<p>I thought this article did a great job of presenting the atmosphere at USNA these days. My Buddy found it, he's former 2011 (as am I) and now at Yale.</p>
<p>If the link doesn't work, I will post the full article.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Murray said that, while he was appalled by the ignorance of the incoming freshmen, he found that the students in one of his senior seminars were “by far and away” superior to those he had taught at Yale and elsewhere
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think I would prefer Webb's balding frumpy old professors in their rumpled brown suits to ignorant arrogance such as this.</p>
<p>Interesting article... If anything though, I'd say it presents the perspective that the writer was looking for.</p>
<p>And whether or not it is correct is immaterial?</p>
<p>While one must consider the source in considering this rambling fluff, there are some interesting observations.</p>
<p>I was particularly struck with visiting prof. Murray's observation that most all the USMC commissions were Div III majors, and they were thus siphoning off many of those better prepared to interpret and lead the world in the coming years.</p>
<p>I'm hoping 69 and others with insight might comment on that particular observation. </p>
<p>Not sure being "correct", aside from some PC, should be the measure of merit or otherwise for this piece. Lending any genuine validity to a NY Times interpretation is laughable. The good news is that their stock was tanking long before Fannie and Freddie, and like them will soon become artifacts in the library's basement archives.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And whether or not it is correct is immaterial?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Good point. Whether or not it was correct is important. However, I scribbled off that post as I was on my way out the door this morning, so please excuse me for its brevity... </p>
<p>For starters, this a Times article, so going in you have to realize that it will have a particular "slant to it" (btw, I'm not trying to turn this into a liberal media bashing post, just pointing out the obvious that fact that the Times is a predominantly liberal media outlet in the same way that Fox news is a predominantly conservative outlet). Going in with that mindset, it makes sense that the article proceeds to paint the Academy of John McCain's era in a particularly negative light. It also makes sense that they attempt to paint today's midshipman as predominantly Obama supporters (in attempt to call into question military personnel's support of McCain and the Republican party at large)</p>
<p>Going in with that mindset, the article is a bit easier to digest. It even makes one or two good points as well. Most importantly, it applauds the fact that the Academy tenures its professors, which allows more academic freedom, but more importantly, attracts a better caliber of professor. As a history major, I found both my civilian and military profs to be outstanding. Not only where they good instructors, but they also made themselves available to the mids. Furthermore they avoided injecting there own political views in their lessons. The writer also talks about the constant "struggle" between the group 1 and group 3 majors. Throughout plebe year the Academy overtly encourages you to go engineering, at times even threatening to choose majors for you. Thankfully, that hasn't seemed to manifest itself yet.</p>
<p>From there though, I quibble with a lot of points the writer attempts to argue. For example:</p>
<p>
[quote]
And they teach pretty much what professors teach elsewhere — though the Navy permits academic innovations only after long usage elsewhere has removed any taint of novelty. The department of language studies now includes Arabic and Chinese. There’s a class on the 2008 election. The Center for Middle East and Islamic Studies represents a hesitant move toward regional studies.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The offerings of the language department, like the rest of the Academy, are somewhat limited. The Naval Academy isn't a school like Penn State with over 40,000 students. It is not going to offer classes on every imaginable subject because there simply are not enough students to fill the classes. Specifically, with the language department, they offer only languages that pertinent to our national defense (or something like that). The total is somewhere in the neighborhood of 7-10. As far as Arabic and Chinese are concerned, since they have become increasingly important for national defense in the past 5 or 6 years, the Academy has upgraded both Chinese and Arabic to the level of academic majors.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Murray said that, while he was appalled by the ignorance of the incoming freshmen, he found that the students in one of his senior seminars were “by far and away” superior to those he had taught at Yale and elsewhere in their “level of sophistication, writing ability, understanding of history, capacity to connect the dots between different periods.” These students are just as inclined as good students everywhere to question established wisdom. One professor told me he had polled a group of upperclassmen on the presidential race this past May. He was shocked to read the final tally: Hillary Clinton, 0; the war hero and Navy legend John McCain, 7; Barack Obama, 13.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In this paragraph, the juxtaposition of the statements about the "level of sophistication" of Academy seniors and the election poll seem to imply that this "level of sophistication" leads them to favor Barack Obama.</p>
<p>The most trouble quote is: </p>
<p>
[quote]
The students who stick to engineering, he said, may “make great officers in nuclear submarines,” but “the danger is when they become admiral they will not have the intellectual preparation to handle the world we’re in.” What’s more, the one-fifth or so of graduates who elect to join the Marines have very little use for all those mandatory science classes. Future marines, Murray observed, tend to major in Division III, thus “siphoning off many of those who are going to understand the international environment of the 21st century.”
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have problems with this on several different levels. First, the statement about Admirals not having the intellectual preparation seems a bit absurd. Once again, in this case you also have realize the source of the quote as a professor who "taught last year at Annapolis." In between the Academy and becoming an Admiral, there are a few stepping stones in your 20-30 year Naval career to get to that point. There are multiple tours at sea and on land where you never stop learning real world lessons about leadership and the world around you. On top of that, it seems almost a pre-req to flag rank are graduate degrees. Many Admirals and Generals often have multiple degrees in areas such as international studies and national security from some of the top schools in the country. What is infinitely more troubling about the quote is how Marine group 3 majors are "siphoned off" which makes clear that Marines are somehow secondary and don't really need to understand the "international environment." The level of absurdity in this statement lay in the fact that Marines on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan need more than anyone else in the Naval Service to understand the "international environment" that they are dealing with on a daily basis!</p>
<p>
[quote]
When I contacted a public-affairs official to say that I was writing an article comparing the academy of McCain’s day with today’s, she wrote back saying that “as a federal government and military installation, we will not be able to assist you with your story since we cannot be involved with political campaigns or in any way imply any endorsement of a political candidate.” I would not be permitted to speak to faculty, students or administrators.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Fortunately for me, any number of faculty members viewed this directive as preposterous
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How is that preposterous? The Academy and the military in general is very careful not to take sides politically. Obviously much of the faculty is civilian so they may not realize the importance of this rule.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So far as I could tell, the Naval Academy has no dark secrets to hide.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Exactly, theres no great conspiracy, just the obvious answer to why they do not want to comment on a political article.</p>
<p>Over my four years, my perspective was that the Brigade of midshipman was a predominantly conservative body. Sure there were many with more liberal views, but a fundamentally conservative atmosphere pervaded much of the Brigade. That being said though, politics was never really a hot button topic with people. It was not usually discussed at tables, and when it was, the conversations were extremely civil. As far as the stance it takes on the Academy of McCain and Webb's timeframe, I will leave that for the more senior alumni.</p>
<p>I haven't had time to digest it either. It was just that the initial reading rubbed me the wrong way in several places. I think you have hit on most of them. I guess the Academy by law shot itself in the foot by not allowing an indepth interview but 'allowing' him to talk to the professors. It was definitely biased in that direction. More to follow.</p>
<p>I would LOVE to turn the tables on this guy.</p>
<p>Put 7 conservative students in any typical high-end college classroom....the rest are all Obama and Democratic supporters, from the professor on down.</p>
<p>Now have the 7 raise their hands and see if they garner the SAME decency and respect that twice that many "Obama-ites" of a Naval Academy classroom/professor receive as a ROUTINE MANNER OF INTEGRITY, COURTESY AND RESPECT.</p>
<p>Don't hold your breath.</p>
<p>itlstallion....my husband refused to talk about his '68-72 USNA experience until 25 years post-graduation. It was too raw, too painfully full of memories, esp. of the hazing he personally endured. This quiet, pastor's son from rural MN was hugely unprepared for what lay ahead when he arrived on I-Day.</p>
<p>Now....those memories are just that....memories and when he connects with old Classmates it's the good times they recall.</p>
<p>But as late as '72 grads, Webb's experiences were still fairly common.</p>
<p>And my hubby's assessment watching his girl go through this crucible 21st century-style? It's vastly improved and while all things need fine-tuning on a regular basis - he much much prefers this newer 'refined' USNA leadership-laboratory for midshipmen than the one he experienced first-hand.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But as late as '72 grads, Webb's experiences were still fairly common.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't doubt it. I read "A Sense of Honor" during my plebe year. Despite hating life during my first semester, the book made me realize the extent which the level of abuse had been downgraded. what troubled me was:</p>
<p>
[quote]
they were not encouraged to think critically. McCain was forged by a culture of certitudes and offers himself today as a man of steadfast principle, stubborn conviction and a cocky, fighting spirit. Those were the unexamined virtues of his Naval Academy and of his fathers and grandfathers Naval Academy.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>However, since I did not experience the Academy firsthand 40 years ago, I don't feel quite qualified to make any sweeping statements about the article as it pertains to the old system.</p>
<p>"Now have the 7 raise their hands and see if they garner the SAME decency and respect that twice that many "Obama-ites" of a Naval Academy classroom/professor receive as a ROUTINE MANNER OF INTEGRITY, COURTESY AND RESPECT."</p>
<p>I thought this was the main point of the article. In addition to considering the source, we must consider the audience: the NY Times' liberal audience. From the persective of the readers, the service academies must brainwash mids into a monolithic, Bush doctrine mindset, & brutally silence independant thought.</p>
<p>This author is attempting to present a more nuanced, more accurate view of the Academy to these ignorant readers.</p>
<p>I don't know what classroom the reporter could possibly have been poling. It's possible that he was in a remedial math or chem class. Those have disproportion numbers of black & brown mids, & they tend to be Obama supporters.</p>
<p>That being said, there is much more political discussion at USNA than is generally acknowledged. There was some tension over which news station to show in King Hall at morning meal: Fox, CNN, or MSNBC? The Plebe US Government classes tend to be taught by left leaning teachers-civilian or military-in, I'd say, a deliberate attempt to stimulate political discussion.</p>
<p>On a seperate note, is it unfair to McCain that he's not allowed to be seen shaking hands with current mids & USNA faculty?</p>
<p>
[quote]
In addition to considering the source, we must consider the audience: the NY Times' liberal audience. From the persective of the readers, the service academies must brainwash mids into a monolithic, Bush doctrine mindset, & brutally silence independent thought.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The only problem is that many Americans don't realize that slant of the Times and are quick to believe anything in print. Case in point, in the week after the unveiling of Sarah Palin I heard two local FM stations quote the National Enquirer in a serious attempt to talk about political news. I mean really, are they serious?!?</p>
<p>
[quote]
This author is attempting to present a more nuanced, more accurate view of the Academy to these ignorant readers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Maybe, but I guess I see it also in a larger picture with two main objectives:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>To attack McCain because somehow his time at the Academy has turned him into the stubborn automaton who lacks the skills for critical thinking</p></li>
<li><p>To show that current mids, a traditionally conservative body, are academically superior to Yale students and overwhelmingly support Obama.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
[quote]
That being said, there is much more political discussion at USNA than is generally acknowledged.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Especially with the national excitement over this year's election, and the fact that an alumnus is running thats understandable. I actually wished I was more engaged in current events while at the Academy, which is odd considering I kept up in high school and do again now that I've graduated.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There was some tension over which news station to show in King Hall at morning meal: Fox, CNN, or MSNBC?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How did that end up?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The Plebe US Government classes tend to be taught by left leaning teachers-civilian or military-in, I'd say, a deliberate attempt to stimulate political discussion.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Probably makes for interesting class. Personally I always appreciated that all my humanities profs were remarkably unbiased in classroom discussions. That being said I validated plebe government, so I never got the chance to experience that class first hand. Even in a Con-Law class I had firstie year which covered topics like Roe v. Wade the teacher never offered a personal view on abortion, nor did she allow the class to digress into a mudslinging debate on the issue.</p>
<p>
<p>"they were not encouraged to think critically. McCain was forged by a culture of certitudes and offers himself today as a man of steadfast principle, stubborn conviction and a cocky, fighting spirit. Those were the unexamined virtues of his Naval Academy and of his father’s and grandfather’s Naval Academy."
</p>
<p>Which portion of this statement concerns you? Since I was on the very beginning edge of majors and, to the best of my knowledge, tenured professors, I never felt that academically I was not encouraged to think critically. My only self doubt is that perhaps my feelings that the necessity of a scientific degree is not for the technical knowledge gained but for the gained ability to think in a logical manner and to extrapolate the pertinent from the extraneous.</p>
<p>Except for a few prejudicial adjectives, I also find nothing wrong with "steadfast principle, stubborn conviction and a cocky, fighting spirit." It's not necessarily cocky if one can back it up. Do we not want principled officers with conviction who know their limits and are willing to push them to the edge?</p>
<p>I think hazing has been given a bad rap because no one can define it. My Plebe summer and year was VERY physical. It was personal. One HAD to accept the fact that they were subservient. Beyond that, We were all male. It was a macho thing to succeed, a competition, a burning goal not to let the ba$tards get you down. Arm wrestling in class til ones arms fall off is a perfectly acceptable macho thing for an 18 year old to do. Why is holding a rifle until ones arms fall off so different? Is it because they are being told to do it? If so, what is wrong with a plebe being told to do something?</p>
<p>Hazing did happen. We were not the homogenized society then that we are today. Schools were not as standardized. The Admissions Office was not so sophisticated. I can honestly say that I had no clue what it was all about. I had never talked to anyone who had attended a SA. I didn't even know anyone who knew anyone who went to a SA. I survived. But not to digress. Midshipmen did show up who were in no way, shape, or form cut out to be Naval officers. They were run out. The few who managed to survive won the begrudging respect of their tormentors. Upper class had a lot more authority then. Was it correct in allowing upperclass to determine the lifetime fate of an individual? It was the only system we had and it worked. And the Company Officers were aware and did endorse it. I was actually told by my Company Officer that, for a certain individual, my comearounds were not sufficiently intense.</p>
<p>I see nothing wrong with the results of the Academy of the mid 20th century and would certainly hope that refined procedures are in place to ensure the same results.</p>
<p>Most of all the part about not being able to think critically. In the rest of the quote however, the manner in which he uses the other adjectives attempts to paint McCain as someone who will stick to his guns even when it is made perfectly clear to himself and everyone else that he is incredibly off base. Steadfast principle, at times stubbornness, and the "cocky, fighting spirit" can all be good things, but the writer is attempting to argue that the Academy develops these qualities to a fault.</p>
<p>Gotcha. Go fly. Just sitting here in the BOQ at Oceana now watching all the F-18s on their morning launch and a section of MH-53Es just overflew the field at maybe 200'. Very impressive.</p>
<p>Stallion, </p>
<p>Excellent review/assessment of the article.</p>
<p>A few observations…</p>
<p>
[quote]
To attack McCain because somehow his time at the Academy has turned him into the stubborn automaton who lacks the skills for critical thinking
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Relative to the observations about critical thinking, I would venture a guess the author is not cable of making the distinction between the fundamental differences in the individual capacity for critical thinking, problem solving etc and the process by which the academy trains individuals to be something more than just “individuals” that act alone and perhaps only in their own self interest. If you have never served in any capacity it becomes very easy to view most members of the military as “automatons”, particularly when it serves a greater and more subtle purpose. </p>
<p>
[quote]
To show that current mids, a traditionally conservative body, are academically superior to Yale students and overwhelmingly support Obama.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>“Academically superior to Yale students”….Machiavelli would be proud</p>
<p>If I wanted you to find my observations and therefore my conclusions more credible I might choose to include something that you would want to believe, something flattering perhaps in prefacing my observations and conclusions… </p>
<p>
[quote]
This author is attempting to present a more nuanced, more accurate view of the Academy to these ignorant readers
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nuanced yes, subtle manipulation yes, accurate? </p>
<p>
[quote]
I think hazing has been given a bad rap because no one can define it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Outside of the abuses we’ve all heard about over the years, hazing is no longer understood or politically correct within a society that has shifted it’s respect away from selflessness to selfishness. Why would you be expected to earn something you are entitled to? Think of the audience this is directed towards? Many though not all are members of an elite part of our society, the lucky sperm club; their parents went to Yale or Harvard, they came from money. They have enjoyed a privileged life that demanded little from them and yet they may be curious about those around them that are different, so this author is providing a valuable service by informing them and opening up a window into this world so they can better understand the shortcomings of one of our presidential aspirants.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It was too raw, too painfully full of memories, esp. of the hazing he personally endured.
[/quote]
[quote]
Midshipmen did show up who were in no way, shape, or form cut out to be Naval officers. They were run out. The few who managed to survive won the begrudging respect of their tormentors.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So...following that line of thought, today one would not know who was really cut out to be an officer . Either the bar was lowered, or it was concluded there is no direct connection between tortureous hazing and creating officers.</p>
<p>It can't be both ways, can it?</p>
<p>"It's possible that he was in a remedial math or chem class. Those have disproportion numbers of black & brown mids, & they tend to be Obama supporters."</p>
<p>Is that TRUE?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course it can. What happened a half century ago and what happens today, both effective, might be polar opposites. The system is fluid and adaptable.</p>
<p>I certainly doubt that Midshipmen of color are the only Obama supporters on the yard, to imply such a view is a disgrace to all Midshipmen. Also remember many will not state their preference as active duty military.</p>