not a military academy. Too many of us, midshipmen once, were forced to march endlessly at P-rades to demonstrate that we could match, The Military Academy at West Point, in appearance as marching formations. Blue cacophonous square-like moving objects appeared.

It was a lesson in the frustrations of mimicry.

Now what are we dealing with here? Suggest asking Kagan down the hall or Jim Webb what they think, they also taught in the Bull Department.

Why selectively lowering the bar for admissions at Canoe U should be of any great concern is beyond me. Frankly, most lower classmen seem to spend an inordinate amount of their time carrying out the childish orders of upperclassmen, which I gather are supposed to develope unquestioning obedience.

Who has time to study the Humanities anyway?

As a fellow USNA professor, I must concur entirely with Bruce's assessment. Don't underestimate the impetus of the Superintendent behind the current policy. The man is committed to gaining a fourth star, and cynically understands that the current course is likely appeal strongly to the current administration. And don't underestimate the significance of the policy as window-dressing. Somebody ought to ask our dear leader what proportion of his own community (nuclear power) are minorities, and then marvel when the notion of inviolable standards is invoked in defense of the shockingly low number.

All is revealing of a service that hasn't fought a real naval war in sixty years, hasn't had its doctrine, organization, personnel and promotion policies, or strategic posture really tested by a serious opponent in a long time. One cannot but recognize that such preposterous policies - at a military academy, no less - reflect an indolent service culture of peacetime politics.

While I certainly agree that Prof. Fleming's allegations that legal lines are crossed during the admissions process must be addressed, it pains me to a certain degree to hear such a cacophony arise from Midshipmen and alumni alike over the USNA (and CNO) diversity initiatives. It is no secret that the Navy and the officer corps in particular in no way mimic to any degree the racial, sexual, socio-economic or geographical distribution of the population that we serve. As the Navy becomes more complex, I see this divide worsening. As anecdotal evidence, just as any submarine officer to compare the number of minorities in the highly-paid, highly educated nuclear engineering divisions with those found in the lower paying non-nuclear divisions. Or to count the number of minority officers he knows serving in the submarine force.

As far as the question of diversity is concerned, I personally have no issues with looking at who USNA admits, where it spends its recruitment money, what communities it targets AS LONG AS the standards for the officers it produces are as excellent as ever. It is not true that less "qualified" (by the unyielding and documented to be less-than enlightening yardstick of SAT scores and extracurriculars) applicants must mean less excellent officers. Let the faculty, staff and Midshipmen do their hard work and we may end up with an officer corps that the nation can relate to.

1. The fleet makes officers, not the Academy.

2. The US Naval Institute is a private institution and can exercise editorial judgment as it chooses. But that editorial judgment is objective within the Institute, which has a history of bucking the brass and maintaining highest editorial standards.

3. Over many years observation I've reached the conclusion that an impermeable dome isolates what goes on in Annapolis from common reality and makes all manner of trivia seem important. People at Canoe U. should visit the United States now and again, or at least get out more.

4. There is a pendulum at the Naval Academy that swings with about a decadal periodicity between emphasis on engineering and emphasis on humanities. On this, I'm with John Lehman and many others: the Navy needs a few engineers, but not so many as to ignore actual education for most. It's a long time since the US was out-engineered in a war (like never), but one can point to Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan as three examples of a failure of human understanding, the subject of the humanities.

Way back in 1962 I got a NROTC scholarship. In the summer training in 1964 there as not one black face on parade - lots of asians though. I quit after three years and did a most entertaining 2 drafted years in the Army including Vietnam as an enlisted guy. Actually for a future professional, you learn a lot more about life as an enlisted guy than as an officer. We aught to bring back the draft for folks who do not want a 4 year commitment.

Professor Fleming's article in response to the CNO referenced above was published with Professor Fleming's permission, in full, Monday at cdrsalamander; click here.

As we have experienced in the realms of finance and business, in government and national security, other standards are carrying the day. We in the white towers lost respect for those of lesser than our elites - and we are feeling broke and insecure. We spend money like drunken...on anything that provokes us and yet we are no better than someone who spends a tenth of treasure.

So Navy is saying that diversity is a standard, unconstitutional; but, still a standard. Hell, on the old merit system, Navy lost to Notre Dame 43 consecutive years! But now after the win, foundation money rolls in like a commitment to the surge. Luckily our enemies did not realize that "Chariots of Fire" schools could neither match diversity in track meet performance nor deal with Ponzi's in other professions.

But I think Prof Fleming may consider addressing that his civil rights are being infringed and ask someone still honest in Congress to have a GAO review using their IG. Avoid whistle-blower efforts - that's for fools under the current sleepy DoD Hotlines.

The Academies give an easy entry to athletes and have for many decades. Fleming tries to finesse this but fails, nor can one see any sign that this non-merit-based aspect of admission policies will ever change.

This is not the place to attempt to overturn racism nor to argue the merits of affirmative action. But it is a good place to state, firmly and flatly, that the Navy and Marine Corps are strengthened to the extent that they are representative of the nation they defend ... and that they don't get that way with pious wishes devoid of sturdy actions to make it so.

Most naval officers are conservative in their politics. But in the past they often exhibited a to-the-ramparts fervor in defending their previously closed shop, acting like the most liberal union leader in efforts to keep out 'others,' those previously not eligible to join the union because of gender or ethnicity. Fortunately two things have changed. This closed-shop mentality is fading at its source - Annapolis (Fleming is among the 10% who failed to get the word). And competitive performance in the fleet by those previously excluded invalidates the argument completely.

RD,
Concerning your comment, "But in the past they often exhibited a to-the-ramparts fervor in defending their previously closed shop, acting like the most liberal union leader in efforts to keep out 'others,' those previously not eligible to join the union because of gender or ethnicity. "

That may have been true for your generation - but in over two decades of active duty I have seen none of that. I have served with women since I was an ENS, as have most of those on active duty now. While there are logical, not rampart running, reasons to keep women out of some combat areas (such as SSN and SEALS) that are argued both ways by well meaning people - all conversations I have been party with have been very even-handed and balanced; no raving misogynists there. As for minorities, I don't know anyone who are against them doing anything, anywhere, in any way, shape or form. Again, I don't know what Navy you are talking about, but it isn't the one I have been serving with since Reagan was in office.

It is important to remember that most of this year's Plebe MIDN were born between 1990-1991 and graduated High School under President Obama.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt about your personal experience during your time in the Navy with the people you served with, but you should consider that it may no longer be germane to CY09/FY10.

This is not the 1960s and 1970 - we should stop acting like it is. The US military used to be on the cutting edge of societal progress on race relations - why we feel the need to be retrograde in the 21st Century is a question that still has not been answered.

Once again, if you want progress - Morgan Freeman has a very good idea. With the glorious mixture of source-DNA and mixes of DNA that is our Navy; we should move away from classifying everyone as if we were at a 1920s eugenics conference.

Each Sailor should be judged on the substance of their qualifications and the content of their character. Anything else invites sectarianism, discrimination, envy, cynicism and divisiveness. Not a formula for success. History proves that out.

Bill,
Yoo hoo .... over here. This is Mr. Ricks blog. If you want to make trollish comments .... then please do so at my home blog.

Oh, and just to play with your toy a bit - didn't Nimitz, Spruance, Halsey, et al fully support a segregated Navy? If so, then the old jack sure is a racist one .... sigh ... troll feeding should be outlawed. Sorry Mr. Ricks.

RD,
The two of us are ganging up TOGETHER against a troll!!

All is well in the world! I feel all fuzzy-like! ;)

This certainly doesn't only affect the morale of Seaman. Such blatant reverse discrimination despite its detriment the 'good order and discipline' of the military is legion through the military. It is certainly not an environment most ambitious non-minorities prefer to work which in itself uniquely undermines retention efforts to keep some of the 'best and brightest' while going out of the way to retain some of the worst.