<p>For the record, when UDMom quoted my PRIVATE message, it did not include the last sentence of her post. This is her remark directed at me, not vice verse. The utilization of quotation marks would have made it much more clear.</p>
<p>Who was it wrote “wisdom is often the enemy of knowledge?” 
</p>
<p>In any case, we’re gleaning insight to his. 
Go for the “W!” :rolleyes:</p>
<p>While pointing out yet again that I do not agree with Mombee on this topic, I would note:</p>
<p>A. I understood that the last line of the quote was the reply from UDMom, not Mombee</p>
<p>B. Over on SA Forums at least some people got in trouble recently for posting a PM. I believe you can report it if you’d like but you’re not supposed to post them.</p>
<p>On a separate note, WP, I don’t understand the “Go for the W!” comment - could you explain? Sorry to be clueless!</p>
<p>Prefer Wisdom over knowledge. Sorry. Intellectuals, both self-proclaimed and identified by some sort of credential(s), position, or peer group are usually filled w/ knowledge. Wisdom, on the other hand, escapes many. Dr. Thomas Sowell, Hoover Institute, writes insightfully about these issues and their undue influence on both leadership and the proletariate, in his book"Intellectuals and Society." </p>
<p>In this situation, we’re being led to believe that knowledge of the letter of the law trumps its spirit and intent and the wisdom and courage to discern and decide for the right. For sure, it’s easier and even preferable to defend the law’s letter, especially when there are multiple motives for doing so.</p>
<p>And it’s important to remember …this is not a court of law, in which evidence beyond question, is required. In this case, it would seem that Capt. Klunder exhibited the courage to take responsibility for making both a legal and right decision, dependent upon good judgement and wisdom …rather than leaning on a crutch of legalities as exhibited in code such-and-such. Both decisions may be “legal” …only one can be right though. And wise. Some would say “wise” is following the safe, CYA route. Others would and do say do what is right and true in light of past and present behaviors.</p>
<p>Most fearfully in all of this, the adage which is most often accurate …the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior …has proven to be 100% accurate apparently with this Mid. Not once. Not twice. Not 3 X. But maybe it’ll change this next time.</p>
<p>Unfortunately previous actions on both sides paint this with doubt about both the Mid’s behavior and his judge. </p>
<p>But …the decision’s been made, and it’s time to move forward. Let’s hope that he’s NOT punished by being disallowed to play football in hopes that he’d resolve the issue pragmatically, by re-moving himself along, absent being able to play football. If he’s deemed sufficiently honorable and good enough to put the lives of others in his hands, he’s certainly good enough to put a pigskin in them.</p>
<p>So in that spirit… GO NAVY! BEAT ARMY! And let’s hope lessons all round get learned …and that we all seek wisdom in lieu of law.</p>
<p>And most of all …let’s not overstate the damage. The vast majority, virtually all of these young men and women are worthy of their calling. They are perhaps on a per capita measure …the finest group of young people on the planet. REALLY! Think about that and challlenge this proclamation, if you will. So let’s not throw these wonderful babies out with the bath water. Nor destroy this wonderful human experiment intended to both educate and prepare leaders of both knowledge and character. Ironically, they may be learning far tougher lessons through this than we could imagine. Instead, let’s pray that most of all, THEY will find wisdom in this.</p>
<p>Ah, okay, thanks for the clarification! Should have been able to figure that out myself!</p>
<p>And just noting that the post with the PM was visible when I posted my last comment. I can’t go back in and edit it now (and I’m a bit surprised it wasn’t edited with the deleted posts).</p>
<p>In no particular order:</p>
<p>
LOL. Many of us on this forum are still scratching our heads at the majority of his 3000 odd posts.</p>
<p>
Your entire diatribe is based on the understanding that you know that these ‘multiple motives’ played a factor in the decision making process. It is entirely possible, probable even, from reading Admiral Fowler’s letter, that none of them did. If this were the case, your entire premise would be totally reversed.</p>
<p>
My sole position has always been that we do not have the facts to dispute the decisions made by Admiral Fowler in regards to this case. I assume your disagreement means that you can provide these facts. Or do you feel that public opinion should be the cause to find guilt?</p>
<p>
Please go back and try to understand what privacy means in this matter. The administration is unable to do anything other than ignore all these false accusations. Privacy laws demand it. Admiral Fowler’s hands are tied. Of course there are those who decry those pesky old laws as being nothing more than a hindrance to justice. Lynch mobs come to mind.</p>
<p>
Well, when one lives in the land of the free, the home of the brave, where one is protected by the Bill of Rights, and innocent until proven guilty, there are many cases where they have to assume increased risks. This isn’t true in some countries, China for instance.</p>
<p>[ul]
[li]Supe was duped. Lied to, and he bought it. Gullibility x 100.</p>[/li]
<p>[li]Commandant had same evidence, same witnesses, same statements, but is not a fool nor as gullible as the Supe. He recommended separation from same evidence. </p>[/li]
<p>[li]Blunts are not accidentally smoked. Impossible. Yes, Impossible. Everyone but mombee & the Supe knows this. Everyone under 30, every Mid on the yard, is laughing at them for believing it.</p>[/li]
<p>[li]7.3 yds per carry + diversity triumphs honor and integrity at the United States Naval Academy. (the bottom line)</p>[/li]
<p>[/ul]</p>
<p>note to mombee - OJ really did it, despite the jury’s verdict.</p>
<p>As upset as Luigi is here over the possiblitiy that something less than a virtual “death penalty” was given to this midshipman (the total circumstances of which nobody posting here is privy to, and are relying on the web rumor mill to make their judgements), I’m wondering what conclusions he would draw from the wrist slap that was given to Captain Sullivan (USCG) last summer for the cocaine charges? Is the USCG to be condemned because a courtmartial of a 26 year post command Captain essentially gave a gentle tap for a serious drug offense? It seems to be Luigi’s conclusion that there are never any mitigating circumstances that should be taken into account, so I have to assume that he has been equally vociferous about the judgement of the USCG and it’s flag rank officers who approved this sentence (maybe Luigi you could point us to some of your posts on that subject)? Alternatively, since you didn’t seem to make a major effort to raise folks awareness of this blot on military justice, perhaps you recognize that there are often some things that are considered before a punishment is applied even in a military disciplinary action and just perhaps VADM Fowler also believes that he had some knowledge of other factors that the internet bloggers aren’t privy to? And of course since there absolutely are privacy issues concerned , VADM Fowler is neither at liberty to, nor inclined to publicize all of those factors so perhaps we ought to assume that he has made an informed decision rather than use this as one more drum to beat in a personal if unsupported effort to heap abuse on the USNA leadership…</p>
<p>Interesting keydet; fair enough question. Mombee’s bona fides are frequently questioned; how about it Luig, what is your comment? Why wasn’t this CAPTAIN bounced from the Guard after he was found GUILTY in a court? </p>
<p>The fact is Mombee’s basic assertion is correct: We don’t have all the facts. While I may question his decision somewhat, the fact remains that Fowler is in charge. He made a decision. There are many decision-makers in whom we place our trust. In my particular occupation, I believe the Supreme Court makes the correct decision 100% of the time. They have studied the issue before them a great deal more than I have; they have researched the law and reached learned decision. Same goes w/ a jury. Fact is, a jury found OJ not-guilty based on the information before them. Any conclusion to the contrary is just mindless babble.</p>
<p>Now, is Mombee sometimes less than logical ins ome of his/her comments? Absolutely. Do his writing sometimes ring of USNA69? absolutely.
One and the same? possibly.
Goofy ol’ man with nothing better to do than ■■■■■ around a CC site? probably.
Better or worse than the rest of us with nothing better to do than post mindless thoughts on a time-wasting site? probably neither.</p>
<p>Each of us can reach our own conclusions about the capabilities or ignorance of Fowler. Fact is, he’s THE man and you’re not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Two wrongs don’t make a right, Sullivan should be in Leavenworth doing 10 years. Perhaps you’d be better off comparing the cases of the 9 USCGA cadets who were disenrolled last summer after an investigation revealed they used drugs. True, they were not D1 football players nor did they average 7.3 yds/per carry, but the punishment fit the crime at USCGA. Drug use = separation. Not the case when you have a clueless Supe who actually believed that someone could accidentally smoke a blunt. Wake up. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Did Fowler have access to some “knowledge of other factors” that the Commandant didn’t have? After all, the Commandant recommended separation, which was overturned by one man, Jeff Fowler, who believed that the 7.3 yds/per carry Mid accidentally smoked a blunt. Puh-lease. Maybe in Fowler’s fantasyland imagination that can happen, but this is real life, and it doesn’t happen.</p>
<p>That’s the bottom line - drugs were used, honor was compromised, integrity was ignored.</p>
<p>Tell us all again about the USNA’s policy of “Zero Tolerance.” :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Go Navy. Beat Army at any cost. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why? I have no idea “why” but he should have been. He should be in Leavenworth doing 10 years, as I stated above.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you feel that Dred Scott v. Sanford and Plessey v Fergusson were 100% correct? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? So you believe he didn’t do it because the jury said he was not guilty?</p>
<p>A jury’s finding of guilty/not guilty has nothing to do with the fact of whether or not the crime was actually committed by the defendant.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And as taxpaying American citizens we all have the right to question his competence, judgment, integrity, and yes, his honor by his allowance of a drug-using Mid to continue receiving a taxpayer-financed education by way of a preposterous claim of accidental ingestion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hm, I wasn’t aware that agreeing or disagreeing with someone on a public message board carried with it a burden of proof. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There might be some believability in that but for one major problem …the case was obviously NOT determined on the facts. That’s just mombee’s red herring in attempting to distract from the issues that have determined this situation.</p>
<p>For we see that the precise same so-called facts that led the Supe to determine that his officer in charge, the man who all have acknowledged as one of the outstanding 'Dants in recent history if not all time, and certainly more knowledgeable and aware of both this situation and MID Curry’s previous meanderings from good, expected and honorable behavior than the Supe himself … screwed up.</p>
<p>Yep, those very same facts led that Dant to decide he should be expelled from the USNA. Go figure. </p>
<p>Same Mid … same facts … vastly superior first-hand knowledge, relationship and awareness of the Mids, the incident, and Mr. Curry’s previous infractions which might be increasingly considered a pattern of behavior. Bad behavior.</p>
<p>So there are 180 degree different decisions. Dant says go. Supe says stay.</p>
<p>Well, yes, the Supe is the boss and he can and did reverse his Commandant’s decision. But no where does the Supe or his spokesman allege …wrong facts …or even new facts not known to the Dant …or the Dant is dumb about the legal issues. Or the Dant simply screwed up. None of it, even in his explanation.</p>
<p>Instead, he determined that those facts and past and current behavior were simply insufficient to separate this Mid.</p>
<p>Huh, go figure. The only conclusion must be …Dant screwed up again. </p>
<p>EXCEPT for one thing. Note the Supe makes no such allegation or clarification to his superiors in his explanation. Rather, he simply says, the Mid stays “'cause I said so.”</p>
<p>And it’s that bandwagon that mombee persists in playing his oversized bass drum. Admiral says so. Admiral can’t be wrong. Didn’t know the facts.</p>
<p>But the Dant did …and does know the facts. And he determined, the Mid should be gone. </p>
<p>So, can the Supe pull the rug from his right-hand admiral-in-waiting? The one who’s been deemed 100% trustworthy? You bet. And he did. But once again …</p>
<p>The decision had zilch, nahda, zippo …to do with discovering or interpreting some mysterious “facts” that mombee chronically cries none else can know. Nope, the Dant knew what the Supe knew. And honestly likely a whole lot more. </p>
<p>It’s simply this …the Dant had the guts to do what he knew those facts called for. He did not waiver or hesitate. He did not proclaim letter of the law or insufficient evidence or PR problem or PC issue. </p>
<p>And the Dant refused to let an ulterior motive and political correctness to prevent his making that tough decision. </p>
<p>And like the great sailor he is, he will subordinate his correct decision to his superior officer’s overtuned determination. That’s the life he’s chosen and been so wonderfully successful in its pursuit. STill, we can be equally confident that the Dant’ll not be performing any PC mea culpa, though. He’ll not become an accomplice to a bad decision and even weaker explanation.</p>
<p>And let me reiterate. Let’s just hope that any punishment will NOT prevent the Mid who toked the marijuana blunt from playing football, no doubt one of USNA’s main attractions for him. If he is sufficiently honorable to reside in the foxhole next to those who never “unknowingly” smoked ganja w/ their homies and then failed to confess it but when caught …then he’s good enough to play against Army.</p>
<p>Now, a new query for mombee …This Mid obviously failed to come forward immediately when he knew what allegedly others had done to him. Why not? Isn’t that in itself dishonorable? How did he think he was gonna get away with it all? Tag, your it. </p>
<p>btw …
</p>
<p>It doesn’t. That’s just the 2nd red herring to shift the discussion. Debate 101</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And how do you know this?</p>
<p>
It normally doesn’t. However, In this case, your disagreement with my position that we are not privy to the facts to decide the appropriateness of the disposition thereof means you think there is enough facts. Why do you think this?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re putting words in my mouth about what exactly I disagree with that you’ve said. You’ve claimed and or stated many, many different things in this theard. As a whole, I disagree with your comments. Picking exactly one of those things and asking me to prove it is cherry-picking at best. </p>
<p>I disagree with your overall sentiments. I’m sorry you disagree with my disagreement.</p>
<p>To be a little more blunt about why we shouldn’t be throwing the Supe under the bus just yet, I do not know anything private about what happened at the hearing. This was still a conduct HEARING meaning that punishments of some kind were awarded-just not separation.</p>
<p>If MIDN Curry did indeed get 21 days restriction, the means he’s on restriction for 7 weeks with tours every morning at 530 and normally restricted during the week. Your days of restriction are only subtracted on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays. Monday-Thurs your life still sucks while you’re on restriction, but you don’t get any “credit” for those days until the weekend rolls around. Getting 21 days of restriction under the new system is definitely a lot worse than “getting maxed out” for 60 days under the old system, for the record.</p>
<p>Now back to Admiral Fowler. Let’s not be so quick to criticize just yet. I’ve seen many of the informal exchanges between Captain Klunder and Admiral Fowler in their memos and emails to each other. They are sincere about their rulings and what they write to each other. They do communicate frequently, even on things that haven’t been fully briefed to the Commandant yet. For example, the honor staff is supposed to brief the Commandant sometime this week on the final changes to the proposed honor instruction. In Admiral Fowler’s email to the Vice Chief of Naval Operations, he references 3 or 4 major changes that we’ve proposed, but has not been briefed on yet. He could only get this info from the Commandant’s close scrutiny of the proposed document we’ve sent him. The Supe explains the the Vice CNO that the '10 honor staff (he even mentions the creation of the honor congress as those being responsible) is responsible for the upheavals to the honor concept. The honor congress is something he would only know by speaking to the Commandant extensively about a PROPOSAL, a document that’s not even official yet.</p>
<p>The Vice CNO was concerned about the number of cases found NIV “not in violation”, increase in accusations, and decrease in number separations. Why would the Vice CNO suddendly want the Supe to supply him with these statistics? Did it just magically occur since it’s Valentine’s Day and love is in the air. Nah, maybe Marcus Curry had something to do with this inquiry.</p>
<p>Problem is, the Supe gave the Vice CNO the statistics compiled by the officers in officer development. What nobody has are the REAL statistics with REAL interpretations of what they are. You could say that 85% of all honor cases are found guilty and by lying if you said that 85% of all honor boards are found guilty. The officers can spin these statistics however they want, but in time, the Vice CNO and his staff will get what they’re really looking for, and that’s a set of statistics from the midshipmen honor staff, the ones who have been examining these cases and know how to interpret the modules.</p>
<p>So why would the Supe be so defensive and prompt in supplying the Vice CNO with answers and data to all of his questions about the negative trends here? </p>
<p>I’ve got an answer for you.</p>
<p>Here’s what happened: </p>
<p>MIDN Curry goes before 'Dant: Decision: separation
MIDN Curry goes before Supe: Decision: separation</p>
<p>Wait??? That’s not how we heard it! That’s not how it was leaked to the press! The Supe made a horrible decision, right!!!</p>
<p>Look everyone, wouldn’t it make perfect sense for the Supe to agree with the Commandant? I’m telling you he did.</p>
<p>Except, when the Supe decides he’s going to separate someone, he’s gotta call the big man, the CNO. What do you think happened when the Supe told the CNO’s staff that he was going to separation Midshipman Curry??? Wrong Answer!!!</p>
<p>Let’s not blame the Supe here. The man desperately wanted to do the right thing, but MIDN Curry is not only important to the Naval Academy, but he is in fact part of the face of the Navy. Sailors all over the world watch Navy football at sea. Marcus Curry is their inspiration. The CNO was either going to make ADM Fowler make the call to keep MIDN Curry or he was going to do it for him, case closed. MIDN Curry got maxed out under the new system.</p>
<p>Whether Marcus remains on the football team or not is really not a question. Why else would you keep him?</p>
<p>
The amount of time one has one their hands and what they do with it is immaterial. Perhaps I just don’t like to see a person serving their country, doing their job, being slandered by a bunch of cowards hiding behind an anonymous website.</p>
<p>
He didn’t play Division I football for Navy. It is pretty obvious by now that Luigi’s real problem is Navy’s football program, and not so much illegal drug usage. </p>
<p>I think there was also a Navy Commander with similar circumstances and similar results. If I had more time on my hands, I would Google it.</p>
<p>
Obviously? Your source? Perhaps he did. If his chain of command was adhering to privacy regulations as they should, you will never know.</p>
<p>Dishonorable? If Midshipmen were required to self incriminate any and all infractions, Bancroft Hall would sink into the landfill on which it was built from all the ensuing paperwork.</p>
<p>My understanding is that the Smoke Hall incident happened Sunday night and the drug screening was first thing Monday morning. Maybe he didn’t have time and perhaps no one was available to discuss it with. It was the Sunday night after the Army/Navy game. Who can predict how one will act in such a situation?</p>
<p>I don’t have a clue what really transpired. Neither does Whistle Pig. Just anonymous rumors.</p>
<p>
Anyone who would make this comment has absolutely no knowledge of the Naval legal system.</p>
<p>And again, how do you know how the Commandant recommended? Or his squad leader? Or is platoon leader? Or his Company Commander? Company Officer? Battalion Officer? The list goes on. You don’t know. All you have is a bunch of unsubstantiated rumors from anonymous cowards hiding behind an online site. </p>
<p>To understand the interactions between the Superintendent and Commandant, one has to understand Navy accountability. The skipper can be in his stateroom asleep, the XO making one of his rare visits to the bridge, and the ship collides with an unmarked obstruction in the water. The skipper gets relieved, the XO doesn’t. If you understand how this applies to the present situation, you know that how the Commandant recommended means absolutely nothing.</p>
<p>First off, if the Commandant knew more than the Superintendent, the Commandant was not doing his job.</p>
<p>Secondly, the Commandant is by no means the “officer in charge”. Bill said it all:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fowler is in charge. All responsibilities lie directly on his shoulders. Not his #2. </p>
<p>Thirdly, this was a form of NJP (Non-judicial punishment). Anyone with any knowledge of the system, knows that it is not only disciplinary but also educational. Education through fear. A fear so great of repeating the NJP process that most will clean up their act and turn over a new leaf. It is a two pronged approach. The classic bad guy/good guy team. #2’s job is to strike fear. THE man’s job is to act fatherly, clean up the mess, and tell the perpetrator to “go and sin no more”. It is a very effective system. A good #2 will bring tears to a strong man. Cause visible quivering. Not stop until the underarm stains reach the belt line. Deliver the victim to ‘the Old Man’ in a wheelbarrow. Cause the 15 minute wait to hear his doom to be the longest wait of his life. Whether or not he checked ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ on the form is really immaterial. That is the decision of the Man in charge. The Commandant merely sets the stage.</p>
<p>So, Whistle Pig, Admiral Fowler and Captain Klunder have been working together quite a while. Do you know their personal style? How they work together? What is expected of each? How many of the Commandant’s recommendations in the past has the Supt. Reversed? Of course not.</p>
<p>Since the recommendations of the Commandant are nothing but heresay, founded by individuals definitely with an agenda contrary to good order and discipline, we also have no idea what the remarks were that were passed from Klunder to Fowler. Actually, we don’t even know what the hearings were really about. The procedures for NJP can be quite lax. Here we have a kid who has an honor offense, a string of demerits for tardiness and not keeping his shoes shined, and now a situation of maybe only being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Perhaps the intent was simply to scare the devil out of him. Captains are a dime a dozen. They are officer reps on the football team, chaplains, profs, eat lunch in King Hall with the mids. The Superintendent is different. As GoNavyXC stated, seeing him is special. Maybe this was nothing but a wakeup call for a redeemable Midshipman and everything else is nothing but pure speculation. We will never know.</p>
<p>And even though Whistle Pig continues to make the totally false allegation that in the military, rules and regulations, are the crutch for the weak, this is not true. After one raises their right hand, they are still innocent until proven guilty. Any responsible individual in the position to effect ones entire life with the simple check of a box will not take that responsibility lightly.</p>
<p>And if GoNavyXC’s latest post bears any merit whatsoever, even though in her position, she is walking on very thin ice, privacy wise, it just goes to show that no one outside the organization knows what is going on.</p>
<p>marciemi, my only opinion has been that we don’t know. Everything else has been pure speculation for which I could care less who disaqgrees. I don’t even think most of it is true. I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HAPPENED.</p>
<p>mombee/USNA69 - </p>
<p>Do you believe it’s possible to accidentally smoke a blunt?</p>
<p>(Everyone else stop laughing, this is for mombee/USNA69 to answer. I know the entire brigade, everyone under 30, every cop, investigator, DEA agent, drug counselor, and everyone else with even a passing familiarity with young people’s use of drugs these days already knows the answer is “no, of course not.”)</p>
<p>You see, mombee/USNA69, that’s the real issue - is it possible to accidentally smoke a blunt?</p>
<p>Your Wikipedia “research” (again everyone, stop laughing) not withstanding, the answer is “no.”</p>
<p>And anyone who believes it can happen is a fool. A gullible fool.</p>
<p>And what’s worse, if Jeff Fowler and the CNO already know it’s impossible, if they are keeping a 7.3 yds/per carry RB for the morale of the fleet (Go Navy!) in spite of his drug use and 335 demerits, they both should resign immediately.</p>
<p>Zero Tolerance. :rolleyes: Except for D1 revenue-generating athletes.</p>
<p>A two-tiered admission system, followed by a two-tiered punishment system.</p>
<p>Go Navy, beat Army at any cost. Even if it means sacrificing honor and integrity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From all accounts, it is definately not for the morale of the Brigade.</p>
<p>The Navy has many business savy people. Should not be a suprise since we are dealing with people. Admiral Fowler went to Harvard Business School. </p>
<p>The Naval Academy is one command where a lot of revenue can be generated. Through athletics, admissions, and other events, Admiral Fowler is truly correct when he says that the Naval Academy is “The Face of the Navy”.</p>
<p>It was recently explained to me that the other part of the equation that has been missing through all of this is the Athletic Director.</p>
<p>The Athletic Director, Superintendent, and the Commandant are constantly in a push-pull relationship. The Commandant, whoever it happens to be will always focus on more development in Bancroft Hall, professional development, honor, camaraderie, military training, etc. The AD strikes back saying that people have made an investment in such and such a team (let’s just use football from now on) that since they are varsity athletes who generate revenue, they can’t be having all of their time taking up with the usual plebe duties or mandatory activities that the rest of the Brigade has to be a part of. The Supe gets caught in the middle and ends up shrugging his shoulders and has to continually maintain the balance of what the athletes are responsible for on the field, in the classroom, and in the hall.</p>
<p>This became a problem in particular earlier in the first semester when I mentioned we were having problems with the football team. For every other sport, the coaches disown their players until they get their nose clean with the moral mission. Coach Meade came in and he was disgusted at our class president who committed an honor violation. He wanted him gone.</p>
<p>When someone on the football team gets an honor offense, all the coaches bark back at the honor staff and Bancroft Hall stating that their players can’t attend their boards or hearings because they have practice that week for the upcoming game. When we persist (Per the table of Priorities published by the Supe and Dant) that the honor board comes before ALL varsity practices (yes, even football), the football coaches (and EVEN Officer Representatives, that disgusts me most) go and cry to the Athletic Director that Bancroft Hall and the moral mission is interrupting their practices with honor boards. The Supe and Dant then made the honor staff ACCOMODATE and SWITCH OUR SCHEDULES to better suit that of the football team. This is an example of where money and Lean Six Sigma have triumphed over what we’re really supposed to be doing here as officer candidates.</p>
<p>On the flip side, when Coach Meade from Lacrosse comes in and says he’s embarrased to be at the honor board and cancelled practice because he had 2 players before the board, you can tell that it actually means something to this coach who has been a staple and well-respected icon of Navy athletics for quite some time. Memo to football coaches and O-Reps- take a page out of Coach Meade’s playbook, he’s the class act in athletics that people respect at Navy, not the football team.</p>
<p>When the honor staff has to start adjusting the schedules of the honor boards (which are number ONE on the table of priorities), then where have our REAL PRIORITIES GONE? The mission isn’t to develop physically, mentally and morally. It is to develop MORALLY, mentally, and physically. You can go anywhere and develop those other 2 attributes. The one thing you bring to the table as a JO is your Moral fitness and you build on that knowledge through your Navy career.</p>
<p>Wouldn’t it make sense to have a lot of business-savy people at the Naval Academy to do continuous analysis on what will help garner the most revenue? The Supe has been the intermediary person to ensure that cash flow is coming in while just keeping the Dant happy enough maintaining the minimum standard in Bancroft Hall. The problem now is we’re not even meeting the minimum in some cases, and these athletes are allowed free reign because they know the AD packs a wallop of a punch if they ever get into a jam.</p>
<p>There’s been a peculiar culture associated with the football team in their arrogance in knowing that they have people on their side who can bail them out. Even the other sports don’t walk around with that type of swagger. Our class president who’s a great guy was disowned by Coach Meade until he was able to remediate himself and get his 1/c rank back.</p>
<p>In this case, everyone thought it was a done deal with Marcus Curry. There’s something peculiar and smelly about this case. I have illustrated you the dynamics of the relationship with the three head honchos at the Naval Academy and how revenue is generated through athletics. All accounts, honor staff, Bancroft Hall, ‘Dant, Supe, AD, Coach Ken…everyone thought Marcus Curry was done. We moved on, Marcus even had all his bags packed and was ready to go. For everyone to be on the same page thinking that Marcus’ career was over, why was there a decision made to keep him from an outside source?</p>
<p>A couple people who are friends with Marcus Curry on Facebook saw the events unfold this way:</p>
<p>His status update on Thursday afternoon of that week: My Navy Career is Over
His status update on Friday Morning of that week: Going to see the Supe at 2
His status update on Friday afternoon of that week: Thank God for 2nd chances</p>
<p>Even Marcus himself thought he was leaving!</p>
<p>So, in a turn of events more miraculous than David Tyree’s helmet catch over Rodney Harrison in the Super Bowl defeat of the Patriots, Marcus went from civilian with a registered toxicity level of over 2X the legal limit on the urinalysis to MIDN 3/c who got a slap on the wrist and a 2nd chance that no one else in the entire Navy would have ever got.</p>
<p>It pains me to know that the E-5 out there with the wife and kids struggling to make it would not have even gotten to sit around and have a pow-wow to discuss the event. The only questions asked of that man would be, “Could you please sign, here”…and “Please indicate that you understand your separation rights”. There would be no heart to heart, question and answer session. It would have been pack your bags, no questions asked.</p>
<p>P.S. Mombee, GoNavyXC is not a “she”. Walking on thin ice? I’ve already told you that until somebody risks their entire career to stand up for the right thing, then the Naval Academy’s honor program will never change. Until the Naval Academy knows that it’s leadership is willing to be enlisted, this is what it needs to be like. You say walking on thin ice like it’s a threat. Not commissioning me is the worst mistake they could make because I’ll refuse one before they deprive me of one. No one ever has the gumption to put themselves on the line because they’re always worried about #1. That’s the thing about this place. Everyone still has to ensure that they won’t jeopardize walking across the stage. I ask them, is walking across that stage worth compromising your own honor knowing that you didn’t earn it? To me, by walking, I’d be compromising my honor because I know I didn’t do everything in my power to make the moral mission here more difficult. We don’t do it for ourselves. Our sailors and marines pay the price for morally immature officers that they receive. I would ask every member of the class of 2010 right now to honestly look in the mirror and ask themselves if they’ve earned a commission, knowing how lax the moral standards are. Ask yourselves, have you done enough to uphold the moral mission of those who have gone before you? If the answer is “no”, then you shouldn’t be walking, and you have more work to do, so join me in the fight.</p>