Prepared by members of the MacArthur Society of West Point Graduates

Here is a summary of the issues raised by Senators and the Superintendents’ responses followed by a list of questions and issues the MacArthur Society wishes the Senate Armed Services Committee had asked of USMA leadership as part of their oversight responsibilities.

Senate Armed Services Committee
Hearing with Service Academy Superintendents, March 26, 2024

Issue 1. Presidential Executive Order and Secretary of Defense Guidance on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)

a. Senator Warren

She made negative comments about the recent guidance and the elimination of diversity related courses, language, and clubs at the Service Academies. She viewed such moves, in combination with the recent removal of the Chairman of the Joint Staffs, as a return to a racist environment where certain minorities face prejudice and feel unwelcome at the Service Academies and in the military in general.

Her questions focused on the value of leadership experiences for the cadets and midshipman in the clubs that will now no longer exist, e.g., Club for Vietnamese American Cadets. She offered for the hearing record letters from 24 service academy graduates who believed such clubs offered some of their best and most welcoming experiences at the academies.

b. Senator Reed

He made brief supportive statements about the need for diversity at the service academies.

c. Senator Hirono

She made critical commentary about the guidance specifically focusing on the erasure of important history of US racial matters and the performance of minority military units. She offered into the record a list of words she said are now being eliminated from most DOD materials. She urged the Superintendents to resist these efforts to back pedal on DEI goals. She quoted both earlier DOD material and recent Supreme Court decisions about the military having a unique need to have diversity in its leadership. “Diversity is not a cultural choice; it is a national security strategic imperative.”

d. Senator Sullivan

He indicated that concerns about a “woke” military and DEI were part of the reason for this hearing.

f. Senator Blumenthal

He regretted the Trump DEI cancellations. He indicated that the Superintendents’ recruiting would now be more difficult and encouraged them to maintain the course to the extent possible. He asked about how much course content had been changed.

g. Responses by Superintendents

There was no direct response to the administration’s guidance about supporting DEI or resisting the guidance other than indicating that they would follow their orders. They each offered commentary about a relatively small number of courses having to be eliminated or changed as a result.

West Point eliminated just two courses out of 600 with a few others changed. Navy eliminated two out of 850 with a few other changes. The Air Force review is still underway with 735 courses. It may be that 53 will need some changes and 3 may be eliminated. The eliminated courses were electives and lightly attended.

Issue 2. Affirmative Action and other Adjustments to Admissions Decisions at the Service Academies

a. Senator Budd

Talked about the military being the “great leveler” in American society and being merit based.

Asked LTG Gilliand directly about the lowest whole person score to be fully qualified. He also asked if the academies would support having to take the highest scoring candidates with fewer exceptions

b. Responses by Superintendents

LTG Gilland did not respond to the lowest whole person score question. Instead, the Superintendent talked about the makeup of the component parts (60% academic, 30% leadership, 10% physical) contributing to that objective number. That whole person score is then combined with a subjective analysis of commitment to service, grit, and leadership potential. Similar answers were provided by the other two Superintendents. That is, there is an initial whole candidate score by objective merit and then consideration of additional characteristics and life experiences. The Navy specifically denied that race, gender, or ethnicity were considered. All three Superintendents said that the extra flexibility provided by those approximately 250 appointments is essential.

Issue 3. Civilian Faculty at the Service Academies

a. Senator Reed

Asked how curriculum decisions were made at the academies and the civilian/military makeup of the faculty.

b. Senator Scott

Asked who had hiring responsibility for the faculty. He followed with questions about tenure and faculty.

c. Senator Sullivan

A Harvard graduate, he noted that the nation’s elite universities, like the Ivy League, have faculty and administrators who promote largely anti-American, anti-military, and anti-Semitic agendas. He questioned the value of recruiting civilian faculty.

d. Senator Tuberville

Asked if any Superintendents thought the Senate ought to confirm civilian tenured faculty as they now must with the military permanent professors.

e. Responses from Superintendents

The Navy response was a 50/50 civilian/military faculty. The Air Force was 46% civilian, and the Army was 20-26% civilian. They also gave accounts of how much the civilian faculty contributed to the expertise in certain areas (like STEM subjects) and provided academic continuity to the Academies similar to that of the military permanent professors.

For hiring decisions, LTG Gilliand said the Dean and an academic panel make recommendations for his final approval. The Navy Superintendent began her answer with, “ I am responsible for everything that happens at the Naval Academy.” Then, she gave details about the hiring process and characteristics they sought in the faculty. The Air Force approach was similar.

All respondents said they could fire any faculty member if they failed to meet standards. All agreed that Senate confirmation was not needed.

Issue 4. Deferral of Military Service for Graduates Who Play Professional Sports

a. Senator Tuberville

Asked if the Superintendents believed that Congress should provide them more flexibility to allow athletes to pursue professional careers upon graduation and defer military service. Currently only two or three a year are allowed.

b. Responses from Superintendents

All three said that the recruiting benefits would be very advantageous and provided specific examples. The Air Force said that over the last five years 22 graduate athletes went professional, 13 have completed their sports careers and went to active duty, while 9 are still actively playing competitively.

Questions the MacArthur Society wishes the Senate Armed Services Committee had asked of USMA leadership as part of their oversight responsibilities.

As graduates and supporters of West Point, the MacArthur Society is pleased that the nation’s service academies in general, and USMA, in particular, continue to enjoy the respect and admiration of these oversight groups.

The strength of the academic and character building programs, the high national rankings among the nation’s universities, the long history of outstanding performance of its graduates under the most challenging circumstances in service to the country, and the personal qualities of the young men and women who have chosen to commit to come to West Point have earned this enviable reputation.

The MacArthur Society wants to assure that West Point’s success continues and that a few worrisome trends in recent years are fully explored and corrected by those groups responsible for reviewing the performance of the academies.

Some of the areas of concern include the introduction of political indoctrination about topics like Critical Race Theory, the reduced emphasis on the Honor Code as a foundational element of cadet development, moving away from a merit based system of admissions to an increased reliance on discretionary admissions to achieve political goals (diversity, equity and inclusion) and athletic success, and, finally, an increasing lack of transparency by USMA leadership about these and other topics.

This latter point is especially noted by problems with public questions and input through Board of Visitor meetings (manipulated to make attendance and tracking of actions more difficult), resistance to legitimate Freedom of Information Act inquiries, and a general refusal to engage with concerned graduates, parents, or legislators who seek answers.

Believing that the public has ownership of these national treasures, the MacArthur Society wishes the various oversight groups would probe more deeply into areas of concern, including but not limited to the following.

Political Indoctrination

Cadets have always been challenged academically to think critically. In recent years, it seems, they are increasingly being taught what to think, particularly about political topics.

Many graduates believe that the West Point leadership has overseen a strong left wing, Marxist, anti-traditional Western Civilization, anti-American set of themes (*has been included*) in both mandatory and elective courses, cultural clubs, Cadet chain-of-command positions, and in renaming or replacing historical infrastructure at West Point.

1. Who ordered Reconciliation Plaza dismantled? Can you tell us about how that plaza came to be and what specifically was wrong with reconciliation? (*Should we shun the southern states too?*)

2. Can you provide a list of upcoming speakers for classrooms and symposiums of all types?

3. Who made the decision and when was it made to remove former CIA Acting Director Michael Morrell from the Counter Terrorism Center as a senior fellow? Why was he permitted to continue on after it came out that he perpetrated a political fraud on the people of the U.S.?

4. How do, or did, Cadet Respect Officers, with apparently equal authority to unit commanders, differ from Soviet political commissars?

5. Why was it necessary to have “safe spaces” and cadet clubs whose membership was based, not on interest, but identity?

Curriculum and Faculty

About 26% of the West Point faculty is now civilian. With tenure, some of these professors will be the longest serving part of the faculty, with active duty military instructors rotating on two or three year terms, and even the military Permanent Professors typically serving 5-8 years. As a result, this portion of the faculty provides disproportionate influence on curriculum and instruction.

1. What controls are in place to ensure that such professors act and teach in a way consistent with West Point’s mission and vision?

2. When was the diversity minor conceived and by who? Did civilian or military faculty push for it?

3. Are Leftist professors Elizabeth Samet and Morton Ender still teaching at West Point? Who hired them and why are they not fired? How do they represent Army values?

4. Can you provide information about the methodology used in the re-examination of curriculum and course material in light of the recent Presidential Executive Order and Secretary of Defense guidance?

Honor Code and Character Development

For decades, West Point’s Honor Code has been noteworthy for its strength and clarity. The fact that Cadets themselves played key roles in its administration and that the entire Academy placed such emphasis on it was unique, even among the service academies.

Once strictly enforced with dismissal as a common outcome for violations, the Honor Code has evolved into an aspirational goal that has melded into the general leadership development curriculum.

1. Please explain the rationale behind recent high profile examples of apparent abuse of discretion, such as permitting high-performing athletes found guilty of criminal conduct to stay at West Point, or allowing a minority cadet who lied about marriage during graduate degree applications to remain and graduate?

2. Explain the current honor code turnback criteria and give specific numbers of cadets dismissed/resigned, and disciplined for Honor related offenses in the last four years?

3. Also of concern are non-Honor related disciplinary measures, including high profile (national news stories) about cadet misbehavior e.g., a recent Spring Break drug overdose episode. Please explain how such cases are managed, including how lessons learned get fed back into the character development model?

4. What steps are now in place to prevent the graduation of a cadet clearly unfit for commissioned service, e.g., the recent graduate who was advocating communist philosophy prior to and shortly after graduation?

Transparency and Engagement

There is an increasing loss of trust in the USMA leadership by some legislators and some graduates because of the lack of engagement. Improvement is difficult without feedback about aspects of performance that need improvement.

1. Why was it necessary for Judicial Watch to sue USMA for non-compliance with FOIA laws, only to reveal that USMA had lied about no CRT instruction?

2. Why does West Point not promptly respond to official FOIA requests as required by Federal law?

3. Why have the Board of Visitor meetings had frequent last minute changes, cancellations, and reduced public input? Why have BOV minutes taken so long to produce and then only in very superficial fashion?

4. How did the mission statement change of eliminating Duty, Honor, Country come about? Specifically, what was the genesis and what stakeholders’ input was sought?

MacArthur Society of West Point Graduates