--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did I read correctly that the USNA is going to graduate a pregnant female? And is now allowing fathers to graduate?
Did I read correctly that the USNA is going to graduate a pregnant female? And is now allowing fathers to graduate?
... mombee mentioned that the CNO was leaning towards this policy.
It is sad, what happened to the Honor Code?
It is sad, what happened to the Honor Code?
She would raise her right hand and take an oath. Same as anyone else.and how do you commission as a new mother?
The Academy was founded in 1865. Probably commencing about 1866, midshipmen have bee hiding the fact that they are parents to be, parents, or even married. I guess we are on new territory here since it is slightly more difficult for a female to hide it. No honor offense unless they lie about it. Just a violation of regulations. Definitely at least a Black "N".
I just find it ironic that the argument against a one year leave of absence was the resultant immorality of a child born out of wedlock since a Graduation Week wedding had been planned. Maybe I am just old fashioned.
I don't think anyone was lying, cheating, or stealing here.
I'm old fashioned, honor meant following the rules and pregnancy is against the basic requirements.
I guess it's every pregnant/caused pregnancy (their word) Midshipman for him/herself now, whatever you can get away with...
Looks like another issue with the precursor "don't dare question this" lol
A couple of thoughts.
First, a male in my class graduated married and with a 9-month old child. He didn't bother to tell anyone, of course . . .
Given that the mid was PG at the time of graduation, USNA had two choices -- commission her or not let her graduate. If they'd chosen the latter, she may or may not have had to pay back any of her education (such decisions are individualized). Thus, she would have 99.9% of a 4-yr education and possibly owe nothing. Now, she has to serve like everyone else. Which is better?
Also, had she realized she was PG one day after graduation, nothing would have been done as that is allowed.
Not condoning her actions -- you are told the rules at USNA and should abide by them. I'm just not sure there was a better option. Also, as noted, men can father children w/o it showing -- women are not so "lucky."
One other question, HYPOTHETICALLY, if the father of that child had been a 1/C mid, should he also have been kicked out?? Just asking.
The USNA also had the option of sending her to the enlisted ranks, that might have sent a message to try to keep the rules in tact.
Yes, the 1/C Midn father should have been given the same options for breaking the rules. Why would that even be a hypothetical question, it's obvious.
BTW, this is all part of "integrity", following rules and commitments. JMHO
Here, the woman admitted to what had happened which, as noted, is more than most males do (because they can generally avoid so doing if the mother of the child cooperates). Perhaps you should consider that allowing this woman to graduate is no different -- and perhaps more fair -- than the approach taken for males who graduate having fathered a child and not admitted so doing.
Not condoning either conduct. Just saying that the fact that the woman visually appears pregnant and the man doesn't -- or that the woman admits it and the man doesn't -- is no reason to treat them differently.
If USNA separated everyone who broke a rule, or even a major rule, a lot of great officers wouldn't be commissioned.
I'm not suggesting that breaking rules is good or honorable or right. But it happens. Today, many mids who are convicted of honor offenses are given a second chance through remediation. Some would argue that an honor offense is worse than a conduct offense.
As noted, for years male mids have graduated having fathered children while at USNA. In most cases, their misconduct goes unnoticed until their classmates see them at reunions with kids who were obviously born/conceived prior to graduation. Women, after a certain point, can't hide pregnancy the way a man can hide that he's fathered a child.
Here, the woman admitted to what had happened which, as noted, is more than most males do (because they can generally avoid so doing if the mother of the child cooperates). Perhaps you should consider that allowing this woman to graduate is no different -- and perhaps more fair -- than the approach taken for males who graduate having fathered a child and not admitted so doing.
Not condoning either conduct. Just saying that the fact that the woman visually appears pregnant and the man doesn't -- or that the woman admits it and the man doesn't -- is no reason to treat them differently.
Maybe they (those that violate honor codes) shouldn't be commissioned and aren't in fact "great Officers", we were supposed to be talking about the cream of the crop with Honor as the paramount character trait but, I guess it's like anything else today, standards are being lowered.