WHY THIS IS WRITTEN

       The method of teaching ethics at the Naval Academy has been under discussion by alumni for many months, perhaps beginning with our Classmate General Chuck Krulak's address to the Greater Washington Chapter of the Alumni Association in April, 1999. Since General Krulak's address, there has been an increasing amount of discussion about whether the ethics course being taught to midshipmen was the right one to prepare them for a career as Navy and Marine Corps Officers.

       Since 1991, our Class has had a particular and strong interest in supporting ethics for the Navy as evidenced by our publishing the book, Ethics for the Junior Officer, and the significant contributions made by our class to support the Center for the Study of Professional Military Ethics.

       Based upon the above, and several questions asked of me and your other class officers, I felt I owed the class some first hand information about the course, "Ethics and Moral Reasoning for the Naval Leader" (NE 203), which is a required course for third class midshipmen.

       Beginning in late 1999, I took the time to learn more about the comments made concerning NE203 and to attend classes with Midshipmen.  I was greatly assisted in this endeavor when the Superintendent, Vice Admiral John Ryan, invited those present at the December 3 USNA Alumni Association Board of Trustees meeting to attend Ethics Classes and see for themselves what the Ethics Department is doing. I believe that I was the only alumnus at the meeting who attended classes.

SUMMARY OF MY FINDINGS

       The following five findings summarize the primary results I have learned since the December 3 meeting:

1.  The learning dynamic in the classroom today is significantly different from that which the Class of 1964 experienced.  The difference is significant enough such that many of our preconceived notions about how midshipmen learn are no longer valid.

2.  Midshipmen actively participate in the "Ethics and Moral Reasoning for Naval Leaders" required course for Third Class Midshipmen (NE-203) and seem to appreciate its importance to their development.

3.  The critical comments made in the alumni-generated emails on the subject of teaching ethics were not supported during the classroom instruction I witnessed.

4.  Leaders at the Naval Academy not only listened to my constructive comments, but took immediate action to implement those suggestions with which they were in agreement.

5.  The independent critical thinking that is vital for successful future military leaders, is incorporated into the ethics course.

HOW MY EVALUATION WAS CONDUCTED

       The USNA Department of Leadership, Ethics, and Law provided invaluable support throughout this evaluation. I am sincerely grateful to Captain Lee J. Geanuleas ('71), Captain Mark N. Clemente ('79) and their staff for easing my administrative burden. All classes were open in every respect and no limits were placed upon my evaluation.

       Following some initial orientation, I determined that I needed to complete the following five steps in order to evaluate NE 203, course "Ethics and Moral Reasoning for the Naval Leader":

1. Discuss course design philosophy and the overall teaching concept in interviews with the responsible Department Head and other individuals who were cognizant of the overall curriculum.

2. Using personal experience, evaluate the course material and curriculum. Since I had had no formal training in Philosophy, I asked for an independent review of the textbook by a person who had attained a
degree in Philosophy.

3. Attend at least one lecture taught by each of the three civilian professors assigned to the course this semester. The civilian professors conduct Monday classes for the midshipmen. These classes are held in
lecture halls and include five or six sections of midshipmen, so that the lectures are given to approximately 100 midshipmen at a time. (It should be noted that the senior military officers who conducted the Wednesday and Friday sessions all attended the Monday lectures with their sections.)

4. Sample the classes conducted by military instructors. I attended classes with five different instructors and reviewed classes that covered a variety of course topics.

5. Informally interview midshipmen regarding the course. Approximately forty randomly selected midshipmen from the three upper classes provided their candid opinions about the 3/c Ethics course.

WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS?

       As a result of my evaluation, the following observations were the most significant based on many hours of discussions, classroom observations and reading:

1.  The learning dynamic in the classroom today is significantly different from that which the Class of 1964 experienced.  The difference is significant enough such that many of our preconceived notions about how midshipmen learn are no longer valid.

* The dialogue among the students in many of the classroom sessions amounted to reasoned and enthusiastic debates on key issues.

* Each student normally came to class prepared with a typed essay which described the central points gleaned from the assigned reading.

* NE 203 seminar classes are led by senior military officers who are assigned to the Academy staff in billets such as Department heads and Battalion Officers. These O-5 and above officers bring their command experience to the classroom. In the Academy of the 1960s, these officers rarely, if ever participated in the classroom.

* In the seminar classes I attended, student participation was high, normally about 75% (a high rate of 15 out of 18 and a low rate of 10 out of 19).

* Military Professors knew their students and were actively engaged in discussions with them. They provided the "straight talk" that General Krulak said was needed in his speech to the Washington DC Alumni.

2.  Midshipmen actively participate in the "Ethics and Moral Reasoning for Naval Leaders" required course for Third Class Midshipmen (NE-203) and seem to appreciate its importance to their development.

* General classroom and lecture room decorum was awake, alert and participating. Lectures were dependent on the professors; some were good; others were not so good. One civilian professor had about 15 of 100 midshipmen nodding off, however, in the average lecture, there were about five dozing midshipmen out of 100.

* A random sample of approximately 40 midshipmen resulted in identifying two cynical upper class midshipmen who had specific complaints about the course. On the other hand, there were four midshipmen who felt the course was outstanding and a highlight of their third class academics. A majority of those midshipmen interviewed were positive in their remarks about the course.

3.  The critical comments made in the alumni-generated emails on the subject of teaching ethics were not supported during the classroom instruction I witnessed.

       Some of the alumni comments, followed by my observations about the comments:

Comment: This course is another way to ramrod Political Correctness into the Academy.

       During my review, I heard frank, open and direct dialogue about some aspects of politically correct behavior. In every discussion however, the ethical decision was emphasized. In some cases, the ethical decision was politically correct; in some cases, it was not. I could not detect any bias whatsoever in what I observed.

       One officer summarized this topic very well when he said that the Eisenhower military was not required to deal with modern day societal problems associated with gender, race and religious preference
differences. The reality is that today, these topics take up significant time of our junior officers in the fleet. This may explain why some alumni believe midshipmen are being indoctrinated in the tenets of political
correctness via this course. I found no evidence to support these beliefs.

Comment:  The Third Class Ethics course brings "cultural Marxism" to the U.S. Naval Academy.

       The course material does not bring "cultural Marxism" into the U. S. Naval Academy classroom.  Based upon my observations, this comment is out of line and is dead wrong.  In fact, I thought that both the
midshipmen and the instructors exhibited the combination of an Ayn Rand type of individualism along with a quite conservative viewpoint.

       The concepts of relativism and situational ethics are introduced early in the course and are exposed then and throughout the course as incompatible with service as an officer in the Navy and the Marine
Corps. The mindset and the teaching are definitely not socialistic.

Comment:  The Civilian Professors are out of touch and therefore the course is a waste of student time.

       During my review, I spoke with the four civilian professors who have conducted the NE 203 course. Each of these individuals was able to communicate quite effectively; none were "out of touch."

4.  Leaders at the Naval Academy not only listened to my constructive comments, but took immediate action to implement those suggestions with which they were in agreement.

       After I completed my observations and interviews, I made an appointment to provide my observations to the Superintendent. During this debrief with Vice Admiral Ryan, I mentioned that I observed two types of instruction that may be counterproductive. Military instructors should not portray themselves as experts in the teachings of the great philosophers. On the other hand, the civilian professors should not discuss combat situations as if they could fully comprehend them.

       The Superintendent took immediate action on this recommendation. Vice Admiral Ryan advised me that the inappropriate nature of this practice will be discussed during the summer preparation classes which provides an orientation for every professor, military and civilian. The immediate corrective action provides encouragement that the course will evolve continually with the incorporation of new input.

5.  The independent critical thinking that is vital for successful future military leaders, is incorporated into the ethics course. During a speech at the Naval Academy, our classmate, Bob Timberg, painted a verbal image of an ethical side to the military decision. He said that the junior officer will clearly see two or three
available options right out in front, large and bold. Many times the ethical consideration is also out there but it is barely visible on the horizon. It is the ethical aspect that each officer must train himself to recognize.  Once it is recognized as an ethical decision analysis, the ethical course of action is then often quite evident. The challenge is "How is it possible to train knowledgeable young midshipmen to
recognize the ethical issue?"  I believe that our Naval Academy is meeting that challenge with NE 203 "Ethics and Moral Reasoning for the Naval Leader". The combination of academic, civilian-taught theory
about a variety of philosophers and straight talk about practical military experience seems to be a wise approach to this inexact, complex topic.
       Introduce the foundation, i.e. the logic of Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas or John Rawls, and then discuss practical applications with senior military officers who have broad military experience. A further convincing argument for this course is that Admiral James B. Stockdale, Academy graduate, Vietnam POW, and recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor, was instrumental in the design of an ethics course for the Naval War College.  His experience in using the teaching of Epictetus as a way to maintain his focus and to keep his mind sharp during his Vietnam imprisonment led to establishing this similar type of course for midshipmen. It is his concept to combine civilian and military instructors teaching the theoretical and practical aspects of ethics to form the foundation upon which midshipmen will fashion their own high ethical standards so vital to successful military leaders.