If he wasn't a football player, He would be kicked out!!!

[Whistle Pig]

True. But again, that was not the issue, believe it or not. Despite undeniable and undenied indication of consumption, his proclamation of "I didn't know." could not be ignored. Even laughable as it may have been, was. According to the defendent, he was an victim of circumstances. And he had a witness to that effect.

So, again, the Supe is not stupid. Nor is he a push-over. So why would he knowingly bend the rules for even a minority football player? Truth is he did not. He bit his cheek and gave him that which the law and lack of knowing otherwise not only allowed, but required.

He could have ruled otherwise and many would be happy here. And then ex-Mid Curry might likely be lawyering up and the USNA likewise to take on a highly public and controversial legal battle that they well might lose and cost a ton of money and other resources in the process. And of course, respondingto cries of racism just as the diversity appointment program, for better or worse, is being geared up. btw, is there anyone who thinks the Supe would make a determination of this type absent legal counsel?

I contend, in this case, the Superintendent did the only honorable AND legal thing he could do, knowing full well, both the fresh and older USNA/USN faces would cry "fowler." I believe he showed loyalty and courage ...that in the end...resulted precisely as those on both sides would hope. Perhaps even the departing Mid, sadly.

There is one notable lesson that might be pertinent here, speaking of admissions. As increasingly students unacquainted and/or commited to the USNA culture are pursued and recruited ...incidents like these (multiple events, as we know) will need to be guarded against and addressed, along w/ academic counseling as well.

 

[aglages]

Despite undeniable and undenied indication of consumption, his proclamation of "I didn't know." could not be ignored. Even laughable as it may have been, was. According to the defendent, he was an victim of circumstances. And he had a witness to that effect.

The flaw in your argument is that any other Mid making the above claim would have been ignored and separated from the USNA. I think it was clearly Dant Klunder's opinion that any Mid making that ridiculous claim would have and should have been separated. The "I didn't know" I was smoking pot would never have been enough of an excuse for either a non DIV1 athlete or a white mid. How is it honorable to treat mids differently based on athletic skill or skin color?

The legal issue defense is a joke. Clearly the USNA can separate ANY Mid for a positive drug test. I believe there is ample precedent and the rules are very clear. Are you suggesting that black Mids should not be subject to the same rules and punishments as the other Mids so as to avoid the legal costs of defending USNA decisions to separate them for violations?

 

[Whistle Pig]

The flaw in your argument is that any other Mid making the above claim would have been ignored and separated from the USNA. I think it was clearly Dant Klunder's opinion that any Mid making that ridiculous claim would have and should have been separated.
The legal issue defense is a joke. ?

Briefly, there is no evidence to support your proclamation. Understandably, it's your "feeling" and opinion. You're entitled to both, but suggesting there's necessarily any logic, legality or more comes up empty. But no more, no less.

As you state, the legal claim may be a joke. Guaranteed, if your money were on the line in funding the defense and court prceedings (and it was, of course), a flippant suggestion like yours would be much more expensive, I'm trusting. Like it or not, even the Academy is an institution of law and order.

Again, the obvious might be truth. But only one knows for sure. But remember, in the end, this is not about honor or truth. It's about justice. And w/o any doubt, while not in your line of how it should have prevailed, in the end, it has. Enough said.

Please no more chest-beating about what we proclaim to know absent a shred of evidence.

Lou, those cases were not his. One size doesn't fit all. I'm not defending him. We all might agree as a jury ...guilty. Unfortunately, this was not about IF he'd done it or not. Rather, I'm defending a responsible, honorable decision made by the boss.

 

[Luigi59]

The flaw in your argument is that any other Mid making the above claim would have been ignored and separated from the USNA.

Briefly, there is no evidence to support your proclamation. Understandably, it's your "feeling" and opinion. You're entitled to both, but suggesting there's necessarily any logic, legality or more comes up empty. But no more, no less.

Again, the obvious might be truth. But only one knows for sure. But remember, in the end, this is not about honor or truth. It's about justice. And w/o any doubt, while not in your line of how it should have prevailed, in the end, it has. Enough said.

Please no more chest-beating about what we proclaim to know absent a shred of evidence.

There is plenty of evidence, real people, who have been disenrolled at USNA for a positive drug test.

 

[usna1985]

This thread has outlived its usefulness on the USNA boards. Please continue your discussion here . . . keep it civil.

 

[aglages]

As you state, the legal claim may be a joke. Guaranteed, if your money were on the line in funding the defense and court prceedings (and it was, of course), a flippant suggestion like yours would be much more expensive, I'm trusting.

Which flippant suggestion? That the USNA defend their policies by legal means if necessary regardless of athletic ability or race? Why should unjustified legal action by a dismissed Mid prevent the USNA from doing what is right?

Like it or not, even the Academy is an institution of law and order.

Like it or not? Seriously? Applying the "law" to certain cadets and not others does not make the USNA an institution of law and order. It makes it a political institution.

But remember, in the end, this is not about honor or truth. It's about justice. And w/o any doubt, while not in your line of how it should have prevailed, in the end, it has. Enough said.

If not actually about truth or honor then it would appear to be about separate and unequal justice.

Please no more chest-beating about what we proclaim to know absent a shred of evidence....
... I'm defending a responsible, honorable decision made by the boss.

No more chest-beating about what we proclaim to know absent a shred of evidence?

 

[raimius]

Whistle Pig, the decision to retain him was legal, but it was clearly not the ONLY legal option. Giving the mid his due process requires hearing his side of the story and making a judgement. The Supt. was not required to decide either way, from what I've read. It was not an "open and shut" case (very few are...)

Whether the Supt. made the right decision or not may never be fully determined based on news reports. We do not have ALL the details. From what we can read, it looks like he may have made an error...but that is only from what we know.