Standards vs. Excuses: My Role and Your Responsibility

This article is not just directed toward JROTC instructors alone, but also adults over all other cadet programs.

The text of a recent critique for the above photo (with additions here): Colors, you have X the wrong staffs (AFI 90-1201 tells us what to use, the light ash wood guidon staff), X wrong finials (same AFI for the flat, silver spade finial), X wrong size colors for the length of the staff, X you should be carrying your service JROTC color and then you can add the state (AFPAM 34-1203 and AFI 34-1201), X you are uncovered (required at all times, see the AFPAM, except in a chapel), X not wearing colors harnesses (part of the uniform for color bearers, see the AFPAM), X should be in service dress (in public, see the AFPAM), and X you have the colors on the wrong sides (see the AFPAM, you possibly turned from Column Formation to Line Formation for the photo and followed the instructions of the photographer to swap the national color to the bearer’s left side- never follow a photographer’s request/guidance, they never know what protocol, they know how to set up a nice photo). The national is ALWAYS on the marching right. Please read your service drill and ceremonies manual. You need knowledge of your job and lots of training and practice.

–> Instructors, how are you not working with your cadets to get them to fill their required duties for a color guard? We have standards that must be met, and cadets need intensive guidance at first that can taper over time.

My Mission and Your Misguided Blame

When discussing the violation of official protocol, we must understand one fundamental point: This is not a debate. My assessment is a technical critique of non-negotiable standards dictated by service regulations and public law.

This is Not Supposed to be a Battle

The consistent flood of negative, challenging, and nasty comments from those attempting to deflect responsibility is an attempt to force an educational critique into an unnecessary battle. I fully recognize and accept the responsibility for the sharp nature of my delivery. The tone of my critique is often sharp, direct, and non-apologetic because I choose this method: complacency, apathy, and excuses cannot be addressed with gentle suggestions; they require a clear, unmistakable challenge to prompt necessary change.

The simple truth is that if the deficiencies were not posted publicly by the program in the first place, this debate would not exist. The responsibility for turning this into a conflict rests entirely on those who prioritize personal grievance and excuses over the integrity of the standards they swore to uphold.

Apathy, Priorities, and The Myth of the Unhelpful Critic

You claim I offer little help beyond pointing out problems. This is demonstrably false and entirely deflects from an instructor’s management responsibility—the root cause of these deficiencies.

1. Refutation of Motive and Resources: Some critics claim my true goal is simply to sell books. Let me address this transparently: I have published materials based on decades of professional experience and research, but my platform offers dozens of free resources, videos, and personalized support—services that far exceed the cost and scope of any book. This accusation is a lazy, baseless attempt to dismiss the regulatory reality I present. It exposes the critics’ single-minded focus on deflection.
2. Direct, Hands-On Support: I am involved with hundreds of units through cadets and adults/instructors asking questions. I receive requests for explanations and critiques quite frequently and end up making a quick video outside on our back deck and constantly make critique videos. I’ve sent out thousands of messages immediately when asked for explanations of all kinds of standards and policies. This personal commitment proves that when someone asks for help, they get it immediately.
3. The Cost of Apathy: I don’t just point out problems.
   • Let me be unequivocally clear, this is not a debate, and I do not need permission to point out non-negotiable regulatory failures. Your mindset—only concentrating on what I have written as “negative and damaging”—completely blocks your understanding of my educational mission. You mistakenly assess the blame on me, but I am not the one who originally posted thousands of images of poor color guards over the last approximately ten years; I am responding to them.
   • When you state, “I understand the need for correction, but…” you demonstrate you do not understand what I am doing, because your personal grievance is prioritizing your feelings over the integrity of the standard with a laundry list of “reasons”. I offer actionable solutions; my intention is to elevate the entire profession, not simply to critique one program.
   • I just ran an essay competition to win color guard equipment. I especially wanted JROTC, USNSCC, and CAP units, but it was open to more. Who entered the competition? An AFROTC unit and a law enforcement explorer program. Not my target audience, but not a problem—I want to help anyone I can. What about JROTC or other programs? Where were YOU? [Cue the sound of crickets.]
   • That silence proves two critical leadership failures. First, it shows that apathy holds programs back—you’d rather complain about the burden and wait for things to be handed to you than spend minimal effort (like writing an essay) to solve a major problem. Second, it exposes a fatal flaw in prioritization. When money is available, some would much rather spend it on something they deem “more important” than fixing the fundamental regulatory requirement of the color guard. This is the definition of reactive leadership: the program is run by constantly putting out fires because the leadership does not plan for the short-, mid-, and long-term in every area.

The Finality of Regulation: Stop with the Excuses

I understand that instructors are pulled in a dozen different directions. I GET IT. But accountability demands that leaders prioritize the integrity of the mission. The constant playing the victim and seeking excuses instead of solutions is precisely why these problems persist.

1. D&C is Not Optional: Cadet activities—Raiders, rifle team, drones, archery, and drill team—are all relevant and necessary because they all teach discipline, focus, attention to detail, and teamwork. However, the comparison to color guard as being the same just different (apples and oranges) is inappropriate because color guard standards operate under entirely different levels of mandate. You would not send any team to a competition unprepared, but the critical distinction here is the nature of the activity. Raiders, rifle, or archery teams compete under specific rules of engagement. They do not have national civilian (public law) and military regulations that must be upheld. A color guard is required by regulation to follow a set of standards. Failure to have the national color on the marching right or allowing cadets to be uncovered is not a slight coaching error—it is a violation of non-negotiable protocol and respect for the colors.
2. D&C Creates Leaders: Protocol and the color guard are not a priority for some who think “We don’t win wars by marching.” We most certainly do! The discipline of drill and ceremonies is one of the most important things children can learn to become a successful leader. The discipline from D&C is what creates the best kind of leaders, in or outside of the military. If we stop focusing on these basic, important skills, we are failing to give our children the strong start they need.
3. Cost-Neutral Errors are Management Failures: The numerous errors I initially listed cost zero dollars to fix (e.g., flag positioning, discipline, supervision). They are not caused by lack of funding or time, but by a lack of intensive guidance and attention to detail. My critique is a direct pathway to correction: Read the manual and enforce the standard.
4. The Fault Lies with the Program: The argument that my post does “damage” and might be “the nail in a coffin” for a program completely ignores that the program itself drove the nail when it publicly displayed fundamental violations of protocol. My post is a necessary challenge to the complacency that allowed those errors to occur.
   The time for discussing funding struggles and time constraints is over when non-negotiable regulations are violated. The responsibility rests squarely on the instructors to stop with the excuses and enforce the required standard.
5. The Challenge and Response:
   • “How can you tell they are not equipped or properly trained from a photo of students standing around?” This is an attempt to dismiss the visual evidence as mere context-free speculation.
   • I have decades of performance, teaching, and judging experience. I am literally trained to recognize everything I wrote in the description (scroll back to the top to see the critique). Most of the time I do not need specific context, because the regulations are the context.
   • The photo is not ‘students standing around’; it is a visual record of a formal unit’s adherence—or lack thereof—to regulatory standards. The photo is the evidence, and my expertise is the interpreter of the regulation. My decades of experience are not just a claim; they allow me to instantaneously read visual evidence against mandatory written standards. When the colors are uncased, the color guard is “performing”.

Solutions and Best Practices: The Proactive Instructor’s Plan

I understand and advocate for high-level JROTC program management.

1. The Proactive Instructor’s Mandate: Planning and Resourcefulness. The pattern of excuses—”no money” and “no time”—is the symptom of a deeper inability to manage. A proactive, professional JROTC instructor operates with a clear mandate to prevent these issues.
2. Long-Term Resource Strategy: Instead of treating equipment as a “luxury,” the instructor develops a 3-5 year equipment replacement plan. This plan includes:
   • Budgetary Requirements: Creating detailed, justified plans for equipment (colors, staffs, harnesses, gloves, etc.).
   • Annual Fundraising Goals: Treating fundraising not as an option, but as a mandatory, scheduled activity designed to secure unfunded assets.
3. Scheduled D&C Priority: Time constraints are managed by prioritizing D&C practice in the academic schedule, especially for color guard. D&C should be scheduled and protected as a core lab activity, not relegated to only after-school competition practice.
4. Risk Management of Public Image:
   • Before any photo is even taken, let alone posted online, the adult/instructor performs a final, immediate inspection to ensure regulatory compliance (e.g., proper colors placement, headgear, equipment issues). Allowing a flawed image to be posted is a failure of public affairs management and supervision, not an excusable “spontaneous photo” moment.
   • You must flat-out refuse photographers who ask a team to move from Column Formation to Inverted Line Formation for a “quick photo”. That turns the team in such a way that the colors appear out of order. Tell the photographer to move to a better location to properly capture the team’s image.
5. Enforcement of Non-Negotiables: The instructor understands that their primary duty is enforcing the non-negotiable standards derived from the service manual and the Flag Code. All training time is focused on making these foundational elements—especially the cost-neutral ones—instinctive for the cadets.

The core of any cadet program is leadership development. Blaming external factors for internal deficiencies is fundamentally poor leadership. It is time for instructors to stiffen their backbone, adopt a proactive mindset, and execute their duties as mandated professionals.

Addressing the “They Are Only Children” Argument

Finally, I must address the ultimate emotional defense that “they are only children.” This is the ultimate deflection, attempting to use sympathy for the cadets to excuse professional failure.

1. The Cadets are Not to Blame: The critique is not aimed at the children’s effort; it is aimed squarely at the adult instructor’s supervision and training methods. The cadets hold a certain amount of responsibility but are performing as they were trained or were left alone to figure out for themselves and permitted to perform by the adult in charge.
2. The Program’s Mandate: The mission requires teaching them discipline, attention to detail, and accountability. Lowering the standard because “they are just children” is a gross disservice to their development. It teaches them that mediocrity is acceptable and that excuses will shield them from the consequences of poor performance.

Conclusion: The Mandate of Accountability

This discussion is not a debate over opinions or a calculation of charity; it is a confrontation with regulatory failure. We have established that the errors cited are not excused by budget or time, but are the direct result of apathy, misguided priorities, and leadership failure.

I have provided the challenge, the evidence, the free resources, and the personal commitment. The only action remaining is for the program leadership to stiffen its backbone, adopt a proactive mindset, and demonstrate the dedication to standards that every cadet program demands.