The U.S. Army made a change in their recruiting standards last August. They did not announce it publicly, they just quietly modified a standard for acceptance. According to a report in USA Today, “People with a history of self-mutilation, bipolar disorder, depression, and drug and alcohol abuse can now seek waivers to join the Army under an unannounced policy.”
“The decision to open Army recruiting to those with mental health conditions comes as the service faces the challenging goal of recruiting 80,000 new soldiers by the end of September, 2018.” With a big goal like that to reach, you find a way to broaden your pool of applicants. What’s interesting is, this is not new. Last year the Army softened their standard, allowing recruits with lower academic scores to file waivers. They also increased the number of waivers for candidates with marijuana use.”
Why is this newsworthy?
The obvious answer to this question lies in the fact that accepting recruits with mental health issues puts both the recruits and the existing military personnel in a precarious position. According to former Army psychiatrist, Colonel Elspeth Ritchie, “People with a history of mental health problems are more likely to have those issues resurface than those who do not,” she said. “It’s a red flag, but just how big of a red flag is it?”
At the same time, if we needed to respond to a situation with North Korea or in an ISIS controlled region, the Army might tend to accept almost anyone who’s interested. You may remember that a 2012 study reported by Condoleezza Rice and educator Joel Klein revealed that 75 percent of America’s youth were not even fit for the military—due to criminal records, obesity, and failure to graduate.
Wow. What’s a recruiter to do?
Balancing High Standards with High Goals
So where do we strike a balance? My guess is, you’ve been faced with your own dilemma working with young people. You begin with a high standard, because you want to challenge them to rise to the occasion. You believe in them and know they can meet that standard if they try hard enough. Unfortunately, however, so many of today’s young people—loaded with talent and potential—disqualify themselves early on, by doing something stupid, or by not believing in themselves, or by just plain giving up too early. Some common scenarios are:
- You need twelve leaders to serve on the student council, but only seven girls even run for office. Do you lower the standard?
- You’ve held a standard for scores on your exams for years, but this year, you feel you either need to relax the standard or grade on a curve.
- You hold tryouts for the sports team and use a grit score to evaluate their stamina and discipline. Only three players pass it. Do you toss the scorecard?
- You still need five more male resident advisors on your campus, but the only candidates left have records of DUI’s and poor conduct. What do you do?
The balance, of course, lies somewhere between two views. You must consider how to demonstrate the grace of offering second chances to those who’ve failed (or who have been guilty of an offense), yet still hold your standard of performance high enough that students must strive to reach it. Good leaders and educators exhibit leadership that is both:
1. Supportive – This is about relationships, not just rules. I believe in you.
2. Challenging – This is also about results and standards. I believe in you.
The Answer May Lie in the Middle
So, do you lower the standard or lower your goal? The answer to that question may just lie somewhere in the middle. Sometimes, you’ll find a percentage of students that desperately need you to adjust the target to encourage them to continue to try. In other words, you temporarily lower the standard. At other times, you must resolve that the standard should not be lowered; it is exactly what you should hold students accountable to reach. You will simply have fewer students reach it this year.
Back in the 1940s, Henrietta Mears served UCLA students who attended her college department at First Presbyterian Church Hollywood. She set high standards for student leaders there, and there were a number of years that her students just could not meet that standard. In those years, she determined to be satisfied with fewer student leaders, rather than lower the bar and undermine her belief in the sacredness of those leadership positions. The result? There were a number of stellar leaders who graduated from her mentorship and went on to be world changers. She set the bar high and it paid off.
So, what are your thoughts? Please leave a brief comment and share how you’ve handled this issue of lowering your goal or lowering your standard.