Is USNA like Disneyland?
Dr. Fleming was my English instructor during the second semester of my Plebe Year. I do respect him and appreciate his influence on my development as a critical thinker. He is also a controversial figure. Tenured for decades, he frequently writes articles that attack the Service Academies and numerous aspects of military life.
His latest gem: https://thefederalist.com/2017/10/16/not-just-west-point-u-s-military-academies-become-disneyland-politicians/
Before you continue reading this post, take a few minutes to read Dr. Fleming's article. Then come back here and read what I hope are adequate attempts to offer counter-attacks, point by point.
Back? Here goes:
Dr. Fleming begins with purely anecdotal experiences, which he cites as evidence, that "most upper-class students have lost faith in the system because it's based on lies." He extols the virtues of life at civilian colleges where prospective military officers can enroll in the ROTC while being free to choose majors and having sex in the dorms, etc.
What Dr. Fleming does not mention is that we have evidence to show that certain personality types are drawn to the Academy. I learned, while administering the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator to my students, that roughly half of my 66 students are either ESTJ or ISTJ, both of which tend to be strong "bottom-line" and facts-oriented personalities. Several years of archival data show that 49% of Midshipmen are ST personalities. I offer the hypothesis that the students on which he bases his perception of rampant cynicism represent these dominant personality types. Additionally, attitudes are contagious in any institution and the rigorous lifestyle the Academy necessarily requires Midshipmen to live is no different.
He complains that the defenders of Service Academies see them as "national treasures." I offer that this is a true statement. The Service Academies are in fact national treasures. So are a lot of colleges and universities. I'm not sure this point really adds any appreciable value to his repeated calls to close the Service Academies.
Dr. Fleming goes on to state that the men and women who enter the Academies are not the "best and brightest." I offer that he might be partially correct. I was not the best or the brightest at my high school. I took the SAT several times to get my sores up to meeting the requirements. I was not even my Representative's primary candidate. I was a "qualified alternate nominee." I got into Annapolis because whoever was ahead of me in line chose to go elsewhere.
What Dr. Fleming ignores is that the Mission of the United States Academy is, "To develop Midshipmen morally, mentally and physically and to imbue them with the highest ideals of duty, honor and loyalty in order to graduate leaders who are dedicated to a career of naval service and have potential for future development in mind and character to assume the highest responsibilities of command, citizenship and government" Nowhere in the Mission is there a mandate for the Naval Academy to "only accept the best and brightest" or to "develop the best and brightest." The Academy exists to develop the Midshipmen, over the course of four years, into Naval and Marine Corps Officers with potential for future development. The young people who are admitted here have been determined, through a rigorous admissions process, to possess that potential for development.
Dr. Fleming is known for criticizing the Naval Academy's admissions process and has often complained about demographic goals. The context in which he presents his disdain for racial goals would have an uninformed or unfamiliar reader believe that our Service Academies admit Cadets/Midshipmen based on quotas. What he consistently fails to explain is that there is a significant difference between a goal and a quota. As became well-known in the 1990s when affirmative action was questioned, quota-based admissions systems will waive entry requirements if necessary to achieve their desired demography. Under a goal system, a desired demography is promulgated and this may move a candidate ahead. However, under a goal system, entry requirements are not waived and every single person admitted in fact meets the entry requirements. Being of Hispanic descent, I acknowledge that I may have benefited but I really have no way of knowing.
Bottom line is that those of us who enter the Service Academies are adequately the "best and brightest." Or perhaps among the "best and brightest."
He goes on to complain that young men and women are going to have sex regardless of rules. I offer that we have the same prohibitions in the Fleet, that sex does happen onboard ship, that sex onboard ship is as hard to get away with as it is in Bancroft Hall, and that (as is the case at the Academy) the penalties are as severe (and often more so) when Sailors are caught having sexual relations onboard ship.
He issues a blanket characterization of the officers serving on the faculty and staff as being " fairly clueless and, according to the students, generally not very good role models." With the exception of the Midshipmen who have prior enlisted military service, Midshipmen generally lack the breadth of experience to form such judgments of the leadership charged with running our operational units. They do get exposure to Navy and Marine Corps operational culture during their summer cruise blocks but I'll admit, having been a Midshipmen Training Officer during my tour in USS KEARSARGE, that we actively try to showcase the best aspects of our respective communities. As far as Dr. Fleming telling the reader that the Officers on the Faculty and Staff are not good role models, I'd like to find out where he gets this perception. As far as I know, every military officer who joins the Faculty and Staff are personally approved by the Superintendent, who is currently Vice Admiral Carter. As far as I know, a review of my record happened at some point or I would not have been accepted as an Instructor. I make it a point to model good behavior and, more importantly, to teach through facilitated discussion and exchange of ideas. I treat my students the same way I treated by subordinates at sea: with dignity, with respect, as adults, and as valuable members of the team.
Contrary to what he states, we do teach leadership. We have an entire Division that teaches leadership. It is true that our Permanent Military Instructors have a PhD in psychology and we do have a handful of Philosophers teaching as well. We also offer some psychology electives. But Leadership is not a "introductory psychology" course. I am not a psychologist. I am a highly-experienced Surface Warfare Officer with 11 years, 7 months, and 7 days of experience in the leadership and development of Sailors. I was brought here to capitalize on my experiences for the development of the Midshipmen I am entrusted to develop.
While he points to how a number of graduates have recently been relieved for poor leadership, he omits that the leadership curriculum is vastly different from what I received as a Midshipman. I don't even remember my leadership class from Plebe Year. I do fondly remember the other leadership classes but they've changed. The curriculum has evolved. Let's wait 20 years to see how my students do in command.
As for the notion that the Naval Academy is a "military Disneyland," I offer that it could be viewed that way but it depends on the beholder. I am personally enjoying my time here. I am expanding my influence beyond the classroom. I mentor Midshipmen in a sexual harassment and assault program. I am a facilitator for a Lean-In Circle (Sheryl Sandberg has recently called for the inclusion of men in this program). I am actively pursuing qualifications in two kinds of sailboats and our Yard Patrol Craft (our training ships) so I can help the Midshipmen learn seamanship. For a person like me who is driven and who seeks opportunities to lead, develop, and mentor, then the Disneyland characterization could hold some weight. Likewise, contrary to popular belief, there are Midshipmen (probably most of them, actually) who truly enjoy being here. People who don't want to be here can always leave and if they leave prior to commencing their junior year, they owe nothing.
Finally, consider the publication. An article in a conservative publication such as The Federalist is not the same as an article in a scholarly educational journal, nor is it the same as an article in a service-connected publication like USNI's Proceedings. This article isn't even fit for a moderate periodical like The Atlantic.
His latest gem: https://thefederalist.com/2017/10/16/not-just-west-point-u-s-military-academies-become-disneyland-politicians/
Before you continue reading this post, take a few minutes to read Dr. Fleming's article. Then come back here and read what I hope are adequate attempts to offer counter-attacks, point by point.
Back? Here goes:
Dr. Fleming begins with purely anecdotal experiences, which he cites as evidence, that "most upper-class students have lost faith in the system because it's based on lies." He extols the virtues of life at civilian colleges where prospective military officers can enroll in the ROTC while being free to choose majors and having sex in the dorms, etc.
What Dr. Fleming does not mention is that we have evidence to show that certain personality types are drawn to the Academy. I learned, while administering the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator to my students, that roughly half of my 66 students are either ESTJ or ISTJ, both of which tend to be strong "bottom-line" and facts-oriented personalities. Several years of archival data show that 49% of Midshipmen are ST personalities. I offer the hypothesis that the students on which he bases his perception of rampant cynicism represent these dominant personality types. Additionally, attitudes are contagious in any institution and the rigorous lifestyle the Academy necessarily requires Midshipmen to live is no different.
He complains that the defenders of Service Academies see them as "national treasures." I offer that this is a true statement. The Service Academies are in fact national treasures. So are a lot of colleges and universities. I'm not sure this point really adds any appreciable value to his repeated calls to close the Service Academies.
Dr. Fleming goes on to state that the men and women who enter the Academies are not the "best and brightest." I offer that he might be partially correct. I was not the best or the brightest at my high school. I took the SAT several times to get my sores up to meeting the requirements. I was not even my Representative's primary candidate. I was a "qualified alternate nominee." I got into Annapolis because whoever was ahead of me in line chose to go elsewhere.
What Dr. Fleming ignores is that the Mission of the United States Academy is, "To develop Midshipmen morally, mentally and physically and to imbue them with the highest ideals of duty, honor and loyalty in order to graduate leaders who are dedicated to a career of naval service and have potential for future development in mind and character to assume the highest responsibilities of command, citizenship and government" Nowhere in the Mission is there a mandate for the Naval Academy to "only accept the best and brightest" or to "develop the best and brightest." The Academy exists to develop the Midshipmen, over the course of four years, into Naval and Marine Corps Officers with potential for future development. The young people who are admitted here have been determined, through a rigorous admissions process, to possess that potential for development.
Dr. Fleming is known for criticizing the Naval Academy's admissions process and has often complained about demographic goals. The context in which he presents his disdain for racial goals would have an uninformed or unfamiliar reader believe that our Service Academies admit Cadets/Midshipmen based on quotas. What he consistently fails to explain is that there is a significant difference between a goal and a quota. As became well-known in the 1990s when affirmative action was questioned, quota-based admissions systems will waive entry requirements if necessary to achieve their desired demography. Under a goal system, a desired demography is promulgated and this may move a candidate ahead. However, under a goal system, entry requirements are not waived and every single person admitted in fact meets the entry requirements. Being of Hispanic descent, I acknowledge that I may have benefited but I really have no way of knowing.
Bottom line is that those of us who enter the Service Academies are adequately the "best and brightest." Or perhaps among the "best and brightest."
He goes on to complain that young men and women are going to have sex regardless of rules. I offer that we have the same prohibitions in the Fleet, that sex does happen onboard ship, that sex onboard ship is as hard to get away with as it is in Bancroft Hall, and that (as is the case at the Academy) the penalties are as severe (and often more so) when Sailors are caught having sexual relations onboard ship.
He issues a blanket characterization of the officers serving on the faculty and staff as being " fairly clueless and, according to the students, generally not very good role models." With the exception of the Midshipmen who have prior enlisted military service, Midshipmen generally lack the breadth of experience to form such judgments of the leadership charged with running our operational units. They do get exposure to Navy and Marine Corps operational culture during their summer cruise blocks but I'll admit, having been a Midshipmen Training Officer during my tour in USS KEARSARGE, that we actively try to showcase the best aspects of our respective communities. As far as Dr. Fleming telling the reader that the Officers on the Faculty and Staff are not good role models, I'd like to find out where he gets this perception. As far as I know, every military officer who joins the Faculty and Staff are personally approved by the Superintendent, who is currently Vice Admiral Carter. As far as I know, a review of my record happened at some point or I would not have been accepted as an Instructor. I make it a point to model good behavior and, more importantly, to teach through facilitated discussion and exchange of ideas. I treat my students the same way I treated by subordinates at sea: with dignity, with respect, as adults, and as valuable members of the team.
Contrary to what he states, we do teach leadership. We have an entire Division that teaches leadership. It is true that our Permanent Military Instructors have a PhD in psychology and we do have a handful of Philosophers teaching as well. We also offer some psychology electives. But Leadership is not a "introductory psychology" course. I am not a psychologist. I am a highly-experienced Surface Warfare Officer with 11 years, 7 months, and 7 days of experience in the leadership and development of Sailors. I was brought here to capitalize on my experiences for the development of the Midshipmen I am entrusted to develop.
While he points to how a number of graduates have recently been relieved for poor leadership, he omits that the leadership curriculum is vastly different from what I received as a Midshipman. I don't even remember my leadership class from Plebe Year. I do fondly remember the other leadership classes but they've changed. The curriculum has evolved. Let's wait 20 years to see how my students do in command.
As for the notion that the Naval Academy is a "military Disneyland," I offer that it could be viewed that way but it depends on the beholder. I am personally enjoying my time here. I am expanding my influence beyond the classroom. I mentor Midshipmen in a sexual harassment and assault program. I am a facilitator for a Lean-In Circle (Sheryl Sandberg has recently called for the inclusion of men in this program). I am actively pursuing qualifications in two kinds of sailboats and our Yard Patrol Craft (our training ships) so I can help the Midshipmen learn seamanship. For a person like me who is driven and who seeks opportunities to lead, develop, and mentor, then the Disneyland characterization could hold some weight. Likewise, contrary to popular belief, there are Midshipmen (probably most of them, actually) who truly enjoy being here. People who don't want to be here can always leave and if they leave prior to commencing their junior year, they owe nothing.
Finally, consider the publication. An article in a conservative publication such as The Federalist is not the same as an article in a scholarly educational journal, nor is it the same as an article in a service-connected publication like USNI's Proceedings. This article isn't even fit for a moderate periodical like The Atlantic.
Comments
Post a Comment