Much sound and fury on the subject of education has recently been raised in many U. S. periodicals. Nearly every such article dwells entirely on the academic aspects of education. The alacrity with which high school students take to woodworking, basket-weaving, finger-painting and co-ed cooking is widely deplored, and the suggestion is made that such courses should be replaced by mathematics, English, science, history, and foreign languages. While we can agree in every respect with the necessity for improving our next generation's academic background, it is believed that complete concentration on academic accomplishment as the sole measure of an institution, or of an individual's educational achievement, is a short-sighted and distorted point of view. Historically the Naval Academy has sought to develop midshipmen physically and morally, as well as mentally. In recent years, the search to describe the proper balance of effort towards these ends has resulted in various statements of the "Mission" of the Naval Academy.
Years ago, (then) Lieutenant Commander Mahlon S. Tisdale, put on paper the first officially approved "Mission" of the Naval Academy. In March 1923 he published an article in the Naval Institute PROCEEDINGS on the subject and now, nearly forty years later, I have repeated the identical title, and have made use of much of the material from Admiral Tisdale's original article. The late Mr. O. P. Baldwin (father of Mr. Hanson Baldwin, Military Editor of the New York Times) wrote several editorials in the Baltimore Sun commenting on Mr. Tisdale's PROCEEDINGS article and on the Superintendent's Annual Report to the Secretary. Here, in part, is what he said: "At a period when honor, truth, duty, responsibility, and unselfish patriotism seem to be losing their force and meaning in other spheres, this voicing of the mission of the Academy sounds a stirring trumpet call to higher ideals, not only to the ardent youth within its gates, but to every American man and woman." Further, Mr. Baldwin had this to say about the Naval Academy's determination to instill in all midshipmen a recognition of the Eternal Worth of Character. "The thing is astounding, it is almost scandalous, especially at such a time as this when candidates and people alike are talking about everything else under the sun—the tariff, prohibition, the Ku Klux Klan, taxes, Communism, the League of Nations, the Constitution, farm relief and the millennium. Yet it stands out like a battle flag. . . . The one single thing of great importance to the midshipmen is that they shall have instilled in them, perhaps unconsciously, but so thoroughly as to become an integral part of their makeup, a recognition of the Eternal Worth of Character."
The Mission of the Naval Academy, as drafted nearly forty years ago, reads as follows:
"To mould the material received into educated gentlemen, thoroughly indoctrinated with honor, uprightness and truth, with practical rather than academic minds, with thorough loyalty to country, with a ground work of educational fundamentals upon which experience afloat may build the finished naval officer, capable of upholding, whenever and wherever may be necessary, the honor of the United States; and withal giving due consideration that healthy minds in healthy bodies are necessities for the fulfillment of the individual missions of the graduates; and that fullest efficiency under this mission can only be attained if, through humane yet firm and just discipline, the graduates carry into the Service respect and admiration for this Academy." In the intervening years the wording of the Mission has been changed from time to time without altering the meat of it. On 11 March 1960, the Secretary of the Navy approved the following wording—which is therefore now the official Mission:
"To develop midshipmen morally, mentally, and physically and to imbue them with the highest ideals of duty, honor, and loyalty in order to provide graduates 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."
Before describing how the Naval Academy of 1960 goes about carrying out this Mission, it might be well to outline very briefly a few of the physical changes since Lieutenant Commander Tisdale's tour. In addition to the four wings of Bancroft Hall then existing, there are now four more—two built during World War II and two more currently under construction. The Regiment of 2,400 has grown to a Brigade (two Regiments) of 3,600. Academic facilities have been expanded through the addition of much classroom and laboratory space, and athletic facilities have been greatly expanded through the addition of land fills and the Field House.
"TO DEVELOP MIDSHIPMEN . . . MENTALLY. . . "While never devoting the midshipmen's time to basket-weaving or bird-watching, the curriculum has, in the past, required all midshipmen to take virtually the same course regardless of prior credits. Furthermore, no provision was available whereby the especially gifted midshipman might voluntarily assume an additional academic load. Thus it can, in truth, be said that the Naval Academy has recently taken its greatest academic step forward in all the one hundred fourteen years of its existence.
The entering midshipman no longer is required to take the same course as all others in his class. In cases where he has already taken some or all of the standard curriculum subjects, and can satisfactorily demonstrate proficiency in them, he may start immediately with more advanced courses. Such a system, which includes optional courses after completion of all the required ones, plus the privilege of taking concurrently an extra course over and above the normal curriculum, makes available a large number of elective courses which the incoming midshipman may take during the four-year period. It is already true that the gifted incoming midshipman with a year or more of undergraduate college work behind him may continue right along with his education at a pace which taxes his capability to its limit and which does not require him to retrace the same academic paths he had trod before entering. Furthermore, the day is fast approaching when very few graduating midshipmen will have been exposed only to the basic, standard curriculum.
"TO DEVELOP MIDSHIPMEN MORALLY, MENTALLY, AND PHYSICALLY AND TO IMBUE THEM WITH THE HIGHEST IDEALS OF DUTY, HONOR AND LOYALTY. . . "This is the other half of the Mission and it requires close attention by every officer and professor from the Superintendent on down. Its very wording is a ringing affirmation of the Naval Academy's high evaluation of the "Eternal Worth of Character." In pursuing this part of the Mission, the objectives and many of the procedures are identical to those used forty years ago—or a hundred years ago, for that matter. Human beings do not change very much and the building blocks of character are not subject to obsolescence. As Lieutenant Commander Tisdale put it in 1923: ". . . while scholarly attributes are essential, unimpeachable character is vital."
How does the Naval Academy go about the accomplishment of these very important tasks? The part requiring physical development of midshipmen is perhaps easiest to explain. In a recent reorganization, the Physical Training Department was placed directly under the Commandant of Midshipmen. Thus, control over both the Physical Training Program and the Intramural Sports Program is located in one office. All midshipmen are required to attend scheduled physical training classes. Furthermore, all who are not participating in a varsity sport are required to participate in an intramural sport—fall, winter, and spring. If I May borrow more words from 1923 concerning varsity and intramural sports, "They fit the graduates to coach ship's athletic teams . . . and what is more important. . . do much to keep the regiment healthy and build up the midshipmen's physiques to keep pace with their constantly developing minds. Athletics also develop certain qualities of leadership, such as good sportsmanship, instant decision, concentration, willingness to work hard, and self denial."
The Conduct System is sometimes misunderstood by the public and roundly branded as too severe by overly-protective mothers. Actually it is quite straightforward and easy to understand. The Conduct System is one device by which the value of correct behavior is impressed upon midshipmen and is the principal means of maintaining good order and discipline. Essentially the standards of behavior are outlined in the Regulation Book. Carry out the regulations and behavior is correct; violate the regulations and behavior is incorrect. Incorrect behavior results in admonition, advice, caution, and warning. When these fail, or when the incorrect behavior is very gross, the result is punishment and demerits. Note that demerits are not a punishment. They are a bookkeeping entry which permits the relating of one midshipman's conduct to that of all the others. The emphasis is on carrying out the regulations—doing what one is told. From 1923, "A primary requisite in the character of the successful naval officer is obedience. One who cannot command himself cannot command others. . . . Of course the primary function of most rules is for the orderly administration of a large and intricate organization, but regardless of the reason for the regulations, it is a fact that they do teach the novice that there are certain things that he may not do."
The Aptitude System seeks to evaluate and improve the individual midshipman in the attributes of loyalty, leadership, initiative, personal appearance, reliability, participation, judgment, physical fitness, maturity, military bearing, self-discipline, co-operation, expression, and social presence. It is a large order and a great majority of the Company and Battalion Officer's time is spent carrying out the requirements of the Aptitude System. Of course "Aptitude for the Service" is a complex and somewhat nebulous characteristic. After all, we are attempting to extrapolate future performance as an officer from present behavior attitude, and capability as a midshipman. Individual cases can be cited to prove that the Aptitude System makes mistakes, i.e., a "clean-sleever" midshipman turns out to be an outstanding officer, or a Regimental Commander winds up as an alcoholic derelict. These exceptions do not detract one iota from this simple fact: the best statistical correlation between Naval Academy record and outstanding officer performance has been found to be a high mark in Aptitude—a greater correlation than academic excellence, or athletic prowess, or a combination of those two.
The Aptitude System is divided into three parts. The first part deals with evaluation of the midshipmen in aptitude. This part measures their aptitude for the Service, relates them to one another in aptitude, and therefore identifies those who are very low in aptitude and require counselling. The second and most important part of the system involves interview, counsel, and guidance for those midshipmen whose aptitude for the Service is poor. Company officers maintain an aptitude file on every midshipman in their company. Those who are low in aptitude are called in periodically for individual interviews. Their faults and shortcomings are discussed freely but privately, and the steps they should take toward improvement are outlined in detail. The third part of the Aptitude System involves eliminating from the Brigade those midshipmen who, after intensive counsel and guidance, still do not measure up to minimum required standards of aptitude. In order to be discharged solely by reason of inaptitude for the service, a midshipman must first be found failing by the Battalion Aptitude Board (four Company Officers and the Battalion Officer), the Brigade Aptitude Board (six Battalion Officers and the Executive Officer, Bancroft Hall), and the Commandant of Midshipmen. Then—and this is a requirement of law—he must be unanimously recommended for discharge by the Academic Board. As might be expected, few "Aptitude cases" reach the discharge point. There are, however, perhaps two or three per year and beyond question those who are so discharged would have been poor risks as naval officers.
The Honor Concept at the Naval Academy reduced to its simplest terms is the notion that all midshipmen are honorable men and should be so treated. Incidentally, the Honor Concept is not new. Here is the way "Tip" Tisdale put it in 1923: "A midshipman's word is not questioned. He is taught that he is expected to tell the truth; that less than the truth shows him unfit; and, so far as the authorities are concerned, that what he says is the truth. This gradually cements into his character not only the habit of truth, but also pride that he is trusted, and his self respect is strengthened accordingly."
West Point has its Honor System, the Air Force Academy its Honor Code, and the Naval Academy its Honor Concept. All have basically the same objective—to graduate young officers who have been imbued with a deep sense of personal honor. The differences among the three systems lie largely in the degree of codification, with the Naval Academy having the least formalized system, the least spelling out of which specific offenses are construed to be "honor offenses." All three institutions have "Honor Committees" composed of midshipmen (cadets), whose purpose is to hear cases of alleged honor violations, and make them known to the Commandant if their finding (by unanimous vote) should be "guilty." One might ask how could there be honor violations if all midshipmen are honorable? Or, isn't the fact of an honor violation proof that the Honor Concept is invalid? The answer is, of course, that the true strength of the Honor Concept lies in the zeal and sense of responsibility with which the overwhelming majority of midshipmen guard it. A midshipman cannot expect to get away with dishonorable acts, because his contemporaries simply will not permit it. They do not consider it "squealing" to report an honor-offender to his own class Honor Committee, but rather as their own obligation to uphold the Honor Concept.
Perhaps the greatest single difference between the life of a civilian college student and a midshipman at the Naval Academy lies in the word Accountability. Essentially the civilian student can come and go as he pleases. He is accounted for at academic recitations and may even miss some of these without penalty. On the other hand, the midshipman must stand up and be counted many times every day—not some of the time and approximately on time, but all of the time and exactly on time! He must account for himself at Reveille, meal formations, once every hour during the day (either in class, or study hour in his room), at evening study hour, and finally at Taps. He thus develops very quickly the simple and fundamental sense of responsibility for being where he is supposed to be—when he is supposed to be there. This sense of responsibility is encouraged to grow continuously to the point where, later on, assumption of the demanding responsibilities of command and of the "highest responsibilities of . . . citizenship and government" come as a matter of course. Here is the way Lieutenant Commander Tisdale said it: "The orderly arrangement of the day teaches promptness, loyalty, attention to details, subordination to superiors, and obedience in general. An important part of the training in obedience is military drill—the so-called 'drills of precision.' They form the habit of obeying an order exactly, at a definite time, and without question. Infantry drill, so far as a necessity for knowledge of the subject is concerned, is not as important as is gun drill. But as a moulder of character, its value is incomparably greater."
Fourth Class Indoctrination during plebe year is perhaps the most roundly condemned and controversial plank in the Naval Academy's character-building platform. It has been labeled childish, ridiculous, timewasting, absurd, cruel, sadistic, unfair, inhuman, and worse. Yet its staunch advocates, year in and year out, are those who themselves have undergone a plebe year and consider themselves better men for it. Plebe year is tough. It's meant to be that way. Plebes are required by regulation to march at attention in the center of the corridors, maintaining a "brace" as if they were in ranks. They are forbidden most of the time from lying down on their beds except at night during their allotted eight hours' sleeping time. They must "double time" up and down all ladders, in single file next to the bulkhead. They may not escort young ladies at the Naval Academy anytime during plebe year. These and other specific regulations on plebe "rates" are overshadowed for some young men by the fact that they must be subordinate to all upperclassmen. They must snap to attention and sound off when upperclassmen enter their rooms and must use "Sir" and "Mister" when addressing them. Responsibility for indoctrinating plebes is placed squarely in the hands of the First Class. The system is not an undercover or clandestine or sub-rosa operation. It is official. Its objectives are forthright, demanding, far-reaching, and are aimed at rapid development of the attributes required of a naval officer. Naval Academy Regulations put it like this: "By an exacting program of inspection, instruction and correction, administered by first classmen, fourth classmen will be moulded in the ways of a midshipman, U. S. Navy, regarding respect for authority; obedience to orders; integrity; the honor concept; self-discipline; self-control; self-sacrifice; customs and traditions; good manners and social graces; gentlemanly behavior; and exemplary bearing and dress." Most plebes, even though they may never have been required, before entering the Naval Academy, to do exactly as they are told, adjust to the system quickly and cheerfully. Some take a bit longer, and make rather rough sledding of it before they become "squared away." A small handful never do adjust to the system and they inevitably fall by the wayside through voluntary resignation, academic deficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, or inaptitude. Generally these few simply cannot subordinate their conceit and their self-indulgence to the realization that they are plebes at the Naval Academy and that's all they are! Even though they may be convinced that their own intellect is far superior to that of 95% of the upper-class midshipmen and that the carrying out of some orders constitutes an inefficient expenditure of their time, they would be well advised simply to do what they are told. For these and for all other incoming midshipmen, a ration of humility and the ability to acknowledge every order with a cheerful "aye, aye" is an absolutely indispensable attribute which they must acquire. All this seems to have been true forty years ago when it was written, "In short, obedience is not one of the prominent characteristics of the average young man, yet no officer can be successful who is disobedient. This involves loyalty, subordination, and several of the other recognized attributes of one who would succeed."
In conclusion it should be stressed that no responsible official at the Naval Academy con siders the Mission is being accomplished with absolute perfection, with no room for improvement, and no cause for change. All do recognize that the objective is development of the "whole man." We often disagree among ourselves with regard to the amount of emphasis at one point or another along our naval officer production line, and such disagreement is basically healthy. Most good works seem to arise out of argument and controversy, which tend to clear the air. On one point we are unshaken over the years, and that is the vital necessity for midshipmen to recognize "The Eternal Worth of Character."
A graduate of the U. S. Naval Academy in the Class of 1939, Captain Abbot served in the Pacific during World War II as Operations Officer, VS-1-D14 at Samoa and Wallis Island; and CO, VS-66, Inshore Patrol Squadron at Wallis Island, Funa Futi, Tarawa, Apamama, and Makin. Subsequent duty included assignments as CO, VF-42, USS Franklin D. Roosevelt (CVA-42); CO, VU-4; Executive Officer, USS Lake Champlain (CVA-39); OPS, Staff, ComCarDiv Two. Previous to his present duty as CO of USS Valcour (AVP-55), he was Executive Officer, Bancroft Hall, USNA.
Captain Abbot has also published an article entitled "The Navy vs. Going Steady" in the Saturday Evening Post, March 1958.