Is USNA acceptance rate slightly unethical?

Is it ethical?

  • Yes

    Votes: 32 88.9%

  • No!

    Votes: 4 11.1%
  • Total voters
    36
Every institution needs a gadfly. It’s been years now that I have been annoyed with Dr. Fleming and his various articles, but they can and do make people stop and think: Do we do this? Should we do this? Is this perception reality? Can we do better? How can we continually improve our processes? Are we truly bad in this area? Are we on the right course, true to our vision and mission? And so on. It would be easy for USNA to get caught up in its own hype and be guilty of institutional hubris, and it being run by humans, no doubt there are feet of clay in abundance.

I do think I would not have liked being in a classroom as his student if the language was that salty. It’s one thing to listen to bosn’s mates swearing and sweating while handling lines, but I don’t want to hear that in an academic setting.
 
what i find interesting are Fleming's quotes in an article about him being fired. the article was written right after his appeal hearing but long before his re-instatement.

in the article, he goes far past his usual criticisms of USNA (admissions standards, academic standards, core mission, etc etc) and goes off on how terrible the environment is for professors to work in. it's as if he didn't expect to prevail, and was tossing bombs on the way out.

now that he's back in, he is quoted as saying "can't wait to get back to teaching mids in September"

if he was telling the truth , why in the world does he want to be back? (other than the back pay....)
 
A6E Dad said:
what i find interesting are Fleming's quotes in an article about him being fired. the article was written right after his appeal hearing but long before his re-instatement.

in the article, he goes far past his usual criticisms of USNA (admissions standards, academic standards, core mission, etc etc) and goes off on how terrible the environment is for professors to work in. it's as if he didn't expect to prevail, and was tossing bombs on the way out.

now that he's back in, he is quoted as saying "can't wait to get back to teaching mids in September"

if he was telling the truth , why in the world does he want to be back? (other than the back pay....)
Click to expand...

What else is he going to do? Bashing the Academy from the inside has become his profession. My guess is that more people have read his Academy bashing than his scholarship. Besides, good luck finding another tenured position somewhere. May as well ride it out since you’ve won the appeal. Pretty much untouchable now, unless USNA appeals and prevails. Doubtful IMHO.
 
Fleming also has his supporters , among them a USNA grad as noted in this article:

https://www.capitalgazette.com/opinion/columns/ac-cn-column-reese-20190524-story.html

And then there is this from another USNA grad. Food for thought:

"USNA appears to have fueled, even encouraged this adverse scenario by ignoring, burying, stifling Fleming's findings and fumings. And frustrating him while tenuring him in the process. There is little doubt many/much of his observations and findings are more accurate and correct than the admins dare admit, perhaps notably about opaque, politicized admission policies that have been exacerbated by the mandate for "diversity" and the coincident buy-in to play major league football. And then Fleming and his fellow faculty brethren inherit these ill-equipped students who've been secreted onto the Yard.

In the course of these events and more, Fleming's morphed from perhaps a prototypical professorial pain to a determined, ever acting-out adversary of what he deems, rightly so perhaps, his employer's institutional hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty. A monster has been manufactured and an institution sullied and embarrassed. And a Brigade has been provided with a call to wonder about aspects of their alma mater that shouldn't matter. And creating a destructive picking of sides among Mid-pawns. A potential wedge. Sad scene, no winners. Maybe a classic case study for examining the disparity between command and leadership, failure to communicate. And assessment of the potential minefields just ahead"
 
I personally don't have an issue with Fleming criticizing USNA. What bothers me is the way he does it. I don't find most of his articles well-researched, well-documented, thought-provoking, or solution oriented. While in his early days of criticism, he did cite some specifics from his time on the Admissions Board, lately he writes in broad generalities basically about how USNA sucks. He seems to find almost everything to criticize and little to praise. And his only "solution" (when he offers one) seems to be to close the Academy.

He comes across as a bitter employee using his tenure to condemn the very institution where he works -- someone who just wants to complain rather than trying to be a force for positive change. That tends to cause people to dismiss everything he's saying when some of his criticisms are almost certainly valid.

I think he would garner greater respect from USNA alums -- and maybe even drive positive change -- if he did the following:

1. Focused on 2-3 key issues of greatest concern
2. Provided documentation or actual examples (with changes made as needed to protect identities) to support his claims
3. Provided thoughtful solutions on what specific -- and realistic -- changes that could be made to address/remediate his issues

Organizations do need critics. That's how you learn, grow, and improve. Fleming can play that role -- but IMHO, he needs to change the way he goes about it. Otherwise, he will continue to be viewed as a whiner and the legitimate criticisms he makes will continue to be ignored.
 
That is quite the conundrum. His solution is to close the Academy, but he fought tooth-and-nail to get reinstated there. The only thing at work with that guy is a fragile and tenuous ego.
I think that he really has a self-loathing quality, and he is desperately acting out just to feel like he matters in the world.

I think that's something that ultimately he doesn't believe - so the attention he gets makes his life bearable - to him.
 
THParent said:
That is quite the conundrum. His solution is to close the Academy, but he fought tooth-and-nail to get reinstated there. The only thing at work with that guy is a fragile and tenuous ego.
I think that he really has a self-loathing quality, and he is desperately acting out just to feel like he matters in the world.

I think that's something that ultimately he doesn't believe - so the attention he gets makes his life bearable - to him.
Click to expand...
.
Good points ... could be the way he deals with his inner struggles. It’s like Willy Loman in “Death of a Salesman”.
.
Problem is that it shouldn’t/can’t fester or it brings the ship down.
.
 
Last edited:
I also think he craves the attention he gets. Let's face it, almost everyone associated with USNA has heard of him. Can we say that about any other single professor?

Which is why he strives to be provocative instead of solution oriented. It's not about making cogent arguments and advocating for change -- it's about drawing attention to oneself. Much like the kid who misbehaves to get his parents' attention.

I suspect that, if his students wrote papers with the same level of cogency, support, reason, etc. that he uses in his articles (not to mention essentially "plagiarizing" himself, since he now repeats his rants over and over), the students would not do well in his class. Just saying . . .
 
JitsMom said:
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...-military-service-academies-each-year-report/
Click to expand...
This has limited meaning without being able to compare it to the numbers of applicants male v. female. The article notes:
"Although men were consistently nominated at higher rates than women, it’s unclear if more men were vying for nominations than women. The FOIA request did not apply to Congress, and information is not available on how many women sought to obtain an appointment from members of Congress in comparison to their male counterparts."
I would be surprised if there were not significantly more males than females trying to get in, and so applying for the nominations. Whether that would be an 80% difference though ...? That's the real crux. It also seems likely that the problem is further up the pipeline. I.e., Are lawmakers favoring males? Or have males been favored prior to the nomination process (e.g., fewer leadership and athletic opportunities for females due sexism) such that by the time they get to SA nominations, the males applying actually are more credentialed. Interesting to ponder.
 
JitsMom said:
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...-military-service-academies-each-year-report/
Click to expand...
Among the worst articles I have ever read.
The key question which is necessary to be answered if this report was to mean anything is how many men and women APPLIED for the nominations. It was intriguing
that they call out Cory Booker for doing such a wonderful job of nominating women. I serve on Booker's interview committee and have helped run some of the major "Academy Days" and can assure you that males do in fact outnumber the females at these events and further, Booker does NOT "recruit" women (or men) to apply. Both of our senators and the MOCs here evaluate and nominate from the pool of who APPLIES for nomination.
 
OldRetSWO said:
Booker does NOT "recruit" women (or men) to apply. Both of our senators and the MOCs here evaluate and nominate from the pool of who APPLIES for nomination.
Click to expand...

I would be surprised if any MOC or Senator "recruits" anybody. I believe that the last thing any of them want is to be accused of bias or favoritism and I expect that most use the competitive process and let the admissions department select the best candidates to appoint. Certainly, MOC's are not the "gatekeepers of the admissions process." It is the admissions department that is the gatekeeper.
 
NJROTC-CC said:
OldRetSWO said:
Booker does NOT "recruit" women (or men) to apply. Both of our senators and the MOCs here evaluate and nominate from the pool of who APPLIES for nomination.
Click to expand...

I would be surprised if any MOC or Senator "recruits" anybody. I believe that the last thing any of them want is to be accused of bias or favoritism and I expect that most use the competitive process and let the admissions department select the best candidates to appoint.
Click to expand...
OldRetSWO said:
JitsMom said:
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...-military-service-academies-each-year-report/
Click to expand...
Among the worst articles I have ever read.
The key question which is necessary to be answered if this report was to mean anything is how many men and women APPLIED for the nominations. It was intriguing
that they call out Cory Booker for doing such a wonderful job of nominating women. I serve on Booker's interview committee and have helped run some of the major "Academy Days" and can assure you that males do in fact outnumber the females at these events and further, Booker does NOT "recruit" women (or men) to apply. Both of our senators and the MOCs here evaluate and nominate from the pool of who APPLIES for nomination.
Click to expand...

We may be revisiting this thread next year while my daughter is standing next to all the males she's competing against in line at the Booker interview.
 
Politicians seldom do what I expect.
 
OldRetSWO said:
JitsMom said:
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...-military-service-academies-each-year-report/
Click to expand...
Among the worst articles I have ever read.
The key question which is necessary to be answered if this report was to mean anything is how many men and women APPLIED for the nominations. It was intriguing
that they call out Cory Booker for doing such a wonderful job of nominating women. I serve on Booker's interview committee and have helped run some of the major "Academy Days" and can assure you that males do in fact outnumber the females at these events and further, Booker does NOT "recruit" women (or men) to apply. Both of our senators and the MOCs here evaluate and nominate from the pool of who APPLIES for nomination.
Click to expand...
BTW>...When is this years "Academy Day"? I emailed Bookers office last month and haven't rec'd a reply.
 
it seems to be in about the third/fourth week of September...and it seems when people in the past have posted about it (like in HSs) they did it the week before.
 
Okay, so if long timers can indulge a newcomer trying to figure out the story better...

The appeal summary said that Fleming has had 90% positive teaching evaluations (which is noted as really high/good by USNA English Dept chair and which I know is high after decades of collegiate teaching myself). I asked other parents to help me make sense of why he is so highly evaluated if he is such a nightmare in class. The response has been that students are avoiding retribution. I am confused by this in a couple of ways. 1) I have never seen non-anonymous course evaluations, so I assume that they are anonymous at USNA as well. (??) If so, then why would students need to give him fake high, CYA evaluations? 2) And if USNA wants him gone, wouldn't that negate retribution idea? I mean one prof versus the rest of the institution? Wouldn't it be better to suck up to the larger, presumably more powerful one? I am also struggling with how fake high, CYA evaluations could possibly square with the USNA Honor Concept: "Midshipmen are persons of integrity: They stand for that which is right. They tell the truth and ensure that the truth is known."

Also, why were the charges not supported by more midshipmen? Again the appeal summary said that only 4 mids supported the original complainants claims and that their support was pretty minimal. Where are the rest of them!? I mean, don't the mids generally have each other's backs? And again, the USNA Honor Concept thing: "They tell the truth and ensure that the truth is known."

I guess I am just distressed trying to understand how unethical behavior could persist in an environment committed to Honor. Either the behavior isn't that bad or the honor isn't that good -? (sigh) TBH I'd rather believe the former than the latter.
 
JitsMom said:
OldRetSWO said:
JitsMom said:
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...-military-service-academies-each-year-report/
Click to expand...
Among the worst articles I have ever read.
The key question which is necessary to be answered if this report was to mean anything is how many men and women APPLIED for the nominations. It was intriguing
that they call out Cory Booker for doing such a wonderful job of nominating women. I serve on Booker's interview committee and have helped run some of the major "Academy Days" and can assure you that males do in fact outnumber the females at these events and further, Booker does NOT "recruit" women (or men) to apply. Both of our senators and the MOCs here evaluate and nominate from the pool of who APPLIES for nomination.
Click to expand...
BTW>...When is this years "Academy Day"? I emailed Bookers office last month and haven't rec'd a reply.
Click to expand...
I have not seen it scheduled yet but the Senatorial day is usually in Sept-ish and I think in recent years it is held at Rutgers New Brunswick. The bigger (and in my opinion better)
event at least for USNA is held in Lincroft this coming Sunday.


Sunday, August 4, 2019 1 PM to 4 PM

Christian Brothers Academy
Henderson Theater
850 Newman Springs Rd.
Lincroft, NJ 07738
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top