I'm just a caring dad and did not attend the academy, so some of what I read here is confusing. Can someone concisely explain the difference between the good academy (from reading here, I guess that means in the past) and the bad academy (now, I guess) from military, academic, athletic, and social perspectives? This is what I think I understand from reading here, but, like I said before, I'm not confident that my understanding is consistent with the complaints here:
1. Military standards are more lax under current leadership. It seems that the primary, or one of the primary complaints, is that upperclassmen aren't allowed or able to instruct lowerclassmen like they were in the past.
2. Because of budget cuts and an increased emphasis on military instructors, civilian instructors are encouraged or asked to resign. The concern is that specific programs—particularly engineering—may suffer or even lose accreditation without a one-for-one replacement with military instructors and that other programs (especially DEI and women's studies-type programs) will be eliminated.
3. Because current leadership reduced leave passes and didn't increase food supply, there wasn't enough food for the cadets. Further, the medical staff was overwhelmed in the infirmary because, at least in part, there wasn't enough staff to accommodate the increased number of cadets on campus.
4. Unlike the other academies, USAFA leadership decided that all cadets are no longer required to attend football games. The result is lower attendance and a worsened home-field advantage. Additionally, it is a departure from USAFA's history and the practices of West Point and the Naval Academies (both of which had outstanding seasons last year), which still require full attendance.
I'm not endorsing or criticizing any of the above. I'm trying to understand the fundamental basis of the recent complaints.