Introduction

       In the Feb 2000 issue of Proceedings, CAPT Mark Clemente provided the first public defense of the U.S. Naval Academy's new 'Leadership and Ethics' program.  Thus, the public and private 'debate' on the subject of the 'Leadership and Ethics' program at the U.S. Naval Academy has entered a new stage. The public written debate was touched off by my publication, on the Internet and commentary in the FORUM section of the Sunday Washington Times, of a series of six 'essays,' which summarize the results of my research on the subject of 'sensitivity training' in the U.S. military. I have chosen to label the subject "'Cultural Marxism' at the U.S. Naval Academy." This label is nothing more than an accurate re-labeling of the term, 'political correctness,' which you have seen from my writings, are one and the same thing.

       After seven months of attempting to shut down the public criticism of their new 'ethics' program, the Academy was finally forced to answer in public. But this did not happen until after they went to a full court press to quell the growing number of alumni critics of the program. They sent senior department heads out with a dog-and-pony show defending their program. The questions they received from the RESISTERS in their audience must have raised concern that they could not 'white wash' what was actually going on at the Academy.

       The debate has been carried out publicly in the FORUM section of the Sunday Washington Times. As of this date, there have been over 13 commentaries on the subject -- pro and con. But mostly con because the Academy refused to enter the debate in public.

       But then several events occurred that spurred the Academy to 'go public' in its defense. First, RADM C.A. Hill, Jr., USN (Ret.), USNA class of 1944 published on the Internet and in a national magazine, a blistering critique of the New Age 'ethics' program. This WWII 'warrior' was a submarine officer whose boat had experienced every one of the harrowing experiences depicted in the German movie, 'Das Boot,' and survived. He became a naval aviator and rose to command the USS Independence during the Cold War.

       RADM Hill reminded us of the sound basis for the traditional ethics training conducted at the Academy in the past. His commentary is a solid argument based on his WWII combat experience and the subsequent degradation, slowly but surely, of the importance of military training, including military ethics based on the foundations set by our Founding Fathers, at the Academy over the past several decades.

       Second, RADM Ned Hogan, USN (Ret.), a carrier naval aviator who has commanded the Naval Air Test Center, went public with his criticism of the new 'ethics' program at the Academy with an article in the FORUM, 'Ethics and the next century's navy.' He said, "The feminists are winning the battle in partnership with the Navy's leadership and have gained their near-term objectives. They have created an environment ripe for disaster should a war at sea occur."

       Third, the President of a major Regional Chapter of the Alumni Association presented a written critique of the new 'ethics' program at the 3 December meeting of the entire Board of Trustees in Annapolis. Immediately thereafter, he resigned his presidency.
       During all of this, Navy officials tried to stem the tide. An Academy emissary contacted me in an attempt to 'schmooze' a common understanding. His approach was to insist that they were doing a good job of teaching 'ethics' but that they just can't seem to 'get the word out.' When informed of Dr. Nancy Sherman's claim that the Navy's 'ethics,' based on tradition, was the cause of the evils visited on the Academy (car theft rings, drug use, child abuse, cheating on exams, etc.), as publicized in the Boston Globe (8/22/99), he had only praise for her efforts there. Of course, Dr. Sherman was the 'change agent' assigned to 'reform' the Academy's 'ethics' and 'change the souls' of the Midshipmen -- the source of the 'cultural Marxist' conversion being carried out there. Right under the eyes of complacent, unknowing, and/or complicit naval officers at the Academy and in the retired alumni community.

       In the face of this rising tide of criticism, the Academy finally responded publicly. It published an article in the U.S. Naval Institute 'Proceedings' which defended their new Leadership and Ethics program. This article, by CAPT Mark N. Clemente, US Navy, is entitled, 'Why We Teach Leadership and Ethics at the Naval Academy.' This well written and well 'scrubbed' article pays homage to Dr. Nancy Sherman and leans heavily on the heroism of ADM James Stockdale in the defense of their program.
So, the debate has finally gone national -- even if confined to a prominent 'military' journal. My objective is to force it into a wider national audience, including Congress and the general public. It is a very important debate. It is a vital debate. It is imperative that it become a national debate in every dimension -- including the civilian political leadership.

       This debate is a microcosm of the wider debate on the direction our nation is taking as a result of the agenda being imposed on us by the power elites of the Boomer generation. Bill and Hillary Clinton are only the public icons of this power elite. They are the five to eight million counter-culture revolutionaries who took over by force the university campuses in their young adulthood in the mid-1960s, dodged the draft, demonstrated against the Vietnam War, set the stage for major societal disfunction by their appeals to sexual liberation of women, and organized the alien concept of 'welfare rights.' They are now in positions of power, as is natural for each generation in its turn, in every institution in America.

       That is why this debate on the 'Leadership and Ethics' at the U.S. Naval Academy is so important. It is only a small shred of what is going on at all our premiere military academies, indeed, in our entire military establishment. And, if truth be told, in our whole American culture.

        ADM Must Remain Anonymous, USN (Ret.) enters the debate with his mild and balanced rebuttal to the Academy's defense entitled, "Leadership, Ethics, and POWs." His thoughtful and balanced response to CAPT Clemente provides a 'traditional' counter to the New Age 'ethics' program defense. It puts into perspective our changing concepts of 'leadership,' 'heroism,' and 'ethics' -- changes that are sometimes accepted as progress, always positive. But change and progress, understood this way, are only magnitudes; not directions. For progress can be travel in many directions -- backwards as well as forward -- for bad as well as for good, for evil as well as moral good.

       Admiral Anonymous reminds us of the tried and true concepts of 'ethics' and morality for the military leader by telling the stories of past naval heroes; ADM Arleigh Burke, ADM William Snowden Sims, RADM William 'Deak' Parsons, VADM Tom Connolly, LT Duane Thorin.

       In a telling paragraph in Admiral Anonymous' response, he tells us, "The success of the current Naval Academy program dealing with character development is hard to assess. Captain Clemente states that the Academy is proud of its program and one cannot argue with that contention. However, the old skeptic will point to an evaluation by a recent graduate. While serving as a senior midshipman, Carrier Howe, Class of '98, wrote a column for the monthly Shipmate magazine, published by the US naval Academy Alumni Association. In her final column in the Spring of 1998, these words were part of her farewell as she left for the challenging career ahead.

                                                 "...Unfortunately, the Naval Academy is no longer a school for
                                                 warriors. While it's still a great school, the emphasis that we
                                                 are training to prepare for war does not exist like it used to
                                                 exist. Somewhere after plebe summer it fades away, and we hit the
                                                 books. Instead of being the United States Naval Academy, the
                                                 school that produces amazing leaders and officers in an intensive
                                                 four year leadership laboratory, we are slowly leaning towards ROTC.
                                                The Administration stresses Academics. Instead of having an
                                                over-abundance of well-rounded Midshipmen who don't have 4.0s, we
                                                have really smart Mids who study a LOT. Although the military of
                                                today is on the cutting edge of technology and needs officers who
                                                are technically proficient, we also need officers who know their
                                                people and who are prepared for battle in time of war. We exist to
                                               defend our country. I think that is what we need to be reminded of more often..."

       Upon this prescient note, Admiral Anonymous concludes with an observation. "...designers of the curriculum for inculcating traits and characteristics that will serve the combat leader well, must not ignore the warrior ethos (and they  probably don't as CAPT Clemente points out). The training can include an introduction to the Greeks and stoicism. Anything that stimulates thought about how to lead in combat -- and survive -- is useful. However, concentrating on survival after capture must not take precedence over studies on how to keep from being captured in the first place. The ultimate must be on schooling on how to win, the objective of any combat leader."

The Two Major Faults

       CAPT Clemente and Admiral Anonymous both have the proper perspective on what is most important in teaching leadership and ethics in the context of training our core combat leadership at the service academies. Both understand that a firm moral foundation is paramount for a naval officer combatant. They are not of the same opinion, however, on whether or not the incoming midshipmen have this moral underpinning. Admiral Anonymous observes that it was there in the majority during his days as a mid and as a WWII and Cold War combat naval officer. CAPT Clemente observes (as has Superintendent Ryan and ADM Leon Edney, USN (Ret.)) that this moral underpinning is not there for a large fraction of the incoming cohort of midshipmen.

       It is this dichotomy that is at the heart of the problem with the Leadership and Ethics program at the Academy. CAPT Clemente defends the importation of civilian 'ethics' professionals, PhDs from Harvard, Yale and elsewhere to 'solve' this problem. That is, if the new recruits don't have the proper moral foundation, we will give them one. But the one that is being given is at the heart of the 'problem' at the Academy.

       Clemente defends the prominent use of civilians in this role -- to construct the core of the academic program, to build the 'ethical' foundation, to 'change the soul' of the young Midshipmen as one civilian 'ethics' professor intoned in a recent Shipmate article.

       Admiral Anonymous is skeptical of this approach. He observes that the traditional method of building the proper moral character at the Academy was to focus on the great Navy leaders of the past and emphasize the practical over the theoretical. He does, however, allow that it is proper to provide a broader historical perspective on 'philosophy' but with a caveat. Does it help the young 'warrior in training' to better meet his ultimate goal, his ultimate reason for being at the Academy -- to win America's wars.
       Clemente would assure us that that is exactly what the Academy is doing in the Leadership and Ethics program. Admiral Anonymous wryly observes that one can never really know unless one is '...actually in the classroom.' This is an astute observation and one that deserves more than passing rhetorical attention.

       The only way we can ever know is to attend the ethics courses, both those theoretical courses, such as NE-203, taught by civilians and the Character Development Seminars taught by mid-level Navy and Marine officers. The Academy should open these classes up to observation, on randomly selected classes to individuals who have an interest in this subject. They should be outside observers, selected for their impartiality and with sufficient background to understand what they are observing -- both from a practical and a theoretical point of view.

       The observations made below are forwarded in order to emphasize that the program as it is now constituted has at least two major flaws. They are foundational. They are fundamental to the practical every-day operation of the program. I have found these flaws from conversations with Navy officers who are closely involved in the program. There is a sense by some that the program is confused and this confusion is apparent and picked up by the midshipmen who are subject to it. Thus, they become confused and disinterested. The reasons for this are presented below.

The Fallacy of 'Multicultural' Philosophers

       Admiral Anonymous reminds us that it is probably good that the Academy exposes the midshipmen to philosophical thought -- as long as it contributes to the primary purpose of the institution, to train naval combat leaders how to win wars.

       There is, however, one more aspect of this problem that should not go un-remarked. That is, any moral or ethical philosophy taught should be accompanied by the historical context within which it or the philosopher existed. Will Durant, the eminent scholar and 'popularizer' of history reminds us in his second volume [1] of an epic eleven volume series of books on 'The Story of Civilization,' 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 this 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..."

       This is even more important in this age than in any other. Why?  Because we are in an age that can revert to a previous calamitous set of circumstances if we are not aware -- not careful of making the same mistakes that have been made before in the world's history. We could be allowing the 21st century 'Jacobins' to bring about the conditions that fomented the socialist French Revolution.

       CAPT Clemente (pp.88) defends the new 'ethics' program at the U.S. Naval Academy by invoking the principle of 'opening the horizons' in philosophical thought. "Our ethics course, therefore, is a critical survey of the major moral theories in the Western tradition, each of which has had something to say about what makes actions right and about the source of authority of morality."
       CAPT Clement tells us nothing of the fact that the Western tradition took a drastic turn in the late 1700s. He treats all moral theories, developed after that time with equal gravity to those that served mankind before then. This is a major mistake. If one is made aware of the history of the period, one immediately grasps the truth that Western civilization produced two quite different, and opposite paths to freedom at that time. One, the Anglo-American path, emerged from the American Revolution and resulted in a Constitutional Republic in which our Founding Fathers guaranteed a rule of law (applicable equally to each individual), individual freedom and rights, the right to private property, and a common American identity. It is this path that has led to a nation which rescued the world from two of the most tragic blunders in mankind's history -- produced by those who traveled the opposite path.

       The other path was that followed in the aftermath of the utopian socialist French Revolution -- which spawned the Franco-German way. This path led, in the 20th century, to National Socialism (Hitler) and Bolshevik Socialism (Stalin's Communism).

       Without knowledge of this distinction, one is at the mercy of those who tout philosophy for its own sake, without the defining context of the period during which it flourished. The Enlightenment philosophers, Voltaire and Rousseau and their successors who followed, indeed, created the tragic Franco-German path; Bentham, Mill, Kant, Hegel, and Marx set the stage for the bloodiest century --the 20th century -- in mankind's history.

       And it was only by the grace of God that the Anglo-American way evolved into a counterweight that was powerful enough to smash the tyranny of those who followed the Franco-German path.

       There is absolutely no recognition in CAPT Clemente's defense of the new 'ethics' program at the Naval Academy of this blazing truth.

       CAPT Clemente names the philosophers at the heart of the new 'ethics' curriculum. "Aristotle through St. Thomas Aquinas to John Stuart Mill and John Rawls." Along the way, he mentions the philosophies of Jeremy Bentham and Immanuel Kant as other 'pillars' in the curriculum.

       Of course, in this rendition, in the New Age of 'non-judgmentalism,' CAPT Clemente follows the pattern of his civilian masters by treating each of these 'pillars' with equal weight -- at least in his defense of the new program. One will never know what weight is given to each unless one actually attends the classes and seminars in person.

       CAPT Clemente, in his defense of the Academy's new 'ethics' program, invokes the name of Dr. Nancy Sherman. She held the Academy's first Distinguished Chair of Ethics there. Ms. Sherman was the architect of the infusion of the New Age smorgasbord of 'ethics' masters into the curriculum at the Academy.

       So, why is this bad?  Why is the introduction of various philosophers and their associated world views not good for the midshipmen in an age of academic openness -- enlightenment?  The reason is as follows.

       When one compares 'what once was' with the New Age 'ethics' being promoted and implemented at our premiere military academies, one is reminded of an everyday metaphor. While raking the leaves from my yard one day, I was reminded by a 'seasoned gardener' of the necessity for such activity.

       She told me that the reason I must rake the leaves was that, if left on the lawn, they would settle down into the soil, crowd out the grass, and leave a bare spot. This bare spot would then become a fertile place, vulnerable to seeding by weeds which then grow where thick, lush grass once flourished.

       This is precisely what can occur in the lawn of the moral foundation of our precious Constitutional Republic. It is clear from our nation's founding documents that a Christian faith was an assumed constant in the political sub-structure of our form of government. That foundation was clearly the MORAL dimension required for our 'healthy lawn.' This foundation and the practical, every-day ethics of the 'virtue tradition' was handed down to us by our Founding Fathers.

       Now, we are in an age wherein a politically correct generation of Americans wishes to experiment with a restructuring -- a social engineering -- of our entire culture. They have let the 'leaves lie where they fell.' They are creating the bare spots in the fertile lawn of our Christian heritage by failing to remove the leaves that render future generations vulnerable to the seeds of the destructive weeds that are blowing in the wind. The self-contradictory philosophies of the Enlightenment philosophers and their Franco-German way successors are taking root in these bare spots in our moral landscape.

       This situation has led to the 'moral relativism,' 'situational ethics,' 'diversity,' 'multiculturalism,' and 'non-judgmentalism' which are starting to grow in our culture. These destructive weeds are being cultivated by COLLABORATORS, some of whom 'know not what they do.'  At the U.S. Naval Academy as well as in our larger culture.

The Fallacy of 'Case Study' Ethics Instruction

        One aspect of the new 'ethics program at the service academies is the 'moralization' of every decision that has ever been made in military history. Decisions made by military commanders in the heat of battle, in the 'fog of war,' are analyzed with a fine tooth comb to ascertain whether or not the errors made had a moral tone -- an ethical theme.

       This occurs at all of the service academies, not just at the U.S. Naval Academy. For example, a paper presented by a young Army officer at the January 2000 Joint Services Conference on Professional Ethics (JSCOPE) reveals this trend in its most potentially virulent form.

       The virulence stems from the fact that this practice opens up the discussion to Critical Theory and renders vulnerable the institution, which is subject to attack.

       In the JSCOPE 2000 paper, which applied Critical Theory to 'military ethics,' the U.S. Military Academy author revealed the 'mistakes in military judgment' made by a military commander and his staff during an operation conducted during the 'Normandy Breakout' in World War II.

       These mistakes resulted in a large number of 'friendly fire' casualties to American GIs during the operation. These mistakes, made in the 'fog of war' and in the earliest days of attempting to coordinate tactical air strikes with ground combat maneuvers, were characterized as 'ethical' lapses, consequently 'moral' failures of the military commanders.

      When one raises such 'mistakes of military judgment' to the level of moral inadequacy, one opens the door to judging as 'immoral' the entire enterprise -- of war, the battle, the military leadership, even to the individuals who did the accidental killing.
       This is a perfect application of Critical Theory as practiced by the New Age 'cultural Marxist' foot soldiers of the gurus of the Frankfurt School. Of course, the author of that paper is obviously NOT a Marxist. But he unwittingly produced a paper which falls into the hands of 'cultural Marxists' who will use it to further their agenda. Marxists have always used such devices to raise their ideology to the level of moral justification. In their eyes, and on this basis, their ideology is raised to the level of a quasi-religion.

       In this way, 'ethics' and 'ethics training' can be used in the hands of those with an ideological agenda to do EVIL. In the wrong hands, the teaching of 'ethics' can undermine the military, democratic institutions, nations, and cultures.

       This is the NEGATIVE aspect of the teaching of New Age 'ethics' at our premiere military academies. It is the same aspect that uses 'sensitivity training' and behavioral science within 'ethics' training programs to undermine and destroy the 'warrior ethos' in our Armed Forces. The ideologues who are imposing this on our military are the radical feminists in our culture.

       We should learn a lesson from this revelation at JSCOPE. We must be very careful not to attribute an 'ethical' concept to ALL decisions made in the fog of war and scene of the battle. When we allow 'ethics professionals to do this, then the discussion can center around the 'artificial' concept of a moral decision being made, when in reality, people simply make mistakes in wartime decisions. ALL such 'mistakes' are NOT ethical mistakes, they are just bad decisions made during the heat of battle. Why is this important? Because it opens the door to 'mischief' for those with an agenda who want to demonized everything about the operation, the military, about the individuals involved. They escalate this agenda to the level of a 'religion.' This is a grave danger in fashioning the 'cases' in the Academy's case study approach to 'ethics.'

       When all or most all of the examples addressed in the case-study approach at the academies are NEGATIVE -- that is, My Lai, the Vincennes shootdown, the 'highway of death' in Iraq, and other such cases, we can be quite certain that Critical Theory is being practiced. And that is BAD! This is an indication that Critical Theory is being practiced in any academic program. Critical Theory is the plague, which has infected our major universities. Critical Law, Critical Black, Critical Gender, Critical Sexual Orientation, Critical This, and Critical That studies are endemic over the land. They all have one purpose -- the Theory is to CRITICIZE. Not to learn from our mistakes and take constructive action. But to tear down, disrupt and destroy our American civilization.

       From whence did this process come?  Who are the 'foot soldiers' of the counter-culture revolution invoking it now at our premiere military service academies?  The answers are simple. They are the same people who have infected our premiere universities with Critical Theory over the past 30 years. They are the counter-culture revolutionaries of the 1960s and 1970s who have taken their quest now to our military service academies. We should not be at all surprised that this has occurred at this time -- when they have come to power, as every generation does in its own time, in every institution in American culture. And now in our military establishment, the last such institution to come under attack. It is showing its ugly head at our premiere service academies, in particular, at the U.S. Naval Academy.

       In conversations with young naval officers at the Academy, it is apparent that this situation occurs there as well. For example, when discussing a recent Character Development Seminar session there, a military 'facilitator' described how they are run. Fifty or so such 'facilitators' lead a discussion of a movie, lecture, or video of some topical 'event.' Each 'facilitator' leads a small-group encounter session with about 12-15 midshipmen. While such a breakdown is consistent with traditional military practices at the Academy, this situation is a bit different. It sets the stage for the psychological techniques of 'sensitivity training.'
       Who set this up?  Who was the architect of this process, this curriculum?  Dr. Nancy Sherman, the 'change agent' who was brought in by then-Superintendent Charles Larson at the direction of higher authority. Listen to what Dr. Sherman said about such a process in an April '99 article in the 'Proceedings.'

       Dr. Sherman's 'Proceedings' article demonstrates clearly that she knows, as a certified 'change agent,' the detailed workings of the psychological techniques of Kurt Lewin's T-group or small-group encounter methods which are so effective in changing a persons behavior and/or world view.
       The first step is to render the individual vulnerable in the peer group. How is this accomplished? By an appeal to the individual's emotions. Read how the first step in this process works. Dr. Sherman tells us (couched in the framework of her 'ethics' course),

"One common picture of emotions that emerges from the class is that emotions are the enemy of reason; they are the trouble-makers, disrupters, upheavals, and passions that steer one from cool, calm judgment."

"This is far from the total picture, of course, and an important thrust in the NE-203 classroom is to show that emotions can be  relevant for response in the very way that the emotion of fear can give the warning signals of danger."

        Can't you just feel the way being paved to lure the student into the trap of revealing himself more than is warranted and rendering himself vulnerable to whatever the agenda might be by the 'facilitator' instructor or 'change agent?' This is exactly how 'sensitivity training' is supposed to work -- as discovered by Kurt Lewin, the father of this psychological conditioning process in the U.S.

       Dr. Sherman continues, "...part of what we know about emotional well being is that it requires that we acknowledge emotions, not box them up and shove them under the carpet. However much compartmentalization may be a necessary part of the warrior mentality, finding a time and place to de-compartmentalize, to acknowledge grief and mourning, to be honest about longings to be with one's family, to not merely suck up pain but to seek solace is crucial to developing a whole and integrated psyche."

       Compare this to an account, derived from the debriefing of 1,000 repatriated Korean War POWs and over 200,000 pages of personal testimony on the nature of the indoctrination program that the Chinese so successfully carried out on them ('Mind Control: The Ultimate Weapon,' speech by Major Wm. E. Mayer, U.S. Army in 1960, on audio cassette produced by G. Edward Griffin, The Reality Zone, 1999).

"Beautiful system. It worked. Worked like a charm. Along with this went something called self-criticism...This is almost in the nature of a religious ritual, this self-criticism thing. They [the Chinese] get you together in groups of ten or twelve again. And  this is an ideal size group. And they use what is really a corruption of group psychotherapy. In this corruption, each man was required to get up and confess. Not to the Chinese, but to ten of his peers -- of his fellow prisoners -- fellow students. How he was falling down. How selfish he was. The things he had done that he had ought not to have done. And the things he had left undone that he ought to have done. It was very much like church. It was very moralistic sounding."

"And at first the soldiers undertook this in a rather facetious  vein. They talked about their crimes against humanity back in their past when they had 18 servants and they used to whip 'em every morning. And everybody snickered and it was just kind of a joke. And it continued to be a joke until about almost, oh, I'd say ten days. And all of a sudden it wasn't a joke anymore. And they, like you, or me or anyone began to run out of the facetious constructions to talk about. And they began, genuinely, to talk  about themselves. Hesitantly, at first. But more and more as time went on. And very soon, they developed the feeling that they didn't like this -- that it was dangerous to do this, but that they didn't dare stop. Not because the Communists were  threatening, but because their last vestige of social approval and group acceptance was their participation in this self-criticism kind of meeting."

"And so it was that the soldier came home from this and said, 'That was a strange thing, you know. At first, we thought we'd do it because it kept the Chinese off your back and because it didn't seem to do any harm. And because well, we were all friends and we weren't talking about much else anyway.'"

        "'But after a while, I got the feeling like I was sort of naked standing there in front of the others, like I was undressed, like they could see all of me -- like they could even tell what I was thinking about.'"

       If you don't see the similarity between these techniques used by the Chinese in Korea on our POWs and those being used, now, at the U.S. Naval Academy, then you should go to the back of the class and stand in the corner. The environment is different. The actors are different. But the process is the same -- render the individual vulnerable to his emotions in a process that breaks his resistance to the facilitator's agenda. That is, the indoctrinator or 'facilitator' attempts to change a person's world view -- to render him, at a minimum, passive using peer group pressure.

       The psychological techniques used in the 'ethics' classroom at the U.S. Naval Academy are exactly the same as those which the Chinese used on our Korean War POWs to render 80 percent of them completely 'passive' to their captors' will.
    Do you still believe that these New Age initiatives, undertaken at our premiere military academies are benign?  Do you still believe that Dr. Sherman and her minions are as respectful and full of admiration for the Academy as their uniformed officer protectors claim?

      Irrespective of this situation, the Leadership and Ethics program at the U.S. Naval Academy is adrift. It suffers from the same malaise as that at West Point. That is, in the cavalry charge to claim an ethical basis for every event, every decision, every element of military life, the Mids become confused. Why?  For the most part because the vast majority of these fine young people come from homes where the same sound moral structures are built as described by Admiral Anonymous for years past. When the Academy produced naval officers with superb leadership abilities, as evidenced by their winning the War of the Pacific in WWII and the Cold War.

       These young people sit in class, watch their 'facilitators' search and search for instances in current military practice for cases for small-group discussion. When they fail to see any 'moral' or 'ethical' content in these cases, they look at each other in bewilderment and cast a leery, disinterested eye at the instructor - 'facilitator.' The latter is trying, but just can't seem to connect. The confusion in the program has become evident to the Brigade of Midshipmen. They know 'reaching' and 'stretching' when they see it.
      For example, I have heard first hand of an instance in a recent small group encounter session in the Character Development Seminar wherein the group discussed the film, 'Into Thin Air.' I have criticized this exercise in a commentary in the FORUM section of the Sunday Washington Times.

       It is simply amazing that on 24 August 1999, the U.S. Naval Academy conducted its first 'yard-wide stand-down' of the 1999-2000 year to engage in a character development seminar to discuss a movie based on the 1996 tragedy on Mt. Everest, 'Into Thin Air.' These character development seminars encourage open discussion of ethical issues. They also provide a framework for midshipmen to evaluate alternatives in the choices they will make as leaders in the Brigade and in the Navy and Marine Corps.

       The Academy announced [2] that faculty and staff members will lead the year's seminars which focus on the theme: "Excellence at what cost?" Films and readings generally focus on cases where pursuit of excellence may cloud one's judgment.

       It is hard to believe that the 'theme' for the year's character development seminars will be: "Excellence at what cost?" For God's sake, tell that to any carrier aviator who strives for an 'OK #3 wire' on each landing and gets his butt chewed for being a smidgeon off that ideal. Tell it to any carrier CO who strives each day, each launch and recovery, for the 'magic' 30-second interval between traps/launches -- just a few seconds over the physically impossible. That's just what most young men joined naval aviation to do -- excel!

       So, now, after convincing Congress, the American people, and ourselves to spend billions of dollars on the world's finest aircraft and aircraft carriers, we must now tell everyone that we are flipping it all away in a 'who cares' mind set. "Excellence at what cost?," indeed! Incredible!

       I have seen the 'Into Thin Air' movie. For life of me I cannot imagine any 'ethics' lesson being derived from it -- especially one with a military connection. So the 'facilitators'-- notice they are not using that term any longer (ADM Larson used it explicitly in his description of the Integrity Development Seminars) -- are free to derive any 'ethical' lesson they so desire from it.

       My recollection of the film was that climbers were caught in a freak storm on the ascent and many froze to death. One died right after being on his cell phone with his wife in Australia. I have seen commentary regarding the greed of the guides who were fleecing the climbers at $60K per pop and the poor judgment of these expert guides. But the film itself was free of any judgment or accusation. It simply told a story of the extreme cost of faulty judgments during a freak storm. Thus, the 'facilitators' are free to infer any 'ethical' lesson they might choose from this film. We will never know what those 'lessons' are.

       This raises a serious question. Why does the Academy use movies and topics such as 'Into Thin Air, from which one can choose among a plethora of 'ethical' choices -- all correct -- and look right past 'A Glimpse of Hell' -- which reveals directly and insightfully into honesty, courage, integrity, right and wrong, in both its positive dimension (the young naval officer who 'did the right thing') and its negative dimension (the senior flag officers who lied, misled, deceived, and covered up the true cause of the tragedy on the USS Iowa) in its character development seminars?

       Now, back to a personal account of one of the Character Development Seminar small group discussion of the 'Into Thin Air' theme. One participant told me that he, as the 'facilitator,' tried to weave in his Navy experience into the theme. He told his class of tactical plans that he had devised during his Navy career which had to be modified on the spot as events overtook the plan -- as is true of all plans, military or otherwise. He told his students that he had made mistakes in modifying the plan in real time. He tried to incorporate his experience with failed plans into the 'theme' of the 'Into Thin Air' film.

       This discussion did not go over too well. The students had to stretch to gain any 'ethical' or 'moral' element to his errors in judgment in changing the plan to meet the real world circumstances.

       When we stretch to make such everyday events fit some constrained 'moral' or 'ethical' sense, the students know we are overreaching. They know instinctively that ten pounds of baloney is being forced into a five pound bag. Such is the case for the 'ethics' instruction at the Academy. When 50 or more 'facilitators' attempt to squeeze their own personal military judgment experience into the 'ethics' bag, based on some pre-cooked cockamamie theme, the program is certain to become confused, disoriented, and of little value to the student.

       That is exactly what is occurring at the Academy with the new Leadership and Ethics Program. The leaves are falling. The bare spots are showing. The wind is blowing. The weeds are germinating. And the moral landscape at the U.S. Naval Academy is being rendered vulnerable to moral mischief. We must awaken to this looming disaster.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes:

1) Durant, Will, "The Story of Civilization, Volume II, Caesar and Christ," pp.vii-viii, Simon & Schuster, 1944/1972.
2) Character Development Division, U.S. Naval Academy, "Yard Seeks Summit!," Trident, 20 August 1999.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End of footnotes.

                                                                                                 Return

                                                       Home                                                                    To the Rebuttal Essay list