He's resigning so as not to have to implement an order he finds distasteful. Presumably, the chair would have to send a communication under his signature rescinding the invitation to present the paper.
Why is the head of the history department at Annapolis not a naval officer? The head of the history department at West Point is, unless changed recently, been a career army officer.
Maybe its time to have all USNA Depts headed by Permanent Military Professor O-6 (Captain/Colonel) officers? Being the chair is mostly an admin job, and many professors who like teaching never seem to want the additional admin burden of the Chair position. Having naval officers in charge however (civilian faculty still present,) does send a firm signal that its about "warfighting" and not just the usual civilian university experience.
Of course we have had multiple O-6s who have been relieved due to "Loss of confidence" in their ability to lead. Students of George Washington these kind of people are not.
USCGA has its Permanent Commissioned Teaching Staff, a small cadre of officers O-3 and up who compete only with each other for promotions, and not with the rest of the officer corps. Nice, obvious benefit: they're still subject to the UCMJ, so you can rein them in to prevent/punish foolish political posturing – gotta love Article 88!
PCTS folks get to stay put in New London, they never have to deal with the hassle of permanent change of station orders ever again, they're almost guaranteed to hit O-6, and all they sacrifice is any possibility of command and any possibility of flag rank.
Department heads aren't required to be drawn from the ranks of the PCTS, but they often are. Civilian profs of very great seniority (and the Dean of Academics) are often retired PCTS folks.
Just glad McMullen was not cancelled. By and large the past conferences (since 2017 anyway,) have been about naval history without too many, if any deviations into current politics. I have either presented, or moderated panels in the last three McMullen's and found them totally professional and w/o politics. It will be interesting to see what paper was objected to by the History Dept Chair.
You misunderstand, I believe. He did not object to the paper. His resignation is wholly unrelated to the paper's content. He objected to an accepted paper being rejected after the committee had selected it, especially since the rejection, or rescinded acceptance, is unrelated to the quality of the scholarship. His stance is related to the paper being rejected for reasons other than scholarship. His stance, as a scholar, is one of integrity. This is the stance we would hope all officers and scholars would take.
The paper may have been so political that the Supe could not accept it. If the paper advocated the violent overthrow of Donald Trump, or deposing Joe Biden because he had dementia and that was good for the republic? Such titles are not appropriate for a naval history conference. For that reason, it would help to know the topic of the paper.
Not really and that's quite the strawman. The point of a conference (and an academic institution more broadly) is to have differing viewpoints. NAFAC has responsibly held this charter for decades.
Moreover, it is part of a pattern of censoring speakers for political reasons, including the disinvitation of Ryan Holiday and Ken Burns after this came out. The Superintendent failed in her duty to the institution.
Do we need Service academies at all? This is not a tired trope; it's always worth asking, especially if we're trying to be operationally effective and fiscally responsible.
Depending on your source, 15-20% of officer accessions come from the academies, with most coming from ROTC and ROTC-like programs. Do we have data that demonstrates that the human product of a Service academy delivers value superior to that produced from other sources? An admittedly very topical and very quick search found data on this question relied upon retention. However, mere career longevity in a hierarchical, isolated organization does not equate to value.
You could reverse the question and ask..."how is that 80% of the people we trust to be officers somehow become less effective and able as they rise towards flag ranks?"
Brettbaker: Unfortunately, the Land Grant Unversities have all been thoroughly subverted as well. Even Cornell was/is a Land Grant University, and we all know how well that's been going.
Between GLMA, Texas A&M, SUNY, Maine, and the others, probably not.
The state of American higher education versus our accession sources are two different discussions. The levelling arm is that pursuing a military career is an "opt-in" choice that supersedes the political climate on any particular university campus, whether Hillsdale, Liberty, Berkeley, or Harvard.
At any rate, the Service academies are not designed to be protectors of political virtue, and we still get 80% of our officers from public and private universities. From Pew Research to anecdotal evidence, there is little reason to believe the officer corps is at risk. Rather, the most significant risk to officer corps professionalization is a function of what we're doing, or not doing, with this human talent once it is in the ranks.
Given the number of merchant ships that still fly the American flag and the fact that we have six state maritime academies I question the need for the USMMA.
Originally, they were to provide a well trained and cohesive group of officers loyal to the federal government, and serve as the core of an expandable force in wartime. As late as World War II, that was the case. Now, it seems they are supposed to provide a core of career minded officers.
Perhaps we should reconsider our officer commissioning paths. The last major research on it was done after World War II, and our nation and Navy have changed quite a bit.
I think we should start at the other end of the equation first - how are flag officers performing, and work backwards towards the source material.
As a democracy, we are prisoners of what society decides to send us, so that is the last thing we can influence...we do, however, have tremendous control over how we take that human capital and turn it into high-performing military officers.
I always liked to remind my drill instructors that the guys who took Belleau Wood had long hair, facial hair, and spent only a few weeks in boot camp. They spent just as much time on smoke breaks and doing laundry as they did marching or on the rifle range. The real training took place in France, in quiet sectors of the front, with good leadership. Similarly, Marines who defended the Pusan perimeter were supported by personnel who received basic training on ships enroute to Korea.
The trouble is that the Armed Forces define "outstanding flag officer performance" as "rapidly rising through the flag ranks." You're promoted based on your ability to get promoted.
It's kinda like worthless celebrity dipsticks who are famous for being famous.
Academy grad here. Feel free to get rid of West Point, Annapolis, Colorado Springs, and my alma mater in New London. Hell, might as well get rid of ROTC too.
OCS can handle the commissioning of all officers, and it can focus on the strictly professional and leadership aspects of turning a civvie or mustang into a "proper gentleman."
All the enlisted start with boot camp. There's no need for a frillion accession paths for officers. Let them all start at OCS and then spread out as needed for specialty training.
I'm for something along the lines of what the Brits do. I think Sandhurst has a 13 month course, for example. I've heard the Royal Naval College is the same. The Brits get good service from those institutions.
There's a number of options. The National Guard has a healthy relationship with the Army ROTC detachments, allowing for cadets to gain exposure to the service in the Simultaneous Member Program. Probably a better use of college time than many.
i am ok with that idea. More egalitarian than “ring knockers” running around determined they are far superior than the enlisted “who bear watching”. Flatter officer corps, less expense, less cadre…united by common experience.
We might also get better enlisted recruits if they actually had an enlisted to officer ascension path that was merit based…not “who knew the Congressman and got a better recommendation”!
I'm going to steal an idea from Heinlein: *Every* officer a mustang. If people need the help to get through college, keep ROTC, and have those folks come in at E2.
Now, maybe this is a stupid idea for reasons I'm not seeing, but it seems like it would ground everyone in the basics.
That works for combat arms in the Army, or functions where the knowledge bases are complimentary. Not so well for the technically trained officers required. I don’t think a very smart engineering graduate would put up with a few years as a bluejacket as a prerequisite to becoming a nuclear trained officer when the outside offers a great deal of money. I do think that different paths for the different services makes a deal sense.
Remember in that book, Carmen joined up as an officer candidate straight up from civilian life because of mathematical talent, and was commissioned when Johnny was at OCS.
I would disagree. If a man can't hack it as a blue jacket, then you don't want him as an officer, regardless of his specialty. Rommel, for example, had to serve in a regiment until he made Corporal, and requiring something similar in the Navy would not hurt a bit.
That's a good point. Perhaps very different tracks for different sorts of officers? I could well be simply vastly underestimating the level of technical expertise required for command these days.
Yeah, I don't know. It's entirely possible I just don't know enough to have a valid opinion on the subject.
" I don’t think a very smart engineering graduate would put up with a few years as a bluejacket as a prerequisite to becoming a nuclear trained officer"
There could be a better case for abolishing the war colleges. The value of those master's degree programs (judging by the theses one can read online) is not obvious.
Think flag rank requires MEL 1, US Army War College or equivalent, might even be in legislation somewhere. Still requirement for Joint Service for flag rank? Until this was made a requirement, services not that interested in "purple."
My use of the word "requirement" had more to do with "we feel that additional education is necessary to help officers transition from field grade perspectives to the knowledge and perspectives necessary at O-6 and GO/FO ranks."
This comes up every time the Academies are mentioned here. It's a bad idea, throwing away a tradition, not to mention the physical infrastructure.
I'm for either maintaining them as they are as a path to a degree, or turning them into a shorter but still comprehensive course a' la Sandhurst or Dartmouth, or perhaps a combination of the two.
FYI, ROTC commissioning ceremony at Memorial (to the Union dead) Hall of the hated Harvard University.
Interesting looking at the new officers. Best moment is the grandpa coming out in his 1950s USAF TSGT uniform to give the first salute to his grandson. Three generation military AF, USN, now Army.
To use the heritage org as far right as Ms Ruth Ben-Ghiat is to the left is just so typical of right commentators. If midshipman can’t parse bias from Ms. Ben-Ghiat’s presentations then the Academy has a problem either in its student base or it’s overall teaching.
Show me any invitation from USNA of someone on the right that is equal to Ben-Ghiat is on the left. You can’t. That is only 49% of the problem.51% is its proximity to the election and focus on one of the candidates. Stop making excuses for the inexcusable.
Midshipmen, students of any institution or level, should NOT have to "parse" anything. They should expect that the education they are given provides correct and truthful instruction. Not a bunch of BS they have to sort through to gain value.*
*Short of exercises in critical thinking, which a Bancroft Lecture is not meant to be.
Bias pervades scholarship and is, to an extent, unavoidable. We want officers prepared to recognize it in others and themselves. Over time, every scholar should develop an informed perspective. No one is more vulnerable to manipulation than someone who thinks facts can only be interpreted in one way.
Bias pervades everything humans do. You, me, CDR Sal, all of us have biases.
Anti-bias training and agendas only instill specific biases.
Now that said, a wise person will understand his, and others, biases (as much as one can, it's often not easy) and learn to act accordingly. Especially when some biases are good, such as belief in defense of our country, the need take action, even violent action, when circumstances dictate.
It is also worth noting that certain biases are not good. And nothing should require that they be respected or promoted. Understood, at least enough to counter them? Sure, but not embraced.
Wisdom isn't really innate. It has to be developed.
There are many sources that can do that, parents, grandparents, mentors, and even teachers and institutions of higher education.
I would argue that the greatest education one can get is learning wisdom and how to learn rather than simple knowledge. It is unrealistic to expect everyone to become wise. But you can systematically improve the levels of wisdom with good teaching.
But it seems that our systems are now geared to teach foolishness and ignorance. And as it turns out, everyone can master those.
Pretty much only in non-STEM subjects. Not nearly as much BS. Hard to get political over a PDE. That's why I was a STEM major. It's also why I took extra English & Social "Science" courses; so I could argue.
The "in this moment" construct, and its variants ("our moment," etc.) is all over the place. I just noticed the same thing in a letter to alumni of my undergrad alma mater (somewhere in the Hills of New Hampshire), from the College's fairly new president (one year on the job, I believe) after being recruited from an uber-liberal sister institution (Barnard, hack, hack) of another esteemed Ivy (Columbia, cough, cough). "In this moment" is supposed to convey immediacy and gravity, as if we all need to drop everything to realize how profoundly important "this moment" is, in the cosmic scheme of human history.
"In this moment" is leftist linguistic garbage. That's all I have to say, at this moment.
Generally, that line about “in this moment” is code for Republican control of one or more parts of govt. Right now, in the context of this USNA matter, it’s clearly code for “Trump” and another way of saying that the entrenched Left must hunker down and wait him out for an election or two. But it’s a mistake to personalize things to the New York Yankee, and not realize that DJT is the embodiment of a cultural red-shift that has occurred across the nation.
"In this moment," is the way in which reasonable people identify our unusual times without being political. With so much change and upheaval across sector, everyone is having to adapt quickly. Basic (and advanced) change management usually requires at least a little bit of explanation. That's impossible these days without risking a political discussion. "In this moment" is a compartmentalization that acknowledges how fickle and unpredictable top leadership is while at the same time sending a signal that says, "There's benefit to us discussing this right now."
"In this moment" is also protective of the Administration and respectfull. "In this moment" says, "Our context has changed. Let's not get distracted in debate or venting over it. Here is how we are moving forward."
I think the academics have lost sight of why the Naval Academy exists. It’s not another place for them to conduct research and publish as they see fit, it is to train Naval Officers. In the past few decades, Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy has been just ruthless working out in any academic institution.
When I was a B&G Officer (resigned back in the late 90’s when the min qualifying SAT was lowered to 500-500/1000 for minorities; you either have a standard or you don't, wasn’t gonna be part of a double-standard…but I digress) and was speaking to 11th graders about the admissions process, I’d start off with, “Let’s be clear: USNA is an officer-producing program, that just happens to allow you to earn a college degree in the process. If you do not see yourself in five years as an ensign in the United States Navy, or second lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps, then this is not for you. You need to gather your stuff and head back to class.”
Absolutely! We need officers dedicated to the real mission of the US Navy…to maintain the security of our nation by protecting freedom of the seas. Our economy, commerce, our defense requires protection of sea lanes, ports, and our ability to project power abroad to defend the same for our allies, in America’s interests.
Naval power IS the constant presence necessary to remind frenemies and adversaries of our ability to respond quickly and decisively to bad behavior. The power and presence of land forces relies upon the Navy and is complementary to forward positioning of air dominance.
In the “big picture” we are who we are as a great military power because of resources and our ability to defend our interests. China is in check because of it’s limited naval capabilities…but that is rapidly changing. We will meet this challenge squarely or suffer greatly. There is no time like the present to eschew political correctness and get right down to business…we are the badasses of the 7 Seas and anyone not up to that needs to get out of the way. Welded to the pier and permanent shore duty is not being a sailor. The world remains safe because of our care and vigilance. We must be able and ready to sail.
So anyone without experience, education, or any relevance in the subject matter can submit an paper for any purpose. This is now the standards that instruct those who will defend the nation against adversaries who do not respect the rule of law, or even follow rules of common sense? 'Prudence would seem to have evacuated itself from the U.S. Naval Academy.' The following excerpt from paragraph one would seem to confirm this statement:
“…vetting speakers and papers is not a good place to be for an American institution of higher education, nor is it tenable in the long-run, if we are to remain true to our values as academics and Americans.”
The military academies of the United States Armed Services are to educate and build WARRIORS . . . not ACADEMICS!
Love that Star Trek episode "The Way To Eden", lunatic Dr. Sevrin, decides death over reason -
"Belief Makes You Stupid: The hippies' belief that Planet Eden existed and that it was a perfect place leads to Adam and Sevrin's death by alien fruit and painful injuries for the others."
I concur! I am curious about what we might not want to present. There is a difference between intellectual honesty and relevance. Ideally, we want both!
Well done and said Cdr Salamander!! Pete and Stu need to know about these far left departments throughout DoD, to include the War Colleges!! Then, they need to fire all of them!!
All academic conferences have a vetting process in which the conference committee determines if the paper is a good fit. I had to wait for the McMullen committee to determine if my paper proposal was worthy of presenting this year…normal process. If the Superintendent of USNA wants to be part of the vetting process, it is highly appropriate…as a naval officer, the Supe is likely pretty knowledgeable on naval history and its usefulness (!) and probably should have been part of the vetting process from the start before acceptances were sent out. And being a department chair is more of a burden than a privilege, so unloading the job is no sacrifice. Years ago the History Department chair was always a Navy or Marine O-6. Probably time to go back to that.
Note that the author only resigned as Department Chair. He is not so committed that he would quit his nice government job.
not that many history prof gigs to be tossing it away
I noticed that point right away.
He's resigning so as not to have to implement an order he finds distasteful. Presumably, the chair would have to send a communication under his signature rescinding the invitation to present the paper.
Why is the head of the history department at Annapolis not a naval officer? The head of the history department at West Point is, unless changed recently, been a career army officer.
Maybe its time to have all USNA Depts headed by Permanent Military Professor O-6 (Captain/Colonel) officers? Being the chair is mostly an admin job, and many professors who like teaching never seem to want the additional admin burden of the Chair position. Having naval officers in charge however (civilian faculty still present,) does send a firm signal that its about "warfighting" and not just the usual civilian university experience.
Of course we have had multiple O-6s who have been relieved due to "Loss of confidence" in their ability to lead. Students of George Washington these kind of people are not.
USCGA has its Permanent Commissioned Teaching Staff, a small cadre of officers O-3 and up who compete only with each other for promotions, and not with the rest of the officer corps. Nice, obvious benefit: they're still subject to the UCMJ, so you can rein them in to prevent/punish foolish political posturing – gotta love Article 88!
PCTS folks get to stay put in New London, they never have to deal with the hassle of permanent change of station orders ever again, they're almost guaranteed to hit O-6, and all they sacrifice is any possibility of command and any possibility of flag rank.
Department heads aren't required to be drawn from the ranks of the PCTS, but they often are. Civilian profs of very great seniority (and the Dean of Academics) are often retired PCTS folks.
Could be a model worth looking at for Annapolis.
I would agree if you can find currently serving officers uncontaminated by the thirty years of liberal indoctrination.
The stench of arrogance and ego permeates the letter...(Proverbs 16:18 applies).
Just glad McMullen was not cancelled. By and large the past conferences (since 2017 anyway,) have been about naval history without too many, if any deviations into current politics. I have either presented, or moderated panels in the last three McMullen's and found them totally professional and w/o politics. It will be interesting to see what paper was objected to by the History Dept Chair.
You misunderstand, I believe. He did not object to the paper. His resignation is wholly unrelated to the paper's content. He objected to an accepted paper being rejected after the committee had selected it, especially since the rejection, or rescinded acceptance, is unrelated to the quality of the scholarship. His stance is related to the paper being rejected for reasons other than scholarship. His stance, as a scholar, is one of integrity. This is the stance we would hope all officers and scholars would take.
It would help to know the topic of the rejected paper.
Would it? Why does the Sup choose what is acceptable speech?
The paper may have been so political that the Supe could not accept it. If the paper advocated the violent overthrow of Donald Trump, or deposing Joe Biden because he had dementia and that was good for the republic? Such titles are not appropriate for a naval history conference. For that reason, it would help to know the topic of the paper.
Not really and that's quite the strawman. The point of a conference (and an academic institution more broadly) is to have differing viewpoints. NAFAC has responsibly held this charter for decades.
Moreover, it is part of a pattern of censoring speakers for political reasons, including the disinvitation of Ryan Holiday and Ken Burns after this came out. The Superintendent failed in her duty to the institution.
That’s speculation and not supported by the other facts. Why would this one paper be the only time that this conference be canceled outright?
Do we need Service academies at all? This is not a tired trope; it's always worth asking, especially if we're trying to be operationally effective and fiscally responsible.
Depending on your source, 15-20% of officer accessions come from the academies, with most coming from ROTC and ROTC-like programs. Do we have data that demonstrates that the human product of a Service academy delivers value superior to that produced from other sources? An admittedly very topical and very quick search found data on this question relied upon retention. However, mere career longevity in a hierarchical, isolated organization does not equate to value.
You could reverse the question and ask..."how is that 80% of the people we trust to be officers somehow become less effective and able as they rise towards flag ranks?"
Honestly, it's like Congress hasn't heard of Land Grant Universities or ROTC. Maybe keep the Merchant Marine Academy?
Brettbaker: Unfortunately, the Land Grant Unversities have all been thoroughly subverted as well. Even Cornell was/is a Land Grant University, and we all know how well that's been going.
Nope. Big 10 Land Grants are just as bad as any other major university.
Between GLMA, Texas A&M, SUNY, Maine, and the others, probably not.
The state of American higher education versus our accession sources are two different discussions. The levelling arm is that pursuing a military career is an "opt-in" choice that supersedes the political climate on any particular university campus, whether Hillsdale, Liberty, Berkeley, or Harvard.
At any rate, the Service academies are not designed to be protectors of political virtue, and we still get 80% of our officers from public and private universities. From Pew Research to anecdotal evidence, there is little reason to believe the officer corps is at risk. Rather, the most significant risk to officer corps professionalization is a function of what we're doing, or not doing, with this human talent once it is in the ranks.
I've said here before, "the service academies are past their sell by date."
Given the number of merchant ships that still fly the American flag and the fact that we have six state maritime academies I question the need for the USMMA.
Originally, they were to provide a well trained and cohesive group of officers loyal to the federal government, and serve as the core of an expandable force in wartime. As late as World War II, that was the case. Now, it seems they are supposed to provide a core of career minded officers.
Perhaps we should reconsider our officer commissioning paths. The last major research on it was done after World War II, and our nation and Navy have changed quite a bit.
I think we should start at the other end of the equation first - how are flag officers performing, and work backwards towards the source material.
As a democracy, we are prisoners of what society decides to send us, so that is the last thing we can influence...we do, however, have tremendous control over how we take that human capital and turn it into high-performing military officers.
I always liked to remind my drill instructors that the guys who took Belleau Wood had long hair, facial hair, and spent only a few weeks in boot camp. They spent just as much time on smoke breaks and doing laundry as they did marching or on the rifle range. The real training took place in France, in quiet sectors of the front, with good leadership. Similarly, Marines who defended the Pusan perimeter were supported by personnel who received basic training on ships enroute to Korea.
The trouble is that the Armed Forces define "outstanding flag officer performance" as "rapidly rising through the flag ranks." You're promoted based on your ability to get promoted.
It's kinda like worthless celebrity dipsticks who are famous for being famous.
Academy grad here. Feel free to get rid of West Point, Annapolis, Colorado Springs, and my alma mater in New London. Hell, might as well get rid of ROTC too.
OCS can handle the commissioning of all officers, and it can focus on the strictly professional and leadership aspects of turning a civvie or mustang into a "proper gentleman."
All the enlisted start with boot camp. There's no need for a frillion accession paths for officers. Let them all start at OCS and then spread out as needed for specialty training.
I'm for something along the lines of what the Brits do. I think Sandhurst has a 13 month course, for example. I've heard the Royal Naval College is the same. The Brits get good service from those institutions.
No bachelor's degree required, either. Just gotta pass the tests.
There's a number of options. The National Guard has a healthy relationship with the Army ROTC detachments, allowing for cadets to gain exposure to the service in the Simultaneous Member Program. Probably a better use of college time than many.
There are also these state National Guard OCS courses.
The easiest way to get a commission other than Navy Reserve direct commissions - one weekend a month + two weeks in a year.
i am ok with that idea. More egalitarian than “ring knockers” running around determined they are far superior than the enlisted “who bear watching”. Flatter officer corps, less expense, less cadre…united by common experience.
We might also get better enlisted recruits if they actually had an enlisted to officer ascension path that was merit based…not “who knew the Congressman and got a better recommendation”!
I'm going to steal an idea from Heinlein: *Every* officer a mustang. If people need the help to get through college, keep ROTC, and have those folks come in at E2.
Now, maybe this is a stupid idea for reasons I'm not seeing, but it seems like it would ground everyone in the basics.
That works for combat arms in the Army, or functions where the knowledge bases are complimentary. Not so well for the technically trained officers required. I don’t think a very smart engineering graduate would put up with a few years as a bluejacket as a prerequisite to becoming a nuclear trained officer when the outside offers a great deal of money. I do think that different paths for the different services makes a deal sense.
Remember in that book, Carmen joined up as an officer candidate straight up from civilian life because of mathematical talent, and was commissioned when Johnny was at OCS.
I would disagree. If a man can't hack it as a blue jacket, then you don't want him as an officer, regardless of his specialty. Rommel, for example, had to serve in a regiment until he made Corporal, and requiring something similar in the Navy would not hurt a bit.
That's a good point. Perhaps very different tracks for different sorts of officers? I could well be simply vastly underestimating the level of technical expertise required for command these days.
Yeah, I don't know. It's entirely possible I just don't know enough to have a valid opinion on the subject.
" I don’t think a very smart engineering graduate would put up with a few years as a bluejacket as a prerequisite to becoming a nuclear trained officer"
Is being an enlisted sailor that bad?
There could be a better case for abolishing the war colleges. The value of those master's degree programs (judging by the theses one can read online) is not obvious.
There is a functional requirement for top-level schools...whether they are creating the necessary product is another question.
The main problem with an organization like the military is that the system promotes the best in the system, and we ask the system to grade itself.
I assume that "requirement" means it is written into law somewhere. If the war colleges are not doing their job... let's change that requirement.
Think flag rank requires MEL 1, US Army War College or equivalent, might even be in legislation somewhere. Still requirement for Joint Service for flag rank? Until this was made a requirement, services not that interested in "purple."
My use of the word "requirement" had more to do with "we feel that additional education is necessary to help officers transition from field grade perspectives to the knowledge and perspectives necessary at O-6 and GO/FO ranks."
This comes up every time the Academies are mentioned here. It's a bad idea, throwing away a tradition, not to mention the physical infrastructure.
I'm for either maintaining them as they are as a path to a degree, or turning them into a shorter but still comprehensive course a' la Sandhurst or Dartmouth, or perhaps a combination of the two.
FYI, ROTC commissioning ceremony at Memorial (to the Union dead) Hall of the hated Harvard University.
Interesting looking at the new officers. Best moment is the grandpa coming out in his 1950s USAF TSGT uniform to give the first salute to his grandson. Three generation military AF, USN, now Army.
https://youtu.be/KM6m587vUJ0?si=4AGBUhxNsbH52NH-
Will all this culture war book-banning stuff, partisan rhetoric by SECDEF, and deployments onto city streets help recruiting?
"Will all this culture war book-banning stuff, partisan rhetoric by SECDEF, and deployments onto city streets help recruiting?"
Pardon me? Please run those accusations by me again, but with less of a thick gooey coating of commie jargon.
To use the heritage org as far right as Ms Ruth Ben-Ghiat is to the left is just so typical of right commentators. If midshipman can’t parse bias from Ms. Ben-Ghiat’s presentations then the Academy has a problem either in its student base or it’s overall teaching.
Show me any invitation from USNA of someone on the right that is equal to Ben-Ghiat is on the left. You can’t. That is only 49% of the problem.51% is its proximity to the election and focus on one of the candidates. Stop making excuses for the inexcusable.
I vehemently disagree.
Midshipmen, students of any institution or level, should NOT have to "parse" anything. They should expect that the education they are given provides correct and truthful instruction. Not a bunch of BS they have to sort through to gain value.*
*Short of exercises in critical thinking, which a Bancroft Lecture is not meant to be.
Bias pervades scholarship and is, to an extent, unavoidable. We want officers prepared to recognize it in others and themselves. Over time, every scholar should develop an informed perspective. No one is more vulnerable to manipulation than someone who thinks facts can only be interpreted in one way.
Bias pervades everything humans do. You, me, CDR Sal, all of us have biases.
Anti-bias training and agendas only instill specific biases.
Now that said, a wise person will understand his, and others, biases (as much as one can, it's often not easy) and learn to act accordingly. Especially when some biases are good, such as belief in defense of our country, the need take action, even violent action, when circumstances dictate.
It is also worth noting that certain biases are not good. And nothing should require that they be respected or promoted. Understood, at least enough to counter them? Sure, but not embraced.
" a wise person will understand ..."
"Aye, there's the rub."
Like Diogenes's honest man, you will need to diligently search for such a person.
Wisdom isn't really innate. It has to be developed.
There are many sources that can do that, parents, grandparents, mentors, and even teachers and institutions of higher education.
I would argue that the greatest education one can get is learning wisdom and how to learn rather than simple knowledge. It is unrealistic to expect everyone to become wise. But you can systematically improve the levels of wisdom with good teaching.
But it seems that our systems are now geared to teach foolishness and ignorance. And as it turns out, everyone can master those.
"Bias pervades scholarship"
Pretty much only in non-STEM subjects. Not nearly as much BS. Hard to get political over a PDE. That's why I was a STEM major. It's also why I took extra English & Social "Science" courses; so I could argue.
Stick to chess. Leave fixing the military to us veterans.
The "in this moment" construct, and its variants ("our moment," etc.) is all over the place. I just noticed the same thing in a letter to alumni of my undergrad alma mater (somewhere in the Hills of New Hampshire), from the College's fairly new president (one year on the job, I believe) after being recruited from an uber-liberal sister institution (Barnard, hack, hack) of another esteemed Ivy (Columbia, cough, cough). "In this moment" is supposed to convey immediacy and gravity, as if we all need to drop everything to realize how profoundly important "this moment" is, in the cosmic scheme of human history.
"In this moment" is leftist linguistic garbage. That's all I have to say, at this moment.
Generally, that line about “in this moment” is code for Republican control of one or more parts of govt. Right now, in the context of this USNA matter, it’s clearly code for “Trump” and another way of saying that the entrenched Left must hunker down and wait him out for an election or two. But it’s a mistake to personalize things to the New York Yankee, and not realize that DJT is the embodiment of a cultural red-shift that has occurred across the nation.
"In this moment," is the way in which reasonable people identify our unusual times without being political. With so much change and upheaval across sector, everyone is having to adapt quickly. Basic (and advanced) change management usually requires at least a little bit of explanation. That's impossible these days without risking a political discussion. "In this moment" is a compartmentalization that acknowledges how fickle and unpredictable top leadership is while at the same time sending a signal that says, "There's benefit to us discussing this right now."
"In this moment" is also protective of the Administration and respectfull. "In this moment" says, "Our context has changed. Let's not get distracted in debate or venting over it. Here is how we are moving forward."
I think the academics have lost sight of why the Naval Academy exists. It’s not another place for them to conduct research and publish as they see fit, it is to train Naval Officers. In the past few decades, Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy has been just ruthless working out in any academic institution.
Absolutely correct.
When I was a B&G Officer (resigned back in the late 90’s when the min qualifying SAT was lowered to 500-500/1000 for minorities; you either have a standard or you don't, wasn’t gonna be part of a double-standard…but I digress) and was speaking to 11th graders about the admissions process, I’d start off with, “Let’s be clear: USNA is an officer-producing program, that just happens to allow you to earn a college degree in the process. If you do not see yourself in five years as an ensign in the United States Navy, or second lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps, then this is not for you. You need to gather your stuff and head back to class.”
USNA needs to get its eye back on this ball.
Absolutely! We need officers dedicated to the real mission of the US Navy…to maintain the security of our nation by protecting freedom of the seas. Our economy, commerce, our defense requires protection of sea lanes, ports, and our ability to project power abroad to defend the same for our allies, in America’s interests.
Naval power IS the constant presence necessary to remind frenemies and adversaries of our ability to respond quickly and decisively to bad behavior. The power and presence of land forces relies upon the Navy and is complementary to forward positioning of air dominance.
In the “big picture” we are who we are as a great military power because of resources and our ability to defend our interests. China is in check because of it’s limited naval capabilities…but that is rapidly changing. We will meet this challenge squarely or suffer greatly. There is no time like the present to eschew political correctness and get right down to business…we are the badasses of the 7 Seas and anyone not up to that needs to get out of the way. Welded to the pier and permanent shore duty is not being a sailor. The world remains safe because of our care and vigilance. We must be able and ready to sail.
So anyone without experience, education, or any relevance in the subject matter can submit an paper for any purpose. This is now the standards that instruct those who will defend the nation against adversaries who do not respect the rule of law, or even follow rules of common sense? 'Prudence would seem to have evacuated itself from the U.S. Naval Academy.' The following excerpt from paragraph one would seem to confirm this statement:
“…vetting speakers and papers is not a good place to be for an American institution of higher education, nor is it tenable in the long-run, if we are to remain true to our values as academics and Americans.”
The military academies of the United States Armed Services are to educate and build WARRIORS . . . not ACADEMICS!
I wonder how many papers are AI assisted? Does anyone write without left-leaning, Chat gpt?
I’ve long believed that the biggest problem w American history is that it changes so often.
History that never changes would be a much deeper problem.
That's what keeps our Winston Smiths employed.
Love that Star Trek episode "The Way To Eden", lunatic Dr. Sevrin, decides death over reason -
"Belief Makes You Stupid: The hippies' belief that Planet Eden existed and that it was a perfect place leads to Adam and Sevrin's death by alien fruit and painful injuries for the others."
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Recap/StarTrekS3E20TheWayToEden
Feel that most of academia is heading in this direction
We can only hope.
And sooner rather than later.
But I'm not optimistic.
I hope someone sends you that paper because your breakdown of it is sure to be epic.
I concur! I am curious about what we might not want to present. There is a difference between intellectual honesty and relevance. Ideally, we want both!
It would be revealing. Whenever there's an attempt to bury a scholarly work, we should all take notice.
The logic of the letter is amusing. Everything has limits.
Well done and said Cdr Salamander!! Pete and Stu need to know about these far left departments throughout DoD, to include the War Colleges!! Then, they need to fire all of them!!
What, the writings of Karl Marx as interpreted by Howard Zinn aren't good enough?
All academic conferences have a vetting process in which the conference committee determines if the paper is a good fit. I had to wait for the McMullen committee to determine if my paper proposal was worthy of presenting this year…normal process. If the Superintendent of USNA wants to be part of the vetting process, it is highly appropriate…as a naval officer, the Supe is likely pretty knowledgeable on naval history and its usefulness (!) and probably should have been part of the vetting process from the start before acceptances were sent out. And being a department chair is more of a burden than a privilege, so unloading the job is no sacrifice. Years ago the History Department chair was always a Navy or Marine O-6. Probably time to go back to that.