New York Times Article on the Naval Academy

[itlstallion422]

<p>

And whether or not it is correct is immaterial?

</p>

<p>Good point. Whether or not it was correct is important. However, I scribbled off that post as I was on my way out the door this morning, so please excuse me for its brevity… </p>

<p>For starters, this a Times article, so going in you have to realize that it will have a particular “slant to it” (btw, I’m not trying to turn this into a liberal media bashing post, just pointing out the obvious that fact that the Times is a predominantly liberal media outlet in the same way that Fox news is a predominantly conservative outlet). Going in with that mindset, it makes sense that the article proceeds to paint the Academy of John McCain’s era in a particularly negative light. It also makes sense that they attempt to paint today’s midshipman as predominantly Obama supporters (in attempt to call into question military personnel’s support of McCain and the Republican party at large)</p>

<p>Going in with that mindset, the article is a bit easier to digest. It even makes one or two good points as well. Most importantly, it applauds the fact that the Academy tenures its professors, which allows more academic freedom, but more importantly, attracts a better caliber of professor. As a history major, I found both my civilian and military profs to be outstanding. Not only where they good instructors, but they also made themselves available to the mids. Furthermore they avoided injecting there own political views in their lessons. The writer also talks about the constant “struggle” between the group 1 and group 3 majors. Throughout plebe year the Academy overtly encourages you to go engineering, at times even threatening to choose majors for you. Thankfully, that hasn’t seemed to manifest itself yet.</p>

<p>From there though, I quibble with a lot of points the writer attempts to argue. For example:</p>

<p>

And they teach pretty much what professors teach elsewhere — though the Navy permits academic innovations only after long usage elsewhere has removed any taint of novelty. The department of language studies now includes Arabic and Chinese. There’s a class on the 2008 election. The Center for Middle East and Islamic Studies represents a hesitant move toward regional studies.

</p>

<p>The offerings of the language department, like the rest of the Academy, are somewhat limited. The Naval Academy isn’t a school like Penn State with over 40,000 students. It is not going to offer classes on every imaginable subject because there simply are not enough students to fill the classes. Specifically, with the language department, they offer only languages that pertinent to our national defense (or something like that). The total is somewhere in the neighborhood of 7-10. As far as Arabic and Chinese are concerned, since they have become increasingly important for national defense in the past 5 or 6 years, the Academy has upgraded both Chinese and Arabic to the level of academic majors.</p>

<p>

Murray said that, while he was appalled by the ignorance of the incoming freshmen, he found that the students in one of his senior seminars were “by far and away” superior to those he had taught at Yale and elsewhere in their “level of sophistication, writing ability, understanding of history, capacity to connect the dots between different periods.” These students are just as inclined as good students everywhere to question established wisdom. One professor told me he had polled a group of upperclassmen on the presidential race this past May. He was shocked to read the final tally: Hillary Clinton, 0; the war hero and Navy legend John McCain, 7; Barack Obama, 13.

</p>

<p>In this paragraph, the juxtaposition of the statements about the “level of sophistication” of Academy seniors and the election poll seem to imply that this “level of sophistication” leads them to favor Barack Obama.</p>

<p>The most trouble quote is: </p>

<p>

The students who stick to engineering, he said, may “make great officers in nuclear submarines,” but “the danger is when they become admiral they will not have the intellectual preparation to handle the world we’re in.” What’s more, the one-fifth or so of graduates who elect to join the Marines have very little use for all those mandatory science classes. Future marines, Murray observed, tend to major in Division III, thus “siphoning off many of those who are going to understand the international environment of the 21st century.”

</p>

<p>I have problems with this on several different levels. First, the statement about Admirals not having the intellectual preparation seems a bit absurd. Once again, in this case you also have realize the source of the quote as a professor who “taught last year at Annapolis.” In between the Academy and becoming an Admiral, there are a few stepping stones in your 20-30 year Naval career to get to that point. There are multiple tours at sea and on land where you never stop learning real world lessons about leadership and the world around you. On top of that, it seems almost a pre-req to flag rank are graduate degrees. Many Admirals and Generals often have multiple degrees in areas such as international studies and national security from some of the top schools in the country. What is infinitely more troubling about the quote is how Marine group 3 majors are “siphoned off” which makes clear that Marines are somehow secondary and don’t really need to understand the “international environment.” The level of absurdity in this statement lay in the fact that Marines on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan need more than anyone else in the Naval Service to understand the “international environment” that they are dealing with on a daily basis!</p>

<p>

When I contacted a public-affairs official to say that I was writing an article comparing the academy of McCain’s day with today’s, she wrote back saying that “as a federal government and military installation, we will not be able to assist you with your story since we cannot be involved with political campaigns or in any way imply any endorsement of a political candidate.” I would not be permitted to speak to faculty, students or administrators.

</p>

<p>

Fortunately for me, any number of faculty members viewed this directive as preposterous

</p>

<p>How is that preposterous? The Academy and the military in general is very careful not to take sides politically. Obviously much of the faculty is civilian so they may not realize the importance of this rule.</p>

<p>

So far as I could tell, the Naval Academy has no dark secrets to hide.

</p>

<p>Exactly, theres no great conspiracy, just the obvious answer to why they do not want to comment on a political article.</p>

<p>Over my four years, my perspective was that the Brigade of midshipman was a predominantly conservative body. Sure there were many with more liberal views, but a fundamentally conservative atmosphere pervaded much of the Brigade. That being said though, politics was never really a hot button topic with people. It was not usually discussed at tables, and when it was, the conversations were extremely civil. As far as the stance it takes on the Academy of McCain and Webb’s timeframe, I will leave that for the more senior alumni.</p>