The Friday Binding — The Word That Built the Record
Five picks on how a single word sorts the room — from the FITREP to the strike
Earlier this week, I posted on Facebook about a Cabinet secretary striking seven officers a Navy promotion board had picked. The thread that came back was sharper than I expected.
One reader asked a careful question. When the post said rank, race, and politics are supposed to stay outside the board’s door, was that literally true? Service Secretaries can and have instructed boards to consider the diversity of the force. The system has argued about identity in the room for years. Photos in, photos out, names on, names off. The honest answer is the door has never been sealed clean.
His follow-up pressed further. What does it tell us that diversity dipped after photos and other identifying data were removed?
That question sent me into the research. What I found was not the answer I expected. The argument about photos was a distraction. The real work was happening one stage earlier, in the words on the page.
This week’s Binding traces that chain. A FITREP gets written. Words shaped by a single term, professional, populate the record. A board reads what was written. A political authority reaches back into that record and pulls names, citing “professional failings” as cover. The same word does the work three times.
I co-wrote with Jovanny Suriel, Ed. D. about this filter:
This week’s Binding extends that thread into the evaluation systems where the sorting actually happens.
1. Smith, Rosenstein, Nikolov & Chaney (2019). “The Power of Language: Gender, Status, and Agency in Performance Evaluations.” Sex Roles, 80, 159–171.
The empirical anchor. Researchers analyzed peer evaluations at the U.S. Naval Academy, an institution where every midshipman runs the same physical fitness tests, takes the same courses, lives under the same schedule. Objective measures held. Grades, fitness scores, and class standing showed no significant gender differences.
The words on the page told another story.
Men and women received similar numbers of positive attributes. Women received more negative ones. The single most common positive word for men was analytical. For women, compassionate. The most common negative word for men was arrogant. For women, inept.
Read that again. It’s the same scores, with different language, at a setting designed for objectivity; the narrative still routed men toward leadership and women toward likability or its absence. The filter was working before any board ever opened a file.
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-018-0923-7
2. SGM Nate Ballinger, “Advocating for Apathy.” From the Green Notebook, September 22, 2025.
A serving-leader publication. Ballinger argues the report card has overtaken the work. Careerism, evaluation language, and the chase for top-block marks have crowded out the soldiers and the mission. The piece never mentions race or gender. It does not need to.
Read it alongside the Smith study and the pattern emerges. When the evaluation language carries that much institutional weight, every shaping pressure on that language, including the magnet word professional, gets amplified. Ballinger names the careerism. This Binding adds the demographic residue careerism leaves behind.
fromthegreennotebook.com/2025/09/22/advocating-for-apathy
3. CDR Salamander, “Diversity Thursday: Looking for Structural Racism? Here It Is.” CDR Salamander on Substack, August 5, 2021.
I include this one as a foil. CDR Salamander is a retired naval officer writing from a pro-meritocracy, anti-DEI position. The piece responds to then-Chief of Naval Personnel Vice Adm. John Nowell Jr.’s 2021 request to reinstate photos in promotion-board packets after diversity numbers fell.
Here is the line that makes the piece a useful foil. Salamander argues for stripping photos and names from board files, and writes: “If you are ‘not professional’ then your FITREPs will reflect that.”
That sentence is the assumption this entire Binding is pulling apart. The argument depends on FITREPs functioning as a clean readout of actual professionalism, with the language on the page neutral and faithful to performance. The Smith study above shows the assumption is wrong. So does the Thomas study from 1998 of matched Navy officers, where top-block scores landed near-identical across race while the language of the comment fields routed white officers toward promotion and Black officers toward assignment. The record is what the filter produced.
I do not agree with Salamander’s framing. I cite the piece because it states the assumption so cleanly. That assumption is what holds the strike together. Take it away, and the “professional failings” justification collapses into the very filter it pretends to neutralize.
cdrsalamander.substack.com/p/diversity-thursday-bfb
4. Aysa Gray, “The Bias of ‘Professionalism’ Standards.” Stanford Social Innovation Review, June 4, 2019.
The civilian bridge. Gray names professionalism as “coded language for white favoritism” in workplace practices, identifying four dimensions where the standard does its sorting: dress code, speech, work style, and timeliness. The piece has become a touchstone in workplace D&I literature since 2019, cited across HR, education, healthcare, and legal services.
What makes Gray’s piece useful here is that she pulls the same filter the Smith study found at the Naval Academy out of its military setting and into corporate America, government, and the nonprofit sector. The same word does the same work across institutions. Bias against natural hair, accents that fall outside “standard” American English, communication styles that lean direct or animated, time orientations that don’t match the dominant workplace clock: all of these get caught in the magnet word and converted into evaluation language. Including FITREP language.
The Hegseth strike pretext lives in this same vocabulary. “Professional failings” is a regulatory hook that draws its plausibility from the assumption Gray names: that professionalism is a neutral standard rather than a coded set of cultural defaults. Take that assumption away, and the strike loses the cover the word was supposed to provide.
ssir.org/articles/entry/the_bias_of_professionalism_standards
5. Risa Brooks and Michael Robinson, “Diversity in the High Brass.” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, September 2022. Paired with recent New York Times reporting on the Navy promotion strikes (Helene Cooper, Greg Jaffe, Eric Schmitt, Adam Entous).
The live event and the structural why. The Times reporting documents the specific actions. Seven officers removed by one count, nine by the updated count. The resulting 22-name slate with no women and only two nonwhite officers. The Secretary’s push to add his own special assistant, who had been passed over for promotion several times and lacked the command time the slot required.
The Carnegie report supplies the pipeline analysis. Minority officers are underrepresented in the O-4 to O-6 control grades that feed flag-officer selection, because they branch differentially into support specialties earlier in their careers. Branching is shaped by the same evaluation language Smith documents. Control-grade selection is shaped by it. Flag selection is shaped by it. Then the strike reaches back into the record built on it.
carnegieendowment.org/research/2022/09/diversity-in-the-high-brass
Landing back on the thread
The reader who asked what the dip tells us was looking at the wrong stage of the process. The dip is a single signal in a chain that begins with a word in the margin of a FITREP. Analytical gets written next to one officer’s name and abrasive next to another’s. Must promote gets written for one record and promote when due for another. The board reads the language as it stands. The language built the record.
Then a Cabinet official cites “professional failings” to strike seven officers (or nine, depending on which version of the count you trust) whom that same record had just selected. The magnet word does its third job. The same filter that sorted the language sorts the override.
The board makes the sorting visible. The sorting started long before any file got opened.
—
Jerry W. Washington, Ed.D., is a retired Marine Corps Master Sergeant (23 years, Combat Engineer), USC Rossier doctoral graduate, and Instructor at UCI Division of Continuing Education. He writes about meaning under pressure at What Time Binds.
In Japan there's a stock self-promotion line in job hunting: "I'll gladly take on the things people don't like to do." But it can read as "I take on the jobs nobody wants," or just as easily as "I'll do things that bother people." The same phrase carries opposite meanings.
What someone really wants to hide, they won't say outright — they reach for a cleaner word instead. They just don't like the person, but it comes out as "lacks a sense of responsibility," or "lacks professionalism."
The same calm demeanor gets called "composed and level-headed" one time, and "negative thinking" another. The label gets picked to fit whatever's convenient in the moment.
It makes you wonder how much judgment gets compressed into a single word.