The Foreign Service Journal, September 2003

S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 3 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 55 Editor’s Note: A fewmonths ago, we sent an e-mail via AFSANet inviting specialists to contribute articles or share vignettes describing their personal and profes- sional experiences. We heard from dozens of special- ists, active-duty and retired, who shared the good, the bad and the ugly aspects of life in the Foreign Service. Among the many topics they covered: relations with generalist colleagues and host country counterparts; the role of State and other foreign affairs agencies in facilitating the ability to hone current skills and acquire new ones; the difficulties of functioning without full diplomatic status overseas; and issues relating to recruitment and retention. Our thanks to all who shared their experiences. In fact, we received so many responses that we will run more next month. — Steven Alan Honley, Editor Specialists Need Language Training, Too My one major observation as a new specialist is the short shrift specialists get when it comes to language training. For example, my position as Financial Management Officer is designated “language-pre- ferred,” which usually means no language training in practice. In fact, I had to fight just to get seven weeks of the 44-week basic Arabic course. Now that I am here, it is often difficult to deal with vendors without one of my FSNs present to act as translator. For that reason, when my post recently compiled a revised list of positions requiring language capability, I asked that the Financial Management Officer position be included. My request was denied. Christian Charette Financial Management Officer Embassy Sanaa Too Little Progress The life of the specialist, across the board, has not sig- nificantly improved over my past 18 years with the possi- ble exception of my own group: Information Resource Management Specialists. While each individual group of specialists can advocate their own issues best, it is the generalization and use of the term “specialist,” that continue to haunt us even today. The division between the “Foreign Service officer” and the “Foreign Service specialist” is as real now as it has ever been. Possibly the simple conversion from “support com- munications officers” to “specialists” was a subtle move toward continued segregation — even if the thought was a good one (changing “communications” to “information management”). At many posts, senior management holds regular meetings and social events for junior officers to maintain JO morale and keep their careers on track. There is no similar outreach for those designated as “specialists.” The only explanation that comes to mind is the fact that those in senior management now were JOs at one point in their career, as is the case with a significant portion of the senior staff in Washington. While I am not positive that the spe- cialists would even be interested in such a meeting, as it may well be viewed as a pacification tool more than an honest effort to reach out, it is the overt delineation between those who are important and those who are not, that matters. The disparity between the officer and specialist is so deeply ingrained as part of the Foreign Service’s makeup as to appear in its mandatory training. Example: The Office of Civil Rights released a new video training program to explain federal law and State Department policy in regard to sexual harassment. One of the first slides is, I believe, entitled “Primary and Secondary Aspects of Diversity,” and features a circular F O C U S O N F S S P E C I A L I S T S F OREIGN S ERVICE S PECIALISTS S PEAK O UT S PECIALISTS SHARE DETAILS OF THEIR PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL LIVES IN THE F OREIGN S ERVICE .