The video on the home page has a very positive feel to it, espousing some very positive values. As the articles above contend, we believe that mandating Diversity & Inclusion efforts tends to have a dividing, rather than unifying, effect. Please watch the brief video and decide for yourself.


USAFA D&I Website
The Indoctrination of America’s Children

“Freedom Is Never More Than One 

Generation Away From Extinction”

Ronald Reagan

(Note, although STARRS focuses on the impact of CRT in the military, our high schools provide the cadets and recruits who are the future of our military and its ability to defend America. Teaching CRT in K-12 schools impacts the military adversely in two ways. First, children of military personnel in schools are taught values that are foreign to their parent’s military values and can lead to friction between them and their service member parents. Second, if America’s youth are taught that America is evil, racist, and needs to be completely rebuilt into a Marxist or Socialist country, it will adversely affect our ability to attract quality young people to the military.  Who will want to serve, defend, and potentially give their lives for an evil racist country?)

Videos and articles continue to surface aimed at educating Americans on the dangers of neo-Marxist indoctrination and demonstrating the destructive impacts on our society.


1. National School Board Group Asks Biden To Use Patriot Act Against Parents Opposing CRT, COVID Measures 


     The National School Boards Association has asked the Biden Administration to review “threats and violence” against school boards and administrators to determine if they violate the Patriot Act or hate crime laws. The NSBA claims that the threats come as a result of propaganda that falsely accuses the schools of teaching Critical Race Theory. To read the full story on FoxNews.com, click the link below.

Fox News Article


2. Minnesota School Board Reads “Vision Of Equity” 


    Richfield High School in Minnesota takes a moment at every board meeting to read their Vision of Equity. The high school's teachers, staff, and board worked together to develop their personal and institutional Vision of Equity statement with the intent of providing a safe place for its students. Yet they believe that to achieve this, they must “dismantle policies that benefit whiteness and privilege.” Click the link below to read a report and watch the video.


Read and Watch


3.  Mom In Carmel NY Fights Back Against CRT In School Board Meeting


     A concerned parent recently addressed her local school board with her adamant opposition to the teaching of Critical Race Theory and other divisive curricula. In the video, she mentions school employees (it’s not clear if they are teachers or administrators) who use social media to call for the killing of police and the former US president. The school board attempts to silence her, but she stands her ground. Click the link below to watch the video.

Presentation at School Board

A Call To Action


We thank you for expressing interest in STARRS and encourage you to take an active role.  Engage your elected representatives at the local, state and national levels and express your concerns. Educate your fellow citizens by speaking at gatherings, writing editorials for local papers, talking to school boards and encouraging others to join us. If you have experienced the impact of this corrosive racist ideology, please share your story and observations through the link below.

Share with STARRS

Please support STARRS’ mission to unify, not divide, ensure that the U.S. military remains free of politics, and to educate Americans of the danger of neo-Marxism and Critical Race Theory ideology, by sending donations to:  STARRS, PO Box 468, Monument, CO 80132

*** STARRS is a newly formed corporation, whose 501(c)3 status is pending with the IRS. Once approval for our educational mission is received, STARRS will be a qualified organization eligible to receive deductible charitable contributions, effective 26 April 2021.***