I pray none of my statements or references are being seen as personal attacks. I am trying very hard to be precise and logical, despite being admittedly upset about this entire turn of events – especially as it relates to the existing Regiment of Midshipmen.
Concerning possible legal fall-out, I do not see it happening for a variety of reasons. Looking back at the original letter, this is the only section wherein any “libel” or “slander” could be indicated:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Having gone through numerous superintendents and commandants, the Academy is lacking effective leadership and direction. More often than not during my four years here, the Academy has been under the guidance of its Academic Dean and Interim Superintendent, Dr. Shashi Kumar. Dr. Kumar is a respectable man, however the consistency and transparency that should be present in the Academy’s leadership simply does not suffice. The current administration is gun shy about pulling the trigger and taking action in matters that require strong leadership and open communication.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that as of the writing of that letter, MARAD is responsible for the fact that there is a temporary superintendent (third time in three years) and a temporary Commandant (second time in three years), so if the midshipmen have a sense that there is a lack of leadership, I can not really blame them.
Now, having stated that he is a “respectable man,” and only commenting on his inability to demonstrate the high level of leadership required of a difficult situation, there is no basis for “defamation of character.”
Commenting on his leadership (or lack thereof) essentially puts the whole matter into a category that includes “public” persons. From the following web-site:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Libel+and+Slander
The Court wrote that "libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment." Therefore, in order to protect the free flow of ideas in the political arena, the law requires that a public official who alleges libel must prove actual malice in order to recover damages. The First Amendment protects open and robust debate on public issues even when such debate includes "vehement, caustic, unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The academy itself can not sue, only Dr. Kumar could choose to personally sue, and he would have to first indicate he is not a public person. Then, the only awards are compensatory, based on the damages that resulted. Unless he loses his job over this, there are no damages, and if he does lose his job, then that would essentially validate the statement as being true, which would be the best defense of all.
Long story to get back to this: The violation of the chain-of-command is the only real issue to attack this individual on, and only the chain of command involved can choose to enforce any penalties accordingly.
The duality of this thread then is this:
- Should this individual receive a specific punishment? If so, what is appropriate?
- What is the validity of the statements regarding the Honor Board itself? Consequently, is the ability to enforce Integrity among the Regiment less important than “bigger issues?”
I for one feel that without a certainty of integrity, the value of my having graduated from this academy is so diminished it may be better to close the doors than operate a sham. I would hate to be a graduate of a defunct institution, but would hate even more to see that institution degraded so horribly.
From what I do know, from the point of view of the midshipmen, this was just about the most clear-cut Honor Board case that has occurred in a long time. When they found out their decision was meaningless, it hit them like a sucker-punch. Why did they waste all that time? Why did they put themselves on the line to tell individuals they do not belong among the Regiment, only to be told the rules they adhered to were meaningless?
I know many of these people personally. They had knots in the pits of their stomachs leading up to the actual board. They did the best job they could based on everything they believed in. Claiming that the whole thing came down to some “procedural” issues on how the board was run? I am not buying that.
I go back to my first post. The real “takeaway” here is that apparently the academy can not defend an honor board decision unless the Honor Board can be conducted at the level of a full criminal trial. This is way beyond the ability of the midshipmen there, so what is the sense of claiming some sham of a system that is allegedly self-governing?
Concerning punishment, if this individual receives anything worse than a written reprimand for violating the chain of command (which of course winds up in your “permanent record”) I will be even angrier about the “shoot the messenger” mentality it would show. The truth hurts, but problems can not be fixed unless they are at least acknowledged first.
Like 2012AD (current 1/c) referenced – fry all the bigger fish you want. But this, this goes to the very core and essence of what it means to be allowed to walk across that podium to get your degree, your license, and your commission as an officer in the armed forces of the United States of America.
