William S. Lind :collection (merged thread)

[wm]

This is good in theory but how many are actually removed because of lack of character? I don't know but I ask because of something I read in Rick's Best Defense a few years ago.

A guy wrote a story about how an upperclassman broke his arm during some kind of training evolution. It was an avoidable thing, the upperclassman was just a meathead who got real enthusiastic when given the chance to thump people with no possibility of getting hit back. People here probably all know the type. The point was, aside from some sour looks, nothing happened to the upperclassman. He was not removed despite what seems an obvious character flaw and went on to be commissioned.

That is only one story but the guy wrote it to illustrate the point that the system doesn't seem well equipped to remove the meatheads and perhaps the game players too.

I cannot tell you how many get removed for the various reasons, nor can I tell you how many choose to leave voluntarily or somewhat involuntarily. However, you might recall that in America we live with the assumption that people are innocent until proven guilty and that it is better to let a thousand criminals go free than to punish an innocent person. I submit that the system is set up to work within those assumptions.

For example , cadets who are members of the Cadet Honor Committee investigate and try other cadets for honor code violations. However the dismissal authority for an honor violation is the Secretary of the Army, a political appointee. Make your own judgment.

Here is a counter anecdote to your story: At his 40th USMA class reunion, a retired colonel asked whether he would have time to get to the cadet bookstore to buy a copy of a certain book. The reason he wanted this book was because he had borrowed a copy of it from one of his classmates while they were still cadets and had failed to return it. Since he knew this classmate would be at the reunion, he wanted to be sure he could return the book. I find that to be a rather strong expression of duty and honor--the first two words in the USMA motto. YMMV

[carl]

I cannot tell you how many get removed for the various reasons, nor can I tell you how many choose to leave voluntarily or somewhat involuntarily. However, you might recall that in America we live with the assumption that people are innocent until proven guilty and that it is better to let a thousand criminals go free than to punish an innocent person. I submit that the system is set up to work within those assumptions.

That works well enough in the criminal justice system. I don't think it works so well in officer selection. It is in my view far worse to let a thousand bad apples become second lieutenants than get rid of one who might not deserve to go.

Here is a counter anecdote to your story: At his 40th USMA class reunion, a retired colonel asked whether he would have time to get to the cadet bookstore to buy a copy of a certain book. The reason he wanted this book was because he had borrowed a copy of it from one of his classmates while they were still cadets and had failed to return it. Since he knew this classmate would be at the reunion, he wanted to be sure he could return the book. I find that to be a rather strong expression of duty and honor--the first two words in the USMA motto. YMMV

Well and good, but as a civilian that is what I expect to be the norm. That is what I pay for and that is what the services advertise they produce and imply is the norm. Judging by what we see so very often, it isn't.

[JMA]

I cannot tell you how many get removed for the various reasons, nor can I tell you how many choose to leave voluntarily or somewhat involuntarily. However, you might recall that in America we live with the assumption that people are innocent until proven guilty and that it is better to let a thousand criminals go free than to punish an innocent person. I submit that the system is set up to work within those assumptions.

Wow... I guess this is what you would call inflation.

[I sought some advice from someone who used to post here]

William Blackstone said in the 1760s: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

Then your Benjamin Franklin got ahead of himself:



Now with you it gets to 1,000!

I guess we need to get our feet back firmly on the ground with this:

The story is told of a Chinese law professor, who was listening to a British lawyer explain that Britons were so enlightened, they believed it was better that ninety-nine guilty men go free than that one innocent man be executed. The Chinese professor thought for a second and asked, "Better for whom?"