Today's topic is the Pandora's Box opened by my assertion that midshipmen at the US Naval Academy, and those in the military in general, were not (despite what they themselves may tell you and what many people believe) better human beings than those outside the military. Boy, did the wires sizzle on that one! I think part of the sizzle was the illegitimate conclusion that I thought this was bad -- that something of value is lost if we can't believe that midshipmen or military members (or is it only officers?) are a combination of Superman and Sir Launcelot, but instead just the dedicated hard-working incredibly self-sacrificing individuals most of them are. In my book, that's pretty darn good. As a result these guys and gals have my respect. Turns out I'm supposed to worship them too.

That's where I beg off: it's not good for them, and it's not good for us. We need to get real and accept them for what they are, not for what we'd like to believe they are. Saying hooey about the military (positive hooey in this case) makes some of them believe it, which makes them typically feel superior to the civilians they're meant to defend. That's not good for them, or for us. It's also bad for civilians to believe this hooey: they're always so outraged when they discover it isn't so, and then they pressure the military for “reform.”

The topic of my earlier column, and the radio show which was its take-off point, was the recent rape trial of the Naval Academy quarterback. That case has been decided: no rape, but “conduct unbecoming an officer” -- he did have sex in Bancroft Hall, which is verboten. Of course, so did the woman, but (next column) she was given immunity from all prosecution in exchange for going through with the rape accusation. The judge, a Navy CDR, refused to overturn the conviction for “conduct unbecoming.” His justification was that old chestnut: “Officers are held to a higher standard.”

If this means that when they're caught doing things civilians can get away with (with just a hand slap) all heck breaks loose, he's certainly right. If this means that officers (military? The midshipman wasn't an officer yet) actually perform at a higher moral standard in all human endeavors (not just the things necessary for the military, like honor, courage, and commitment), then that's the hooey I talked about before. Saying it's hooey was what so many people found so hard to swallow.

Despite what some people think, this isn't an opinion column. It's a column of opinion for which I can give justifications. (I like to think that immediately separates it from 95% of the op-ed columns running.) So don't take my word for it. Let me give the floor to a Naval officer (now honorably discharged) and a fairly recent graduate of our fine institution. When I knew her she was a super student, a super athlete, and from what I could tell, an all around good egg. She loved the Academy, where she did very well, and she loved the Navy. She too read the column here that made the wires sizzle. And then she wrote me an e-mail, which she'd been doing every year or so just to touch base and bring me up to speed on her life. Here's an excerpt, guaranteed authentic; but no, I won't reveal my source:

“I definitely agree with you that most of the mids would assert they are more moral than the average citizen or college student.  But what cracks me up is that they behave exactly the same way.  A large percentage of mids have at least tried underage drinking.  An even larger percentage, once of age, have at least a few times engaged in binge drinking on the weekends.  Over half, probably closer to 75%, have sex at the Naval Academy, in Bancroft Hall, whenever they can.  A few brave ones do drugs, and I'm sure if it weren't for the urinalysis a lot more would.  It's only a big deal when something bad happens and it's exposed...then we get on our moral high horse.  Funny to me.  The difference between most mids and a regular college student, as far as that behavior goes, is a haircut and a uniform.”

A haircut and a uniform. There you have it, ladies and gentlemen. Get real. Real means it's not the end of the world, because that's the way it's always been. They're still the guys and gals who are going to fight our wars, and I'd say they do it pretty darn well.

But most people won't be as unfazed about this dose of “getting real” as I am. Those wires, they're gonna sizzle again, sure as I'm born. I can hear it now: this is just one graduate! She must have a real problem with the Navy, otherwise why would she say things like this? (Maybe because they're true?) Fine. Point well taken: one person alone need not be representative. So take a poll of current and past academy graduates from all academies. Anonymous. Not handed out by the chain of command and not proctored by their COs. I'll eat my hat if the result isn't largely in this vein. Remember: I've talked to midshipmen for the last 20 years.

I bet the callers to that radio show I was on will be on a tear too -- I mean the ones who for some odd reason want to believe that our military is populated by celibate Sir Launcelots. (Have they had frank conversations with midshipmen?) You mean they're doing all this at taxpayer expense? You mean these are going to be officers and gentlemen/ladies? Throw them out and get new ones! Only the problem is, I'm sure the new ones wouldn't be any different than the old. They're just being people, you know -- young, finding out who they are, a little confused, full of themselves, but basically good kids. Me, I can live with that. Why do you want any more? In any case you can want away; you'll never get it.

I bet the military brass and the USNA administration would go on a tear at the results of such a poll too. We try to blow just as much sunshine as we can get away with; it's the military way.

Only if this is so, why did the USNA administration go all out to publicly prosecute the quarterback for rape? They didn't get the conviction, and all that public raking over of who's doing what in Bancroft Hall didn't do much for our image. If all we do is put out happy-faced “things are fine” memos, why did USNA bank so much on a weak case that turned out so ugly?

That one's easy. To show that they've “turned a corner” and have “zero tolerance” of aggression towards women. In the old days women got no protection at all. I've heard stories from a female graduate from the early l980s who had to sleep with a broomstick by her bed to fend off males coming in during the night. When she complained to the Commandant (the Commandant!) she remembers him saying he could do nothing: boys would be boys, what did she expect coming to such a male-dominated institution?

This is the administration's attempt to look squeaky clean. That was them, not us. We take all allegations seriously! We protect our women!

That's a laudable goal. Yet the particular case chosen to make a point turned out to be horrible choice. First, the young woman in question didn't turn out to be anybody's idea of a poster girl: given to binge drinking that caused her to black out and have memory lapses (all this underage, as she's 20), offering sometimes contradictory testimony, allegedly cheating on her boyfriend by inviting the quarterback into her room for sex in the wee hours, and so on.

Nor did the prosecution do a very good job as lawyers. They had to be stopped early on from referring to the alleged victim as “the victim” (this by the way comes from official Navy and USNA directives regarding the so-called SAVI program, “Sexual Assault Victim Intervention” -- there's apparently always a victim, even when it remains to be determined if there's a perpetrator). They produced “expert witnesses” that turned out to be less than expert or had no knowledge of this particular case,...