The Real ‘Truth’ About the Academies

In its series on the Service Academies, Spectator has published two submissions: an ignorant, invective piece titled “The Truth About The Academies” by Idris Leppla, whose brother attends the Naval Academy; and a very fair and honest account by Emily Haney-Caron, a self-described anti-war liberal whose fiancé attends West Point. To these voices I would like to add my own—as a graduate of the Naval Academy and a current student at Columbia.

Leppla’s unfounded accusations against my alma mater cannot go unanswered. I do not question Spectator for publishing a piece dripping with contempt for the military—rather I question how thoroughly these allegations of fraud and deceit were examined in the editing process. Leppla intimates in her piece that academy recruiters are hoodwinking gullible young men and women into joining the military by promising an “elite college education” where they can “learn history, economics, political science, and even engineering,” and where they take “seminars about leadership and selflessness.” And then, next thing they know, they are in a military institution, where the leadership seminars are actually about “leading troops into combat.” Is it really surprising that the Naval Academy is a military institution focused on developing officers for the Naval service? Worse than this silly ignorance though, are Leppla’s claims that the academy and its recruiting materials falsely advertise. Such claims are easily refuted by simply examining the academy’s admissions Web page. Under the “About the Academy” section, the first sentence states in no uncertain terms that as “the undergraduate college of the Naval service, the Naval Academy prepares young men and women to become professional officers in the U.S. Navy.”

In my four years at the academy, I never met a midshipman who felt that he was deceived into joining the academy. I of course did have classmates who did not adjust well to the reality of life at the academy, with its 17-hour structured days and its strict military discipline, and who determined that this was not the life for them. Those classmates withdrew from the academy, and despite Leppla’s preposterous assertion, they did not have to undergo 13 exit interviews, including one with “the head of the Navy.”

Despite the hardships of life at a military institution, the Naval Academy, has a graduation rate of 87 percent, is one of the top ten schools with the highest graduation rates—compared to Barnard’s 80 percent. Why are these graduation rates so high if life at Navy is so trying? An ignorant cynic might suggest it is because of the free education. The reality, though, is that the vast majority of my classmates were from middle and upper-middle class families, with parents who could well afford to pay for college. Prospective midshipmen with their high SAT scores, GPAs, and athletic credentials have numerous options. I believe a sense of fulfillment keeps them in Annapolis that comes from maximizing their accomplishments in service to their country. At Annapolis, when your head hits the pillow at lights-out after a long day, you are tired and you rest well knowing you did everything you possibly could in one 24-hour period, and that you did so for a higher calling. This, and not some liberal myth of the poor exploited soldier and sailor, is what keeps our midshipmen in school, and our sailors and soldiers in the service.

To suggest that the academy is “not an elite college,” and that it is “a branch of the U.S. military” creates a false dichotomy—that an elite college and a military institution are mutually exclusive. Nothing could be further from the truth. The academy is an elite institution offering a classic liberal arts education supplemented with a mandatory engineering curriculum and classes on leadership and military professionalism. The academy is both an elite college (ranked number 20 in the 2008 U.S. News Liberal Arts Colleges rankings, 10 spots better than number 30 Barnard College, the school at which Leppla is enrolled) and a military training institution. These facets of the academy are completely complementary­—the modern officer corps needs globally savvy leaders who are both warriors and diplomats, leaders who understand both the potential and limits of military power.

Despite the tone of this piece, I am not without sympathy for Ms. Leppla, Ms. Haney-Caron, or the millions of other family members whose loved ones will soon be in harm’s way. When a citizen takes the bold step of volunteering—and every single member of today’s military is just that, a volunteer—he is also burdening his loved ones with lives filled with worry, uncertainty, and at times tragic loss. This is no small burden to bear, as my wife and parents—who suffered through my six-month combat deployments to the Persian Gulf—will gladly attest to. The answer to this understandable angst, though, is not to disparage the institutions that make a free and tolerant place like Columbia possible. Whatever one thinks about President George W. Bush, Iraq, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” ROTC on campus, or Ahmadinejad’s speech, please do not forget:

“It is the soldier, not the poet, who gives us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the reporter, who gives us freedom of press. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us freedom to protest. It is the solider who serves beneath the flag and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives the demonstrator the right to burn the flag.” ~Stephen Ambrose

The author, a veteran of Operation Enduring Freedom, served in the Navy for eight years after graduating from the United States Naval Academy. He is now a student at the Law School.