9 ms·

If they all made the same error on the test, in the same way, they're almost certainly all guilty - except apparently for two of them. Every single one of thes

If they all made the same error on the test, in the same way, they're almost certainly all guilty - except apparently for two of them. Every single one of these people should be dismissed or resign. They are simply not officer material. The Honor Code is very clear. You lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do and you're not military material. There simply cannot be second chances. Second chances here are what result in subpar military officers. The last time this happened, everyone involved was dismissed or resigned.

tillinghast 6y ago
> The last time this happened, everyone involved was dismissed or resigned. That would be 1976, when all 153 fourth-year cadets were expelled. I guess we're all enlightened now. From the article: "Nearly all of those who admitted guilt have been allowed to remain at the academy on the condition that they complete a rehabilitation program that includes meeting with a mentor and after-hours classes about the honor system and the importance of being a better leader..." A "rehabilitation program". Not only should these cadets be expelled, but so should the clowns running this program.
- 5555624 6y ago
  > In 2015, Ophardt explained, the academy made changes to the honor code allowing for second chances. Why did they change this? Did the other US military academies (USAFA, USNA, USCGA) change their codes/concepts, as well? The Honor Code is (was?) straightforward and if you broke it, you were gone.
  - teorema 6y ago
    For whatever reason, the stance toward academic dishonesty has changed everywhere in higher education for reasons that aren't clear to me. The two other institutions I taught at used to have very strict policies about it and then at some point they became laxer in a similar way. It used to be a no warnings policy, and then became more wishy washy. I always assumed it was to be more realistic, in that many students were being granted exceptions of sorts. There also can be a lot of grey area with cheating. Overall my impression was that some lawyers recommended the change to avoid liability. But I really don't know.
    - cbozeman 6y ago
      Its completely clear to me. If you kick out a first-year student, you've deprived the university of the next three years of income from that student. We've allowed money to become the guiding principle of higher education, rather than ability. The sad truth no one wants to admit to, is that most people don't need to go to college, and frankly, if we were go to back just 60 years to the rigor of those curriculums, most people couldn't hack it, either.
      - neapolisbeach 6y ago
        That doesn't really apply in this case-- for service academies student's are all on a full-scholarship and are paid a stipend. If anything it would be cheaper to kick them out. But that is at odds with the goal (competent service-members).
  - gnopgnip 6y ago
    A zero tolerance policy often has unwanted outcomes. Because the punishment is so extreme even for minor problems it isn't enforced that way in practice, unwritten policies are used. It means that problems cannot be corrected, you can't learn from mistakes
- coldtea 6y ago
  >The last time this happened It's just the last time they were caught en masse. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure that this has happened time and again...
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > > The last time this happened > It's just the last time they were caught en masse. Yeah that's what happened here, so that's exactly what “the last time this happened” means. When you develop a system that can successfully impose consequences for behavior without detecting it, let us know.
    - coldtea 6y ago
      >Yeah that's what happened here, so that's exactly what “the last time this happened” means. Well, hardly "exactly", as it also implies the cheating last happened at that time, which is, I'm willing to bet, not true... >When you develop a system that can successfully impose consequences for behavior without detecting it, let us know That's trivial and doesn't need inventing. You just impose consequences without detection. Not fair, but trivial to implement. But how about better detection? If the "last time" they were caught was 1975, then something is surely amiss...
  - neffy 6y ago
    Well, the only time you can really prove cheating, is when people get the same wrong answers....
- ejstronge 6y ago
  > That would be 1976, when all 153 fourth-year cadets were expelled. I guess we're all enlightened now Actually, the majority if the 1976 participants were allowed to return to West Point: > Ninety-two of those involved in the scandal were later readmitted as cadets and allowed to graduate after accepting a Pentagon amnesty that required them to complete a year of “useful service” away from the academy. See https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/21/nyregion/west-point-cheating.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/21/nyregion/west-point-cheat...
noahmbarr 6y ago
> Second chances here are what result in subpar military officers. How did you come to this conclusion? I believe in consequences, but I am neither a professional educator nor a veteran of any armed forces. I would defer to the head of this institution to arrive at an appropriate decision.
- 535188B17C93743 6y ago
  I'd prefer to not give second chances to the servicepeople being afforded a $400k education on our dime to cheat and lie only to control the most advanced weapon systems on the planet. But that's just me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  - abtom 6y ago
    Well the standard for controlling the most powerful country aren't too high so this shouldn't be a problem either.
    - chokeartist 6y ago
      You're referring to the civilian aspect of control - which are elected officials. DOD executes orders from the National Command Authority (NCA), which is in effect the civilian-to-military control interface for military orders. You are free to debate the quality of the civilian control aspect (President), but I personally draw the line at the military domain. You want no variance in that part of the system. Otherwise the entire concept of recursive control ultimately residing in the hands of a civilian is questionable.
- smileysteve 6y ago
  The easy reasoning, is that on the field of battle, there are no do-overs * You don't know the math and people die * You cheat and you create an international incident. You either go to jail or people die because of the decisions you make.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > > Second chances here are what result in subpar military officers. [...] > I would defer to the head of this institution to arrive at an appropriate decision. Blind faith in institutions here (and anywhere) is what enables mass institutional failure. Whether it's producing subpart military officers and the all the negative consequences that has, or the sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church, or a slide toward tyranny in representative political institutions.
unishark 6y ago
> Every single one of these people should be dismissed or resign. They are simply not officer material. The Honor Code is very clear. You lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do and you're not military material. Yeah but since 2015 the rules have stated you can get a second chance. So it would not be fair or ethical to retroactively change the punishment now.
- washadjeffmad 6y ago
  As an honor code, it's implied that you not commit a willful infraction with the second chance in mind. Intent to follow the spirit of an honor code is as important as following it. Abusing the system because you know you get one free pass is an invitation to cheat until caught, which is unfair to everyone else. In reality, needing to use your second chance is already failure. If you can't internalize that, admit to it, and volunteer to step down, then you aren't the type of person who deserved a second chance.
cpascal 6y ago
> The last time this happened, everyone involved was dismissed or resigned. If you're referring to the 1976 scandal that's not completely true. Yes they were dismissed, but a large number of them were given a second chance. The 1976 scandal involved 150 cadets but 92 cadets were readmitted after completing year of useful service as stipulated by the Pentagon. [1] [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/21/nyregion/west-point-cheating.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/21/nyregion/west-point-cheat...
RHSeeger 6y ago
Given the sheer number of instances where the higher ups in the military have lied, especially claiming they had no involvement in a problem; letting the shit roll downhill (as the expression goes) until it finds someone so low they can't blame anyone below them.... I find it ironic that being caught lying once is considered something that proves you're not officer material. That is, of course, it's the "caught" part, because it seems rare that anyone higher up is ever actually caught for anything; that's what the scapegoats are for. To be very clear, I appreciate the military and all those men and women that serve in it. I just think it's ridiculous to think that they are of a higher moral caliber than the rest of the population. They're people, just like you and me. And learning from your mistakes is part of being human. You can't learn from a mistake if there's never second chances.
- VLM 6y ago
  > I find it ironic that being caught lying once is considered something that proves you're not officer material. There seems no controversy that the middle management era of staff duty seems designed to filter out good officers and keep the worst or at least keep the folks unable to escape. Their point of view is if you start with a better pool of O-1 then as the good officers are eliminated on the march upward in rank, forcing the worst O-1 to none the less be better officers at the start will result in better O-4 range officers which eventually, in theory, will someday result in better O-9 officers. Remember unlike corporations, the military promotes from within, so todays 2nd Lts will literally be the commanding generals in about 25 years. Most corporations do not promote from within, or rarely do, and life long careers are dead in corporate world, so there's no ethical or moral argument in trying to make superior paper filing clerks today so as to get a better CEO in forty years. Its also worth considering that there's a peculiar form of hazing or abuse of junior military personnel where "caught" is really a combo of intelligence testing and social skills testing where at least one is required to pass. The reason for a baroquely complex process to take leave is to select for personnel who are some mixture of extremely smart able to outthink the opposition or good at social skills to schmooze successfully (which is a military intel or military police or green beret skill...). There's a power law distribution of importance where almost all decisions are not "newsworthy". Technically its an honor violation to fill out the wrong leave form and obtain the wrong signature in the wrong box and put it in the wrong mailbox, its an IQ and/or social skills test or hazing for juniors to avoid situations like that. In theory the kids are supposed to be selected via that process to be smart enough and observant enough to avoid making dumb mistakes when it actually counts. In practice once in a long while psychopaths get thru the process and bend the hazing to more self serving purposes, LOL, and THEN that stuff makes the news, not unlike a lot of corporate internal politics. Or more explicitly, you're supposed to not "get caught" technically AWOL because you're supposed to be smart enough to read the policy book and/or friendly enough with the "old timer" O-2 who's been there an entire year before you, such that you file your paperwork properly and avoid being technically AWOL. With the hope that someday if you make it to O-9 rank, or perhaps earlier, you'll have absorbed via osmosis enough written regs and adopted a hopefully moral culture that when you have to make an important decision you won't screw up.
cies 6y ago
> You lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do and you're not military material. Try banking, big business, CIA/NSA. We need honest/prudent/righteous cannon fodder!
- cies 6y ago
  Oops: forgot politics. How could I.
kome 6y ago
It's strange you want pure and moral men in the most immoral business there is, war. USA are producing AND acquitting war criminals literally all the time...
- cbozeman 6y ago
  Because a moral man forced into an immoral situation will try to make the choice that causes the minimal amount of suffering to achieve the goal. All war is immoral. Always, all the time. You're depriving someone of their life - their future. I'd rather someone with a conscious be required to make those decisions than someone without.
mdoms 6y ago
Ah yes, the US military, famously upstanding and honourable. Not at all responsible for atrocity after atrocity after atrocity.
Bakary 6y ago
Is honesty the biggest factor in having competent officers, or is it courage/tactical understanding/craftiness/resistance to stress etc.? (Honestly asking) The notion of honesty and moral character seems at odds with empire building
- AnHonestComment 6y ago
  How so? I believe the British authors who spoke of their “duty to enlighten savages” and similar — they seemed incredibly honest in their racism. They viewed it as a genuinely noble pursuit of building a better mankind through enlightened empire. They were certainly more honest than the US baizuo, who were called lying foxes by Malcolm X. Beyond that, honesty is probably the highest priority for a general: he has staff to be crafty, tactical, and brave. What he needs is the ability to coordinate that staff effectively, which can only be done when problems are honestly communicated. This is true even at more junior levels: the officer is out in the field with you, but let’s be honest... he’s probably not point on kicking down doors. Even at that level, he needs direct and honest communication from door kickers so he can coordinate the operation, re-assign people during fire fights, and co-ordinate with base staff, like status updates and requests for backup.
HarryHirsch 6y ago
The really concerning bit is that the cadets tried to cheat on a core course. I mean, West Point is an engineering school, where fluency in math is an absolute requirement. Did they really think they could get away with no math in the followup courses? How stupid can you be, trying to subvert the teaching?

tillinghast 6y ago

> The last time this happened, everyone involved was dismissed or resigned. That would be 1976, when all 153 fourth-year cadets were expelled. I guess we're all enlightened now. From the article: "Nearly all of those who admitted guilt have been allowed to remain at the academy on the condition that they complete a rehabilitation program that includes meeting with a mentor and after-hours classes about the honor system and the importance of being a better leader..." A "rehabilitation program". Not only should these cadets be expelled, but so should the clowns running this program.

5555624 6y ago
> In 2015, Ophardt explained, the academy made changes to the honor code allowing for second chances. Why did they change this? Did the other US military academies (USAFA, USNA, USCGA) change their codes/concepts, as well? The Honor Code is (was?) straightforward and if you broke it, you were gone.
- teorema 6y ago
  For whatever reason, the stance toward academic dishonesty has changed everywhere in higher education for reasons that aren't clear to me. The two other institutions I taught at used to have very strict policies about it and then at some point they became laxer in a similar way. It used to be a no warnings policy, and then became more wishy washy. I always assumed it was to be more realistic, in that many students were being granted exceptions of sorts. There also can be a lot of grey area with cheating. Overall my impression was that some lawyers recommended the change to avoid liability. But I really don't know.
  - cbozeman 6y ago
    Its completely clear to me. If you kick out a first-year student, you've deprived the university of the next three years of income from that student. We've allowed money to become the guiding principle of higher education, rather than ability. The sad truth no one wants to admit to, is that most people don't need to go to college, and frankly, if we were go to back just 60 years to the rigor of those curriculums, most people couldn't hack it, either.
    - neapolisbeach 6y ago
      That doesn't really apply in this case-- for service academies student's are all on a full-scholarship and are paid a stipend. If anything it would be cheaper to kick them out. But that is at odds with the goal (competent service-members).
- gnopgnip 6y ago
  A zero tolerance policy often has unwanted outcomes. Because the punishment is so extreme even for minor problems it isn't enforced that way in practice, unwritten policies are used. It means that problems cannot be corrected, you can't learn from mistakes
coldtea 6y ago
>The last time this happened It's just the last time they were caught en masse. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure that this has happened time and again...
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > > The last time this happened > It's just the last time they were caught en masse. Yeah that's what happened here, so that's exactly what “the last time this happened” means. When you develop a system that can successfully impose consequences for behavior without detecting it, let us know.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    >Yeah that's what happened here, so that's exactly what “the last time this happened” means. Well, hardly "exactly", as it also implies the cheating last happened at that time, which is, I'm willing to bet, not true... >When you develop a system that can successfully impose consequences for behavior without detecting it, let us know That's trivial and doesn't need inventing. You just impose consequences without detection. Not fair, but trivial to implement. But how about better detection? If the "last time" they were caught was 1975, then something is surely amiss...
- neffy 6y ago
  Well, the only time you can really prove cheating, is when people get the same wrong answers....
ejstronge 6y ago
> That would be 1976, when all 153 fourth-year cadets were expelled. I guess we're all enlightened now Actually, the majority if the 1976 participants were allowed to return to West Point: > Ninety-two of those involved in the scandal were later readmitted as cadets and allowed to graduate after accepting a Pentagon amnesty that required them to complete a year of “useful service” away from the academy. See https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/21/nyregion/west-point-cheating.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/21/nyregion/west-point-cheat...

noahmbarr 6y ago

> Second chances here are what result in subpar military officers. How did you come to this conclusion? I believe in consequences, but I am neither a professional educator nor a veteran of any armed forces. I would defer to the head of this institution to arrive at an appropriate decision.

535188B17C93743 6y ago
I'd prefer to not give second chances to the servicepeople being afforded a $400k education on our dime to cheat and lie only to control the most advanced weapon systems on the planet. But that's just me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- abtom 6y ago
  Well the standard for controlling the most powerful country aren't too high so this shouldn't be a problem either.
  - chokeartist 6y ago
    You're referring to the civilian aspect of control - which are elected officials. DOD executes orders from the National Command Authority (NCA), which is in effect the civilian-to-military control interface for military orders. You are free to debate the quality of the civilian control aspect (President), but I personally draw the line at the military domain. You want no variance in that part of the system. Otherwise the entire concept of recursive control ultimately residing in the hands of a civilian is questionable.
smileysteve 6y ago
The easy reasoning, is that on the field of battle, there are no do-overs * You don't know the math and people die * You cheat and you create an international incident. You either go to jail or people die because of the decisions you make.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> > Second chances here are what result in subpar military officers. [...] > I would defer to the head of this institution to arrive at an appropriate decision. Blind faith in institutions here (and anywhere) is what enables mass institutional failure. Whether it's producing subpart military officers and the all the negative consequences that has, or the sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church, or a slide toward tyranny in representative political institutions.

unishark 6y ago

> Every single one of these people should be dismissed or resign. They are simply not officer material. The Honor Code is very clear. You lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do and you're not military material. Yeah but since 2015 the rules have stated you can get a second chance. So it would not be fair or ethical to retroactively change the punishment now.

washadjeffmad 6y ago
As an honor code, it's implied that you not commit a willful infraction with the second chance in mind. Intent to follow the spirit of an honor code is as important as following it. Abusing the system because you know you get one free pass is an invitation to cheat until caught, which is unfair to everyone else. In reality, needing to use your second chance is already failure. If you can't internalize that, admit to it, and volunteer to step down, then you aren't the type of person who deserved a second chance.

cpascal 6y ago

> The last time this happened, everyone involved was dismissed or resigned. If you're referring to the 1976 scandal that's not completely true. Yes they were dismissed, but a large number of them were given a second chance. The 1976 scandal involved 150 cadets but 92 cadets were readmitted after completing year of useful service as stipulated by the Pentagon. [1] [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/21/nyregion/west-point-cheating.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/21/nyregion/west-point-cheat...

RHSeeger 6y ago

Given the sheer number of instances where the higher ups in the military have lied, especially claiming they had no involvement in a problem; letting the shit roll downhill (as the expression goes) until it finds someone so low they can't blame anyone below them.... I find it ironic that being caught lying once is considered something that proves you're not officer material. That is, of course, it's the "caught" part, because it seems rare that anyone higher up is ever actually caught for anything; that's what the scapegoats are for. To be very clear, I appreciate the military and all those men and women that serve in it. I just think it's ridiculous to think that they are of a higher moral caliber than the rest of the population. They're people, just like you and me. And learning from your mistakes is part of being human. You can't learn from a mistake if there's never second chances.

VLM 6y ago
> I find it ironic that being caught lying once is considered something that proves you're not officer material. There seems no controversy that the middle management era of staff duty seems designed to filter out good officers and keep the worst or at least keep the folks unable to escape. Their point of view is if you start with a better pool of O-1 then as the good officers are eliminated on the march upward in rank, forcing the worst O-1 to none the less be better officers at the start will result in better O-4 range officers which eventually, in theory, will someday result in better O-9 officers. Remember unlike corporations, the military promotes from within, so todays 2nd Lts will literally be the commanding generals in about 25 years. Most corporations do not promote from within, or rarely do, and life long careers are dead in corporate world, so there's no ethical or moral argument in trying to make superior paper filing clerks today so as to get a better CEO in forty years. Its also worth considering that there's a peculiar form of hazing or abuse of junior military personnel where "caught" is really a combo of intelligence testing and social skills testing where at least one is required to pass. The reason for a baroquely complex process to take leave is to select for personnel who are some mixture of extremely smart able to outthink the opposition or good at social skills to schmooze successfully (which is a military intel or military police or green beret skill...). There's a power law distribution of importance where almost all decisions are not "newsworthy". Technically its an honor violation to fill out the wrong leave form and obtain the wrong signature in the wrong box and put it in the wrong mailbox, its an IQ and/or social skills test or hazing for juniors to avoid situations like that. In theory the kids are supposed to be selected via that process to be smart enough and observant enough to avoid making dumb mistakes when it actually counts. In practice once in a long while psychopaths get thru the process and bend the hazing to more self serving purposes, LOL, and THEN that stuff makes the news, not unlike a lot of corporate internal politics. Or more explicitly, you're supposed to not "get caught" technically AWOL because you're supposed to be smart enough to read the policy book and/or friendly enough with the "old timer" O-2 who's been there an entire year before you, such that you file your paperwork properly and avoid being technically AWOL. With the hope that someday if you make it to O-9 rank, or perhaps earlier, you'll have absorbed via osmosis enough written regs and adopted a hopefully moral culture that when you have to make an important decision you won't screw up.

cies 6y ago

> You lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do and you're not military material. Try banking, big business, CIA/NSA. We need honest/prudent/righteous cannon fodder!

cies 6y ago
Oops: forgot politics. How could I.

kome 6y ago

It's strange you want pure and moral men in the most immoral business there is, war. USA are producing AND acquitting war criminals literally all the time...

cbozeman 6y ago
Because a moral man forced into an immoral situation will try to make the choice that causes the minimal amount of suffering to achieve the goal. All war is immoral. Always, all the time. You're depriving someone of their life - their future. I'd rather someone with a conscious be required to make those decisions than someone without.

mdoms 6y ago

Ah yes, the US military, famously upstanding and honourable. Not at all responsible for atrocity after atrocity after atrocity.

Bakary 6y ago

Is honesty the biggest factor in having competent officers, or is it courage/tactical understanding/craftiness/resistance to stress etc.? (Honestly asking) The notion of honesty and moral character seems at odds with empire building

AnHonestComment 6y ago
How so? I believe the British authors who spoke of their “duty to enlighten savages” and similar — they seemed incredibly honest in their racism. They viewed it as a genuinely noble pursuit of building a better mankind through enlightened empire. They were certainly more honest than the US baizuo, who were called lying foxes by Malcolm X. Beyond that, honesty is probably the highest priority for a general: he has staff to be crafty, tactical, and brave. What he needs is the ability to coordinate that staff effectively, which can only be done when problems are honestly communicated. This is true even at more junior levels: the officer is out in the field with you, but let’s be honest... he’s probably not point on kicking down doors. Even at that level, he needs direct and honest communication from door kickers so he can coordinate the operation, re-assign people during fire fights, and co-ordinate with base staff, like status updates and requests for backup.

HarryHirsch 6y ago

The really concerning bit is that the cadets tried to cheat on a core course. I mean, West Point is an engineering school, where fluency in math is an absolute requirement. Did they really think they could get away with no math in the followup courses? How stupid can you be, trying to subvert the teaching?