Professor Fleming

brovol said:

Many of the same points made by Fleming were made by Huffington. Huffington was critical of the political correctness which tends to drive, even if the effect is a weaker structure and military. The West Point community reacted in a negative way because he pointed a finger at the very popular superintendent. He argued that the academies policies and practices had gone soft, and that too much of an emphasis had been placed on things like success of the football team, and graduating a certain number of cadets in various demographic categories, over training the best leaders and officers.

Click to expand...

100% agree with this post. The cadets we’ve spoken with have something akin to an eye roll with regard to the emphasis on football and the accommodations the previous “Supe!” afforded some of the players. Huffington went there, at some personal cost and in a respectful way with the best interests of the USMA in mind. It wasn’t received well.

THParent said:

Ah, so there was "sending students a photo of himself in a Speedo swim suit" (I just threw up in my mouth a little) and "touching students without their consent".
I would say that this is going to stick. In this day and age, nothing else will matter.

Click to expand...

From the article in italics:

As for his teaching style, Fleming admitted it was unique but served a purpose. He said he does push-ups for the students, flexes, and talks openly with them about the military’s transgender policy and practicing safe sex.

It helps engage the students and educate them about things they may not have learned at home, he said.

“I’m the first to admit that it isn’t like anyone else’s teaching style,” Fleming said. “It develops slowly, but it really, really works.”


As a disinterested observer I have two questions:

Did he talk about the military's transgender policy and safe sex while doing push-ups and flexing?

Does he have research to support his claim that "it really, really works?"

We have to give Fleming credit for calling out the academy administration's obsession with D-I sports. They certainly haven't cared to much about the English Department faculty. That was a good thing for Fleming.

OldRetSWO said:

brovol said:

Separate admissions standards is a fair issue to raise, and probably a few of Fleming's other arguments are legit.

Click to expand...

I've been pretty involved in USNA Admissions since the early 90's and I have not seen separate admission standards. Some people think that its all about SAT scores and grades but
the truth of the matter is that it is all scored with points for many many things. Just because an applicant has lower SAT scores does not mean that they don't have other attributes
that balances out the SAT scores. Remember too the geographical/representational requirements which can make it less competitive in some districts than others. Lastly and most
important is that admissions is selecting NAVAL OFFICERS, not students for the Ivy League and sometimes there is a candidate with overwhelming potential that is not captures by
the SATs or number of AP classes. Fleming would have us reject those people but that would be counter to the Navy (and the nation's) benefit.

Some examples that I'm aware of:

High School dropout (from a prestigious boarding school) who enlists in the Marine Corps after a bad time in High School. Does well in the Corps and someone sees something in him
and he ends up at USNA despite a record that was definitely below the norm. Four Years later, he is Brigade Commander and selected as a Rhodes Scholar. Should we have rejected
him a-la-Fleming.

High School applicant - middle of the road (for his area) SAT scores based on 1 test and decent but not great grades at an average High School. Team Captain in a couple of
sports. BGO trying to call him to set up an interview but can't seem to catch him and the people taking the messages turn out to be clerks at a convenience store. BGO looks
into it further and discovers that candidate's parents had both died and older sister who lives in a distant state has custody but candidate whats to finish school in his hometown so
candidate is living on his own, works nearly full time to support himself AND still goes to school, sports, etc. Phone is convenience store under his apartment. Only one time
for SAT as he can't afford more then that. Candidate is still fully committed to his team and a real leader on and off the field. Did very well at USNA even though to Professor Fleming,
he should be passed over for the more traditional candidates.

I've heard of many more like this over the years and have interviewed a few as a BGO and as a Senatorial interviewer.

Click to expand...

Are there instances where academies admit students because they distinguish themselves in ways other than the more traditional criteria for appointments? Certainly; no argument, and I won't disparage admissions for making exceptions in some cases. But are you suggesting that blue chip athletes are being admitted utilizing the exact formula as a non athlete, or that no consideration is given to applicants who meet diversity desires? The academies themselves don't even deny these things. The question is not whether it happens, but rather whether it is acceptable.

brovol said:

OldRetSWO said:

brovol said:

Separate admissions standards is a fair issue to raise, and probably a few of Fleming's other arguments are legit.

Click to expand...

I've been pretty involved in USNA Admissions since the early 90's and I have not seen separate admission standards. Some people think that its all about SAT scores and grades but
the truth of the matter is that it is all scored with points for many many things. Just because an applicant has lower SAT scores does not mean that they don't have other attributes
that balances out the SAT scores. Remember too the geographical/representational requirements which can make it less competitive in some districts than others. Lastly and most
important is that admissions is selecting NAVAL OFFICERS, not students for the Ivy League and sometimes there is a candidate with overwhelming potential that is not captures by
the SATs or number of AP classes. Fleming would have us reject those people but that would be counter to the Navy (and the nation's) benefit.

Some examples that I'm aware of:

High School dropout (from a prestigious boarding school) who enlists in the Marine Corps after a bad time in High School. Does well in the Corps and someone sees something in him
and he ends up at USNA despite a record that was definitely below the norm. Four Years later, he is Brigade Commander and selected as a Rhodes Scholar. Should we have rejected
him a-la-Fleming.

High School applicant - middle of the road (for his area) SAT scores based on 1 test and decent but not great grades at an average High School. Team Captain in a couple of
sports. BGO trying to call him to set up an interview but can't seem to catch him and the people taking the messages turn out to be clerks at a convenience store. BGO looks
into it further and discovers that candidate's parents had both died and older sister who lives in a distant state has custody but candidate whats to finish school in his hometown so
candidate is living on his own, works nearly full time to support himself AND still goes to school, sports, etc. Phone is convenience store under his apartment. Only one time
for SAT as he can't afford more then that. Candidate is still fully committed to his team and a real leader on and off the field. Did very well at USNA even though to Professor Fleming,
he should be passed over for the more traditional candidates.

I've heard of many more like this over the years and have interviewed a few as a BGO and as a Senatorial interviewer.

Click to expand...

Are there instances where academies admit students because they distinguish themselves in ways other than the more traditional criteria for appointments? Certainly; no argument, and I won't disparage admissions for making exceptions in some cases. But are you suggesting that blue chip athletes are being admitted utilizing the exact formula as a non athlete, or that no consideration is given to applicants who meet diversity desires? The academies themselves don't even deny these things. The question is not whether it happens, but rather whether it is acceptable.

Click to expand...

Yes there are a relatively small number of candidates that are admitted based on things other than the customary candidate multiple. In my experience, its not many and it satisfies a number of requirements/things.

I just caught up with the latest articles on this topic, because I was focused on John McCain stories.

I have many college English professors I remember with appreciation, male and female, particularly Dr. Maya Angelou. I enjoyed taking English classes for electives, to broaden my mind and improve my written work. Those profs managed to engage me without Speedo photos, flexed arm photos, “theatrical teaching style,” or “things my parents may not have talked about.”

Yuck.

Even if there were not the baggage of his years of written criticisms of USNA, I would say his behavior is unsuitable for the classroom.

So much happening this weekend. DH and I were at a gathering Saturday night when we heard the news about Senator McCain. DH had the privilege of being mentored by Sen McCain during his (DH's) graduate school years.

And then we read with growing dismay about Dr. Fleming. You may recall that I had what I consider the privilege of being in Dr. Fleming's class as a long-ago plebe. He was passionate, wide-ranging, and dedicated to our professional development. He's one of the three most influential professors of my undergraduate years. I'm a better writer and thinker because of him.

Over the years, as he published essays, I shrugged. I even found myself saying this in a small group at the same gathering, as the conversation shifted to Dr. Fleming. "Every institution needs a gadfly," I'd think, and I said, "and it won't make him very popular but it's a necessary role." But the essays took a more confrontational tone - I thought.

One of the small group members piped up and said, "You know, he sounds just like Dr. So-and-so." Dr. So-and-so on our campus is the recently retired curmudgeon who started out young and passionate, dedicated to his students' personal and professional development, and, like Dr. Fleming, noticed and pointed out institutional flaws. (Flaws here - I can't form an opinion about USNA because I don't have the data.) The administration here, as you can imagine, saw Dr. So-and-so as a fly in their soup, the Emperor's tailor and critic (you get the idea). As Dr. So-and-so spun up, so did they. But Dr. So-and-so forgot who weilded ultimate power in that relationship, tenure or not. And as Dr. So-and-so continued to spin up, he stopped listening to his better angels and began poking inappropriately: supplying alcohol to a group of 21+ students on a trip, having 2-3 women students over to his home while displaying a lot of erotic art and sculptures. None of these things, in and of themselves, outright violated school policy. They were extremely ill-advised. Nonetheless, Dr. So-and-so grew increasingly brazen and increasingly curmudgeonly. Where at one time, junior faculty were encouraged to make his acquaintance and alliance, recently we (more senior faculty) shielded the newer faculty from him. No one wanted to be on committees with him any more. And he could not stay on topic - he frequently hijacked meetings for his one-sided rants about whatever latest administrative "sin" or "error." He became, in short, a pain in the a$$.

When last spring he held a small party for his department's graduating seniors, and there was synthetic marijuana there, and he was in a Snapchat photo holding a joint, clearly on school property, that was all it took to shoo him into early retirement.

So when my colleague brought up Dr. So-and-so at this gathering, I couldn't help think of the superficial parallels to Dr. Fleming's case. Honestly I am angry at Dr. So-and-so and I am angry at Dr. Fleming. Despite the extreme right-wing believing we are somehow indoctrinating our students or supplying them drugs or having wild orgies with them, just as in most professions we are dedicated to our students' personal and professional development. We turn ourselves inside out, trying to make ourselves better teachers and, we hope, our students better people. It takes so little to betray that compact between us and them, and between us and the public. Dr. Fleming flew too close to the sun. But my young self is still grateful to have had him as a teacher.

This week I will turn my attention to Senator McCain, not Dr. Fleming. Be well, all.

cb7893 said:

THParent said:

Ah, so there was "sending students a photo of himself in a Speedo swim suit" (I just threw up in my mouth a little) and "touching students without their consent".
I would say that this is going to stick. In this day and age, nothing else will matter.

Click to expand...

From the article in italics:

As for his teaching style, Fleming admitted it was unique but served a purpose. He said he does push-ups for the students, flexes, and talks openly with them about the military’s transgender policy and practicing safe sex.

It helps engage the students and educate them about things they may not have learned at home, he said.

“I’m the first to admit that it isn’t like anyone else’s teaching style,” Fleming said. “It develops slowly, but it really, really works.”


As a disinterested observer I have two questions:

Did he talk about the military's transgender policy and safe sex while doing push-ups and flexing?

Does he have research to support his claim that "it really, really works?"

We have to give Fleming credit for calling out the academy administration's obsession with D-I sports. They certainly haven't cared to much about the English Department faculty. That was a good thing for Fleming.

Click to expand...

I’ve investigated quite a few of these kind of cases. There are more red flags in his statements than I want to count. His responses are nothing new to me.

I’m thinking the Academy knew what it was doing here. I’m also certain we know only a fraction of the story. Regardless, he’s gone. Much more important things to do than think about him.

I am also an observer having no experience or personal stake in USNA. However, I have read many of Dr. Fleming's articles over the years because he paints all the SA with the same brush. I have always found it interesting that he would find so many flaws in the system but choose to remain there for 3 decades. The biting the hand that feeds you analogy is appropriate. Having opinions and concerns and expressing them in an appropriate manner is welcomed and encouraged. Having nothing good to say about the institution you represent raises other issues in my mind.