What one learns, whether from this course or reading the daily newspapers, is that getting ethics right and acting accordingly is not easy.

What mumbo jumbo at the Academy?

       As the first occupant of the U.S. Naval Academy's Distinguished Leadership Chair, I felt compelled to respond to the July 25 Forum page letter by Gerald Atkinson titled: "Fellow travelers at the Naval Academy."  The author starts with a quote from a recent address made by the immediate past commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. Charles Krulak, to a group of D.C.-area U.S. Naval Academy Alumni.  In his remarks, the general expressed the opinion that exposing the midshipmen to the thoughts of Freud, Kant and Utilitarianism in a course studying the application of ethics to military case studies is mumbo jumbo when they should concentrate on straight talk, responsibility and accountability.
       Taking courses at the Academy out of context of the total curriculum is a disservice at best, no matter who does it.  The sound bites in this case are nice to support a particular opinion, but this approach does not paint an accurate picture.  I personally do not consider attempting to learn more about the question of, "what is right?" and "why do right?" to be mumbo jumbo for future military officers of this nation.  The course in question is two-thirds application of military ethics to real studies (such as My Lai, and Vincennes Shootdown, Bosnia, Somalia and, yes, lessons from Tailhook as well as many others emanating from distant as well as recent incidents) taught by military officers who have had command of units, generally commanders/lieutenant colonels and above.
       One third of the course is taught by acknowledged professional academic philosophers to review the thoughts of philosophers over the years on this subject of doing what is right.  This list includes Immanuel Kant, John Stewart Mill and Jeremy Bentham but also Aristotle, Edmund Burke, John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Hobbes, St. Thomas Acquinus, Epicteus and a host of others.  What one learns, whether from this course or reading the daily newspapers, is that getting ethics right and acting accordingly is not easy.  If it is, why do senior officials get it wrong so often?  I personally believe the nation's educational process whether it be at the Naval Academy or any other institution of higher learning should look at the students as lamps to be lit and not vessels to be filled.  In the military, we do the latter at Basic Schools and other officer or enlisted entry points.  We call this indoctrination and training for a specific purpose.  We need both.  To infer the total curriculum at the Academy is short on introducing the midshipmen to straight talk, responsibility and accountability is just nonsense.
       What is mumbo jumbo is the remainder of Mr. Atkinson's commentary.  With sweeping generalizations and assumptions, Mr. Atkinson takes a leap of faith that is beyond anyone's credibility.  He states he has found "convincing evidence" that the U.S. Naval Academy has been indoctrinating future Naval officers in "political correctness, actually a cultural Marxism."  He then ties the Academy's monthly Integrity Seminars to Kurt Lewin's method of how to "brainwash" individuals on a peer pressure environment.  Next he attacks an article by Professor Aine Donovan at the Naval Academy's Leadership and Ethics Department and finally charges an award-winning paper written by a then third-class female midshipmen to be straight out of the "cultural Marxist" Frankfort School.  In this ranting, he alludes Immanuel Kant was the founder of the "dialectical movement" which eventually led to Karl Marx and the communist threat, etc.
       In reality, Kant espoused a principle-based ethics that emphasized respect for the individual and an absolute prohibition against lying in any circumstance.  Kant believed lying does harm to the respect of all individuals involved.  He believed in each individual's freedom to make individual choices and be held morally accountable for those choices.  Doesn't sound like Karl Marx to me.
       Neither can you discard all thoughts of Mill and Jeremy Bentham so quickly as rubbish, which Mr. Atkinson does.  The fact is, many people have criticized the winning selection of this midshipman's essay without knowing what the assignment task was.  Those who do it and are seniors in the military should at least remember the adage, praise in public -criticize in private.  But Mr. Atkinson goes a step further and intentionally misinterprets what she said to meet his conspiratorial fears that the sky is falling and she espouses cultural relativism.  This is factually wrong and a disservice that should not be left unchallenged.
       Yes, there is too much political correctness and most of it is in Washington.  Yes, some elements of the feminist movement go too far when applied to issues of the military and combat readiness.  However, Mr. Atkinson goes back to the false innuendoes and scare techniques of the Joe McCarthy era.  This is pure mumbo jumbo and to publish his comments in a reputable newspaper is questionable.  To let the mud stand on the wall hoping some of it sticks is a disservice to intellectual integrity as well as the leadership, faculty and midshipmen at the Naval Academy.
       Thankfully, most of us recognize true mumbo jumbo when we see it.  If you do, you do not disseminate it to a wider audience.

LEON A. EDNEY
Retired admiral,
U.S. Navy