Bruce is at it again

I think tenure is way over-rated.

I had to re-check the date to see if it was an old article...I love reading the comments below it.
 
Last edited:
It's the same theme every article, all subjective, no facts. I don't disagree with all his points, but he does nothing to support them. And it just seems so odd to slam the very institution that has paid him for nearly 30 years. If he disagrees so much with it, why continue to teach and support it?
 
Last edited:
It's the same theme everg article, all subjective, no facts. I don't disagree with all his points, but he does nothing to support them. And it just seems so odd to slam the very institution that had paid him for nearly 30 years. If he disagrees so much with it, why continue to teach and support it?
I totally agree. I must have read the same article rehashed multiple times. He has one titled USMA and then goes on and talks about USNA. It was thought provoking the first time but now it is getting old. How about something new Bruce.
 
These are the words of a very unhappy man. He must lack something either in life, or in character to try so hard to bite the hand that feeds him.

If he has worked 29 years at USA as he states, he has probably moved up the salary ladder. I have no idea, but I'd suspect he has banked nearly two million dollars over his career at Annapolis. If he is so concerned that taxpayers are not getting their money's worth, he must be guilt ridden ever time he looks in the mirror.

I find fault with a lot of what he said, especially:

My best guesstimate as to what USNA thinks a “leader” is, is a charismatic person with no actual skills except the ability to sway people to his/her will. Those, of course, can do evil as well as good: Iran and North Korea have “leaders” too.

I have nice list of names I'd like to add to his byline.
 
^^ I also agree. He surfaces every so often in yet another publication making various provocative statements which mostly seemed designed to keep him in the spotlight. If he genuinely had ideas how to improve USNA, you think he would try to work within the system in the 30 or so yrs he has been there. I guess he finds it easier to make his subjective accusations in the media instead of expending his efforts internally to make it better.
 
My best guesstimate as to what USNA thinks a “leader” is, is a charismatic person with no actual skills except the ability to sway people to his/her will. Those, of course, can do evil as well as good: Iran and North Korea have “leaders” too.

Maple rock-- I think you've nailed it. He is frustrated that he hasn't passed the "leader" test...since he has been totally ineffective in swaying people to his will ... ;)
 
Agreed....I had to re-check the date as well. Where are his solutions (besides closing the SAs)? Part of great critical thinking is breaking a problem down, figuring out what is "wrong," and then offering different solutions to fixing the problem (I would hope this is something he understands in the subject he teaches). If he truly feels that tax dollars are being wasted....then offer some solutions on how to make each penny (or nickle) worth it. The only thing he offers is to shut it down completely.
 
I love reading the USNA Yik Yak. You want to enjoy the USNA razor-wit at it's finest, here it is on display, everyday/24-7.

Fleming is being eviscerated (ala` Braveheart) as the tenured, 6-figure hypocrite who is using his recycled term paper, again.

They claim he is displaying one of the BEST examples of **how NOT**to write a Paper.

Other members of the Brigade are giving him an F- for handing in this unsupported tripe that he is passing off as "authoritative".

Others calling him lazy, a 'tenured money sucker'

They pretty much accept the fact that he is like the Academy's pet monkey, he is fun to watch for about 10 minutes until he starts throwing poop at the crowd.
 
He sounds very bitter. How is it possible that he is still teaching there?
 
Just think, the money and perks he is enjoying overrides his working for the very Institution he despises !?

I think he may have some issues with self-absorption/lack of self-awareness ?? .....Caveat - I am not a doctor, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express, last night.
 
Last edited:
I've posted before about my plebe year course with Prof. Fleming being one of my all-time favorites during my entire undergraduate years. So for me now - both as a former student and as a current fellow academic - I'm disappointed more than anything, and "disappointed" is a pretty feeble description.

Dr. Fleming began writing about what he saw as the shortcomings of USNA, I believe based on his own statements in some of those early articles, to shine light on opaque processes. He (rightly, IMHO) criticized an admissions process that was largely undocumented (though admissions guidelines and class profiles are documented). In the public and private university world, that would never fly, and I submit U of Michigan and U of Texas admissions procedures that made it to SCOTUS to support my claim. As soon as people have skin in the game, whether it's tuition or ever-dwindling state funding, people (rightly) demand to know how the institutions work, and how their sons' and daughters' applications are evaluated.

USNA is public, but its mission is different. USNA therefore has a case to make for assembling incoming plebe classes that reflect the nation and the Fleet. They could make strong cases why an African-American woman from Belzoni, MS with an ACT composite of 28 should be admitted over a first-gen college man from Brooklyn with an ACT of 30; or why a homeschooled boy from Lander, WY should be admitted over a shooting point guard who was her team captain and all-state at Des Moines Dowling. They haven't made these cases. In that limited sense, I therefore agree with that particular premise of Dr. Fleming.

But as for cries of killing tenure: I understand the public's bewilderment about a process that can also be opaque. Ultimately the purpose for academics earning tenure - and boy Nellie, do we have to earn it - springs from the very assaults on academic freedoms that we, inside academe, see occurring more and more frequently. Academic freedom with responsibility has been a key part of academe since the Enlightenment. Tenure lets biologists (like me) and chemists study flatworms* and write really unpopular essays because they're interesting and because they could lead to breakthroughs in knowledge. It allows historians like a colleague of mine to write books about Herbert Hoover as a man of letters, for whom the Presidency was a step down, and as someone who tried mightily to respond to the Great Depression, without worrying that he's going to lose his job if the next college president doesn't like the book. And it infrequently allows blowhards like Dr. Fleming to inflame with words. It guarantees that your sons and daughters will be exposed to ideas that they don't like, that they don't agree with, that make them squirm and question what they really think and believe. However, no idea that withers under scrutiny is an idea worth keeping, and that right there is about the only thing standing between us and beating the s*** out of each other because we don't like what someone else thinks.

*I don't study flatworms. I think they're boring.
 
LongAgo, don't disagree with much of what you are stating. Personally I think tenure is pretty ridiculous, but that is a different discussion. I have had Professor Fleming for a 1/C Capstone Course that he c0-taught with another Professor. I would give him a 5/10 as a Professor. The topic wasn't all that riveting, but it was what was offered, worked in my schedule and was required. My Plebe Year English course wasn't anything riveting or particularly challenging and most Professors at another University would never step foot in this type of class except to have TAs teach it. As a History Major at USNA, I was challenged to think, analyze and have plenty of discourse from all my Professors. Heck USNA has two renowned Civil War historians who are total opposites in their belief of what caused the Civil War. They actually encouraged all of the history majors to take both classes, be challenged in our thoughts and beliefs and make our own conclusions. I will admit not only were they great professors, but they pushed us like no other professors did. That is what USNA wants! The curriculum is designed to do exactly that. I think that is one of the great strengths of USNA from the Professors (military and civilian), Company Officers, grads, ethics classes, character development, etc. Heck in my Character Development classes, ethics and philosophy classes this was exactly the core of the classes and they were all taught by uniformed members without tenure protecting them.

As I said before I don't disagree with all his points, but he provides zero data to support any of it. I suppose its an opinion piece, therefore not needed, but these types of articles are hard to take seriously without it. I actually believe the commitment from USNA should be much longer (and this is coming from someone who got out at 5), remove the MOC process (USNA is pretty powerless over this though) and give Mids more freedom, but hold them much more accountable than they do today (many ideas here, but that would take a book), and boot out many more Mids when they do not uphold the standard. He keeps recycling the same exact opinion piece year after year. Heck at least an NPS post grad student uses some statistics to either support or defend if a USNA grad is "worth the money."
 
Back
Top