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.
Honor education must begin with the indoctrination of each new plebe class. They must be told—in no uncertain terms—that they are about to become part of something greater than themselves, that they are assuming an obligation to the nation, and that this duty can be accomplished only through an unfaltering commitment to the whole.
At the Naval Academy, there is much concern over honor. The recent compromise of the electrical engineering exam has prompted a host of internal and external investigations into the Academy’s honor concept, and integrity is a topic of intense interest among faculty, staff, and midshipmen. The honor concept is not one of the oldest institutions at the Academy, but it is perhaps one of the most important because it defines the minimum standard of ethical behavior expected of naval officers. Under the honor concept, midshipmen must make difficult—sometimes anguished—decisions that are quite different from the routine observance of rules and regulations. This task of moral development is an onerous one, but it is demanded by our oath of office, and it supports the best interests of the nation.
At a time when it is needed most, the spirit of honor is lacking at the Academy. There is a problem with the interpretation of the honor concept, and this indicates that many midshipmen are unable to deal with abstract concepts such as honor and duty. The honor concept has become a standard not to run afoul of rather than a tool to invigorate midshipmen to “find and remain true to their best selves.” Admiral H. W. Hill, the man responsible for the inception of the present honor concept, anticipated this. He did not want a system that would codify right and wrong, but rather one that would promote principles. Unfortunately, today, many midshipmen learn about honor in strict terms, and they seek to understand only the letter of integrity. Many derelictions are effectively ignored if they cannot be construed as lying, cheating, or stealing. This is supported by a cultural trend toward individualism.
Four pillars that would support the honor concept and the Academy’s mission to “develop midshipmen morally ... and imbue them with the highest ideals of duty, honor, and loyalty” are:
► A formulation of the concept of duty ► A policy that deals with the cultural attitudes midshipmen bring to the Academy
^ •«- « v '<5 !<=> dii
& ~ A W ^ PW *d fin
1.?1
► A comprehensive, four-year education system based on moral development
► A mechanism that properly addresses compassion These must be considered if we are to improve the
way we teach integrity and effectively inculcate midshipmen with the Navy’s core values of honor, courage, and commitment.
Duty
36
kw %$> kfrJm
Proceedings / June 1994
1
Duty is the kernel of the military ethic. It is the moral obligation to place the accomplishment of assigned tasks before the needs, considerations, or advancement of any other ideal, organization, or individual. Packed into this
rithe Commission
definition are all the aspects of unique devotion that a member of the armed forces, through a sworn oath, bears to the nation. Duty touches on loyalties to things much greater than ourselves: the Navy, our Constitution, and, ultimately, the fortunes of the nation. It is a strong concept, and in its ultimate expression, it demands self-sacrifice. Midshipmen must understand and be comfortable with the ideals that spring from the concept of duty because they form an ethos that defines our basic obligations as soldiers and sailors.
Duty and honor are both moral obligations, but they are decidedly different concepts. Honor is essentially an inward obligation—to uprightness in personal action. Duty is an outward obligation to the military. It concerns the
special measure of commitment and devotion that one brings to life in the naval service. This is what being a professional—paid a monthly retainer “in special trust and confidence”—is all about. It shows us where our real fealty must lie, and it establishes an ethical baseline that must be observed by those who wish to merit their standing as naval officers.
The present honor concept has a loophole: it allows for inaction. Because there is no enforcement mechanism for the counseling option, midshipmen who witness honor violations may choose to do nothing. In many instances, this choice is based on a misguided conviction that one’s actions are right if they do not violate the tripartite strictures—do not lie, cheat, or steal—of the honor concept. This rationale allows many to avoid their responsibility for ensuring a strong ethical climate at the Academy.
A true understanding of duty would go a long way toward creating an awareness of the penalty for doing nothing. Honor violations are important matters of personal integrity, but derelictions of duty break faith with much more than this. They are wrongs committed against our obligation to the whole. An understanding of this aspect of duty shores up one of the weak links in the honor concept because it makes inaction no longer a morally neutral act. To do nothing is a transgression against the Academy and against one’s peers.
It is a midshipman’s duty to participate in the honor concept and to accept the responsibilities that this entails. There may be times when dealing with suspected honor violations will entail mental anguish or the harsh treatment of a friend. In these instances, one must muster unwavering commitment and unswerving courage to do what is right. That is what is expected of persons of integrity. It is their duty.
Survivorship
Another important issue at the Academy that works against our standards is survivorship. Survivorship results when midshipmen bring to the Academy values that are largely antithetical to the Navy’s core values. We who come to the Academy today come from a generation of instant gratification, where values largely reflect a me- first mentality. When combined with the multitude of pressures and constraints placed upon midshipmen, these values cause a few to reject the burden of leadership and pursue paths of self-preservation. This can be very damaging to the Academy’s moral and motivational climate.
37
Proceedings/June 1994
This issue of moral climate is very important to the honor concept. Its success depends on a strong ethical climate, which, in turn, depends on the values of those who live under the honor concept. The climate also is affected by concerns outside our realm of action. The Navy faces a multiplicity of pressures, ranging from gender issues to force reduction, and up until now our attention has been
pulled away from the foundational issue of character development. That there may be a paucity of leaders who thrive with integrity has implications far beyond the walls of the Yard. Many of the challenges we will face in this new world will be unclear—this demands more men and women of character, and it demands more from them.
A change in culture is necessary if the Academy is to honor its own traditions, but it will not come easily. With regard to honor, it must start with the indoctrination of a new plebe class. The new plebes must be told in no uncertain terms that they are about to become part of something much greater than themselves, that they are assuming an obligation to this nation, and that this duty can be accomplished only with an unfaltering commitment to the whole. Past infractions are forgiven, but they must agree to take on the core values of the institution. If they will not do this, it is their duty to resign.
These ideas also must be presented to the brigade, and the midshipman leadership must move forward to correct the culture of survivorship and instill a new expectation of group excellence.
Education
Previous honor education suffered because it was largely anecdotal. The new program should include a white paper that describes the basic philosophy of ethics in the profession of arms. The honor concept should be described as a minimum standard of ethical behavior that midshipmen must learn to exceed. This expectation should be stressed from Plebe Summer through the first-class year. The education manual should include references to the foundations of ethics in religion, reason, and society, from the ancient, medieval, and modern periods.
This new manual also must include duty training. Because of its all-encompassing nature, duty bridges all the institutional creeds at the Academy (e.g., the honor concept, Navy core values, the Academy mission, and the oath of office). This effort could also tie together the Naval Leadership curriculum, the ethics continuum, and the Strategic Plan initiative to create a leadership model.
A new leadership model, described in task 1.1.1.3 of the Strategic Plan, is very important to the rehabilitation of the honor concept and a reemphasis on developing leaders of character. The leadership model is drawn from a speech by Admiral James Stockdale on the subject of duty. Admiral Stockdale stated that it is the duty of a leader to be a moralist, one who “elucidates what the good is.” In this calling, a leader should lift his followers “out of their everyday selves into their better selves.” This idea represents the notion that leadership is more than a task; it is a way of being.
For midshipmen, the honor concept and the leadership model should provide a skeleton for learning about character and resolve and what it means to be responsible for setting the moral climate for those around them.
Compassion
are, after all, imperfect, and the main goal of the honor concept is education. The honor concept should reflect this principle and develop a mentor program to accommodate those who are voted to be in violation but still worthy of retention.
Currently, the honor concept is based on deterrence, with dismissal as the ultimate coercion for those who fail to act honorably. One area of concern emerges when , someone is found in violation of the honor concept but still retained because, in the judgment of the administration, that individual is still fit for service. This may be the case, but it sends a mixed message to the brigade because it defies a common perception that honor violations should equate with separation from the Academy.
a i
m
I
tr
h;
di
ai
re
n
tl
a
B
h
f
i;
1
t
h
t
c
I
c
1
i
i
<
1
l
i
i
A mentor program would challenge retained midshipmen to reassert their dedication to the Navy’s value system by showing in thought and deed that they learned from their experience and that they have changed. This program would pair the retained midshipman with a faculty member, who would direct a semester-long study program for the midshipman. Upon completion of this course, . the Superintendent would review the midshipman’s file and the mentor’s recommendation to decide if the midshipman would be allowed to continue at the Academy. This mentoring would take the place of any restriction or conduct-related penalties and would solve the problem of unjust punishment. The mentor program also would involve officers and faculty more directly with the honor concept and perhaps resolve any misgivings about its effectiveness.
A mentor program would provide the honor concept a means to deal with complexity and ultimately to forgive those who err but would continue afterward with integrity.
It would direct attention toward teaching midshipmen how to reason properly when faced with difficult choices. It may not guarantee that all midshipmen will act honorably at all times, but it will teach them to think about their actions in a larger context. This should be a goal of both the mentor program and the honor education program.
Conclusion
The honor concept should imbue midshipmen with the conviction that there are certain things an officer must do to merit the standing of that office and that to do otherwise is to vacate the office. Moral development is a part of this, and it must be taught in the context that we are sojourners in service of our country. This is the foundation of our beliefs about what it is to be a person of duty, to be loyal, and to have integrity. Honor education should teach midshipmen that our kinship exists in the vertical plane, because we all look up to and hold to an ideal of duty to things greater than ourselves. Our willingness to sacrifice for these things is our greatest strength and should be our most cherished point of pride. These ideals perpetuate a standard of excellence and they must be taught effectively if midshipmen are to become men and women of character.
There must be a certain degree of compassion built into the honor concept; not all persons found in violation of the honor concept should be subject to dismissal. Humans
Midshipman Maruna is a member of the Class of 1995 at the U.S. Naval Academy. He will be the Deputy Honor Chair for Education for the 1994-95 academic year.
38
Proceedings/June 1994