Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Dumbing-Down the U.S. Navy
The Lizard King    7/31/2009 1:19:19 PM
ttp://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32595 "Naval Academy Professor Challenges Rising Diversity," ran the headline in The Washington Post. The impression left was that some sorehead was griping because black and Hispanic kids were finally being admitted. The Post's opening paragraphs reinforced the impression. "Of the 1,230 plebes who took the oath of office at the Naval Academy in Annapolis this week, 435 were members of minority groups. It's the most racially diverse class in the nation's 164-year history. Academy leaders say it's a top priority to build a student body that reflects the racial makeup of the Navy and the nation." Who can be against diversity? What the Post gets around to is that 22-year English professor Bruce Fleming objects to a race-based admissions program that was apparently used to create a class that is 35 percent minority. According to Fleming, who once sat on the board of admissions, white applicants must have all As and Bs and test scores of at least 600 on the English and math parts of the SAT even to qualify for a "slate" of 10 applicants, from which only one will be chosen. However, if you check a box indicating you are African-American, Hispanic, Native American or Asian, writes Fleming, "SAT scores to the mid 500s with quite a few Cs in classes ... typically produces a vote of 'qualified' ... with direct admission to Annapolis. They're in and given a pro forma nomination to make it legit." If true, the U.S. Naval Academy is running a two-tier admissions system of the kind that kept Jennifer Gratz out of the University of Michigan and was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. "Minority applicants with scores and grades down to the 300s and Cs and Ds also come, though after a year at our taxpayer-supported remedial school, the Naval Academy Preparatory School." If true, this is a national disgrace. It would represent a U.S. Naval Academy policy of systematic race discrimination, every year, against hundreds of white kids who worked and studied their entire lives for the honor of being appointed to the U.S. Naval Academy and becoming career officers in the Navy or Marine Corps. If true, what Annapolis has done and is doing is worse -- because it is premeditated and programmed racism -- than the cowardly act of the New Haven city government in denying Frank Ricci and the white firefighters the promotions they had won in a competitive exam. At least New Haven could say it acted out of fear of being sued. Yet, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead and the Superintendent of the Naval Academy Vice Adm. Jerry Fowler seem quite proud of what they are doing. Fleming quotes the CNO as saying that "diversity is the number one priority" at the academy. Fowler says he wants Annapolis graduates who "looked like" the fleet, where 42 percent of enlisted personnel are nonwhite. The diversity midshipmen, says Fleming, who teaches them, are over-represented in "pre-college lower track courses, mandatory tutoring programs and less-challenging majors. Many struggle to master basic concepts." Thus, though unqualified for college work, these students will be operating the most sophisticated and complex weapons systems ever built -- aircraft carriers, Aegis cruisers, nuclear submarines. "First of all, we're dumbing-down the Naval Academy," charges Fleming. "Second of all, we're dumbing-down the officers corps." Supporting Fleming's claim, 22 percent of incoming plebes in 2009 had SAT scores in math below 600, compared to 12 percent in 2008. If the facts are as Fleming states -- the academy is accepting dumber and dumber students to get its racial composition right -- who can deny that the price of diversity is deliberate acceptance of a less able and competent United States Navy? "Diversity is our number one priority," Roughhead is quoted. Can one imagine Adm. Chester Nimitz or "Bull" Halsey making an insipid statement like that? Can one imagine what Adm. David "Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!" Farragut would have thought of such a policy? Whatever happened to the Hyman Rickover-Jimmy Carter motto for the Naval Academy and U.S. Navy: "Why Not the Best?" Consider. If hundreds of black and Hispanic kids who applied to the academy had been rejected though they had higher grades and SAT scores than those admitted, this story would not have been in the Metro section of the Post. It would have been bannered on page one. And Roughead and Fowler would be explaining to a congressional committee why they should not be relieved of their commands. Fleming, who still teaches at Annapolis, and has likely had some unpleasant moments since he blew the whistle on his superiors, has shown considerable moral courage.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV  1 2 3
benellim4       8/1/2009 6:32:49 PM
I've noticed the new version of Safari is an on-again/off-again proposition with posting on this site.
 
 
The problem isn't today, it's in 30 or 40 years. The problem isn't diversity per se. Nor is the problem leadership ability. The problem is the ability to attract the qualified candidates that happen to be in a minority group today that won't be in a minority group in 30 or 40 years.

What the CNO has said isn't a statement of the real problem. What he has stated is an interim goal that is a step to solving the longer term problem. The media isn't nuanced enough to pick it out, and the statement of the real problem and the real goals takes too long to explain. I would be better served here, for instance, with some BUPERS powerpoints that outline, based on historical recruiting and retention rates and projected demographics, what the real problem is and why they're doing what they're doing.

Like I said, it may not be the best solution, and there may be some short-comings. But right now, I'm hard pressed to find another solution, and we have debated this on Navy discussion boards and in our classrooms for some time. It's a poor solution, IMO, but the only one at our finger tips right now.
 
We're in a chicken and egg situation. We need to attract qualified minority applicants for the long term health of the Navy. We can't attract those applicants because we don't have many minority officers in key leadership roles. We don't have many minority officers in key leadership roles because we can't attract qualified minority applicants. 
 

I'll tell you this much, if history is a guide and we don't start recruiting better in what are today minority segments of the population, we won't be able to meet our manpower goals in the future. Then we're either forced to screw with proven manning concepts, reduce our force structure, or beg foreigners to join the Navy like the RAN has to do.
 
Quote    Reply

stbretnco       8/1/2009 9:11:21 PM
Reducing qualification requirements to get the appropriate demographics is an invitation to disaster.
 
I've served in units which were lead by the products of that school of thought. All it accomplishes is weakening leadership.
 
Do test scores equal leadership? No, but you have to start somewhere. Maybe if the Navy had a path to senior leadership out of the enlisted ranks (green to gold in the Army, but you're career prospects for senior rank are severely limited because you're not a damned ringknocker) they would do better than the USA has.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    So it's the 1970's again...   8/2/2009 10:04:48 AM
We have the Second Term of Jimmy Carter in the WHite House now, AND the US Navy is heading back into the "Hollow Forces" era.
 
Here's a news flash Benellini, the USMC broke out of it's torpor of the early to mid-1970's NOT by being diverse, but by NOT worrying about Accession strength.  As the Commandant said, "I don't care if we have a Corps that fits in a 'Phone Box, as long as they are good Marines."
 
Focus on doing your job well.  Provide leadership and opportunities, and focus on OCS and you'll have a force worth leading...focus on skin colour and Affirmative Action Boxes, you'll have crippled force that can't perform its mission(s).  Do you think SEAL platoons or Marine rifle units in combat worry about the demographic "mix" of their unit?  Or do you think they worry about the skills, qualifications, and abilities of their leaders?
 
Secondly, don't worry about 30 years from now....No one knows what the force 30 years from now will look like.  Example, in the early 1900's the AT&T felt its demographic problem was not enough women, after all who would be the next generation telephone operators of an ever-growing telecommunications industry?  Gee, I guess they that got that worry wrong, they never considered Men (Men don't do Womyn's work, men string telephone line, not connect calls) or technology (automated switching equipment).  I'm suggesting if the Navy is worried about what the force will look 30 years from now, put it on the shelf....ask anyone what the "force" would like in 2009, in 1979 and I'll bet you get a bunch of WRONG answers.
 
You want a GOOD Officer and NCO Corps not a diverse one...and the key to achieving both is the use of the existing force, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, going home to their neighborhoods and talking up their service, not LOWERING YOUR STANDARDS...AND emphasizing OCS and ROTC.  You want a diverse officer corps, select from your PRE-EXISTING diverse Enlisted and NCO pool...diverse NCO's become diverse officers, and as the Navy has high entry standards you have a decent AND diverse officer corps...Also, emphasize Naval ROTC...college campuses are pretty diverse places, full of bright and adventure loving guys and gals...recruit there, the best and brightest you can get-OK let me take a moment and say I'm ready to puke as a die-hard fan of the Ground Forces, and so how bright can they be if they CHOOSE to float around in steel coffins and pick up the soap in the shower? But I digress-and you'll get the officer corps you need.  Lower your standards, worry about skin colour and sex, more than you worry about ability and you end up with a demoralized and ill-led force that when it meets the PLAN in action will be found to be sadly wanting. 
 
Normally I don't care what happens to the Navy, but if you guyz fold like a cheap lawn chair you're going to leave the US and it's Ground Fores in the lurch!  So if it was just YOU it was going to leave floating in the ocean, I wouldn't worry so much, but as your silliness affects all of us, I beg you please, stop worrying about the colour of everyone skin's.
 
As Chief Justice Roberts said, the key to stop worrying about race, is to STOP WORRYING about race.
 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       8/2/2009 10:21:02 AM
JFKY, first it's benellim4, after the Benelli M4 Super 90 shotgun Benelli, which is the civilian version of the shotgun Benelli made for the USMC, and perhaps you missed where I said that I don't know if it is the right thing to do. The problems are real. You cannot simply dismiss problems in 30 years. If we could do that then there would be no need for systems like the F-22 or the F-35. F-15s and F/A-18s can handle the threats of today so why worry about tomorrow, right? Wrong. It is the CNO's job to build the Navy of the future. If you want to respond that the shipbuilding plan doesn't do that, I'd agree with you. The personnel plan, even if it is imperfect, at least addresses the problems 30 years from now. Does it do it in an ideal manner? Not in my opinion, but I have yet to hear a realistic alternative. Ignoring the problem isn't realistic.
 
Yes, in an ideal world everyone would stop worrying about race and the problem goes away. The problem is we don't live in an ideal world and the fact of the matter is we are programmed to be more accepting of people who look like us, and it takes a lot to get over that natural programming. It takes a lot more than your average 17 year old is capable of.
 
Comparing now to the 1970s simply doesn't work. The USMC could count on a white majority for another 80 years. So worrying about race then didn't make sense. We cannot count on a white male majority (I'll throw in male there because it isn't just a race thing, it's a gender thing as well. You simply can't dismiss 1/2 the population because they have different reproductive organs.) to provide all the qualified candidates we need in the future. It is simply an unworkable manpower problem.

You can disagree all you want and you can decry the Navy's move here. That's fine. What I was trying to do was offer a more in depth explanation of the problem than the article did. If you'd rather read concurring posts that go on to tell how messed up the Navy is and how the Navy has lost its way, without discussing the underlying problem then fine. I'll take my active duty Navy perspective and leave. Feel free to make your judgments on partial, and often incorrect information.
 
Quote    Reply

stbretnco       8/2/2009 10:59:33 AM
I'm not saying ignore the problem.
 
One thing the US Military has been weak at is allowing enlisted promotion to officer ranks. Yes, green to gold is there, but the highest rank a maverick can normally hope to attain is Major, regardless of their skill. No USMA ring, no birdies. ROTC officers have a possible shot at flag rank, but it's a weak one.
 
I'm assuming that is no different in the Navy.
 
If the military AS A WHOLE wants to fix things, the service academy mafia  has to be broken up. I've seen extremely skilled officers come from all three promotion tracks, but the Academy officers have a leg up on promotion to senior ranks from the time they are O-1's. I've seen LT's given a pass on things because they were USMA grads, where a ROTC officer or maverick would have been busted on the spot (try leaving blasting caps scattered all over a demo range, or ordering an NCO to disregard mortar safety procedures while on a range).
 
One situation that many have credited Nappy with is the incredible morale in the French Army. Part of the reason for that was that there was a Marshal's baton in every backpack. Not literally, but if you were good, you got promoted, regardless of where you came from.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    OK, Boo-Hoo   8/2/2009 2:16:44 PM
You can disagree all you want and you can decry the Navy's move here. That's fine. What I was trying to do was offer a more in depth explanation of the problem than the article did. If you'd rather read concurring posts that go on to tell how messed up the Navy is and how the Navy has lost its way, without discussing the underlying problem then fine. I'll take my active duty Navy perspective and leave. Feel free to make your judgments on partial, and often incorrect information.
You can run off then.....
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy