ADM Charles R. Larson:
The Anatomy of a Closet Leftist©
Gerald L. Atkinson
Copyright 4 July 2002
A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can not longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared.
Cicero, 42 B.C.
Treason is too strong a word to describe what is going on in America today. There are good-hearted, well-intentioned people who are undermining the American republic today just as Rome was being undermined in its day by Cicero’s ‘traitors.’ They act out of the ‘goodness of their hearts’ and in their own best interests – using Cicero’s quote – “[moving] amongst those within the gate freely, [speaking] in accents familiar to their victims, and [wearing] their face and garments...[rotting] the soul of a nation, [working] secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city. [They] infect the body politic so that it can not longer resist.”
Within the context of Chaos Theory, such people – some acting in concert, some acting on their own, and all acting in their own best interests – interact in ways that are unfathomable on the surface, but which taken together in the confluence of ‘little streams’ that feed the ‘roaring river,’ feed a revolution so strong that it cannot be overturned, even by the use of force. These influences, carried by their ‘memes’ (rather than genes,), spread quickly and simply take over a civilization by the shear force of the roaring rapids that propel them. In today’s ‘river,’ the ‘roaring rapids’ are the mass media and those who take advantage of it to spread the gospel of their revolution. The people who carry these influences are the ‘power elites’ of the civilization. Their ‘rapids’ only become visible (to the uninitiated and unaware or the ‘absent minded’ in Irving Kristol’s words) just before the dark cloud of the future they portend descends upon the civilization. Maybe just in time to avert disaster – or maybe not.
One example of this phenomenon is illustrated by the case of Deborah Roffman. She is typical of the Boomer elite, the eight-million or so of the Boomer generation who started their counter-culture revolution in the mid-1960s and attempted to bring it to conclusion by rising to executive power in the 1990s. She is one of those who spawned the women’s liberation movement which became the ‘sexual revolution’ that encouraged young women to assume for themselves the male libido as a mark of being ‘emancipated.’ The societal result of this revolution was a disaster for women. Illegitimate children, single parenthood (resulting in poverty), men who bred and ran (if it was given free, why take the responsibility for the children?), welfare run amok, children raised in foster homes, children raised without fathers growing up in the gang culture, and a resulting, broad scale, gender war between men and women.
Now that this disaster has been visited on America and its results are clear for all to see, what do the Deborah Roffmans of her generation claim (in their middle-age years)? They claim, without acceptance of a shred of blame or guilt for its damage, that they are the ones to lead America out of the darkness of their own making. Ms. Roffman is now a ‘sexologist.’ “The young ones call her ‘The Sex Lady,’ and after 25 years teaching sex education, Deborah Roffman has earned her unofficial title...she believes children are ready for sexual information much earlier than adults think they are. She starts teaching the basics in fourth grade.”
And what is the impetus for teaching our children the ‘basics’ of sex at such an early age? Ms. Roffman claims that “We have to face the fact...that 50 percent of teenagers...have already had sexual intercourse...So for that group of teens – if they are sitting in our classroom and we are only teaching an abstinence message – where have we left them?” The answer, of course, is the classroom today is vacant on the teaching of morality. But Deborah Roffman would not admit to this truth. She would invent her own morality.
It is more instructive to observe where Ms. Roffman and her ilk have left America’s children after teaching them the ‘basics’ of sexual behavior in our K-12 schools – public and private – over the past 30 years. It is a sexual environment in which we now learn that “...a sophomore at a [private school in her locale] secretly videotaped himself having sex with a 15-year-old girl and then played it for his junior lacrosse teammates. A day later, a varsity player borrowed the tape and showed it to his teammates.” Add to this the list of children’s inappropriate sexual behavior: oral sex among middle-schoolers, fifth-graders freak dancing (body grinding) and kindergartners imitating Britney Spears, and you have the sexual environment spawned by the sex-education movement – an outgrowth of the elite Boomer counter-culture revolution that preached to women the credo ‘our bodies, ourselves.’ Even Ms. Roffman admits that the ‘abstinence’ battle in our public schools “...is a subsidiary of the much touted ‘culture wars’” which embody the seeds of the Women’s Liberation movement of the counter-culture revolution of the mid-1960s.
We now are told of parents in an excellent school system reporting that “...their 12-year-old daughter came home from middle school and said, ‘Mom, something yucky happened on the bus today’...a boy and a girl were French-kissing in the seat next to her. The girl was sitting in the boy’s lap and they were making lots of slurpy noises. Across the aisle, another boy and girl were doing the same thing. Then, halfway through the bus ride, the two girls changed places. The new couples started French-kissing.” Yes, indeed, Ms. Roffman’s sex-education program, in place nationwide (as evidenced by the sorry record of Clinton’s Surgeon General, Joclyn Elders), has spawned a monster that will be difficult to slay.
So, what is Ms. Roffman’s answer to this state of affairs. She uses this disastrous result of her ‘sexual revolution’ of the 1960s to attempt to convince us that we must accept a ‘new morality’ based on the supreme central core of our own personal ‘sexuality.’ In an essay in the prestigious Outlook section of the Sunday Washington Post, she uses the language of Cicero’s quote, in this case the language of the ‘conservative’ voice against the sexualizing of our children, to make a very reasoned claim that ‘something is rotten in Denmark.’ Then she gives us her answer – not only more of the same sex-ed that is at the root of the problem, but a more intrusive and damaging notion. We must now accept her as the New Age Goddess of a new religion based on our ‘sexuality.’ She wants to place ‘meaning’ into the sexual being of our children. And, of course, the ‘meaning’ is Ms. Roffman’s gift to mankind – “...the completion of the work of a well-intentioned but long-stalled revolution.” Of course, she is referring to the counter-culture revolution of the 1960s. “Truthfully, what the nation experienced in the ’60s was not a sexual revolution, but a sexual revolt. We tossed out the old ideas but failed to replace them with anything specific enough to make an ethic out of it...Thirty years after the sexual revolt, our children are paying the price for this ethical sloppiness...We’ll have to learn to articulate clearly the specific kinds of situations and relationships that we consider morally acceptable (or not), and why.”
Then Ms. Roffman, a promoter of the homosexual agenda by the way, articulates her New Age ‘commandments’ that are the foundation of her version of the new center of life – our sexuality. They are “...honesty, caring, responsibility, privacy, respect, and mutual consideration,” values that we expect [our children] to bring to any sexual relationship, from first kisses to intercourse in its various forms.” Ah yes, Ms. Roffman wishes to become the New Age High Priestess of our nation’s state-sponsored religion – secular humanism based on a foundation of our ‘sexuality.’ This sounds more like a pagan ethic than one that guides a Christian nation.
At this point, I must share with you the information that Ms. Roffman was the ‘facilitator’ who guided us through the shoals of a workshop devoted to ‘Making Our Schools Safe for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered Youth,’ which I attended and described in an essay at the link Homosexual Sensitivity Training. She invoked the ‘mind control’ techniques of a change agent, ‘sensitivity training,’ to attempt to change the behavior (attitudes) of attendees. Please read that essay at the link above to understand how powerful, invasive, authoritarian, and totalitarian this technique is. And Ms. Roffman has worked this ‘magic’ on “...scores of public and private schools since 1975. She has presented hundreds of workshops for parents and teachers and frequently makes presentations at schools and conferences throughout the United States and abroad.” Deborah Roffman is, indeed, one whom Cicero warned us about centuries ago.
An opponent of Ms. Roffman’s leftist view of America’s future, Alan Keyes, comments on her New Age ‘morality.’ “It seems that every week we hear new horror stories of explicit and even perverse sexual material and ‘instruction’ being imposed on school children in the name of sex ‘education.’ Many decent parents are literally unable to imagine the weapons by which the innocence of our children is assaulted...The primary responsibility for the education our children receive lies with parents. This means parents have a crucial duty to be informed about and prepared to challenge the whole contemporary approach to sex education.”
“At root, the sex-education movement is a symptom of the hedonistic approach to human sexuality that has been promoted in our society in recent decades. The promotion of that hedonistic view of sexuality has itself been the cutting edge of the larger shift toward a selfish and pleasure-seeking philosophy in American life...Significant and influential segments of American society have accepted this philosophy so deeply that the very notion of moral responsibility is incomprehensible to them...Once we accept that there can be no happiness without moral responsibility, we can see that there is no use for sexual passion outside the context of marriage and the responsibility that one takes for both relationship and children. We have a much larger challenge than teaching children how to be sexual beings – we have to teach them how to be moral beings.”
And, of course, Alan Keyes is not speaking of Ms. Roffman’s moral landscape. He is speaking of a morality – including the sexual dimension – on which the Founding Fathers constructed our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights, the bedrock of American civilization. And that foundation, of course, is a Christian morality. Ms. Roffman stated at the introduction of her ‘sensitivity training’ session described in the essay at the link above, “I am proud of three things in my life. I am Jewish, I teach from a ‘multicultural’ context in a diverse classroom, and I am an American – in that order.” It is clear from the damage that she has done, and is doing – especially in promoting the homosexual agenda in Maryland’s public and private school classrooms – that she is a perfect example of Cicero’s warning.
If the Deborah Roffmans of the nation were an isolated phenomenon, they would not be a danger to American civilization. Cicero made allowances for ‘fools’ and ‘even the ambitious’ among us. But the danger lies in the fact that they are joined by others who, acting on their own best interests, contribute their part in carrying the Clintons’ and Ms. Roffman’s counter-culture revolution to completion. An example of this phenomenon is the case of a former Superintendent of the U.S. Naval Academy, Admiral Charles R. Lawson, USN (Ret.), not himself a member of the Boomer generation but an ‘enabler,’ a member of the adaptive Silent generation who ‘enables’ those bent on completing the Boomer counter-culture revolution..
The ‘Reformer’ at the U.S. Naval Academy
Charles R. Lawson, a four-star admiral and commander of the Pacific Command, himself a 1958 graduate, became superintendent of the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis (for the second time) in 1994. It is unusual to have such a high-ranking officer serve as superintendent, but these were unusual times. The Academy had been under stinging criticism of the huge cheating scandal that occurred in 1992, when 133 midshipmen were accused of stealing, and studying from a copy of an exam required for their graduation. One of the midshipmen, Jeff Gantar, wrote a book chronicling the details of the scandal which shook the Academy to its very core. It was clear to all that something was amiss at Annapolis. Many agreed that the Academy had a systemic problem – lowered standards across the board.
This problem had been festering for some time. For example, there is documentary proof of lowered academic standards at the Naval Academy. In 1990, a civilian chairman of the electrical engineering department was relieved of his post in mid-semester because he refused to raise preliminary grades across the board in two electrical engineering courses and refused to raise grading curves 'across the entire [electrical engineering curriculum].' Midshipmen had complained that "...they are being given too hard a time." Many midshipmen were choosing humanities (Poly-Sci -- QPR High, the rallying cry for those who took political science rather than engineering majors to boost their point averages) instead of the academy's traditional technology majors. The chairman was removed because "...he refused a directive [from the military authority] to arbitrarily raise grades given by other instructors in three required courses in electrical engineering." The military leaders had been concerned that midshipmen were receiving low grades in electrical engineering for some time. "For the fall 1989 semester, more than 40 percent of midshipmen in three introductory engineering courses received Ds or Fs." It is clear that the U.S. Naval Academy has been slowly and subtly but determinedly lowering standards over time at the Navy's premiere source of naval officers.
I exposed the truth of this matter in a book, ‘The New Totalitarians.' I attended a meeting of a group of academics who are fighting for a return to high standards of structure, content, and rigor in America's colleges and universities. At that meeting, I met professors from the U.S. Naval Academy. Upon explaining my concept of the root cause of the Navy's fleet-wide 'stand downs,' they were nodding their heads in affirmation. These professors had accumulated over 48 years of cumulative teaching experience at the Naval Academy. They explained that "...fully 30 percent of the midshipmen in their classes were not qualified to be in any college, much less the Naval Academy." They identified the problem as lowered entrance requirements for minorities, women, and football players. They also related that the presence of these sub-par midshipmen resulted in pressure from their supervisors for leniency. This resulted in diminished academic standards. Of course, the outstanding midshipmen were still there in as many numbers as in previous decades but the middle-to-lower group of academically-challenged midshipmen were dragging the academic standards down in all of the technology classes. The remedial nature of the instruction was of such sub-standard quality that it subtly reduced the standards of quality instruction in all of their classes. They had to teach to the level of the sub-standard midshipmen rather than to the traditional, higher levels.
These professors confirmed my findings regarding the adverse effects of adjusting standards to achieve social goals in naval aviation with their own experience at the Naval Academy. They confirmed that the same process is well entrenched at the Naval Academy and that it is no longer possible for a faculty member to set standards independent of outcomes. Their view of the situation was as follows. "Standards are set based on desired political outcomes rather than on the inherent merit of the standard. If a standard does not produce the desired outcome, it is deemed inappropriate regardless of its merit; if a standard produces the desired outcome it is not questioned, regardless of its lack of merit. This lowering of academic standards to meet political goals is directly related to the political pressures over the past fifteen or more years to meet social engineering goals. Most admitted to the Academy are outstanding individuals, but an increasingly significant number of those admitted fail to meet the academic standards of the past.”
“In the early 1990s, the Academy added a Counseling Center, remedial courses, outside contracting for teaching remedial reading and writing, and a new track to allow those who require such remedial studies to count their remedial courses toward the graduation requirement in place of the high-end courses that midshipmen in the 'traditional' track must take. Courses that have been identified as too challenging have been eliminated or 'redesigned to be more reasonable to the needs of today's midshipmen.' Mental challenges are disparaged by administrators as being of no educational value because, it is argued, the answers to those challenges are not facts a naval officer is ever likely to need to know, and 'unreasonable' mental challenges contribute to preventing certain groups from entering the hard sciences and engineering. Many courses, especially those in math, engineering, and science, have had their syllabi adjusted to allow more and more time for remedial work. This is driven by the need to pass as many as possible, which they identify as a philosophy driven by an underlying goal for diversity at the expense of excellence. The most capable, regardless of their physical features (race, gender, etc.) are no longer allowed the same level of mental challenge as once was acceptable at the Academy for 'the best and the brightest,' because those standards conflict with the necessary political outcomes."
Into this morass sailed the new superintendent, ADM Charles Larson. A respected leader, the Sir Galahad of Camelot, would ride in on his white horse and correct the ‘leadership problems’ at the Academy. Of course, he was not and could not be prepared for the tsunami that was rising to swamp the campus in shame for its unacknowledged systemic problem – a problem not amenable to blame on ‘poor leadership’ of individuals and/or individual shortcomings. Indeed, the systemic problems engulfed the Academy in a storm of embarrassing moral ‘scandals.’
The systemic problem, lowering of admission and performance standards at the Naval Academy, was having an affect. James Barry, a professor at the Academy for...seven years, publicly charged that the Navy is adrift and has a broken moral compass. He charged that the problem starts at the Naval Academy which is "...plagued by a serious morale problem caused by a culture of hypocrisy, favoritism and the covering up of problems." Immediately after Barry's criticism appeared in the Washington Post, five current and former midshipmen were charged with taking part in a car-theft ring. On the same day that the car-theft ring was exposed, another midshipman was convicted of selling drugs (LSD) to an undercover police officer and four others pleaded guilty to drug-dealing charges. Nineteen other midshipmen were arrested for using these drugs. All of this came on top of the 1992 cheating scandal wherein up to 133 midshipmen were involved in stealing and/or distributing and using an electrical engineering examination. In addition, a top-ranked midshipman officer was put in the brig in Quantico, VA, accused of sexually harassing four women and threatening one who reported him. Another midshipman was arrested on charges he fondled a toddler while visiting an Annapolis home on leave.
All of this criminal chaos breaking about the heads and shoulders of the midshipman brigade had the Navy’s top leadership shaking their heads in disbelief. They simply had no clue as to the root cause of their dilemma. Or if they did, they were too timid to address it. Many critics of Navy leadership were asking whether or not the problems were systemic. Of course, the Navy, which attempted to deflect criticism of the 1992 cheating scandal by appointing a four-star admiral as Superintendent of the Naval Academy during 1994 (20 months before the latest scandals in 1996), was claiming that the answer is no. The problems are not systemic. ADM Charles R. Larson, an able and respected Navy leader, claimed to have implemented changes that should make the proper course corrections.
Others, some of them former midshipmen who graduated and served their Navy and country well, identified 'problems' at the Naval Academy that range from “...too many capricious and arbitrary rules” to “faculty should be restricted to teaching academic subject matter and should leave leadership education to the professionals [naval officers],” to the fact that “...the root cause of the Navy's problems [is that] about 75 percent of the officer corps is commissioned from other sources.”
In the midst of this controversy which, much to the Navy’s chagrin, went public with Professor Barry’s stinging criticism and the responses in letters-to-the-editor in The Washington Post, ADM Larson took a huge step. He recruited and hired “Dr. Nancy Sherman, a tenured professor in the Department of Philosophy at Georgetown University to fill a newly endowed, full-time ‘ethics chair’ at the prestigious, but oft-plagued Naval Academy.” It is clear that SecNav John Dalton had a big hand in this appointment. Dalton made clear that “...Navy leaders are serious about improving – to the extent possible – the character of midshipmen and those who lead them.” Her new role was to be very broad-based. Indeed, she would be the architect of the New Age ‘ethics’ program at the Academy. “Her new role as special adviser to Academy Superintendent ADM Charles R. Larson [expanded] her earlier responsibilities. Sherman said her ethical advice [crosses] many levels, inside and outside the classroom, and involve both students and faculty members.”
Indeed, the fox had been invited into the chicken coop. See the raging debate regarding Ms. Sherman and her new ‘ethics’ program at the Academy. The essence of this debate is covered in essays at the links: The Nancy Sherman Dilemma, The ADM Stockdale Dilemma, Newspaper Articles, and others listed at the link Ethics Rebuttal Essays. The reasonableness of Atkinson’s criticism of this program is discussed in an essay (submitted to the USNI ‘Proceedings’ for publication – but later withdrawn after a tedious, drawn-out ‘editing’ process) – by a universally respected retired flag-rank officer). See this essay (unedited) at the link The Admiral Who Must Remain Anonymous.
ADM Larson followed this move by appointing ADM Leon ‘Bud’ Edney USN (Ret.) as the first occupant of the newly created Distinguished Professor of Leadership Chair at the Academy. None of this, however, stemmed the tide of immoral acts at the Academy. The school’s systemic problem was defeating every band-aid and public relations gimmick that was thrown at it. Navy flag-rank leadership simply would not admit it, but an affirmative action program gone awry for minorities, women, and football players was lowering the bar for moral as well as academic standards at the Academy.
The crescendo of dissent in the USNA retired community reached such a level that RADM M.D. Van Orden USN (Ret.) published an article in the prestigious journal, Strategic Review, which was very critical of the Academy and its leadership. Van Orden had attempted to publish the article in the U.S. Naval Institute’s ‘Proceedings,’ the journal that would normally be the channel for such a debate, but was finally forced to withdraw his submission because the editorial board insisted that “...he remove a section critical of the effects of the admission of women in 1976.” Van Orden refused and the article was not published where it could have done the most good.
The American Enterprise magazine summarizes Van Orden’s arguments. “He wrote that plebe summer...had been ‘emasculated.’ The admission of women had been ‘ramrodded’ and the result was ‘turmoil.’ Women students...’are disruptive to good order and discipline.’ His suggestion: ‘shut off admission.’ Academy administrators were trying to ‘adjust goals and standards to fit a more permissive society.’ The curriculum had been broadened to courses that were ‘interesting and informative’ but ‘have little to do with the military profession’ (he cited Urban Economics, African Politics, Patterns in Drama, and Topics in Film and Literature). Van Orden suggested, among other things, naming a Marine Corps general as superintendent; reducing the academic workload to free up time for other kinds of training; having midshipmen learn ethics and morality not through classes but at the feet of Navy chief petty officers and Marine gunnery sergeants; and recruiting athletes whose chief aspiration is a military career, not celebrity and lucre. Van Orden’s article no doubt made the rounds with military brass, including Academy officials. ‘Strategic Review’ published numerous responses. But, curiously, there was never a reply from active Navy personnel.”
There was, however, a high-level, ‘independent’ panel convened by the Academy’s Board of Visitors at the request of ADM Larson, the superintendent, to provide him “...a reality check...to see where we’ve gone in the past two years and where we are going.” Of course, ADM Larson got what he wanted – a ‘whitewash’ of his program of leadership and ‘ethics’ at the Academy.
Outside observers, however, were not fooled. In a NAVY TIMES article, Louis J. Cantori (a former Marine and professor of political science at the University of Maryland) disagreed with the reports conclusions. He observed that “...this is a flawed report, which, in its treatment of education, simply reinforces the historical fault line of civilian and military education. It is a report that endeavors to ‘reinvent the wheel’ by not examining the experiences of its sister academies...The academy’s education is dominated by civilians, and that possibly creates an internal contradiction of civilian and military values that leads to a breakdown in behavior and morals...The Naval Academy is astonishingly different from its sister academies. Sixty-three percent of its faculty are civilians, as are the majority of department chairs, its athletics director and administrators. In contrast, 75 percent of the faculty at West Point and the Air Force Academy are military, with 50 percent having a rank of captain and the remaining 25 percent colonels. Academically, these faculty are highly qualified, but equally important, they are warriors (e.g. airborne, special forces, fighter pilots, etc.)...The Naval Academy possesses neither appropriate military role models nor symbols of command. Good order and discipline seem to be difficult to achieve at the significantly civilianized academy. The midshipmen appear to culturally wander between two worlds that only can slow the growth of young warriors.”
Cantori continues, “The civilianization of the Naval Academy also can be seen in the language of the report itself. In its efforts to address the persistent harassment of women, it speaks of the need to ‘recognize diversity as strength.’ This advocacy of civilian cultural pluralism is widely at variance with a military culture that insists on organic solidarity in order to accomplish the war mission...”
Nevertheless, it did not take ADM Larson long after the ‘whitewash’ report to claim that “All’s well at the academy.” But all was not well under Larson’s watch. Nor could it be, given the Academy’s systemic problem. For example, “Among [16 seniors whose graduation was held up this spring (1996) who were handed their diplomas in a ceremony on August 16] was Naomi K. Jackson. A student-run honor board had found Jackson guilty of lying about why she had missed a mandatory dinner. The charges came after she alleged – along with three other female midshipmen – that she had been sexually assaulted by a popular student leader, Scott T. Ward. Larson reversed the honor board’s decision to expel Jackson, however, and allowed her to complete an ‘honor remediation course’ and graduate...[It was recommended] that Ward be expelled.”
ADM Larson’s decision was hotly contested in the NAVY TIMES. “So now we are rescuing ethically challenged midshipman with an Honor Redemption Program? If Ms. Jackson’s honor was questionable to begin with, it’s rather implausible to assume a few meetings with a ‘mentor’ or a well-researched moral treatise will cure the ethical cancer. The bedrock principle of individual integrity cannot be founded on a two-month remediation program. Adm. [Arleigh] Burke forewarned, ‘The integrity of a society or a group is approximately equal to the lowest common denominator of its people.’ Might we consider a liar a rather low common denominator? Academies are responsible for safeguarding time-worn ideals of leadership and integrity; academy graduates must be ready to command, which is inherently impossible without a foundation of trust between officer and enlisted.”
Of course, the letter-writer is correct. The evidence of moral corruption at the Academy is so huge and so transparent that anyone who cares to look can see for oneself. At the same time that ADM Larson claimed ‘all is well,’ we find that the Academy was investigating at least six cases ranging from criminal assault to insurance fraud to sexual assault in women’s sleeping quarters. In spite of this record, ADM Larson retired from the superintendent position with praise from the corporate Navy for his record of ‘cleaning up the act’ at the Academy.
ADM Larson retired as scheduled before Pentagon investigators finished an inquiry into whether he and an aide impeded criminal probes into wrongdoing by midshipmen. “...Larson threatened to publicize an undercover investigation into a midshipmen-run car-theft ring, and backed off only when warned by investigators. In another case, a Larson aide expelled a student for academic reasons after the midshipman had become a vital informant in an investigation into drug use by midshipmen...Larson’s pending retirement comes as the armed forces are under criticism for appearing to maintain a double standard of justice: lower-ranking personnel are punished, while senior officers can retire...ADM Larson was called back to the [Academy] in 1994 to reverse a nationally publicized trend of [midshipmen] misconduct. Four years later, agents for the Pentagon IG are investigating whether the four-star admiral not only curbed wrongdoing, but also tried to improperly contain criminal inquiries and head off bad publicity.”
“In the 1995 drug investigation, 15 midshipmen were discharged through administrative hearings; five were court-martialed and imprisoned. In the 1996 car-theft probe, eight current and former midshipmen were indicted by a federal grand jury. Seven pleaded guilty; one was found not guilty at trial. ADM Larson has clashed with Navy investigators in at least one other case. After first-year Midshipman Diane Zamora told classmates of her role in a 1995 Texas murder, the admiral alerted Texas authorities but failed to tell the NCIS, as Navy instructions required. The Senate formerly voted to confirm the retirements of three- and four-star officers but ended the practice three years ago. Now, the defense secretary simply certifies to the Senate Armed Services Committee that the officer served honorably.” Thus, with his political connections in the Clinton administration, ADM Larson ‘walked.’
In this situation, the Pentagon cleared Larson of charges of interference but raised questions about the actions of his legal aide, Capt. Joseph Scranton who later became the director of operations for the Navy’s judge advocate general, the third highest position in that branch of the Navy. The Washington Times reported that “...a civilian agent for the Naval Criminal Investigative Service complained that academy officials tried to derail investigations of its students...NCIS agents recruited a midshipman in the process of being expelled to assist them in a sting operation that eventually led to the arrest of two midshipmen. According to the complaint, Scranton allegedly notified the midshipman when his expulsion process was completed and suggested that he leave town. Scranton was subsequently absolved of any blame and was awarded no punishment. The whole matter was, thus, successfully muted.
Of course, all of this heat with no light simply diverted attention from the systemic problem at the Academy. The attention paid to personalities masked the underlying darkness that produced the morally-challenged midshipmen in the first place – affirmative action programs gone terribly awry. But the problems did not go away with ADM Larson’s retirement. His replacement, VADM John Ryan, was simply handed the same bucket of worms that Larson had inherited. It has become clear that no amount of four and three-star admirals acting as Superintendent at the Naval Academy could remedy the weak moral foundation of that once highly venerated institution – unless the fundamental problem is identified and addressed.
See the essays at the links Affirmative Action at the U.S. Naval Academy, Cheating at the Naval Academy, and The Pilson Case in order to understand the continued moral and ethical lapses which stem from the systemic problem at the Naval Academy – even during the VADM Ryan years as superintendent (1998-2002). The problem has not been solved to this day.
The Closet Leftist at the Academy
Most of us thought that ADM Larson was a minor player in this drama, that is, was simply protecting his reputation and career by allowing his political ‘masters’ to impose this New Age therapeutic ‘ethics’ program on the midshipmen from above – the office of the President of the United States. But now, as new information has become available, it appears that he played a much larger role and was, indeed, in complete sympathy with the ‘civilianization’ of the leadership and ‘ethics’ curriculum at the Academy.
It turns out that the very man whom the Navy (actually, the Clinton administration) chose in 1994 to reform the Naval Academy and restore that venerable institution’s honor did it more harm than good. This judgment stems from the nature of the new ‘ethics’ program he implemented there and the civilians he hired to design the ‘ethics’ curriculum and teach it. One view of ADM Charles Larson’s tenure as Superintendent was that an honorable man with a good military leadership reputation was forced by civilian superiors to commit such an act – and a military man always follows orders from the Commander-in-Chief. It turns out that ADM Larson was vetted by the radicals in the Clinton administration for the Superintendent position and found to hold the very same views as the most radical feminist and homosexual agenda promoter in that administration. But we were not told of this side of the good admiral until four years after he retired from the Navy out of his position as Superintendent of the U.S. Naval Academy.
It has now been made clear that it was easy for ADM Larson to hire Ms. Nancy Sherman as his close assistant and consultant to implement a New Age ‘ethics’ program at the Academy – a program which undermines the very foundation of the traditional role of training and educating our nations core combat naval leadership. This program, described in detail in the essay at the link: Leadership & Ethics Training at the Academy, uses all of the language of ‘change agents’ who would come to ‘facilitate’ a new set of ethics based on the flawed enlightenment philosophers using Kurt Lewin’s powerful T-group ‘sensitivity training’ methods. And that language is ADM Larson’s, in a memo (over his signature) distributed to Blue and Gold club boosters. These methods would be used, as one feminist ethics professor at the Academy enthused, “...to transform the soul of a 20-year-old.” This is the most damaging ‘accomplishment’ of ADM Larson’s reign at the Academy.
It is also now quite clear why ADM Larson chose Ms. Sherman to be the person who would design the new ‘ethics’ program at the Academy and staff its civilian professors with like-minded radical feminists – male and female. It turns out that ADM Larson has always been in lock step with the agenda of Ms. Sherman’s leftist friends. Ms. Sherman, we find, (see the essay at the link: The Nancy Sherman Dilemma) is a supporter of homosexual domestic partner rights and has championed that cause on national television networks.
When I exposed Ms. Sherman’s new ‘ethics’ program to the public in several articles in the FORUM section of the Sunday Washington Times (see links to them at the link: Newspaper Articles), the Academy went to ‘general quarters’ in an attempt to hide the damage that had been done during ADM Larson’s stewardship. Captain Mark Clemente published a defense of this New Age ‘ethics’ program by hiding behind the heroism of ADM James Stockdale and defended Ms. Sherman and her role in the program. See Atkinson’s Rebuttal Essays to the ‘Proceedings’ Defense which include The Stockdale Dilemma, The Nancy Sherman Dilemma, and Two Major Faults which expose the Academy defense in detail as fatally flawed.
The most damaging evidence that goes a long way to explain ADM Larson’s record as Superintendent at the Academy has only recently become known. It was assumed all along by nearly everyone that Charles Larson, a respected military leader, was a ‘conservative’ Republican in the camp of those described in that vein in the Civilian/Military Culture Gap which became a hot topic of debate during the latter part of the 1990s. After all, he was a registered republican, a friend and former Academy roommate of Senator John McCain who stumped enthusiastically for McCain during his year-2000 presidential bid, a former White House Fellow (1968 under President Johnson) and former Naval Aide to President Nixon during 1969-1971, who, according to according to McCain, was “...the golden boy, marked early for success as a top student and class president...” as a midshipman at the Academy.
You see, recent evidence reveals the ‘real’ Charles Larson. It reveals the working of Cicero’s warning that today’s ‘enemies within’ move amongst those within the gate freely, speak in accents familiar to their victims and wear their face and garments.
ADM Larson has joined the liberal leftist ticket of Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, running for Lt. Governor in her bid for Governor of the state of Maryland in the November 2002 election. In order to run on this ticket, Larson gladly gave up his lifetime-held Republican Party registration and registered as a Democrat. It was reported that “...Despite his military background and Republican leanings, Larson said he is comfortable with Townsend philosophically and is eager to serve. He described himself as conservative ‘when it comes to foreign affairs and national security, but on domestic issues I’m moderate to liberal.’ These moderate-to-liberal views include being pro-choice on abortion, supportive of gun control laws...and pro gay rights.” His strong support of gay rights, a high-profile issue during the radical leftist Parris Glendening administration, stems from the fact that his daughter, Sigrid, is gay and lives in Philadelphia with her partner of 11 years.
It is revealing that Larson, in the four years between his retirement from the Navy as Superintendent of the Naval Academy and his run for Lt. Governor of Maryland served as “...vice president of the University System of Maryland Board of Regents.” In that capacity he served as the chairman of a special commission on higher education in 1998. It is in this capacity that he would most active as Lt. Gov. of Maryland. This is the most alarming development of this new path chosen by Larson. It opens up the avenue for him, a devotee of the homosexual agenda, to proselytize the indoctrination of our children for that agenda in Maryland’s public and private schools.
Larson noted that “...his wife, Sally, is a Democrat, as are all three of his daughters and his sister.” He also said that “...He had grown ‘increasingly uncomfortable’ as he watched ‘the Republican Party drift farther and farther to the right’ on domestic issues.” He said that “...his wife and three daughters had been urging him to switch [parties] for a long time, adding that he did vote for Gov. Parris N. Glendening (D) and Townsend in 1998.” Glendening was the most far-left governor in Maryland’s liberal political history, championing homosexual rights legislation that was ramrodded through the legislature in spite of a failed movement to place it before the citizens of Maryland for a vote. This legislation is now being used as a basis for mandating the introduction of Maryland’s children to the homosexual agenda in grades K-12 in the public and private schools. And therein is the connection to Ms. Deborah Roffman, the ‘Sex Lady.’
What World View Would One Expect from ADM Charles R. Larson?
Two dozen scholars participated in a study of a growing gap in attitudes between prominent U.S. citizens and the nation’s increasingly conservative military elite. The study was run by the Triangle Institute for Security Studies, a research group in Durham, NC. Results were taken from about 4,900 interviews conducted in late 1998 and early 1999. The military officers polled were those considered on a fast track to top jobs; the civilians were selected randomly from Who’s Who and other reference works. The Washington Post reports that “Over the past quarter-century, elite military officers have largely abandoned political neutrality and have become partisan Republican...64 percent now identify with the GOP. [The study states that] ‘...the long tradition of an apolitical military has given way to a new reality in which the elite military is probably the most solidly Republican professional group in American society.’”
The New York Times reported that “...77 percent of officers agreed with the statement that ‘civilian society would be better off if it adopted more of the military’s values and customs; only 43 percent of civilian elites with military experience agreed and just 25 percent of the non-veterans agreed.” The NAVY TIMES chimed in with the report that “...76 percent of the elite military oppose letting gays serve [in the military]; 57 percent of the general public supports letting gays serve.”
The Wall Street Journal, in an article by Thomas E. Ricks, who raised the specter of a growing civilian/military culture gap in his 1997 book, “Making of the Corps,” states that “...Even more striking is the disappearance of uniformed liberalism. In 1976, the ratio of conservatives to liberals in the military was 4 to 1, not surprising for such an inherently hierarchical institution. Now, according to [a poll by Ole Holsti, a Duke University political scientist], the ratio is 23 to 1, with only 3% of senior military officers saying they are ‘somewhat liberal,’ compared with 27% for civilian elites. And this rightward shift occurred even as the officer corps gained more women and minorities, who tend to be more liberal than their white male counterparts.” See the details of this TISS study at the link: The Military/Civilian Culture Gap.
If this reporting is true, how is it that one of the most prominent ‘elites’ of the U.S. Navy, ADM Charles R. Larson, became Superintendent of the U.S. Naval Academy – in charge of educating a future generation of the Navy’s core combat leadership – and preserving the traditional Navy’s ‘conservative’ view of the world? Wouldn’t it be expected that ADM Larson would be one of the 23 to 1 ratio of conservative to liberal military officers in the TISS study? One might have expected such a circumstance except for one very important fact. ADM Larson was vetted for the superintendent position by the Clinton administration, including Clinton’s Secretary of the Navy, John Dalton. It is now crystal clear that this vetting process made certain that ADM Larson’s world view was exactly as liberal-leftist as that of Bill and Hillary Clinton. ADM Larson was their choice. He was to be the one, one of the Navy’s elite military officers represented by that 3% of senior military officers [in the TISS study] who said they are at least ‘somewhat liberal’ in their world view, who would carry the Clinton’s counter-culture revolution to the U.S. Naval Academy.
Thus, ADM Larson was chosen for the position because he would willingly and enthusiastically carry out the mandates of the ruling civilian ‘elites.’ This elite “...sees military culture not as something that contributes to military effectiveness, but as a problem to be eradicated in the name of multiculturalism, sexual politics, and the politics of ‘sexual orientation.’” Conversely, as most of us who have served their nation in combat believe and as stated succinctly by Mackubin Owens “Success in war is the military’s functional imperative. To fulfill its functional imperative, the military must govern itself according to principles different from those of liberal society. Those who have experienced combat or at least have seen ‘Saving Private Ryan,’ can understand why. Those who hold this view argue that the real danger to the Republic does not arise from any militaristic threat to American society, but from the reverse. They are concerned about the ‘civilianization’ of U.S. military culture as the civilian elite seeks to subordinate the military’s functional imperative to a societal one” – namely its ‘socialization.’ It is clear that ADM Larson was chosen to lead the Naval Academy through a process of further ‘civilianizing’ and ‘socializing’ the process of educating our nation’s Navy core combat leadership. And he attempted to accomplish this through ‘talking the talk’ of a tradition-bound conservative while ‘walking the walk’ of a counter-culture revolutionary. He accomplished this by incorporating a Clintonesque New Age ‘ethics’ program into the Leadership Curriculum at the Academy. Nothing could be more debilitating. Nothing could be more subversive. Indeed, Cicero’s warning applies here.
What is significant about a poll which shows military officer ‘elites’ being 23 to 1 conservative and only 3% are ‘somewhat liberal,’ when that 3% have the power to influence an entire generation of future military leadership? ADM Charles R. Larson gives insight into that question. They simply produce an officer corps that will not be able to win our nation’s wars. They use pretenders, and collaborators to carry out their agenda. See the essay on this subject at the link: The Pretender: Anatomy of a Collaborator. And this virus has infected the other military academies as well. One of three sisters who graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, a medical doctor, says “...the academy has changed over the years and now the West Point experience is ‘more leadership and management skills,’ rather than the hazing of plebes that went on in the past. ‘Because warfare has changed, you don’t have hand-to-hand combat any more.”
Please! Are the nation’s military academies turning out fools? Do they read the daily newspapers? Or are they just blind to the realities of today’s world? Or maybe the radical ‘feminization’ of the service academies has been completed according to the counter-culture agenda. Ready to only fight wars which are ‘casualty free.’ Has this female Army officer, a graduate of the prestigious U.S. Military Academy at West Point, not heard of Johnny Spann, the first American combat casualty, killed by Taliban fighters during a prison uprising in Afghanistan? Or Petty Officer 1st Class Neil Roberts, the Navy Seal who was killed in hand-to-hand combat with al Qaeda fighters after falling out of an insertion helicopter in the Tora Bora cave complex in Afghanistan?
Just What Is ADM Charles R. Larson’s World View?
Upon running on the extremely leftist Democrat ticket for Lt. Gov. of Maryland with Kathleen Kennedy Townsend (KKT), we now learn that ADM Larson is now (and always has been) a liberal-leftist in his world view. He was chosen by KKT because “...While at the Naval Academy, Larson established programs of character education and community service.” Of course, the ‘character education’ program was the ‘cultural Marxist’ New Age ‘ethics’ curriculum, including the fatally flawed Character Development Seminars. And mandatory ‘community service’ is a construct as old as socialism itself. It was made mandatory by the world’s most heinous socialist regimes in the 20th century. It is now a cornerstone of the multiculturalism movement in America.
We also know that ADM Charles Larson is (and presumably always has been) a “...strong supporter of gay rights...[since his] daughter, Sigrid, is [a lesbian].” This is a common phenomenon. It is laudable for a parent to stand up and support a daughter in whatever path she might take in life. The unconditional love a parent has for a son or daughter is a human trait. It is not as common, however, for that parent to become a believer in the ideology and plug for the political agenda that has captured a daughter. It is, nevertheless, a fact of life that the homosexual lobby has used parents, sometimes in organized groups such as PFLAG, and often independently and alone to become ‘lobbyists’ for the cause. For example, see the essay Conversation With a Father to understand a father’s support of a daughter who chose the path of women-in-combat in the U.S. Navy.
It is natural, therefore, that ADM Larson so quickly and strongly supported the homosexual agenda in his bid for elected office. Given this fact, it would be beyond credible belief that he had not supported that agenda during his military career, including the time spent as Superintendent of the U.S. Naval Academy. If that is the case, he undoubtedly must support (and had supported while on active duty) the open homosexualization of the military that President Clinton attempted to carry out by executive order in 1993 as his first policy initiative in office.
ADM Larson’s run for Lt. Gov. of Maryland on the KKT ticket tells us much more about ADM Larson’s actions while Superintendent of the Naval Academy than it does about Maryland politics. A huge problem arises in the latter, however, when we find that ADM Larson intends to work on issues associated with the education of Maryland’s children. The combination may become deadly for children and anathema to their parents.
Maryland’s public school system has long been a target of the homosexual agenda. On April 1st, 2000, I attended a workshop on ‘Making Our Schools Safe for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Trans-gendered Youth.’ The event was a public forum sponsored by our Federal Government and State of Maryland tax dollars. The all-day 'workshop' was funded by the Centers for Disease Control, the AIDS Administration of the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, and the Maryland State Department of Education. The one-day 'workshop' was free to the public and served breakfast snacks and lunch free of charge.
The subject of the Saturday 'workshop' was "Just the Facts -- Sexual Orientation and Safe Schools." It was designed for high school staff and families who want to make all schools safe for sexual minority youth in Maryland. Attendance was limited to 100 persons on a first-come, first-served basis. A detailed description of the homosexual agenda for Maryland’s school children, as revealed at this workshop, is provided at the link: A Homosexual Sensitivity Training Session.
The agenda placed before us at that workshop is summarized as follows: The facilitator capped her performance by stating that she is proud of being non-judgmental with regard to knowledge -- in her role as a teacher. But she asserted dramatically that this non-judgmentalism does not extend to behavior. Of course, she meant behavior such as that exhibited by those who oppose the homosexual agenda.
She concluded by saying that "Schools are in the business of promoting a safe school environment for everyone." Of course, who could possibly disagree with this. At issue, however, is the ultimately important question of what constitutes 'harassment.' She and her New Totalitarian cohorts would have us believe that our children’s speech, indeed their and our very thoughts, are subject to scrutiny. And they would be subject to penalties under the law -- their law, that of a totalitarian state.
At the time, I warned “Be aware. Be warned. This may come about in the State of Maryland as a result of laws of which you are not even aware but which are being considered by the Maryland State Legislature. At the time of the workshop (1 April 2000), five such bills were under consideration under the Maryland State Legislation 2000 program.”
By April 2001, one of these bills, the 'Homosexual Rights Act,' which added sexual orientation to a law that prohibits discrimination based on factors such as race, religion and gender, passed the State Senate and the House of Delegates to become law. The law is designed to protect homosexuals from discrimination on the job and in housing.
The workshop ended with an hour-long strategy session during which the organizers urged that each person in attendance work toward influencing their local school board through the 'public health' specialist on that board to implement rules whereby students would be punished for intolerant attitudes toward gay, lesbian or bisexual schoolmates. "Our schools must be made safe for such students." As the older [lesbian] in my sensitivity training session sternly asserted, "When we get punishment for intolerance written into State law -- then we'll have safe schools." Her eyes glared with hatred as she spat out each word.
The Gay Rights Bill, which was the crowning achievement of Gov. Parris Glendening’s second term, provides homosexuals and bisexuals with specific legal protection against discrimination in Maryland. It prohibits discrimination in housing, public accommodations (such as restaurants and theaters) and employment – the same protections given now according to race, religion, gender, age, or condition of disability. Governor Glendening, in testifying for the bill “...invoked the memory of his [42-year-old] brother, who hid his sexual orientation during two decades in the Air Force. Bruce Glendening died of an AIDS-related illness in a Florida hospital.” Glendening, like ADM Charles Larson, became an advocate for the homosexual agenda due to the love of a family member who was a homosexual. The damage of such a circumstance – that to our nation’s children – is beyond measure. Well-intentioned, kind, considerate, empathetic people in high places can wreak damage beyond repair.
The kind of damage that is possible by such people is illustrated by a Glendening quote in The Washington Post. “Glendening said he believes that his administration’s willingness to pursue the measure aggressively has brought a shift in attitudes about homosexuality.” Of course, the agenda is to promote ‘tolerance’ of the homosexual lifestyle in our children’s classrooms – in order to gain acceptance, then celebration, and in the end-of-ends recruitment to that lifestyle.
A resister to the homosexual agenda, Brian Camenker of Newton, MA, answers the question, ‘Why are many of us parents against teaching tolerance of the homosexual lifestyle in the classroom? He wrote, “The answer is that liberals use the word ‘tolerance’ like ketchup. They put it on top of anything that might not taste so good by itself. These ‘tolerance’ sessions are usually a mishmash of left-wing politics and homosexual indoctrination, aimed at kids who are too young to know the difference. We’re told that unless we invert all of our beliefs about individual behavior, then we’re intolerant...Finally, we’re all sick and tired of putting up with the liberal rage, just because we happen to have different opinions. If you don’t want us to complain, don’t throw this in our faces.” Another common sense argument opposing homosexuality and the proselytizing of it in our children’s schools is provided at the link: A Parent Speaks Common Sense About Homosexuality.
The Gay Rights Bill, which was to become effective on 1 October 2002, was resisted by ad hoc organizations with little coordination, money, legal assistance, or political clout. But by Herculean individual citizen effort they managed to obtain enough signatures on petitions to bring the proposed law before a vote in a referendum in the November 2002 election. These petitioners claimed that in spite of the fact that the bill “...does not endorse homosexual ‘marriage,’ domestic-partner benefits or teaching about homosexuality in school, it is the first step in furthering such measures.” And they were correct, as we shall see later.
The loose coalition of religious activists, political conservatives and home-schooling families launched a petition drive that gathered “...Of the more than 56,000 signatures submitted by the coalition, elections officials certified 47,539 – about 1,400 more than the group needed. Maryland becomes only the second state after Maine to ask voters whether to repeal a law that bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”
But the resisters did not have the practical experience in the details of Maryland’s arcane political jungles nor the legal expertise to fend off a counterattack by the rich and powerful homosexual lobby. Unlike the Ross Perot campaign for president in 1992 and 1998 which had the funds to hire ‘professional’ petitioners, the Homosexual Rights Resisters used volunteers – inexperienced, unaware, and naive. The powerful homosexual lobby found potential problems with about 7,500 of the signatures for the referendum. If these findings were to be upheld by Maryland officials, the law would take effect without voter approval.
At the legal urging of the homosexual lobby, a Circuit Court judge appointed a special master to review the signatures on the petitions. In addition, the judge ruled that the opponent organizers would have to pay ten percent of the opposition’s legal fees. Without funds to pay court costs and without effective legal counsel, the resisters were forced to drop their effort to pursue a statewide referendum vote on the Homosexual Rights Bill. It became law on 21 November 2001.
In spite of the fact that the homosexual rights activists denied claims of the opposition that the law would be used to introduce the homosexual agenda into the curriculum of Maryland’s schools, it didn’t take but six months after the bill’s passage that the activists were at work doing just that. The homosexual lobby attempted to use the statute to introduce regulations that would impose homosexual-friendly materials into the K-12 school curricula. This would be accomplished under the rubric of ‘making our schools safe for lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans-gendered youth.’ They organized hearings before the State of Maryland Board of Education to leverage the ‘gay rights’ bill into a demand for ‘tolerance’ of the homosexual lifestyle in the states public and private schools.
I attempted to give testimony before the State Board of Education on that subject in a hearing process that would accept only ten persons to appear before it. Those who wished to testify were told to call at eight o’clock in the morning to get on the list. I called precisely at the appointed time, only to be told that the allotted ten-person list had already been filled. When asked how that could be when the start-time for calling in to volunteer was eight o’clock, the lady in charge said, “I’m sorry, but the last person accepted called at 7:45 a.m. We are obligated to answer our phones when they ring.” When asked how I might submit written testimony to the State Board of Education, she gave me a mailing address. I found out later that the person who screens the written testimony before it is sent to the Board is a full-fledged, out-of-the-closet homosexual. Sending in testimony in opposition to the open homosexualization of Maryland’s children would not see the light of day before the State Board of Education.
Now, can we begin to see how ADM Charles Larson, serving as Lt. Gov. of the state of Maryland with a keen interest in the state’s education apparatus, would be a disaster for children in the state’s public and private schools? A powerful supporter of the homosexual agenda near the top, coupled with the ‘Sex Lady,’ Deborah Roffman and her ilk working the parents, administrators, and teachers at the bottom, would be a disaster for the children of Maryland and their parents.
It is clear that ADM Larson will be working at the top to support Ms. Roffman’s sexual agenda, including the ‘tolerance’ of the homosexual lifestyle in our schools. Ms. Roffman uses the statistical results of the failed sex-ed experiment over the past 30 years to claim that the solution is more of the same flawed education of our children. She cites the data, “Every year, nearly 10 percent of teenage girls become pregnant; teens acquire an estimated 3 million sexually transmitted infections every year; 25 percent of new HIV cases occur in people under the age of 20; 50 percent of all ninth-through 12th-grade students have already had sexual intercourse.” Of course, she fails to mention that before sex-ed became a fixture in our public K-12 schools, in the 1940s and 1950s, each of these same statistical categories were negligible to nonexistent. That was an age when the girls were encouraged by every institution in the land (schools, churches, media, scouts, and family) to ‘just say no’ to sex outside of marriage.
Nevertheless, Ms. Roffman, the self-acclaimed Goddess of Sexuality, regards any urging for abstinence from a Christian ‘moral’ view as somehow ‘degrading’ and shows a ‘lack of respect’ for the children. She uses the language of conservativism to plug for abstinence education but then uses her big guns to promote “...information about methods of protection...” in our children’s classrooms. She claims that all [parents] want their children eventually to embrace their sexuality and learn to enjoy it as a positive life force.” Of course, with Deborah Roffman as the Goddess at the shrine of the New Age ‘life force.’ Indeed, Ms. Roffman and ADM Larson will become a team, a fixture in the promotion of the New Age ‘sexuality’ message – including the open homosexualization of Maryland’s public and private schools if the latter is elected to public office in 2002.
Now, hasn’t it become crystal clear that the power figure at the U.S. Naval Academy, who introduced the ‘cultural Marxist’ agenda into the new ‘ethics’ program there, would be ever so more destructive as the closet leftist in charge of ‘making our schools safe for lesbian, homosexual, bisexual and trans-gendered youth’ on the road to forcing ‘tolerance’ of the homosexual lifestyle down the throats of the parents of children in Maryland’s public and private schools? Indeed, Larson’s record now makes clear that he was and now personifies the Anatomy of a Closet Leftist.
So, just what was and now is the world view of ADM Charles R. Lawson, former Superintendent of the U.S. Naval Academy and currently a candidate for Lt. Gov. of the State of Maryland? His world view must, of necessity, incorporate all of the elements of those masters whom he has served and will serve – Bill and Hillary Clinton and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend – all ‘foot soldiers’ in the counter-culture revolution of the 1960s, inspired by the intellectual foundation of the revolutionaries of the Frankfurt School. This world view must then of necessity include the following:
q The open homosexualization of the U.S. military. This was the first political act of President Clinton in 1993.
q The feminization of the nation’s combat arms. This was the second political act of the Clinton administration affecting the military in 1993. It will attempt to include women in ground combat positions in the future.
q The imposition of quotas for recruitment, selection for choice service training (e.g. jet pilot training), billets, promotion, and duty stations all according to ADM Jeremy Boorda’s (another Clinton appointee) explicit and public policy of 12/12/5 and 20. That is, 12 percent blacks, 12 percent Hispanic, 5 percent Asian and 20 percent women.
q Opening Maryland’s public and private K-12 schools to the homosexual agenda under the guise of promoting ‘tolerance’ in a multicultural learning environment which will convey an image of the homosexual lifestyle as an accepted standard and norm. The tactics will include ramrodding ‘hate speech’ regulations to be enforced by school administrators and using the cover of ‘making our schools safe for lesbian, homosexual, bisexual, and trans-gendered youth’ to implement their agenda. The agenda will progress from ‘tolerance’ to ‘acceptance’ to ‘celebration’ to ‘recruitment.’
q Acceptance of the use of ‘change agents,’ ‘facilitators,’ and provocateurs and behavior modification techniques such as ‘sensitivity training’ to force their radical leftist agenda on the unsuspecting students, parents, school boards, and citizens of the State of Maryland.
q Enable those with views so beyond the pale to work their magic on the uninitiated, unaware, and ‘absent minded’ in areas that are morally unacceptable to 99.999 percent of Americans. For example, ADM Larson hired the civilian New Age ‘ethicists’ at the Naval Academy, who, only a couple of years after he retired as Superintendent, mandated that an essay by Peter Singer be required reading in the NE-203 (Ethics and Moral Reasoning for the Naval Leader) course.
So, just who is Peter Singer? And why is he viewed as ‘unacceptable’ to nearly all mainstream Americans? Professor Singer is the Australian-born bio-ethicist who holds the Ira W. DeCamp Distinguished Chair at Princeton. Singer recently wrote in support of a bestiality book review posted on the Web site Nerve.com. In his review of Dutch biologist Mida Dekker’s book, ‘Dearest Pet: On Bestiality,’ titled, ‘Heavy Petting, Singer said, “Not so long ago, any form of sexuality not leading to the conception of children was seen as, at best, wanton lust, or worse, a perversion. One by one, the taboos have fallen. The idea that it could be wrong to use contraception in order to separate sex from reproduction is now merely quaint.”
Singer follows this logic to question the taboo on sex with animals. “When it comes to sex with farm animals, the only real issues are whether you get the animal’s consent – and you don’t kill it as part of your pleasure.” Singer also writes that, “Our physical similarities with other mammals – mostly genital – are so strong that the taboo on bestiality stems not from physical differences but from our desire to differentiate ourselves, erotically and in every other way, from animals…Who has not been at a social occasion disrupted by the household dog gripping the legs of a visitor and vigorously rubbing its penis against them? In private not everyone objects to being used by her or his dog in this way, and occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop.”
Singer, the primary founder of the animal liberation movement, thinks there is no important distinction between humans and animals, so approval for human-animal sex has always been implied in his work. “His review includes a detailed discussion of chickens that many readers will be eager to skip.”
Bestiality is not the only taboo, which Peter Singer wishes to abolish. He is also a proponent of neonaticide, that is, the legal destruction of newborn humans up through the 28th day after birth. Consequently, he has become known as 'Professor Death,' for his radical views advocating the killing of physically handicapped infants.
More recently, Peter Singer has argued that “Christianity is harmful to animals…He defined ‘species-ism’ as a belief by humans that they are ‘superior to any other being.’ He said that the Judeo-Christian ethic teaches that humans are made in the image of God and that God has given mankind ‘dominion’ over animals. Coupled with the belief that only humans have souls, and animals do not, this belief has a ‘very negative influence on the way in which we think about animals.”
It took four years after ADM Larson’s flawed ‘ethics’ initiatives at the U.S. Naval Academy were discovered, understood, and partially rectified. Only after the damaging aspects of the new ‘Character Training Seminars’ were reported in the public press (See the Washington Times article at the links: FORUM 9-19-99, FORUM 11-21-99, FORUM 2-13-00 ) was the seriously flawed film series discontinued. And only after it was exposed that Peter Singer’s text was mandated as required reading in the NE-203 Ethics for Naval Leaders course – and who Singer was and what he stands for was exposed (See the essay at the link: Cultural Marxism at the Naval Academy – did the Academy finally remove Singer’s text from the required reading list. The above accomplishments are small victories, but victories nevertheless, for the Concerned Alumni group which formed to oppose ADM Larson’s ‘socialization’ of the Academy through the introduction of Dr. Nancy Larson’s New Age ‘ethics’ program.
ADM Charles R. Lawson’s record as an ‘enabler,’ while serving as Superintendent of the U.S. Naval Academy, for those who would introduce Peter Singer’s text as ‘required reading’ there, thereby opening the door for future ‘preaching’ of a New Age ‘ethics’ from a doctrine of moral depravity to the midshipmen there, is only a precursor of what damage he will do to the education of school children of Maryland if he is elected to the Lieutenant Governorship in the November 2002 election. How many years will it take for the State of Maryland to discover the damage that the Kathleen Kennedy Townsend/ Charles Larson ticket will do? Who will be there to pick up the pieces? If their past record is taken into account, the Townsend/Larson governance will lead the State of Maryland into a dark age.
) Dawkins, Richard, “The Selfish Gene,” Oxford University Press, pp.192, 1976, 1989.
2) Dawkins, Richard, “The Blind Watchmaker,” W.W. Norton & Co., 1987, 1986. “[Memes] are patterns of information that can thrive only in brains or the artificially manufactured products of brains – book, computers, etc...[They] propagate themselves from brain to brain, from brain to book, from book to brain, from brain to computer, from computer to computer. As they propagate they can change – mutate...They are manifested in the phenomenon we call cultural evolution.”
3) Kristol, Irving, “The Emerging American Imperium,” The Wall Street Journal, 18 August 1997.
4) Slobogin, Kathy, CNN Washington Bureau, “Schools lax in tackling touchy subject?: Educator, author; Teach sex education earlier,” http://fyi.cnn.com/2001/fyi/teachers.ednews/04/18/sex.ed/?s=8, 18 April 2001.
6) Kelleher, Kathleen, “Don’t Let TV Be Your Teenager’s Main Source of Sex Education,” The Los Angeles Times, 30 April 2001.
7) Roffman,Deborah M., “Abstain, Yes: but With Your Eyes Wide Open,” The Washington Post, 2 September 2001.
8) Trafford, Abigail, “Don’t Blame Kids For Failing Sex Ed,” The Washington Post, 26 September 2000.
9) Roffman, Deborah M., “What Our Kids Know About Sex: All Mechanics, No Meaning,” The Washington Post, 9 June 2002.
0) The DEAK Group – Deborah M. Roffman, M.S., “Human Sexuality Educator and Consultant,” http://www.deakgroup.com/droffman.html.
1) Keyes, Alan, “Moral education,” Culture, et cetera, The Washington Times, 30 May 2001.
2) Gantar, Jeff and Patten, Thomas G., “A Question of Honor: The Cheating Scandal That Rocked Annapolis and a Midshipman Who Decided to Tell the Truth,” Zondervan Publishing House, 1996.
3) Weil, Martin and Leff, Lisa, "Naval Academy Relieves Head of Department: Chairman Was Asked to Raise Grades," The Washington Post, 25 February 1990.
4) Mitchell, Brian, "Firing raises old questions about academy's role: Institution again debates 'university' idea at Annapolis," NAVY TIMES, 19 March 1990.
5) Atkinson, Gerald L., “The New Totalitarians,” Atkinson Associates Press, June 1996.
6) U.S. Naval Academy Professors who will remain anonymous for obvious reasons, "Lowered Academic Standards at the U.S. Naval Academy," private conversations, 6 April 1996.
7) Anonymous professors at the U.S. Naval Academy, "Private communication," 6 June 1996.
8) Barry, James F., "Adrift in Annapolis: To Understand Why the Navy's Moral Compass Is Broken, Start at the Naval Academy," The Washington Post, 31 March 1996.
9) Scheets, Gary, "Annapolis caught in new scandal: 5 current, former midshipmen charged with roles in car thefts," The Washington Times, 12 April 1996.
20) Stuckey, Tom, "Cluster of incidents poses query: What's ailing midshipmen?," The Washington Times, 21 April 1996.
21) Janofsky, Michael, "Are Annapolis's Problems Systemic?," The New York Times, 21 April 1996.
22) Larson, C.R., Superintendent of the U.S. Naval Academy, "Adrift in Annapolis: Rough Seas," Letters to the Editor, The Washington Post, 6 April 1996.
23) Hemry, John G., "Rough Seas (Cont'd)," Letters to the Editor, The Washington Post, 13 April 1996.
24) Pallas, Greg, "Adrift in Annapolis: Rough Seas," Letters to the Editor, The Washington Post, 6 April 1996.
25) Paddock, Charles G., "Rough Seas (Cont'd)," Letters to the Editor, The Washington Post, 13 April 1996.
26) Lawson, Chris, “Academy appoints leading ethicist to new position, NAVY TIMES, 16 December 1996.
27) Staff and Wire Reports, “Academy gets leadership chair,” NAVY TIMES, 5 May 1997.
28) Van Orden, M.D. RADM and Coerr, Stanton S. CAPT USMC, “Reverse Engineer the Academy: Toward Restoring Service Integrity,” Strategic Review, pp. 56, Fall 1997.
29) Meroney, John, “Is the Naval Academy Off Course?” The American Enterprise, July/August 1999.
31) Dominguez, Alex, “Scandal-rocked academy seeks ‘reality check’ from new panel,” The Washington Times, 1 October 1996.
32) Scully, Sean, “It’s ‘fundamentally sound: But Naval Academy has problems,’” The Washington Times, 24 June 1997.
33) Ramos, B.J., “What the Academy commission found,” NAVY TIMES, 14 July 1997.
34) Cantori, Louis J., “Fix Naval Academy by restoring military emphasis,” NAVY TIMES, 1997.
35) Ramos, B.J., “Larson: All’s well at academy,” NAVY TIMES, 10 November 1997.
36) Anderson, Jon R., “No silver lining in sight: Clouds still loom over beleaguered USNA,” NAVY TIMES, 2 September 1996.
37) Stowe, Graham S., “Honor begins at Academy,” Mail Call, NAVY TIMES, 19 August 1996.
38) “Academy misconduct investigated,” NAVY TIMES, 17 November 1997.
39) Argetsinger, Amy, “Academy Gives 4-Star Send-Off: Praise Heaped on Retiring Admiral for Restoring Morale,” The Washington Post, 5 June 1998.
40) Scarborough, Rowan, “Naval Academy chief will retire amid probe,” The Washington Times, 29 May 1998.
41) Annapolis, “Naval Academy head cleared of interference,” The Washington Times, 31 May 1998.
42) Argetsinger, Amy, “Missteps By Lawyer Alleged: Study to Clear Chief Of Naval Academy,” The Washington Post, 31 May 1998.
43) Scarborough, Rowan and Gertz, Bill, “Not even censure,” Inside the Ring, The Washington Times, 5 February 1999.
44) Donovan, Aine, "The Case for Ethics Education," Shipmate, pp. 7, January-February 1999.
45) Feaver, Peter D. and Kohn, Richard H., eds., “Soldiers and Civilians: The Civil-Military Gap and National Security,” MIT Press, 2001.
46) Argetsinger, Amy, “Academy Gives 4-Star Send-Off: Praise Heaped on Retiring Admiral for Restoring Morale,” The Washington Post, 5 June 1998.
47) Kurtz, Josh and Dennison, Thomas, “Lt. Governor selects retired four-star naval man as No. 2 slot,” The Prince George’s County Gazette, 4 July 2002.
48) Montgomery, Lori, “Retired Admiral Enlists for Md. Race: Townsend Chooses Ex-Republican Who Ran Naval Academy,” The Washington Post, 28 June 2002.
50) Ibid, Prince George’s County Gazette.
51) Graham, Bradley, “Civilians, Military Seen Growing Apart: Study Finds Partisan Armed Forces ‘Elite,’” The Washington Post, 18 October 1999.
52) Clymer, Adam, “Sharp Divergence Found in Views of Military and Civilians,” The New York Times, 9 September 1999.
53) Matthews, William, “Survey: Cultural, political gap growing,” NAVY TIMES, 29 November 1999.
54) Ricks, Thomas E., “Military Is Becoming More Conservative, Study Says,” The Wall Street Journal, 11 November 1997.
55) Owens, Mackubin Thomas, “Gaps, real and imagined: American society vs. military culture,” The Washington Times, 1 November 1999.
56) Werneth, George, “A West Point family affair: Stacie Gowdy follows her two sisters in graduating from military academy,” The Mobile Register, 7 July 2002.
57) Moskos, Charles, “Our Will to Fight Depends on Who Is Willing to Die,” The Wall Street Journal, 20 March 2002. “The flag-draped coffins coming back from Afghanistan raise again the question of our country’s resolve to wage a war with mounting casualties...If we want Americans to accept combat casualties, there are only two ways: Bring back a draft that starts conscription at the top of the social ladder; or establish recruitment appeals that will garner some share of privileged youth. Otherwise, our armed forces will be an ineffective instrument in any war...unless it remains virtually casualty free.”
58) Ensor, David, “CIA officer first U.S. combat death in Afghanistan,” http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/11/28/ret.cia.death.afghanistan?related, 28 November 2001.
59) “Navy SEAL died ‘doing what made me happy,’” The Washington Times, 9 March 2002.
60) Ibid, Montgomery, Lori.
61) Mosk, Matthew, “Md. House Passes Gay Rights Bill in ‘Big Step Forward: Glendening Made Anti-Bias Measure a Priority,’” The Washington Post, 31 March 2001.
63) Camenker, Brian, “Tired of Liberal Rage,” Letter-to-the-Editor, Newton Tab, undated.
64) Hyslop, Margie, “Anti-gay-bias law delayed for referendum,” The Washington Times, 20 July 2001.
65) Montgomery, Lori, “Md. Public To Decide Gay Rights Measure: Protections on Hold After Opponents Win Referendum of ’02,” The Washington Post, 20 July 2001.
66) Associated Press, “Gay rights foes questioned about petitions,” The Washington Times, 26 October 2001.
67) Stuckey, Tom, “Gay rights law foes must pay court,” The Washington Times, 1 November 2001.
68) LeDuc, Daniel, “Md. Law On Gay Bias Goes Into Effect: Foes Drop Effort For Statewide Vote,” The Washington Post, 22 November 2001.
69) Roffman, Deborah M., “Abstain, Yes: But With Your Eyes Wide Open,” The Washington Post, 2 September 2001.
71) Mallon, John, “Positively beastly: Lock the barn door,” The Washington Times, 11 April 2001.
72) Editorial, “Animal Crackers,” The Wall Street Journal, 30 March 2001.
73) Billups, Andrea, “Review of book on bestiality earns Polly: Students finger Princeton prof,” The Washington Times, 2 April
74) Leo, John, “Golden age of craziness,” The Washington Times, 18 April 2001.
75) Price, Joyce Howard, “Princeton bioethicist argues Christianity hurts animals,” The Washington Times, 4 July 2002.