Bernard A. Maguire, President of the U.S. Naval Academy alumni class of 1964, distributed a report on May 11, 2000 entitled, "Evaluation OF NE-203: Third Class Ethics Course." This course, entitled 'Ethics and Moral Reasoning for the Naval Leader,' is a required course in the new 'ethics' program that has come under attack over the past year by USNA graduates and others.

       Maguire's report is a whitewash of the new 'ethics' program. It is comprised wholly of personal opinion and is devoid of factual details and examples which might have, if provided, allowed a reader to make up his own mind concerning the nature and value of the program.

       The word 'new' is used advisedly here. This 'ethics' curriculum was designed by Dr. Nancy Sherman who was brought to the Academy by the then-Superintendent, ADM Charles Larson, at the urging of SecNav John Dalton who in turn carried out the wishes of the Clinton administration and its New Age revolutionaries. Thus, the new 'ethics' curriculum has been in effect only since 1994.

       This New Age 'ethics' curriculum, a drastic departure from the traditional Leadership and Ethics formerly taught at the Academy, has been instinctively sensed as damaging by many USNA alumni (primarily among those who graduated before women entered in 1976). It has been held increasingly suspect since Congress and the Clinton administration opened Navy combat aviation and service aboard naval combatant surface ships to women in 1993/94.

       These instincts were given substance by research I have conducted on these matters which supports my articles in national media outlets and on the Internet. Two of my books, one each of which has been reviewed in ANA's 'Wings of Gold,' the USNI 'Proceedings,' 'Military Magazine,' and other radio, television, and national level newspapers, have further informed the debate.

       The new 'ethics' curriculum has been discussed privately in heated exchanges among alumni on the Internet. Criticism of the program was addressed recently in public by such Academy luminaries as GEN Charles Krulak, USMC (Ret.) [USNA class 1964], RADM C.A. Hill, Jr. USN (Ret.) [USNA class 1944], and RADM Ned Hogan USN (Ret.) [USNA class 1954].

       A full account of this private and public debate is posted in the Essays section of this Web Site.

       An Admiral Who Must Remain Anonymous, USN (Ret.) submitted to the 'Proceedings' a reply to CAPT Mark N. Clemente's formal and official defense of the new 'ethics' curriculum, which appeared in the February issue of 'Proceedings.' ADM Anonymous' gentle rebuttal, submitted in early March, was edited and re-edited to such an extent over a seven month period that it was eventually withdrawn. This situation reveals that even a balanced account of the issue by a widely respected WWII and Cold War naval officer is not published in a timely way by an organization that is so politically correct that it tolerates absolutely no daylight for those who are adamantly opposed to the New Age 'ethics' program and the other ills that have befallen the Academy over the past several decades.

       Those opponents of the departure from tradition at the Academy who are allowed publishing access in the 'Proceedings' are resoundingly assaulted by ad hominem personal attacks (e.g. the Academy's COL Paul E. Roush's personal attack on James Webb in the August '97 'Proceedings, 'A Tangled Webb').

       Sycophantic whitewashes of the Academy's corrupting new 'ethics' curriculum of which Maguire's account is an example will, however, readily and instantly find space in the 'Proceedings.' In addition, there is a calculated private move by the Alumni Association to silence the opposition.

       An example of this move is the effort by RADM John M. Barrett USN (Ret.) [USNA class '43] to privately discredit my motives in exposing the 'ethics' program. In a letter to RADM Ned Hogan and RADM 'Mark' Hill, Barrett urges them to disassociate themselves from me on the grounds that "...I am using their fine service reputations to raise funds and promote my book(s)...[and, that my] emphasis on 'Cultural Marxism' is a fund-raising tactic..."

       The first claim is preposterous. Anyone who knows these fine flag-rank officers knows that they could not be manipulated by me or anyone else. When they support a cause, it is because it is one in which they, themselves, believe wholeheartedly. Both of these stellar individuals have been opposing the New Age directions taken by the U.S. Navy long before I became involved. It is a personal insult to these fine naval officers and independent thinkers to claim they can be manipulated -- as is implied by RADM Barrett.

       RADM Barrett's second claim is easily refuted. In this endeavor, I am determined to repay the U.S. Navy for the generous act of sending me to the University of Michigan to pursue a PhD in Nuclear Engineering -- a lifelong dream, realized only by the generosity of the U.S. Navy and the American people. I am at a stage in my life where I could easily retire from active discourse, play golf, travel, and enjoy our eleven grandchildren. But circumstances have delayed all but the latter activity.

       These circumstances are the unintended consequences of the Navy sending me to the U of M during the late-1960s, when the anti-Vietnam-war protests were at their height. After having returned from deployment on Yankee Station where we were shot at every third day or so over North Vietnam and completing the demanding flight and academic curriculum at the U.S. Navy Test Pilot School, I found myself in a caldron of violent anti-war activities -- SDS burning of buildings, draft-dodging Boomers took over the administrative offices, professors preached sermons against the war and the U.S. military. We few military officers there were ordered not to wear our uniforms on campus for fear of overt physical violence against us.

       These perpetrators of domestic violence were elite Boomers in their coming-of-age years. They are now the 'power' elites of the Boomer generation of whom I write extensively. I came to know them. I know how they think. I know their abilities, attitudes, emotional biases, and their hatreds. I made friends with many of these people simply because they accepted me as an equal in pursuit of technical excellence. This came in spite of the fact that they -- to a person -- hated the U.S. military. This hatred was visceral. It became instinctive. It is now so ingrained that it is in their 'mental' DNA. These are the same people who are destroying America's institutions -- one by one -- now that they have become the power elites of their generation.

       Upon graduation, I found young people with the same mind-set in the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks with the Soviet Union. These young Boomers were in ACDA, the State Department, Kissinger's NSC staff, and in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Their hatred of the U.S. military was transparent and palpable. In their minds, the U.S. military was the 'bad guy,' not the Soviet Union. It was very difficult, while working in the OSD environment, to keep these people from 'giving away the store.' When confronted with the undeniable evidence of Soviet cheating on the ABM Treaty by 'testing in an ABM mode' the SA-5 missile system, these apologists for the Soviet Union could only lament, "Those rat finks [the Soviets], they let us down."

       So I am very well acquainted with the generation now in power, symbolized by the current political icons -- Bill and Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Strobe Talbott, etc. What we see happening now could have been predicted in the late-1960s by observing their totalitarian impulses while on America's campuses where they read and studied Herbert Marcuse (Make Love, Not War) and Eric Fromm (Escape from Freedom) -- two of the Frankfurt School's most (in)famous gurus whose confederates conducted the campus workshops and teach-ins during the anti-war demonstrations.

       Not much of this would be pertinent to the topic at hand - the systematic degradation of the 'ethics' training at the U.S. Naval Academy -- if not for the following reality.  All of the subversive activities at the University of Michigan were carried out under the noses of the most conservative, outstanding, traditional administrators and academics that one can imagine. And the rot has only become more pervasive as time passed.

       How do I know this?  Because I have had running conversations over the years with these conservative, moral, and upright leaders. A bright young academic from the Midwest who was a conservative American and who received his undergraduate degree from Yale, played tackle on Yale's football team, and who earned his PhD in Nuclear Engineering from the California Institute of Technology -- one of the nation's best -- was on my PhD dissertation committee. I came to know him well. During the 1980s he became the Academic Dean, Provost, and finally President of the University of Michigan. During the Reagan years, he went to industry and found support for building programs that vastly improved the teaching and computing quality of the engineering schools. He started the university's first Billion Dollar Endowment Fund. Jim was a raving success.

       But simultaneously, this President-engineer lost sight of what was gnawing at the foundation of our great university. Under his tutelage the Law School hired Catherine Mackinnon, the radical feminist who has told us that '...all sex within marriage is rape.' She and her cohorts have instituted at the University of Michigan, Critical Law Studies, modeled after the Critical Theory doctrines of the 'cultural Marxist' Frankfurt School.

       Under pressure from radical activists, the President set up new studies departments, each of which now teach Critical Theory courses; African-American Studies, Women's Studies (three different kinds), Gay studies, etc. Most recently, the University of Michigan offers classes which place heterosexuals in the 'roles' of homosexual behavior modes in the classroom in order to foster 'tolerance.'

       The university was one of the first to have a politically correct speech code, which was eventually struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. Your son or daughter, when assigned a room in one of the dormitories, cannot choose another room assignment if he or she objects in principle to being assigned a homosexual roommate. The university is now engaged in a law suit filed by a white female charging an unlawful affirmative action program which gives preference to less qualified minorities.

       All of this occurred under the 'less than watchful eye' of one of the most conservative, upstanding, traditional-values persons imaginable as President. Friends who are also critics of what has transpired at the University of Michigan dismiss these events, claiming that they are due to the fact that 'Jim has daughters and no sons.'

       Whatever the cause, it is a fact that the radical feminists and the now-tenured faculty who are the New Age 'foot soldiers' of the Frankfurt School revolutionaries have essentially  taken over the important functions of the university -- while the leadership slept. I know the administrative pressures placed on these leaders -- by modern liberal activists both from within and outside the university -- that led the university to its present state of affairs. The university has succumbed to these pressures and has become one of the most politically correct educational institutions in America.

       These same pressures have been applied with a vengeance over the past decade on the administrators of the U.S. Naval Academy. And it is losing its way in precisely the same fashion as have our major universities.

       Another friend, the Chairman of the Department of Nuclear Engineering and my PhD committee chairman, has a similar story. For years, this religious Southern Baptist has maintained that the university was becoming more conservative, not less as time passed. That may have been true for the engineering sciences, but he was completely asleep at the wheel regarding the takeover of his university by the administrators, housing bureaucrats, humanities professors, and other activists who have simply destroyed the University of Michigan. He still attempts to defend the university administration's meek tactics in the face of the campus radicals' takeover of the university during their anti-war demonstrations. This, in spite of the fact that a leading radical at the time, now converted, has stated that they would have disappeared into the woodwork had the administration drawn a line in the sand and stood their ground.

       It is true. Evil reigns when good men do nothing. We are seeing the results of that weakness in the expanded totalitarian impulses of the counter-culture revolutionaries as they have 'matured' into middle age. The examples are legion. Just observe any major newspaper headlines for a month to catch the flavor of this tyrannical impulse.

       As a result of this history, I have not and never will donate to the University of Michigan, a university which has sold its soul to political correctness -- under the unseeing vision of its leaders. Leaders whom I admired and respected for their technical visions, but who were terribly short-sighted in comprehending the future impact of the cultural disintegration that was going on about them.

       This is a long-winded way of saying that I have already gone through this process once. The university that I have admired since a child, and which drove my urge to excel in an academic field, has been destroyed by the same forces that I see infecting the U.S. Naval Academy. It is, however, much more important that the Navy preserve its hallowed traditions than it is for the University of Michigan.

       Our nation can afford to lose one or many of its prized academic institutions without rotting the core of our nation's soul or providing for the national defense. But America, as we knew it, cannot survive if the institution responsible for forging the nation's CORE COMBAT NAVAL LEADERSHIP is allowed to disintegrate. In spite of what you are told by your Navy leaders, they are 'asleep at the wheel' just as were the leaders of the University of Michigan over the past three decades.'  The U.S. Naval Academy is under attack by people with the same agenda as those who have destroyed our major civilian academic institutions.

       So, I have expended huge amounts of time and a large bundle of my own funds to spread the word to all those who will open their minds to the dangers that I have already seen corrupt a major educational institution -- first hand, with personal on-hands experience. RADM Barrett's second charge is unfounded.

       But back to Maguire's whitewash. It is not possible in this limited space to give more than a summary critique of his e-mail message. Thus, I will outline my major problems with his commentary here and promise that I will fill in the details (with historical references) in future postings on this Web Site. And there are many huge problems with his piece. If you do not have Maguire's report, it is posted above in the first Hot Item position. You can download it from there. If you have not formulated your own analysis of his whitewash, you are free to use my stuff to inform conversations with your colleagues.

General Criticism
       It is clear that Maguire did not properly prepare himself for the 'auditing' function he carried out in assessing the new 'ethics' program at the Academy. He succumbed to the invitation to visit the Academy without independently diving into the subject matter that might have helped him understand what he saw there.

       Others, including RADM C.A. Hill, Jr., were offered the same invitation by ADM Henry G. Chiles, Jr. who replaced ADM Leon Edney as the holder of the Distinguished Chair for Leadership at the Academy. But RADM Hill refused the invitation. Why?  He knew the invitation was an attempt by the Superintendent to 'sell' the program to him. He knew that he would not be able to penetrate the public relations stone wall of 'assistance' offered by a coterie of 'foot soldiers' defending the politically correct 'ethics' program.

       How did RADM Hill know this?  He instinctively sensed it in his conversation with ADM Chiles, during which RADM Hill set in motion a challenge to debate in PUBLIC the issues, including the new 'ethics' program at the Academy. This challenge was made fact when an editor of Insight Magazine asked ADM Chiles if he would PUBLICLY debate the 'broad' issues in his publication. ADM Chiles declined.

       But RADM Hill possessed further evidence to support his instincts. He became aware of a presentation on the new Leadership and Ethics program made to the USNA class of 1953 on 5 October 1999 by CAPT Lee J. Geanuleas ('71), the Director of the Professional Development Department and Dr. Doug McLean, a civilian 'ethics' professor at the Academy. He learned that this attempt to sell the program to the class of 1953 was met with vigorous questioning and considerable consternation at the evasive answers given. Many members of the class were not satisfied with the information provided. For example, they were shown the NE-203 textbook but were not allowed to have a copy. They were not provided the 'required reading' list for the course and the Character Development Seminars. It was clear that one would not be able to penetrate the cloak of shadow which covered the details of the program. One would see only what the Superintendent wanted them to see.

       The second major general criticism of Maguire's account is what is left out of his analysis. He seems to be completely oblivious of the writings of Dr. Nancy Sherman, the radical feminist activist who devised the New Age 'ethics' curriculum at the Academy, who implemented it during her tenure as the first holder of the Distinguished Chair for Ethics at the Academy, and who hand-picked her successors.

       Maguire appears to be completely oblivious of the fact that every current senior officer connected with the new 'ethics' program at the Academy strongly vouches for, praises, and supports Ms. Sherman and everything that she has set up there. I have heard this first-hand in private conversations with CAPT Geanuleas and CAPT Mike Kehoe (Director of the Character Development Seminars). Others, including CAPT Mark N.Clemente ('79) of the Department of Leadership, Ethics, and Law, have publicly praised Ms. Sherman's character and professional product.

       I have exposed Ms. Sherman's agenda, including her own account of her involvement in the Character Development Seminars in The Washington Times ('Ethics are old hat for the Naval Academy,' FORUM, 11/21/99). In addition, I exposed the nature of Ms. Sherman's 'cultural Marxist' radicalism in the design of the 'ethics' curriculum by incorporating the basic tenets of the Frankfurt School's Critical Theory approach to teaching 'ethics' at the Academy. Another article published in The Washington Times, ('Rousseau and American naval officers,' FORUM, 1/16/00) revealed the true nature of her Critical Military Theory approach to teaching 'ethics' at the Academy.

       Since then, I have found that Ms. Sherman revealed the reality of her radical feminism by appearing on a national television program espousing her support of New York's 'domestic partners' legislation which would provide family  insurance benefits for lesbian and other homosexual partners (WNET-TV, 'Religion and Ethics Weekly,' anchored by Bob Abernethy, 5/29/98.) She argued on the affirmative side of the question, "Should unmarried couples living together, heterosexual or homosexual, have the same legal rights as husbands and wives?

       I leave it to your judgment whether or not you wish someone with these credentials to have been the driving force behind the New Age 'ethics' curriculum at the U.S. Naval Academy.

       The fact that every senior naval officer at the Academy, including the Superintendent who brought Ms. Sherman to the Academy, has vouched for and supported her character and nontraditional curricula design is a revealing testimonial to what is going on at the Academy.

       The blind are leading the blind. Maguire's analysis of the new 'ethics' program is a further example of this dictum. Mr. Maguire, himself without combat experience, presumes to tell us that he has gone to the mountain, spoken to God and his disciples, interviewed his children and proclaims that all is well on the banks of the Severn. For Maguire, the Academy is, indeed, educating the nation's core combat naval leadership in a way that will assure us of WINNING our nation's wars. A USNA graduate who has absolutely no combat experience presumes to tell us that the 'warrior ethos' is, indeed, being preserved at his alma mater.

       Another general criticism of Maguire's whitewash is his transparent incompetence in evaluating the 'ethics' curriculum at the Academy. He did not bother to independently survey the literature to gain his own understanding of the philosophies of Rousseau, Kant, Bentham, Mill, Hegel and other Enlightenment (and successor) philosophers. He went to an unnamed philosophy professor for this indoctrination.  This is further evidence of his comfort with being spoon fed during his 'independent' investigation.

       Maguire appears to have little or no understanding of the philosophical foundation of our Constitutional Republic and the differences between that foundation and that which undergirded the socialist French Revolution. For example, he doesn't seem to understand what John Locke contributed to the education of Thomas Jefferson, the author of our Declaration of Independence -- and how that contribution contrasts with the Enlightenment philosophers who are represented in the Academy's 'ethics' curriculum.

      Indeed, a fundamental problem with Maguire's analysis and the 'ethics' program itself at the Academy is that the philosophers and their thoughts are taught without the perspective of history. Will Durant, in his second volume of an epic eleven volume series of books on 'The Story of Civilization,' reminds us of the importance of the study of history in attempting to understand our civilization and problems of our day -- including the philosophical underpinnings of our heritage. In the preface to his second volume, he states, "We shall learn more of the nature of man by watching his behavior through sixty centuries than by reading Plato and Aristotle, Spinoza and Kant..."

       Maguire's analysis of the Academy's new 'ethics' program shows no evidence that he knows anything at all about 'cultural Marxism' and its intellectual foundation in the Frankfurt School. He claims that 'the course material does not bring 'cultural Marxism' into the...classroom.' But he doesn't seem to understand that this term is simply an accurate description of the term 'political correctness' based on the historical record. We are now obliged to use the latter term in this politically correct age instead of its more historically accurate description -- 'cultural Marxism.' It is that simple!

       Maguire claims to have perused the NE-203 textbook and found no evidence of relativism. In actuality, the text itself is organized by and full of relativism of moral values and ethical standards. Maguire sees two readings, one pro and one con, on Relativism, which in his mind presumably balances the ledger. But he doesn't seem to understand that the entire textbook itself is transparently relativistic. Seventy-eight readings covering over 635 pages allow the midshipmen to choose among all of the flawed Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment philosophers (Rousseau, Kant, Bentham, Mill, and John Rawls, etc.) for their own ethical enlightenment. All with equal weight. Of course, to prefer one over another would be 'judgmental,' a no-no for the politically correct power elites in our society.

       While COL Paul E. Roush USMC (Ret.), the resident 'cultural Marxist' at the Academy (having spent over a decade teaching 'ethics' there), is represented by eight (8) readings in the textbook, the topic of Divine Command rates only four (4). Whereas the moral foundation (Christianity) of our nation's experiment with representative democracy is granted only 40 pages, COL Roush is granted 64 pages. The Tailhook '91 scandal is accorded a full 40 pages in an appendix. Yes, you have it right. The discussion of Tailhook '91 is given space equal to Christianity in the Academy 'ethics' curriculum designed by Ms. Sherman and her 'cultural Marxist' collaborator, COL Paul Roush.

       This is the same COL Roush, who carried out the vicious ad hominem attack on James Webb in the 'Proceedings.'  He completed a Masters and Doctorate degree in Education at American University -- the discipline that has so severely crippled our K-12 education system over the past twenty years with its psychobabble and therapeutic foundation. He is the same Marine who spent a year in Vietnam without a single citation for courage and/or bravery under fire while the man he criticized, Jim Webb, earned a Navy Cross, Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, and two purple hearts. The choice of which of these Marines to believe in the argument over who should speak for the education of our nation's core combat naval leadership is left to your common sense and seasoned judgment.

       Only two of the seventy-eight readings in the textbook address the philosophy of John Locke, the philosopher who had more influence on our Founding Fathers than any other.  All of the others are either Enlightenment philosophers who provided the intellectual guidance for the disastrous, chaotic, and ultimately anarchic socialist French Revolution or those descendents of that philosophy right on up to the present.

       This potpourri is the gruel from which Midshipman Carmella M. House chose Kant, Bentham, and Mill to guide her prize-winning essay on Tailhook '91, as lauded by the Academy in the Jan/Feb 1999 issue of Shipmate. This essay was chosen the most outstanding essay on 'ethics' of the whole year by the staff, civilian and military, at the Academy and was praised at the celebratory banquet hosted by the USNA class of 1964 (Maguire's class) which was attended by the top five senior officers at the Academy, including the Superintendent. I described in some detail the Critical Theory nature of Midshipman House's prize-winning essay in The Washington Times ('Fellow travelers at the Naval Academy,' FORUM, 7/25/00). Maguire completely overlooks all of this substance in his whitewash.

       All of this is direct evidence of relativism in the large in the 'ethics' curriculum at the Academy.  A relativism that pervades the curriculum and the entire program. And the naval leadership there doesn't even recognize it. In spite of this blindness, for their own personal and career best interests, they would delude us into believing that all is well.

       Maguire further gives away his lack of knowledge about relativism in his summary in which he states, "The combination of academic, civilian-taught theory about a variety of philosophers and straight talk about practical 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."

       What is wrong with these statements?  Whether intended or not, Maguire uses the disjunctive 'or' in listing the philosophers.  The English meaning of 'or' is that any one of the disjunctives is equally valid and none are preferable. It all depends upon one's choice. This IS RELATIVISM. In addition, if one is to hold that each of these beliefs are equally believable then one must believe that all of them are equally valid. He who believes in everything, believes in nothing. This leads one to Nietzsche's philosophy of nihilism whose proponents during the rapacious 20th century caused more death and destruction than any period in the history of mankind.

       The apologists for the Academy's seriously flawed new 'ethics' program make the most contradictory observations in their defense. For example, Maguire states that, "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...Midshipmen actively participate in the... required course."

      Maguire could well have been quoting out of textbooks born in the 'values clarification' movement in our K-12 public schools over the past three decades. This movement corrupted the moral landscape with moral relativism. In fact, ADM Larson who implemented the new 'ethics' program at the Academy allowed the textbook, 'The Child as Moral Philosopher' by Lawrence Kohlberg to be required reading in the Academy's Integrity Development Seminars in 1994.

       This is the 'cultural Marxist' concept of the 'child as decision-maker.' Any 'authoritarian' attempt to impose the classroom instructor on the students because he has experience, knowledge, and wisdom worthy of their attention is foreign to this notion. For children in our K-12 public schools, this meant that all constraints had to be removed and the child must be allowed to misbehave. For Naval Academy midshipmen, it means their life experiences and authority are held to be equal to that of their military instructors. This is the essence of moral relativism.

       RADM Barrett, in his defense of the Academy's new 'ethics' program, makes an even less coherent observation, bordering on the inane. After sitting in on two Ethics classes, one leadership class, and observing a coke machine, he concludes, "Our Naval Academy is permeated with daily emphasis on Duty, Honor, Courage, and Commitment in and out of the classroom. Far more than during my time [USNA class 1943]...while visiting the Uniform Shop in a wing of Bancroft Hall, I noticed three brightly colored, large Coke machines. Printed in large 6-inch letters were HONOR, COURAGE, COMMITMENT."

       Ah yes, RADM Barrett, the traditional Navy methods of reinforcing the Christian morality that midshipmen brought with them from their families to the Academy and who rose to the occasion, fought and won the Battle of the Pacific are much less effective than New Age slogans on Coke machines. Balderdash!

       One of the most egregious shortcomings of Maguire's analysis of the Academy's 'ethics' program is that his conclusions are contradictory to his findings. Some are contradictions in the small. Some are contradictions so vast that it is hard to imagine that he doesn't recognize them.

       A contradiction in the small appears in the following paragraph,

  "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."

       Any ethical decision by the student group that is politically correct is by definition worthy of contempt. If politically correct decisions are as worthy as decisions which are not politically correct as Maguire appears to contend, then everything is relative. He could not detect any bias there. You take your politically correct view and I'll take mine that is not. Everything is relative. Your decision is as good as mine. Why should I judge your decision?  There is no absolute standard in judging any ethical decision.

       Maguire's contradictions in the large are fundamental. He spoke with four civilian professors who conducted the NE-203 course. He says, "Each of these individuals was able to communicate quite effectively; none were 'out of touch.'"  In spite of this finding, one of his prime recommendations to the Superintendent was that "...the civilian professors should not discuss combat situations as if they could fully comprehend them." This is a contradiction in his own words of nearly everything he had to say in his report.

       In the same breath, Maguire states that, "NE-203 seminar classes are led by senior 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...Military Professors knew their students and were actively engaged in discussions with them. They provided the 'straight talk' that General Krulak said was needed..."

       But then in his prime recommendation to the Superintendent, Maguire states that, "Military instructors should not portray themselves as experts in the teachings of the great philosophers."  To a reasonable person, this is a direct contradiction in terms.  If the 'straight talk' is not connected in some way to the ethereal 'ethical' principles expounded by the civilian PhDs in ethics and the military instructor is not capable of making or qualified to make the appropriate connection to some ethical principle, then what in God's name is all of this gibberish about?

       The blind are leading the blind. Both in terms of the new 'ethics' program at the Academy and Maguire's analysis of it.

       And don't think the Mids aren't aware of this fact. They are. As an example, let me share with you an e-mail that I received from a Cadet at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. His views are shared by many at the U.S. Naval Academy but all are hesitant to come forward for fear that exposure would end their Navy career in the current climate of 'cultural Marxism,' excuse me, political correctness at the Academy.
       The cadet writes,
"I am a cadet at West Point, and what you have to say definitely rings a bell...I must say that I have been dismayed, to say the least, with the quality of training at USMA.  Like many of my fellows, I came here to learn what it takes to lead men in combat  and to become such a man that I would not fail them on the battlefield. Beast was not fun, especially since I did not have a military background, but it lacked the character building quality that has been attributed to Basic Training regimens throughout history.  Rather than teach us character and a reverence for honesty and integrity, the Academy shoved COO down our throats.  It expected us to "internalize" the honor code after classes that emphasized being good people who fear consequences more than becoming men whose word is our bond. The Academy then wonders why the number of serious honor infractions increased over the past few years (i.e., stealing valuable items, wholesale cheating on papers).  Of course, I need not emphasize the demoralizing effect that the double standard created and how watered down the  training has become to accommodate the females. The Academy also marvels at the frequency of sexual misconduct/rape cases that occur (and the corresponding slide in discipline). I guess the brass assumed that a school full of virile young men would simply treat the women as "brothers" and that the women were incapable of having a sex drive (much less be attracted to any of the men)."

       "Sir, the world needs to know what is going on. We are not interchangeable cogs in the sense that men and women do not make equal warriors. The very men who demand from us "honest dealing and clean thinking" (from The Cadet Prayer) display the least amount of integrity themselves. Needless to say, a good many of us are sick of what we see, but are hesitant to take action because we  see neither allies nor any method through which we can make our dismay known. Thank you for listening.  I am leaving tomorrow for my summer assignments and I will be off-line as of this evening.  I will be back in August."
               Signed: CDT [Name, anonymous to readers for obvious reasons]

       This view is further buttressed by an observation from a naval aviator friend and a former Vietnam War POW who states, "Frankly, Beak, I think the senior officers at USNA had never thought about this stuff before. It sounded good to them (why would the Naval Academy be teaching it if it weren't true?)... I also know most Navy guys think this is a bunch of BS. If the civilian shrinks think it's dynamite and the junior officer who reviewed the plans got tired of arguing about fairies dancing on the heads of pins, I can see them saying f... it. It'll never happen on my watch. Sign off on it and get out of the most boring debate they were ever in... And count the days until they get back to the fleet. Sad but probably true."

       Yes, it is sad but probably true. The youngsters who come from America's homes where Christianity is the moral touchstone of their lives, recognize that there is an ethical consideration in all of this New Age emphasis on human secularism at our premiere military academies. And they also know that they are not allowed to discuss this ethical consideration in their classrooms. They are not allowed to discuss the real ethical consideration that stares them in the face every day, every hour, every minute at the Academy. That real ethical dilemma is whether or not this nation and its military leadership will maintain, nurture, and enrich the Anglo-American way (defined by John Locke, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton et al) or follow the New Age 'cultural Marxists' down the Franco-German path defined by the Enlightenment philosophers, the socialist French Revolution, and their successors.
       These young people can sense, as can anyone with any familiarity at all with the subject that there is no cohesion, no central unifying theme, in the New Age 'ethics' program at the Academy. Not in the source of the moral/ethical standards proposed by their civilian professors. Not in the process of instruction, that is, splitting philosophy (taught by civilian PhDs from Yale, Harvard, and Georgetown) and practical war-time examples (taught by military officers with 'command experience' but most with absolutely no war-fighting experience). None of the civilians and very few of the military professors have themselves ever fired at or been fired upon by a determined enemy in a sustained war. There are few 'warriors' there who are capable of building a warrior ethos in our future core combat naval leadership.
       Nor is there a sensible cohesion or unifying theme in the objectives of the new 'ethics' curriculum. Is the objective to train naval officers to be 'ethics' police who are urged to practice their trade in squadron ready rooms and the wardrooms of combatant vessels? That is, are they to be 'ethical' social engineers who will adjudicate for their subordinates the New Age doctrines of sexual harassment, affirmative action, or gay rights 'tolerance.' Or is the objective to train the core combat naval leadership of this great nation to WIN America's wars?
       None of this is readily apparent as a cohesive objective in the new 'ethics' program at the Academy. Consequently, everyone who comes in contact with it walks away confused. The midshipmen, the faculty, the senior officers (who should know better), and the alumni who are invited in as blind men to touch and feel the elephant and tell us what they 'see.'
       There is one telling and crucial fact that proves my view of the new 'ethics' program (and refutes Maguire's and RADM Barrett's evaluations of it). Not once in the table of contents of the course textbook for the required course in 'Ethics and Moral Reasoning for the Naval Leader,' does the word TRUST appear. Not once. Not once in the titles of seventy-eight readings covering over 635 pages of text is the word TRUST emphasized.
       It has been my experience in naval carrier combat aviation, including combat missions in the skies over North Vietnam where my aircraft was shot at and hit by determined enemy anti-aircraft fire, that TRUST is the crucial element for building a warrior ethos in those who are dedicated to winning our nation's wars. It is the primary element of an ethic which has informed our naval tradition since the days of John Paul Jones.
       From the day a naval aviator joins his first squadron to the last day of his service, he is immersed in a cauldron of experience that builds one primary ingredient -- TRUST. Every year (learning to TRUST your commanding officer and other senior officers -- and they, you). Every month, week, hour and minute (learning to TRUST your flight leaders and they, you) in rigorous, demanding training exercises.  And every second and fraction thereof (learning to TRUST your landing signal officer, and in building his trust in you) in coming aboard ship day, night, and in inclement weather). The whole purpose of all of that training, all of that flying, all of that comradery, and all of that conversation is to build TRUST. This translates to an experience that builds TRUST all the way up the chain of command to the top -- and down again.
       Ask any naval officer who has actually been in combat and you will find the same answer. The purpose of all of that education and training is to build TRUST. My Vietnam War POW friend explains it well in answering the following query,

"It is also my belief, after reading the books written by Robbie Risner, Jerry Coffee, Jeremiah Denton et al that most of you guys were guided by your own moral ethic -- Christianity,"
>
his answer was,

"That and our intense desire not to let the others down. We were a team and would without hesitation do anything to help another POW."
       Yes, indeed, TRUST is the glue that bound us together whether over the skies of North Vietnam or in the Hanoi Hilton or in our squadron ready rooms. TRUST. And the building of that TRUST is completely absent from the new 'ethics' curriculum at the U.S. Naval Academy.

       The Roman slave and philosopher, Epictetus, did not guide us. Nor did any of the other philosophers resident in the New Age 'ethics' curriculum at the Academy. In fact, when queried by the following,

       "It is my hunch that this 'philosophy craze' surfaced only after you guys returned home and Stockdale's subsequent recognition as having studied and put into practice the teachings of the ancient philosophers, that this stuff became popular -- with the Navy,  that is"

regarding ADM James Stockdale's teaching of the Stoic philosophy, that which guided his own personal heroism in the Hanoi Hilton, several former POWs responded in the following vein,

       "[The] first time I ever heard about Epictetus was when I read a copy of [Stockdale's] New Yorker article. I subsequently heard [him] refer to Epictetus and the stoics during a talk at the Armed Forces Staff College when Jerry Denton was the Commandant there."

       It is clear to me and to many other Navy combat veterans that the traditional Navy way of building TRUST and maintaining it, whether it is at the U.S. Naval Academy or other educational programs, is the only proven way to instill a warrior ethos that will assure that our future core naval combat leadership is capable of winning our nation's wars. The new 'ethics' program at the Academy only degrades this core ingredient -- the building of TRUST.