Regs

So you know all about Star Fleet regulations way far in the future?? Wow. You're my hero! I don't think you have a valid nitpick, my friend!

 

No demotion

Decker was 'Captain Decker' in the sense that he had command of a starship. His rank was actually Commander. (BTW, at one time the British Navy was so short of officers of the rank of Captain that a lot of their ships were 'captained' by Commanders.) Kirk did not demote him, he was referring to him by his real rank because he wasn't in command of the Enterprise any more.

 

Decker drops

The second Commenter's reasoning is correct. However, he is in error about the specifics of the case. Not only does Decker lose the captaincy of the Enterprise, he also loses the rank of Captain. In the time-frame of the movie the Enterprise-class starship is the largest in the fleet, and has a full Captain in command. Watch carefully and you'll see Decker's reank insignia change. Which was the point of the nitpick.

The snide first Commenter ought to ask himself some simple questions. Imagine a service where, for example, an admiral could just beam on board the Enterprise-D, decide Picard's head was too shiny for his taste, demote him, and keep demoting him, until Jean-Luc had to salute Wesley Crusher. A 20-year career wrecked on a superior's whim? Who would join Starfleet under those regs? Only you, my friend.

 

It was only temporary

Remember, this was a temporary reduction in rank. Perhaps Starfleet regulations permit things like this when Admirals are allowed to take control of a ship. I would like to point out that this is 270 years in the future, and Starfleet regulations could be completely different from modern military protocol.

 

Why?

Gee, I can't figure out why Admiral Kirk demotes Captain Decker in the first place. He's an admiral. Kirk would be over Decker anyway. So why doesn't he just get on the ship and tell Decker where to fly to? Admirals give captains orders all the time. Does it make a difference if he's there or back at HQ? If Decker's still captain he still has to go where Kirk wants him to go anyway.

 

I think the point here is...

A couple of the above commenters have the right idea, but I think the "field demotion" was also related to Decker's remaining on as the Executive Officer. For Comment #22189, if Kirk just wanted to stand behind the Captain's Chair and order Decker around, he could have, but one theme of the movie (and, incidentally, ALL of the Original Cast movies), was Kirk's unwillingness to give up command of a starship. Kirk didn't want to give orders to the captain of the Enterprise, he had to BE the captain. Since Decker had to stay an officer on the ship, he had to be temporarily demoted, otherwise he would have spent the whole movie questioning Kirk's orders. Which, come to think of it, he did anyway, but if would have still been captain, he would have had some right. Captains can get away with a lot of insubordination for the good of their ships, XO's are just around to advise.

 

Who demoted Decker?

Who said Kirk demoted Decker? The early scenes refer to a meeting between Kirk and the unseen Admiral Nogura in which Kirk must convince Nogura to temporarily give Kirk command of the Enterprise. It is therefore logical to conclude that it was NOGURA that demoted Decker, not Kirk. Kirk was only the messenger. Also, although an Admiral outranks a Captain, the Captain remains the commanding officer of the ship, even with an Admiral on board. Admirals DO NOT command ships, Captains do. Although other ranks can have temporary command of a ship during the Captain's absence, the official commanding officer IS the Captain. Thus, with keeping Decker on board, the only way for ANY ONE else to be considered the C.O. is for Decker NOT to be. Therefore, the tempory reduction in grade is necessary.

 

Fourth stripe

Comments 23529 and 24353, though correct about who posts Kirk to the Enterprise, are missing the point of the nitpick.

Captain Decker suffers a loss of rank, not just a loss of his command. The claim that it would be impossible for him to retain his rank while functioning as Kirk's XO is disproven in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. Admiral Kirk is sitting in the big chair while Captain Spock is functioning as the XO.

The nitpick concerns Decker's demotion, which is totally unnecessary, not his loss of command.

 

comment on comment 21582

Just to let you know, both the Enterprise NCC-1701 and NCC-1701-A were Constitution Class starships and not Enterprise class. Also, it wasn't the largest ship in the fleet. There were other Constitution class starships in Starfleet. (A couple of TOS episodes pointed this out)

 

Conversation in shuttle

On the way to the Enterprise, Kirk tells Scotty "They gave her back to me" indicating that it was a joint executive decision.

 

NCC 1701

A quick response to Comment 21559

When I said 'Enterprise-class,' I meant Enterprise's class, not it's formal designation. You are right; I should have been more precise.

On the other hand, I didn't say it was the largest ship, but that ships of it's class were the largest.

 

Reiteration

With a full dozen postings here on various side issues, we may be losing the point of the nitpick. \r

Willard Decker is reduced in RANK without any formal procedures. \r

James Kirk replaces Decker as CO of the Enterprise. Decker becomes his XO. This is not the nitpick. Superiors, such as Kirk or the unseen Adm Nogura, may always change an inferior's assignment. The nitpick is the loss of Decker's fourth stripe. The fact of Decker's demotion is clear in the film, and may be confirmed on the official Star Trek site or IMDb.\r

Centuries of military law have established that one is reduced in grade, whether temporarily or permanently, only by formal legal procedures, not by the directive of any superior(s). Considering the Anglo-American militaries, neither the Queen of England nor the President of the United States has the authority to demote a member of their country's Armed Forces. Other than by Court Martial, it would take an Act of Parliament or Act of Congress to reduce someone in rank. And there is utterly no reason to believe that StarFleet does not follow the same tradition. To the contrary.\r

It has been clearly established in all the Star Trek series and movies that StarFleet does adhere to US Navy protocols. In particular, one may recall the Courts Martial in the episodes The Menagerie and Court Martial. \r

Additionally, in all other respects, the audience, as a point of reference, relies upon StarFleet's procedures being exactly the same as that of the US Navy. For example, StarFleet's ranks are exactly the same as that of the US Navy, and even though we were never explicitly told that an Admiral outranks a Lieutenant (jg), we know that this is so. Thus it makes no sense to claim that StarFleet varies from all naval tradition only in this one point. \r

Personal say-so, assassination and coup may acceptable in the Klingon Imperial Fleet; StarFleet follows rules. Captain Willard Decker should not have been demoted to Commander except by sentence of a court martial. Since there was none, the nitpick is legitimate.\r

 

Valid

Two separate and distinct things happen to Decker:
\r(1) He is reassigned from Commanding Officer of the Enterprise to her Executive Officer.
\r(2) He is reduced in grade from Captain to Commander.
\rBoth are done on the say-so of his superiors.\r\r

Personnel reassignments are the perogative of superiors, and this does not  form the basis of the nitpick. Demotion, on the other hand, in any non-despotic miltary organization only occurs as the result of a court-martial or similar formal judicial proceeding. As Decker was not the subject of a court-martial, the screenwriter simply erred in showing him being dropped in rank.\r\r

The snide tone of the first comment makes it clear that its author is unaware that court-martial is the only cause for demotion in all  legitimate military services. Claims that Decker was not demoted or that his Captaincy was only a courtesy title are debunked as factual errors on IMDb and the Star Trek web site. The notion that his original rank was only temporary (brevet) is invented out of whole cloth. The counter-claim that the rank reduction was only temporary is both conjured from thin air and irrelevant. \r\r

While field promotions (and even commissions) are valid occurrances — as per B'Elanna Torres in Voyager — field demotions do not exist. When Tom Paris was briefly reduced from Lieutenent to Ensign — also in the Voyager series — it was a formal punishment. Decker, on the other hand, was never even charged with anything, but degraded on a superior's whim, in contravention of standard military procedure. The screenwriter socked Decker with a double whammy, and erred in doing so.\r\r

The nitpick is valid.

 

UFP=US Military?

The nitpcik is only valid if we assume that the United Federation of Planets functions in almost the same way as the Military does today. The primary mission has always been exploration unlike the military of today. To quote Kirk. \r "You'll stay aboard as Executive\r Officer... a temporary grade\r reduction to Commander."

 

Ranks and Postions

Remember the colored shirts? Rank is not an indication of who's in charge, never has been. The Captain's position is different from the actual rank of Captain. Senior laundry attendant who holds the rank of Captain, is not in charge of the ship, nor in the chain when some of the bridge crew dies or leaves the ship. The likelihood of this is small, but it CAN occur. Spock WAS Captain in rank and position in STII, yet Kirk takes over again. So, now we have an Admiral in a command nature rank, taking over for the Captain. An Admiral in charge of administration would probably not be able to take over a ship because of lack of experience in commanding a starship.\rLook at "The Deadly Years" when the unexperienced Admiral takes over and Kirk doesn't like it, and we as the audience know why, he's not a Command Admiral!\rSo, I don't think anyone minds if Kirk takes over, he's the best at the time this takes place. They know they have a better chance of surviving the mission with Kirk in charge.\rNow, demotions on a whim are very unethical and probably aren't allowed in Starfleet, so this part of the nitpick is valid. Since, money is not a driving force and self betterment is, I think this would be more hurtful than anything else, especially if you didn't do anything wrong. A complaint process is probably available once you get back to spacedock, but for the remainder of the mission, you're screwed! \rStarfleet's policies and regulations, with a 23rd century upgrade, are based on contemporary military policies and procedures and regulations. So are the ranks, for god's sake. I think this would be unethical even in the 23rd century!