This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
An officer of the Navy should be ... a gentleman of liberal education, refined manners, punctilious courtesy, and the nicest sense of personal honor. –John Paul Jones
For those who long ago committed to memory the “Qualifications of a Naval Officer,” the question of “Why honor?” must seem a bit incredible. But it may also be that the “nicest sense of personal honor” prescribed by John Paul Jones was just that: a very personal honor that gave worth and value to the individual, apart from the importance of such a quality among a corps of officers. This is an aspect of the concept of honor too often not emphasized.
Recent articles in the April issue of Proceedings used the Naval Academy’s ongoing difficulties as a springboard to revisit “The Question of Honor.” Authors offered many rich and varied perspectives—from the Superintendent’s spirited portrait of a timeless standard to a retired Air Force colonel’s opinion that Texas A&M offered programs of “more military content and higher standards of personal behavior that the Naval Academy.”1* Even with the pokes and jabs at various elements of life at Annapolis today, there seemed something of a consensus that integrity and truthfulness are values that save lives in the profession of arms.3 Indeed, the articles served collectively as reminder of the counsel given first in Reef Points that “honor, personal integrity, and loyalty are fundamental characteristics essential to every naval officer... [so that he might] choose the honorable course of action in every situation encountered.”4
So idealistic. So high minded. Yet so conspicuously at odds with the behavior and conduct we see across the United States today. Admiral Charles Larson, soon to re
turn to the Naval Academy to “fix the problem,” put1 very simply:
Many young people today do not grow up in an efl vironment of honesty and ethics. ... It’s not norm3' for a lot of parts of our society to do that. So in man) cases, you’re trying to indoctrinate them in somethin? foreign to them.3 j j.
The Naval Academy, as well as its sister institutions' jj may very well be in the business of trying to inculcate an ethic and a thought process that are nearly extinct j* society as a whole. While this realization does not dr
minish the continuing impof tance of such instruction, there n may be an equally powerful c and very selfish motive to take such a rigorous course-^ r that honor and integrity are 1 essential to every individual s r sense of personal worth and 1 self respect, apart from anj j value to the profession or society. Indeed, the reasons fof ' pursuing what is right and just 1 for reasons other than self are often very difficult to see.
Perhaps the rudest awakening for newly commissioned officers beyond the walls that segregate the Naval Academy’s idealism from the real world is that life is not fair. 1’ is a lesson echoed throughout history in countless tragedies and circumstances. Consider Admiral James Stockdale’s reflection on this same theme as imparted to him by Dr. Philip Rhinelander at Stanford University before then-Commander Stockdale shipped out to Vietnam and seven-plus years of torture as a prisoner-of-war:
He [Rhinelander] recounted the story of Job. It starts out by establishing that Job was the most honorable of men. Then he lost all his goods. He also lost his reputation, which is what really hurt. His wife was badgering him to admit his sins, but he knew he had made no errors. He was not a patient man and demanded to speak to the Lord. When the Lord appeared in a whirlwind, he said, “Now, Job, you have to shape up! Life
ls not fair.” That’s my interpreta- tlon, and that’s the way the book ended for hundreds of years. I agree with those of the opinion that the happy ending was spliced 0,1 many years later. If you read lf> you’ll note that the meter changes. People couldn’t live with
____ - tae original message. Here was a
M §ood man who came to unex-
1, put i Plained grief, and the Lord told him: “That’s the way it is. Don’t challenge me. This is my world, n an en and you either live in it as I deli norni^ slgned jt or get out »6 in man)
methin; Good things do not necessarily ]j0rtle to good people. Seeking to Ve a life of truth and ethical con- ltutions act does not in any way guarantee lculcate e rewards of wealth, influence, and ttinct if Position most in this world seek. If not dr tnat is so, why honor? impor n contrast to the apparent vul-
'n’ n!rability °f 8°°d men to an un- )werfu dain fate, equally conspicuous is five tn e worldly success gained by so nirse--' any of questionable character and •ty av rhrS°nal m^grity- Of late, the 1C^Ua l me*0r*cal question “Does character 311 matter^' bas been given voice in m an' bu°rC tban °ne P°iitieal campaign,
°r f°r ad\aS 3 society’ we have chosen to excuse politely the >nS ■ t off terous indiscretions of more than one official in high n^JuS c 1Ce‘ We champion the athletic prowess of men whose elf ^ ab‘bties on the playing fields seem matched
ee. ^ y by their promiscuity and vulgar behavior in other . en.” frenas- We make millionaires of artists whose talents, apart ,10"C ^l111 singing, border on sleeze and blatant disregard for
[S 1 h le 31 m°St tbink decent and moral. Such messages and „ 1 f0SS°ns are confusing, and they are broadcast daily in all
e rea terrais °f media throughout America. Does character mat- 3ir t in ., ^PParently not when it comes to what we celebrate ?boU t e news, whom we elect, or the performances we pay edie> see. If that is so, why honorl
sidef ^ ven more disturbing is the growing unwillingness even
5 re Co 6^ne wbat *s r‘^bt an<^ wbat is wrong- The politically ae aS as frect terms are now “appropriate” and “inappropriate,”
1^ We seem wont to soft-pedal a message that might be ^nl vietmed t0° harsh and controversial. We are a society of nan. rnCtlrtls’ one that can somehow rationalize and excuse the 'ears ,^°st brutal crimes imaginable, in the context of abuse or ojSanity Even if we were so bold as to speak clearly again f left fl^bt * anc^ Wrong,” it seems there are few institutions thi i|ntact t0 *mpart such instruction. In the interest of free
6 ° o'nking’ academics at many colleges and universities rec-
be-0126 00 Sucb standard. Public schools, for instance, ^er gratCn ^own hy overzealous parents and special-interest f 2 d0°UPS’ bave tiptoed around anything that smacks of en- ^ b'ifln^ a Particular moral philosophy. And the family?
11’ ” g,a ^ °f today’s kids grow up in broken homes with sin-
are e parents who are too stressed even to offer food and
|
shelter—never mind a sense of right and wrong. Dr. John Stevens, Senior Minister of one of the nation’s largest congregations of the First Presbyterian Church, has said that “our moral sense as a society has moved from one based in theology to one focused on therapy.”7 We seem to lack the intestinal fortitude to live in a world of rights and wrongs. Rather, we use the theme of “diversity” to somehow embrace all manner of conduct and thinking as worthy and deserving of respect. If that is so, why honorl The conflict of “trying to do right” in the face of expedient pragmatism that encourages another course is anything but new. Nor was it new among our most revered naval leaders. Consider then-Captain Arleigh Burke’s predicament in writing the after-action report on the Battle of the Philippine Sea to his boss, Admiral Marc Mitscher. The draft report was highly critical of Admiral Raymond Spruance’s decision not to pursue the Japanese fleet west of Saipan, and Burke knew his report was no less than a personal attack on a national hero—albeit one written in the interest of being truthful. As E. B. Potter recorded the dialogue:
“Do you know Admiral Spruance well?”
“Yes, sir.”
“What do you think of him?”
“I think he’s a good man, but he made a mistake this time, Admiral. He made a big mistake. I don’t know why he did it, but it was a big mistake. This is true.” “Yes, it’s all true,” said Mitscher, “but what good is it going to do to send in a report like this?”
“It tells the truth.”
“You don’t think the truth does more harm than good sometimes?”
“No, sir.”
“Well, it does.” Another pause. Then Mitscher continued, “You and I have been in many battles, and we know there are always some mistakes. This time we were right because the enemy did what we expected him to do. Admiral Spruance could have been right. He’s one of the finest officers I know of. It was his job to protect the landing force. Anyway, the ultimate outcome of this war is decided by now, and it’s not going to make that much difference. Don’t you think you ought to take it back and rewrite those last two pages?” “No, sir,” replied Burke, “but I will.”8
Admirals Ernest King and Chester Nimitz stood by Spruance’s decision, though many naval historians have since pronounced it one of the great blunders of the war.
I.S. NAVAL INSTITUTE
. . . success in the modern world . . . can also be attained without compromising principles....
Hyman Rickover
Apparently, both Mitscher and Burke agreed, but the concern over damage to Spruance’s reputation late in the war was cause not be entirely candid or truthful. As Mitscher put it, “truth does more harm than good sometimes.” If that is so, why honorl This idea of personal honor is a nagging concept. Too many examples—today and yesterday—undercut the notion that the course of honor and integrity is an ideal whose pursuit will somehow further the interests of the individual who stays the course.
More accurately, it may be that such individuals succeed in spite of their commitment to high principle, with more effort and more time. Admiral Hyman Rickover’s comments to Congress on this topic are enlightening:
Mr. Mahon: Admiral, many people in our society seem to believe that strict moral and ethical behavior is not a practical means to success. Yet, you appear to have kept your principles and been successful, too. Is it difficult for a person to get things done and at the same time keep his principles intact?
out fear of shame or compromise. For more than by an) physical torture or material loss, men are weakened when they fail to live up to the standards of integrity and conduct they know to be right. No greater sense of urgency can exist in a man than the fear of others who may learn of his moral failings and the personal knowledge ot failing himself. With such disclosure self-respect, pride, and often even control of one 5 own life vanish. Again, Admiral Stockdale reflects on his tenure as a prisoner-of-war:
U.S. NAVAL INSTITUTE
... the best defense is to keep your conscience clean. ... If you don't lose your integrity, you can't be had and you can't be hurt.
James Stockdale
Admiral Rickover: Sir, it
really is not as difficult as some people believe. It is very often true that the easiest way to achieve success in the modern world, to make high profits or to finish a particular project, is to act without principles. But these goals can also be attained without compromising principles; the difference is that the latter method may require more effort and more time. . . . The dilemma in our society is more apparent because of the status and success symbols, wealth, and power which, in the American Dream, are all attainable by the industrious individual.9
Some people are psychologically, if not physically’ at home in extortion environments. They are tough people who instinctively avoid getting sucked into the undertows. They nevef kid themselves or their friends; if they miss the mark they admit it. Bo1 there’s another category of person who gets tripped up- He makes a small compromise, perhaps rationalizes, and then makes another one; and then he gets depressed, full of shame, lonesome, loses his willpower and self respect, and comes to a tragic end. Somewhere along the line he realizes that he has turned a corner We learned there, above
that he didn’t mean to turn, all else, that the best defense is to keep your conscience clean. . . .If you don’t lose your integrity, you can’t be had and you can’t be hurt.10
What could justify such additional effort and time in a world that seems not to reward higher ideals? Why pay the price? Why honorl
The answer lies within. Men and women can behave honorably as some sort of professional mandate. They can project the value of personal integrity in a profession and in society as a whole. Too often, however, even the best efforts of the strongest and most upright individuals seem not to be fairly rewarded or recognized in the larger community. Indeed, the real and absolute value of that tougher choice, that higher personal standard, belongs first to the individual alone. It is the power and freedom gained thereby to face any circumstance with
Even if unknown to another, the knowledge that one has failed to live up to a certain code of ethics or concept of honor creates enormous personal guilt, which can paralyze otherwise very competent and effective leaders. In contrast, and just as strong, is the power to move with confidence and direction that leaders derive from knowing even their most private affairs have stood the test. Novelist Ayn Rand, in her great work Atlas Shrugged, well described this power through the fictional character of Dr. Ferris, one of the book’s antagonists with little sense of personal integrity but a good understanding of the importance of integrity to the person:
. . . There is no way to disarm any man except through guilt. Through that which he himself has accepted as guilt. If a man has ever stolen a dime, you can impose on him the punishment intended for a bank robber and he will take it. He’ll bear any form of misery, he’ll feel that he deserves no better. If there’s not enough guilt in the world, we must create it. If we teach
y an) ened and )f ur- than may ; and je of
a man that it’s evil to look at spring flowers and he believes us and then does it, we’ll be able to do whatever We please with him. He won’t defend himself. He won’t feel he’s worth it. He won’t fight. But save us from the man who lives up to his own standards. Save us from the man of clean conscience. He’s the man who’ll beat us."
The questions of right and wrong, of integrity and de- c®it, are timeless. One need only scan the writings of some P °ur country’s early thinkers—Cotton Mather, Ben ranklin, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson, for example—to appreciate what deep roots these natural ques- >ons have in our own land. They are issues no less important today but perhaps much less confronted and ■scussed thoughtfully. On one level, such matters sug- §est great consequences for our country; more clearly seen are the consequences for individuals who, at the end of ue day, must be able to live with themselves and their °Wn “sense of personal honor.”
That the man of integrity and character will be able a ways to face himself and others is the only sure reward
he can expect—and nothing could be more valuable.
'RADM Thomas C. Lynch, USN, “The Legacy of Leadership,” Proceedings, April 1994, pp.75-79.
2COL David A. Smith, USAF (Ret.), “Where to in the 21st Century?” Proceedings, April 1994, pp.75-79.
3VADM Howard B. Thorsen, USCG (Ret.), “The Honor Code: Master or Servant?” Proceedings, April 1994, pp. 43-44.
4“The Honor Concept,” Reef Points 1975-76, pp. 28-32. Reef Points is the U.S. Naval Academy’s Annual Handbook of the Brigade of Midshipmen.
5“Fixing Naval Academy may be a four-star job,” Navy Times, 11 April 1994, p. 3.
6VADM James B. Stockdale, USN (Ret.), “The World of Epictetus: Reflections on Survival and Leadership," A Vietnam Experience (Stanford: Hoover Press, 1984), pp.34-35.
’Sermon delivered by Dr. John Stevens, Senior Minister, First Presbyterian Church, Colorado Springs, Colorado, 20 March 1994.
*E. B. Potter, Admiral Arleigh Burke (New York: Random House, Inc., 1990), pp. 173-74.
"U.S. Congress, House Subcommittee on the Department of Defense, Committee on Appropriations, Part 10: Testimony of Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, 94th Congress, 1st session, 8 July 1975, p. 153.
“Stockdale, pp. 32-35.
"Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged (New York: Penguin Books USA, Inc., 1957), p. 514.
Mr. Coleman, a 1979 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, is President of CBS Insurance in Colorado Springs. He served as a member of the surface warfare community until October 1987.