Proceedings editors Fred H. Rainbow and Fred L. Schultz met with Admiral Hill to ask about the honor, conduct, education, and Publicity issues that have been so closely scrutinized over the past year.
PROCEEDINGS: What changes do you see at the Naval Academy since your days as a first classman 30 years ago—especially in the academic program, professional development, and military courtesy and discipline?
ADMIRAL HILL: There have been many changes, some dramatic, since I was a midshipman. Yet in many ways it is very much the same.
The major changes are in the academic program. When I was a midshipman we were in a lockstep curriculum, everyone headed for a Bachelor of Science degree. Now, we have a system that offers, in addition to a core curriculum, an academically challenging majors program. The academic programs are more demanding and more rigorous. They are, by any measure, more scholarly than what we had when I was a midshipman. In the process of improving and upgrading the curriculum, the Naval Academy has attained more academic rigor, more breadth and depth, and more relevance.
What remains very much the same is the character of the Brigade of Midshipmen. They're still very bright, ambitious, and articulate. They're full of Youthful exuberance. They tend to be a bit irreverent, even irascible at times, but fundamentally they are young people who have chosen a different way of life, at significant personal sacrifice—probably even more than in our day. They have chosen to dedicate themselves to a life of service. That doesn't mean they're all going to serve 20 or 30 years in the naval service, but they all come here with that commitment to serve and with a desire to do something different, to be some body special, to take on a challenge far exceeding anything faced by their high school peers. That commitment, intensity, and dedication continues to grow during their four years, evolving into a deep sense of patriotism.
Life in Bancroft Hall, the "rates" as they are called, has changed. There has been some significant liberalization of those rates. If you read (Professor) Jack Sweetman's book [The U.S. Naval Academy: An Illustrated History (Naval Institute Press, 1979)], he says in the final chapter that alumni have always said the place is "going to the devil" because of the changes. But it's never going to get there. The fact is we have always been in a state of transition and change. Times change. People change. Requirements change. In spite of those liberalizations, which many of the old grads frequently point out—"first classmen can have cars, they don't have to march to class, etc."—the requirements placed on the midshipmen today are more formidable, more demanding, more stressful, and more challenging for the whole four years than they ever were in my time.
I think the professional development element of our curriculum has improved dramatically. It involves much less rote memorization and fundamental "knot-tying;" instead, we have real quality training in professional military strategy and tactics as well as seamanship, navigation, and a superb continuum in leadership and ethics that now spans all four years.
PROCEEDINGS: How would you compare the morale and the sense of purpose of the Brigade now as opposed to then?
ADMIRAL HILL: I believe the morale of the midshipmen is higher, and their attitudes are healthier. Their attitude toward the naval service, their careers, concern for their future, and their feelings about being here, all are more mature and thoughtful than we experienced.
I do think, in my day, we had more spirit. But you've got to remember that in those days we had nationally ranked football teams. We had players like Joe Bellino and Roger Staubach—both Heisman Trophy winners—so it was a bit different. This year, we've seen a turnaround in Navy football, and I've seen the same turnaround in brigade support and spirit. Spirit has to come from within; you can't impose spirit. You can encourage it, you can give examples, you can get out in front and lead it, but you can't force it on anyone. I believe the Brigade is much more of a team itself this year, and its enthusiasm in general and support of the football and other sports teams in particular is on the rise.
PROCEEDINGS: In addition to athletics, could you put your finger on why team spirit is better now? Or do athletics play the key role here.
ADMIRAL HILL: The athletic program plays an important part in it, but it's certainly not the whole thing. I think we have a better program to develop leadership today, and a big part of leadership is attitude. When I was a midshipman, the authority, accountability, and responsibility of the midshipmen for their own organization were pretty limited. We now have an organization that administers itself to a very large extent. The midshipmen are given a tremendous amount of responsibility and authority, and they are held accountable. Accountability is the key issue here. In that process, we expect them to develop into leaders. I don't think you can teach leadership in a classroom; we teach about leadership. Bancroft Hall is not only the world's largest dormitory, it is also the largest laboratory—a leadership laboratory. We provide midshipmen a learning experience and good examples.
PROCEEDINGS: Five major reports have been released recently that assess several aspects of the Academy. Before we begin to discuss the details, could you outline the process by which the various recommendations will be treated?
ADMIRAL HILL: I think we totaled something on the order of 126 individual recommendations from all of those studies. By the time we met with the Board of Visitors in October, we had already implemented about 95 of those recommendations before they were formally presented to us. We worked with the review groups in developing those recommendations. All are now in the process of being implemented. We will make a status report to the Board of Visitors at the next meeting. We make regular progress reports to the Chief of Naval Operations in the interim. Some of the recommendations involve action by higher authority, and we are assisting in their implementation.
Overall, I would say we are 90 percent along the way toward total implementation. Carrying out those recommendations is just a first step toward reaching our goal. We have changed instructions, we have changed procedures, we have set up recurring education requirements, we have set up rights and responsibility workshops, and we have set up feedback groups. But what we're really trying to do is work on attitudes, trying to change some deep-seated feelings, something much less tangible than simply placing a new regulation in effect, and then having midshipmen adhere to it. We can control outward behavior and action much more easily than we can change attitudes and feelings. We must continue to educate and monitor feedback. We still have a lot of work ahead of us in turning the implementation of all of these recommendations into the result we want. From here on, we must concentrate on the process and must see that we in fact change attitudes where they need to be changed—improving outlooks and the climate of mutual respect with zero tolerance for bias or harassment based on gender, ethnic, religious, or cultural differences. It will require constant attention and reinforcement. We must maintain focus on our mission.
PROCEEDINGS: We'd like to concentrate on the recommendations of Vice Admiral (Jeremy M.) Boorda's informal review board on the honor concept and the conduct system. First, in the area of the Honor Concept, which seemed to draw most of the attention in 21 of the 27 recommendations from the board, which do you consider to be the most important and constructive?
ADMIRAL HILL: First of all, it is most important before you read the recommendations to read what Admiral Boorda said in the beginning, that neither the system nor the Academy is broken. It is a system that has produced and continues to produce officers of great honor with high ethical standards and a sense of duty and integrity. His recommendations are designed to improve the process. Certainly, the process can always stand improvement. In fact, many of his recommendations were based on initiatives that we already had in place, because we agreed that the process needed to be "tuned up" and improved.
There is a fundamental problem in measuring midshipmen's (or any group's) attitudes toward the set of rules that governs them, especially When those rules are fairly restrictive and demand high standards. Those being governed always have some natural resistance. The problem as I viewed it even before we had the committee review was that the conduct system came to be regarded by many as something to be challenged. In other words, it was okay as long as you didn't get caught. The conduct system was there to be tested. It was a "cops-and-robbers" attitude.
Over a period of years, midshipmen developed a collective opinion that whatever you can get away with is okay. The saying "you rate what you skate" was widespread—something I never heard as a midshipman. Very subtly over time, this attitude started to be applied, almost subjectively, to the Honor Concept—not so much because of what was going on here, but rather a reflection of society at large. I saw a survey the other day that claimed 70% of high school seniors polled thought it was okay to cheat on exams as long as you didn't get caught. Most had, in fact, cheated. That is the same population from which we draw each new Plebe class. They come from a society that is having problems distinguishing between right and wrong, the ethical versus the unethical.
We teach them an Honor Concept that has very simple but strict bounds. They must also live within a conduct system where the rules are strict. What happened is that as respect for the conduct system eroded, so did respect for the Honor Concept. Midshipmen began making the mistake of using technicalities to blur the difference between honor and conduct, concluding that some honor violations are okay as long as you don't get caught. Fundamentally, midshipmen want a strong Honor Concept, rigidly enforced, and strictly adhered to.
PROCEEDINGS: How do you determine whether a certain offense is a violation of the conduct system or the Honor Concept? An offense that got publicity recently is plagiarism.
ADMIRAL HILL: Plagiarism is cheating, and that's a violation of the Honor Concept. In evaluating plagiarism, we sometimes get too involved in technicalities. The Honor Concept needs to focus on whether the intent was to lie, cheat, or steal. You can make a mistake, an error, and that is conduct. If intent to lie, cheat, or steal is included with that same mistake or error, it is an honor offense. But you have to be careful not to get too technical in trying to define the issue. Midshipmen are people of honor. They must ask, was it what an honorable midshipman would have done?
PROCEEDINGS: Who makes that call?
ADMIRAL HILL: Initially, it's whoever reports the offense. It's either reported as an honor offense or a conduct offense, and sometimes offenses are reported in one venue and moved to the other. If it's reported as an honor offense, and the Honor Committee, the investigating officer appointed by the Honor Committee, and the Honor Board decide that an honor offense occurred, then it goes through the honor system. If they decide it's not, it may go back, and the person who reported it may then report a conduct offense. Each company has honor representatives from each class. They are designated as representatives of the Honor Committee, and they advise and help people to make the proper call.
PROCEEDINGS: Would you say that intent is probably the hardest thing to prove, that it also often outweighs the offense itself?
ADMIRAL HILL: It's frequently the hardest to prove, but again, you have to deal with the principle. People can say things accidentally or mistakenly that could be called lies, but if the intent was not to deceive, they are just accidents or mistakes. It's foolish to call them honor offenses. The midshipmen are frequently best-qualified to measure intent, because they live in the same environment. They are at relatively the same point of development, and they better understand how their peers think and act. In determining intent, they're very careful. I think they do a good job. Intent is the most heavily weighted part of the offense. Honor proceedings are not judicial; they're administrative. They are not encumbered by the strict rules of evidence and adversarial procedures found in a courtroom. You can ask questions to get to the facts in a more straightforward way.
PROCEEDINGS: In theory, the Honor Concept sounds good.
ADMIRAL HILL: The Honor Concept is very sound. Midshipmen tend to believe in it very strongly and accept its consequences. But sometimes, when a close friend or classmate is involved, they believe he or she should be given another chance. Sometimes the circumstances are such that you can make a case for giving a second chance; most times you cannot.
The biggest single problem we had was in communication. The Brigade would be aware that an honor case was being heard by the Midshipmen Honor Board, but they wouldn't be given adequate information on the final results and the reasons. If someone is found guilty and retained, it's very important that the Brigade understand why that person was retained, and that we haven't suddenly "gone soft" on honor. They must know the reasons and rationale for that decision. That communication back to the Brigade is very important and was not working well. I think that's why there was a perception among some of the midshipmen that the Honor Concept wasn't working the way it was supposed to.
PROCEEDINGS: One of the recommendations from Admiral Boorda's report was to upgrade the experience level of company officers and increase the role of senior enlisted naval personnel. Is that one in the works?
ADMIRAL HILL: Yes. We've got several of the six senior enlisted personnel on board now, and we expect the rest soon. They are all superb individuals, sergeants major and master chief petty officers, male and female. They've had a tremendous amount of experience in the fleet working with young people. They will provide a whole new dimension of experience to Bancroft Hall—advising battalion and company officers—a source for midshipmen to learn more about enlisted people, how they think, and how they feel. Midshipmen get some limited experience on their cruises, but they can learn a great deal from these senior enlisted. They will also lend a very friendly ear. These six advisers are available in a nonthreatening environment for midshipmen who just want to talk—adjuncts to chaplains, the Counseling Center, sponsors, firsties, etc. No matter how caring a company officer might be, midshipmen frequently view that person as a formidable authority figure sitting behind a desk. This adds another dimension—another opportunity for midshipmen to talk, ask questions, and get advice. So far, the response has been superb.
PROCEEDINGS: In light of all the negative publicity that the Academy has received in the past year, what is your plan to improve relations with the media?
ADMIRAL HILL: I don't accept the notion that we don't have good relations with the media. A lot of wonderful things go on here, and much of it gets into the media, print and electronic. You're referring, or course, to some sensationalized reporting that went on last spring and summer. I don't think we have a bad relationship with the press today. I think we have a very good relationship. As a matter of fact, from the very beginning, we have volunteered information and told about all the investigations that we had initiated. Remember that we initiated two of those four major investigations long before anybody in the press ever came and asked the first question; the Secretary of the Navy initiated one, and the CNO initiated the fourth. It's always been a tradition in the Navy to investigate problems and to make the results public. We then go on to fix them.
To be candid, I could have done with a little less scrutiny. We have spoken freely to all the reporters who came to town. We've had the electronic media here as well. We opened up all aspects of plebe summer. We made some changes of which we're very proud and are very positive. The print and electronic media were here throughout the summer, filming and reporting, almost all of it positive. As we implemented our rights and responsibilities workshops, we invited the press in to watch and listen. Some reported, some didn't.
PROCEEDINGS: How has that publicity affected recruiting, if at all?
ADMIRAL HILL: Apparently not at all. The number of applications were exactly what we expected. As a matter of fact, we had more fully qualified applicants than we had the year before, even though there had been a significant decrease in the number of young men and women graduating from high school. There was no decrease in number or quality of female applicants.
We've tried to keep all of the Naval Academy Information (Blue and Gold) officers up to date. I've also talked to educators and tried to keep the alumni informed so that they could answer questions. The basic problems we face here are not different from the problems at any civilian college. We read every day about the same sort of problems elsewhere. The difference is that here, we're held to a higher standard, and that's appropriate. Our people have to be pristine in these areas, because we are training them to be tomorrow's leaders, to lead in policies involving equal opportunity and mutual respect, and to be the examples and role models that all young people look up to when they enter the fleet. Those young ensigns and second lieutenants can be the most important leadership factors in the naval services.
PROCEEDINGS: Where do you draw the line between useful stress and that which is counterproductive?
ADMIRAL HILL: Stress is, and has always been, a major part of the plebe indoctrination. You have to focus on the mission. At the beginning of this academic year, I convened a joint convocation for the first time in Naval Academy history—all the midshipmen, brigade officers, staff, and faculty—and laid out ten "rules of the road" for the coming year. I told them the first priority is to focus on the mission. Midshipmen should look back on their own experiences and determine which were positive in developing good followers and good leaders and which were not. I urged them to reject those that were not, and retain those that were. Accentuate the positive.
The administration imposes certain limits in order that there be no question about hazing. It will not be tolerated. I issued General Order I-90, which states it very clearly. Upperclassmen are not allowed to touch plebes except coincident with approved athletic contests. This has long been the rule, but was never as clearly articulated.
The point is that midshipmen are here to learn to be leaders. An officer in the fleet would never touch a subordinate. That means court-martial. So why should you be allowed to practice a form of leadership here that includes grabbing, pulling, or pushing a plebe or any subordinate? An adjunct to General Order I-90 is don't lay hands on another person unless that person agrees to it. If it's a spirit-related activity, if it's some sort of prank, you're doing if for fun, everybody's a part of it, and that person wants to participate, then that's fine. But if the person says, "I don't want to be part of this," then you can't do it. Again, that's just common decency and mutual respect.
So these aren't major changes. We're just more clearly articulating what already existed. There's still a lot of physical and mental stress, and the plebes are still required to do push-ups and other physical activities. They have to meet a lot of physical challenges, but they're all pointed toward physical development, which is one of our missions, and also providing something that has group value, to build feelings of comradeship and teamwork. You watch those first-classmen during plebe summer. When the plebe squads drop to do push-ups, the first-classmen are doing those push-ups right along with them every time, and the plebes are all trying to outdo their firsties. That's a sense of teamwork that you're working on, as well as physical training. It isn't punishment.
PROCEEDINGS: Are midshipmen too busy? Are they required to take too many courses?
ADMIRAL HILL: I think we are at the limit, perhaps even stretched a little too far. We are now in the second year of a curriculum review. The first iteration is complete and has been implemented for the Class of 1994. The principal effort was to structure the core curriculum to be sure that we were accomplishing everything that we wanted to accomplish in some sort of reasonable sequence. In particular, we focused on ethics, so we have an ethics continuum that spans four years.
The current effort of the Curriculum Review Committee is to cut back on the volume of the core curriculum and reduce the total number of hours that the midshipmen are required to take. These are bright young people, and they can carry a heavier load than most, but they're carrying, on average, more than 150 credit hours to graduate. The average student at most good colleges carries about 120. And that 150 hours does not include physical education, military performance, marching, and all the other things that midshipmen do in terms of military training. If you convert those activities into equivalent credit hours, you'd have around 180 hours. That's a tremendous load. The Curriculum Committee has "tuned up" the curriculum, arranged it so that it's in the more logical and effective proper sequence, and put emphasis on the ethics continuum that we wanted. Their effort now is to try cutting back on the volume, to make sure it's all relevant, all necessary, and that we're doing it in the most efficient way. We must stress total quality.
PROCEEDINGS: As you know, the debate over the proper balance between technical and nontechnical studies has raged on the pages of Proceedings over the last year . . .
ADMIRAL HILL: Last year? It goes much farther back than a year.
PROCEEDINGS: Particularly in the past year. What is your position on the issue?
ADMIRAL HILL: I think the debate will rage on forever. I think striking the proper balance is very important but difficult. We have emphasized the technical requirements, because all these young people are going to serve in a highly technological world, and they must learn to embrace technology as a friendly tool rather than as a fearsome enemy. They must have some ability, understanding, and fundamental skills in technology and professional subjects. But at the same time, they must learn a lot of other things as well: humanities, life sciences, and leadership skills. Interestingly, recent criticism has focused on stressing technical and engineering education too much; in fact, the only changes made since I've been here were to add ethics and political science to the core curriculum and to restore a history course that was in the process of being deleted. What we've done is try to strike a proper balance. Our engineers take more humanities courses than engineering students in any other school in the country. So I think we have a good balance, but it's always going to be in some process of adjustment.
PROCEEDINGS: If we have failed to touch on points that you would have liked to have us address or to discuss, please feel free to do so now.
ADMIRAL HILL: What I like to talk about most, of course, are the midshipmen themselves. These truly are the best and brightest young men and women in the nation. We're among the most selective colleges in this country. We look at the whole person. We look at people who have the capacity to develop in every area. They are absolutely superb, they work very, very hard, and they are very dedicated, believe me. Inevitably, some few will miss the mark, and unfortunately, they tend to be the focus of investigations and media attention. That is unfair to the vast majority who are working hard, doing great, and are going to be superb leaders. When the Class of 1990 graduated last May, as they walked across the stage and I handed them their diplomas, I was proud of every one of them, and I was proud to welcome them as fellow officers. I look forward to going back to sea to serve with them.
But there's a danger if you focus too much on the bottom line and don't look at the process. The bottom line is outstanding. The young men and women who walk out of here on graduation day are all magnificent. But we can improve the process, and that's what we're doing. We're focusing on that now. We must not lose sight of the fact that they are absolutely superb young people coming in and they're absolutely superb young people going out. They are, by and large, the leaders of their generation. We must remember that an exceptionally high percentage of the leadership in the next generation will come from this institution. Winston Churchill once said that success is reaching one's full potential. What we want to do for each one of these bright young men and women is to make sure that they leave here with every possible preparation and experience that we can provide to help them reach that full potential. They are our future.