The Foreign Service Journal, October 2003

O C T O 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 49 Editor’s Note: Last month, we presented some of the many responses to our AFSANet invitation for spe- cialists to share vignettes describing their personal and professional experiences in the Foreign Service. Here are more of their responses. Again, our thanks to all who responded. — Steven Alan Honley, Editor FS Class Structure Before joining the State Department, I was a U.S. Army Signal Corps Major with nearly 12 years of active duty. I was proud of the title “communicator,” which the military considers a distinguished profession. The fact that I had a Bachelor of Science degree in Management Information Systems was “icing on the cake.” But it quickly became obvious during my first tour in Moscow that this was not the case in the State Department, where the title is viewed as somewhere equivalent to “janitorial staff.” Having only been in for 10 years now, I have no idea how it started, but it is a fact of life in the Foreign Service. Another good example of this occurred during my second tour, in Tel Aviv. Even the Foreign Service Nationals recognize the class structure and know where an Information Management Specialist fits into it. When I arrived at post I was initially assigned to the post communications center as an IMS. During my first two years we upgraded the systems in that office to the point where we actually had more people than we pre- viously needed and I was looking at curtailing to find a more challenging assignment. The new incoming Information Management Officer offered me the Information Systems Officer position to keep me, which I accepted, and with the post’s concurrence, he had Washington reassign me to the position officially. Once I’d been assigned as the ISO, I was greeted at my new office by some of the senior FSNs, who asked me when I “had arrived at post.” These were the same indi- viduals whom I had worked with in the embassy at differ- ent points for the previous two years. This was certainly not because I was a “wallflower.” I firmly believe it was strictly due to the fact that I now had the word “officer” in my title. I was no longer a “specialist” per se, at least not by title. This is not to say that there are not FSOs who consider spe- cialists as equals, because there are. In fact, in my 10 years I have seen an improvement overall in our treatment, although minor. However, the prevailing mentality throughout the service is to look upon us as a “less than officer” class. I can understand the reluctance to include us in many social events afforded to JOs due to the dif- ferences in our backgrounds, training, specialties, professions and so on. What I find difficult to understand is that it appears to be the norm to be extremely dismissive when it comes to things such as specialists having diplomatic titles, which directly equates to the quality of life overseas because of tax benefits, etc. and equal treatment as a diplomat of the mission by the foreign government. Indeed, we are expected to remain F OREIGN S ERVICE S PECIALISTS S PEAK O UT , P ART II S PECIALISTS SHARE DETAILS OF THEIR PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL LIVES IN THE F OREIGN S ERVICE . In my 10 years I have seen some improvement in the treatment of specialists, but the prevailing mentality is still to look upon us as “less than officers.”