A. Introduction
The Study Group has considered carefully the Honor Code and Honor System--those which are so central to every aspect of West Point life.
While the Borman Commission examined the Honor Code and System in some detail, that examination was in the specific context of the Electrical Engineering 304 incident. The Study Group has endeavored to look at the Code and System somewhat more broadly, building upon the work of the Borman Commission.
What we have done is review the causes believed by the Borman Commission to underlie the Electrical Engineering 304 incident. While institutional failure may well have been a contributing or even a major factor, we observe that those involved were mature and intelligent young men--part of a select group--and that they could not have been unaware of the implications of their actions. Indeed, one must examine the relationships between institutional and individual responsibility with some caution. Neither responsibility is absolute and it is just as unreasonable to excuse all individual responsibility simply because the institution falls short of perfection as it is to place total responsibility on individual behavior without regard to the institution. Furthermore, overdrawing the cause-effect relationship could lead to the erroneous view that institutional modification would preclude "another Electrical Engineering 304"; the unpredictability of human systems ensures that the potential for failure is always present.
Nevertheless, whether dealing with the Academic
Program, Military Training or the Honor System, it must be accepted that
institutional failures which entice lying or cheating, or which encourage
(or even only accommodate) attitudes of disdain for excellence and disillusionment
with the institution, inevitably erode the honor and integrity of the Corps.
B. An Initial Appraisal
Clearly, the West Point Honor Code is unsurpassed among American colleges in its exacting nature and in the rigorous demands of the supporting Honor System. One of the initial and important conclusions of the Study Group was that the Honor Code and Honor System were laboring under an unreasonable burden.
- Unreasonable in that an exacting code was supported by an inflexible system of enforcement which carried a single sanction--permanent separation.
- Unreasonable in that perceptions and expectations are such that some view the code as a comprehensive guide to ethical and moral behavior.
In the first instance, disillusionment and lack of faith have been engendered by bizarre cases where the Honor System was not sufficiently flexible to accommodate trivial or totally unintentional offenses. In the latter, there is imparted both an unwarranted sanctity to the code and a distorted and fatally truncated view of ethical obligation.
Compounding the burden are the "non-toleration"
feature, which requires a cadet, as a matter of honor, to report all transgressions
of the Code, and the universal jurisdiction which applies the Code and
System everywhere and at all times.
C. In the Aftermath
In response to both the Borman Commission and the Study Group, West Point has already taken steps designed to improve the Honor System and to improve perceptions of the Honor Code.
- West Point has established a committee to review the formal ethics instruction and has begun formulation of a comprehensive four-year program. The Study Group recommends a thorough but a cautious approach in this area which allows the Academy to acquire the properly educated instructors needed for formal ethics instruction.
- The Superintendent has the option (at the direction of the Secretary of the Army) of not separating a cadet found guilty of an Honor violation, if the circumstances warrant.
- The Commandant is the convening authority for the Full Honor Board, thus ensuring that a senior official will review a case before it comes to a hearing.
- The Special Assistant to the Commandant for Honor Matters is the "supervisor and advisor" to the Honor Committee.
-The Full Honor Board is a due process board.
- On a trial basis the role of lawyers has been expanded to include involvement at the investigatory, hearing, and review levels.
- Both the Full Honor Board and the Subcommittee hearing involve cadets selected from the Corps at large.
- Honor instruction for cadets has been given a thorough review and overhaul to eliminate the deadening litany of detail and to emphasize the spirit of honor.
- Honor instruction is being extended to ensure that all personnel at the Academy fully understand the Honor Code and Honor System.
-Instructional materials and honor publications make clear that no one exclusively "owns the Code."
The initial reactions to these changes appear
favorable and the changes themselves appear to promise a salutary effect.
Nonetheless, the Study Group conducted a searching inquiry into the Code
and System.
D. The Significance of Change
Two of the changes to the Code and System have broad impact:
- The authority granted by the Secretary of the Army to the Superintendent to retain in the Corps cadets who have been found guilty of an honor violation. This provision is frequently referred to as "discretion."
- The introduction of officer advice throughout the operation of the Honor System.
The introduction of "discretion" allows the mature judgment of the Superintendent to be brought to bear to ensure that due consideration is given to matters of mitigation. Knowing that the Superintendent can and will use discretion should make it much easier for cadets to live with the "non-toleration" provision of the Code.
The early and continuing involvement of officers, from the Special Assistant for Honor Matters through the Commandant, helps ensure against cases which should never be brought to the Full Honor board.
In both instances, much of the unreasonable
burden is removed from the Code and System by the introduction of mature
judgment. This is not to say that we think officers ought to "run" the
System. Quite to the contrary, we strongly urge the Corps of Cadets to
permit and direct the Full Honor Board to recommend the exercise of "discretion"
in appropriate cases.
E. Towards Understanding Non-Toleration
Clearly the most vexing aspect of the West Point Honor Code is the honor obligation imposed upon cadets to enforce the code by reporting all suspected transgressions to the Honor Committee. And, yet, it is the strict interpretation and adherence to this provision that has made the West Point Honor Code (along with the Air Force Academy's) distinctive among American institutions. The proscriptions against lying, cheating, and stealing are easily understood, essentially passive measures which accord with the normative standards of American life. The "non-toleration" provision, however, introduces a far more complex concept and demands behavior seemingly contradictory to normal experience. In essence, cadets perceive that they are being asked to destroy friendships and violate confidences by reporting the possible transgressions of a fellow cadet with full knowledge that, if found guilty, he would be separated.
The Borman Commission recommended that the Code be reaffirmed, as stated, but that compliance with the "non-toleration" provision be satisfied with other, less final measures such as warnings, etc. The Study Group was understanding of such recommendations--it is clear that "non-toleration" is most difficult to comprehend and is the beginning of a "slippery slope" for many violators. And, yet, we were reluctant to abandon what has been so long a fundamental tenet of the Code and System. We were particularly reluctant in view of the granting of the discretionary authority to the Superintendent. Accordingly, the Study Group supports a strict interpretation of "non-toleration", i.e., if, after determining that a violation has occurred and the cadet in violation fails to report himself (say, after 24 hours), an observer is honor bound to report the violation.
We must emphasize that our conclusion relies heavily upon the Superintendent's discretion to exercise superior judgment where the situation indicates it appropriate. We are deeply aware of the burden this places upon the Superintendent and, should the Corps elect to adopt discretion, the burden will fall heavily upon the Honor Board. But we believe this is where the burden belongs. To ask a young cadet who is just learning to live with the Code to make the judgment as to the appropriate action with respect to a suspected violation by a fellow cadet is also an unreasonable burden. And the alternative of trying to prescribe appropriate action for each case raises the old spectre of endless and confusing codification. It may be that the non-toleration clause cannot survive since it unquestionably bears the seed of scandal. But it is our sincere judgment that the elimination of the provision would ultimately sap the vigor of the Code.
Equally important, in the view of the Study
Group, is the development of an "Honor Ethic" which subsumes the Honor
Code in a broader concept making clear the relevance and importance of
an obligation which transcends individuals and individual loyalties without
appearing to subvert the bond between cadets. This more general statement
Honor Code in perspective, clearly identifying it as the central experience
for a cadet in the process of developing a personal standard of ethical
behavior.
F. The Honor Code as a Goal
The Superintendent's Special Study on Honor (The Buckley-Reid Report, 1975) suggested, and the Borman Commission endorsed, the idea that the Honor Code "although...a worthy goal...is not a usable criterion of behavior." We believe that the Code is a reasonable standard against which to measure behavior as long as the slightest transgression does not result in permanent separation. Certainly the proscriptions against lying, cheating, and stealing are reasonably well understood under most conditions. But there are troublesome examples of unreasonable interpretation which suggest that perfect compliance, with even these straight-forward rules, is not as simple as we might think. And, as stated earlier, the emotional and intellectual stresses introduced by "non toleration" place special demands upon cadets. The introduction of "discretion," however, recognizes both the existence of human frailty (that perfection is beyond human reach) and the demands of "non-toleration."
Thus, it is our conclusion that, on balance,
"discretion" renders moot most discussions of whether the code is a goal
or a minimum standard.
G. Honor and Regulations
A perennial problem, the enforcement of regulations through the Honor Code has been for years a matter of concern and no little confusion. Many aspects of the Honor System, which are viewed nostalgically by graduates as involving mutual trust and confidence, are, in fact, clear instances of "honor being used to enforce regulation." And, in the context of developing a personal and professional ethic, it is to be expected that there eventually will be little or no practical distinction between the compelling demands of Duty and Honor.
The problem arises when there is lack of mutual agreement as to what regulations, what aspects of duty, are appropriately related to the Honor System. The absence card is the dearest example of using honor to monitor compliance with regulations. But in the past cadets have essentially agreed to pledge themselves in a "gentleman's agreement" to comply with regulations concerning their whereabouts and the proscription of certain acts (e.g., drinking, hazing) to avoid the inconvenience that might attend official policing of the regulations. The meaning of the absence card, however, has changed until now it applies only to a cadet's location and only during limited time. Moreover, the design of the card is needlessly complex for its limited purpose. Consequently, the absence card seems to have become a device of rather trivial meaning, which leads to demerits when mismarked, and which carries the ever-present threat (because it is essentially trivial) of an unintentional honor violation. Accordingly, we would eliminate the absence card completely or, if the Corps were willing to enter into the agreement, return it to a more meaningful instrument.
Another aspect of the relationship between honor and regulations has been the problem of differentiating between a college prank or infraction of regulations and a serious intent to deceive which compromises honor. A classic example of this dilemma over the years is whether placing unauthorized articles in a laundry bag is an honor violation. Clearly there is some intent to deceive, but characterizing such act as "lying," within the meaning of the code, is tantamount to enforcing regulations with honor and treating trivial issues with unwarranted seriousness. And there are many such so-called "acts of deception," such as putting liquor in a hair tonic bottle, covering the window with a blanket while studying after lights out, and so on.
The Study Group believes that these continuing sources of friction, confusion, and fear should be eliminated. Accordingly, lying should be defined, in relation to the Honor Code, in a way to omit these trivial acts. We would define lying as the making of an oral or written statement or gesture of communication made in the presence of and to another, intended by the maker to deceive or mislead. In our examination we have found no serious acts of deception that are not covered by other provisions.
Finally, we feel that West Point should establish
a formal procedure for redress to improper questioning using honor to enforce
regulations. While there is a system of appeal of punishments, cadets need
a clear invitation to seek redress of the misuses of the Honor Code.
H. The Importance of Simplicity
The Study Group was repeatedly impressed with
the need for the Code and System to be elegant in their simplicity. It
is difficult for those who have not been associated with contemporary West
Point to conceive of the potential problems relating to the Honor Code
and Honor System. The intense dedication and desire of most cadets are
remarkable, carrying the promise that West Point graduates will continue
to make extraordinary sacrifices and contributions to the Nation. But
such intensity also carries the potential for tragic and unnecessary stress.
For example, a cadet recently reported himself for a possible honor violation
because he had hidden the key to the locker containing his personal valuables
thereby possibly deceiving someone. His anxiety stems, in part, from the
difficulty in understanding the true nature of the Honor Code and Honor
System and dramatizes the Academy's special responsibility to make them
clear, simple, and unequivocal.
I. Other Issues
The Study Group addressed a wide range of issues relating to the Code and System and considered a number of alternative approaches. Some of our more important conclusions are:
- The Superintendent's Honor Review Committee should have an expanded role with wider representation. We do not, however, believe this committee should be the final interpreter of the Honor Code. This responsibility is solely the responsibility of the Superintendent acting for the Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Army.
- We examined several plans for a phased entry of new cadets into the structures of the Code. In the final analysis we concluded that it was important for new cadets to be fully under the Code at the outset and that the Superintendent's discretionary powers were adequate to deal with extraordinary circumstances.
- The jurisdiction of the Code should be universal.
The Study Group questioned whether and how the Honor Code should apply
away from West Point, e.g., at home and on leave. We concluded that the
Code should apply at all places and at all times. Nevertheless, there is
some question as to whether the institutional responsibility of the System
for enforcement should be coterminous or whether there are situations where
there is only personal responsibility. We urge continuing review of this
matter.
J. Summary
The West Point Honor Code and Honor System are fundamentally sound. However, our recommendations will, we believe, serve to strengthen and invigorate them. Nonetheless, total involvement and awareness on the part of cadets and the staff and faculty alike are crucial to sustaining a dedication within the Corps and within the Academy in general.
The Study Group cannot, unhappily, guarantee that changes to the Honor Code and Honor System, or the other changes recommended elsewhere in this report, will prevent a future honor scandal. An institution as intense and challenging as West Point with a demanding and exacting Honor Code continually runs the risk of asking more than some can give. We hope, however, our recommendations will reduce the likelihood that there would be a scandal of such magnitude or a systemic failure of such seriousness. And, perhaps of equal importance, we believe that the changes will improve the quality of the academic and military experience which shape the future of our Army.
In detailing the responses to the Borman Commission recommendations and initial Department of Army responses, the Study Group does not address those made specifically with respect to the cadets involved in EE 304. Since all actions have been taken on that issue, the Study Group regards it as closed.
1. Borman Recommendation: The Honor Code should be retained in its present form: "A cadet will not lie, cheat or steal, nor tolerate those who do."
Army Response: Army concurs. The Honor Code will be retained in its present form.
Study Group Response: The Study Group strongly supports this conclusion
2. Borman Recommendation: The nontoleration clause should be retained however, a cadet should have options in addition to reporting an honor violation.
Army Response: The recommendation is being analyzed by the Department of the Army and is being referred to the Academy for evaluation and resolution during the upcoming academic semester.
Study Group Response: The Study Group supports the conclusion that the nontoleration clause be retained. However, on balance, the Study Group rejects the proposal that the individual cadet should have alternative options to ensuring that the suspected violator is reported or convinced to report himself.
3. Borman Recommendation: Sanctions other than dismissal should be authorized for violations of the Honor Code. The Cadet Honor Committee and reviewing authorities should be authorized to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine an appropriate penalty. Any recommendation less than separation should be fully justified. Cadets who are separated should not be required to serve on active duty as a result of their separation.
Army Response: Army concurs. The Regulations for the United States Military Academy and procedures will be amended to provide greater latitude in the application of separation for honor violations upon recommendation of the Honor Committee. A change in the requirement that separated cadets be required to serve on active duty has been recommended to the Secretary of Defense who reserves authority in that area.
Study Group Response: The Study Group concludes that the regulation change permitting the Superintendent to exercise a degree of "discretion" in separating cadets will serve as an adequate, interim measure to protect against the possible "excesses" that might result from absolute adherence to the strictures of the Honor Code and System. However, the Study Group also concludes that the option would be most effective as a part of the Cadet Honor Committee Procedures.
4. Borman Recommendation: All officers and cadets at the Academy must understand the fundamentals which underlie the importance of the Honor Code and the health of the Honor System:
a. The Honor Code must be viewed as a goal toward which every honorable person aspires, and not as a minimum standard of behavior for cadets alone. Furthermore, its proscriptions do not encompass all forms of dishonorable conduct; the test of whether conduct is honorable or dishonorable does not depend solely upon whether it is proscribed by the Honor Code.
Army Response: Army concurs. A number of actions have been underway since summer 1976 and the Army is intensifying efforts to ensure implementation of these recommendations and as well that the total environment at West Point is fully supportive of the spirit and the provisions of the Honor Code and Honor System. Changes will be instituted seeking to preclude honor being used as a means of enforcing regulations.
Study Group Response: The Study Group concludes that the Honor Code is a reasonable standard against which to measure behavior. However, the Study Group further emphasizes that the Honor Code is not an all-inclusive prescription for moral conduct and recommends that USMA carefully expand the concept of honorable behavior in the perception of cadets.
b. The Honor Code must not be extended beyond its intended purpose of ensuring that only honorable individuals become Academy graduates. Nor should it be exploited as a means of enforcing regulations.
Army Response: Army concurs.
Study Group Response: The Study Group concludes that four areas could be more clearly defined and/or limited in support of this goal. The areas are the redefinition of lying, the redefinition of stealing, the elimination or simplification of the Absence Card, and the introduction of a formal redress to improper questioning.
c. The Honor Code and Honor System must be considered the joint responsibility of all cadets and all officers at the Academy. It must be understood that the Superintendent has the responsibility of reviewing and, if necessary, reversing cadet honor determinations. No one "owns" the Honor Code. Everyone must work to ensure the effectiveness of the Honor System.
Army Response: Army concurs.
Study Group Response: The Study Group conclusions support the recommendation and contend that a full education on the history of the Honor Code and System have been the exclusive property of the Corps. Such education should reflect a shared interest and responsibility on the part of all components of the USMA community in the efficacy of the Honor Code and System.
5. Borman Recommendation: The Academy should seek ways to ensure that the fundamentals which underlie the importance of the Honor Code work on a continuing basis. As a minimum, the following should be accomplished:
a. There must be academic instruction which provides an intellectual base for character development. All cadets should be required, early in their careers at West Point, to begin formal ethics study. This study, which must be part of the core curriculum, should include those ethical problems likely to be faced by a military officer. Ethics should be stressed throughout the entire curriculum and by all constituencies at West Point: Academic, Tactical, Athletic, and Administrative.
Army Response: Army concurs. Action has been taken to develop a four-year program on ethics/professionalism as part of the core curriculum. Elements of this comprehensive program will be in effect for AY 1977-78.
Study Group Response: The Study Group notes that USMA does not now have on hand nor in the graduate school cycle sufficient instructors qualified in the requisite disciplines to prepare and to teach meaningful, challenging, convincing courses in some of the areas named (e.g., philosophy, psychology). The acquisition of these critical assets must be first priority. Until they are on hand, progress toward full implementation will necessarily be slow; care must be taken to ensure that interim measures are not counterproductive.
b. The content of honor instruction must emphasize the spirit of the Honor Code. A "cook book" approach makes the Code equivalent to another regulation.
Army Response: Army concurs. Action is being taken, for the spring semester 1977, to internalize the spirit of honor and to increase significantly greater participation by all cadets and officers in the operation of the Honor System.
Study Group Response: The Study Group concludes that USMA should expand the Honor education program with emphasis on the necessity, advantages, and ideals of an Honor Code and System. Additionally, USMA should firmly establish the role and function of the Honor Code in the creating and fostering of a complete Honor concept in governing conduct.
c. The method of honor instruction and the environment in which it is conducted must be improved.
Army Response: Army concurs.
Study Group Response: The Study Group concludes that formal and informal education is the key. The education must be thorough, consistent, and frequent.
d. There must be greater participation by all cadets and officers in the operation of the Honor System. Cadet rank should not be awarded for Honor Committee service.
Army Response: Army concurs. Cadet rank for Honor Committee service is being reviewed and evaluated.
Study Group Response: On balance the Study Group rejects the Borman Commission recommendation on cadet rank. It was concluded that the three cadets involved deserve the recognition. Their duties on the Honor Committee preclude their occupying other positions in the Corps.
e. The Superintendent's Honor Review Committee should be continued, but its membership should include cadets and alumni. The Committee should meet at least annually with the mission of guarding the Honor Code against misuse, misinterpretation, and inconsistent interpretation. The Committee should have the ultimate power to interpret the Honor Code.
Army Response: Army concurs. Action is being taken to determine the appropriate composition and functions of the Superintendent's Review Committee.
Study Group Response: The Study Group concludes that the Honor Review Committee should have an expanded charter, composition, tenure, and distribution of report but rejects the Borman Commission recommendation that the Honor Review Committee "should have the ultimate power to interpret the Code." This is the responsibility of the Superintendent, USMA, acting for the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff of the Army.
f. An officer should be appointed to advise the Cadet Honor Committee and the Superintendent's Honor Review Committee. This officer should report to the Academic Board (and not the Commandant alone) concerning all honor matters. Continuity is required in this position.
Army Response: Army concurs.
Study Group Response: The Study Group concludes that the Special Assistant for Honor Matters fulfills this task, and that the responsiveness is not, in fact, limited to only the Commandant.
6. Borman Recommendation: A permanent and independent advisory board should be established to provide the continuing assistance that most institutions of higher education receive from their boards of trustees.
Army Response: Army concurs. Such a permanent advisory board will be formed to evaluate all aspects of the USMA operations and to report findings and recommendations to the Chief of Staff on continuing basis.
Study Group Response: Establish the Superintendent's Advisory Committee. All parameters of the Borman Commission recommendation were met except that the Committee would report directly to the Superintendent not the Secretary of the Army. Recommendation does provide that committee reports will be forwarded to SA. Secretary of the Army appoints committee members.
7. Borman Recommendation: The West Point mission statement should be revised to ensure that everyone understands the importance of education in the mission of the Academy. Everyone must understand that this is the primary mission of the Academy from September to June. Military training should be concentrated in the summer months.
Army Response: USMA mission statement is being revised. Primacy of academics will be maintained from September to June. In addition, curriculum changes have been proposed and an in-depth evaluation will be made under the supervision of the Chief of Staff.
Study Group Response: Mission statement has been revised by USMA. Study Group has proposed a comprehensive concept for USMA which enlarges upon the academic orientation encompassed in the revised mission statement.
8. Borman Recommendation: The Superintendent should have responsibility for all aspects of the internal administration of the Academy, including resolving the competing demands made by subordinate authorities upon individual cadets.
Army Response: Army concurs. The Superintendent's authority has been significantly increased, while the Academic Board's effort has been redirected to emphasize academic excellence. A new general officer position, the Provost, is being created to supervise many of the functions which now fall directly under the Superintendent, such as admissions, athletics, post support activities, and others. This will assist the Superintendent in better focusing internal administration to rationalize competing demands placed upon individual cadets.
Study Group Response: Governance and command/control proposals of the Study Group were drafted with firm control at the top as a guiding principle. The Study Group does not recommend a Provost, but subsumses the functions intended for that position in the recommended position of Deputy Superintendent.
9. Borman Recommendation: Superintendent selection should be based upon his interest in education and a demonstrated ability to provide educational and military leadership.
Army Response: Army concurs.
Study Group Response: Study Group concurs.
10.Borman Recommendation: Superintendent should be assigned to the Academy for a minimum of 5 years and should be consulted as to the selection and length of service of the Commandant of Cadets and Dean of the Academic Board.
Army Response: Army concurs. The tour should be normally 4 to 8 years. The Superintendent will be consulted on the selection and length of service of his key aides.
Study Group Response: The Study Group endorses the recommendation.
11.Borman Recommendation: Permanent professors should not serve on active duty for more than 30 years, unless requested to continue on a term basis by the Superintendent with the approval of the Secretary of the Army.
Army Response: Army concurs. Current law provides permanent professors may be retired by the SA when they have more than 30 years of service as a commissioned officer. Possible revisions to present procedures are being addressed by the Army staff and the Academy.
Study Group Response: The Study Group noted that statute currently provides for service of Professors, USMA beyond 30 years at the pleasure of the Secretary of the Army. A mechanism is, therefore, available for the termination of the service of those professors no longer functioning in a fully effective manner. The Study Group believes that no change of statute is necessary in this respect.
12.Borman Recommendation: The Professor of Physical Education should be a member of the Academic Board.
Army Response: Army concurs. Instructions have been given to change USMA regulations accordingly.
Study Group Response: Endorsed by the Study Group.
13.Borman Recommendation: The Office of Military Leadership, a department concerned in large part with providing academic instruction in behavioral sciences, should be transferred to the Academic Department. The Director of that department should be a member of the Academic Board.
Army Response: Army concurs. The Office of Military Leadership will be retitled the Department of Behavioral Sciences and Leadership. Changes are being taken to make the Director a permanent professor and member of the Academic Board.
Study Group Response: Study Group concurs. Already implemented by USMA.
14.Borman Recommendation: There should be an expansion of programs which bring outside viewpoints to the Academy, e.g., visiting professors to and from the Academy.
Army Response: Action has already been taken to expand the visiting professor program from 2 to 5 and to bring additional outside viewpoints to the Academy. Furthermore, the program will be broadened to permit selected professors to participate as visiting professors at civilian institutions and to provide for service on active duty tours with military units.
Study Group Response: The Study Group recommends establishment of a five percent of faculty goal for the civilian visiting professor program, adding that visitors should be recruited on an as-required basis rather than on a departmental quota. The Group also recommended and initiated steps toward establishing a routine input of Materiel Development and Readiness Command scientists as visiting faculty.
15.Borman Recommendation: The Academy must reaffirm the role of the Tactical Officer as a company commander and ensure that this role is uniformly adhered to throughout the Tactical Department.
Army Response: Army concurs. Superintendent has been directed to reaffirm the role of the Tactical Officer which will be promulgated throughout the staff, faculty, and Corps of Cadets.
Study Group Response: The Study Group concurs fully with both aspects. The Study Group recommendations include affirmation of the Tactical Officer as the company commander and methods for improving and standardizing both tactical officer selection and operation. Specifically, the tactical officer should possess both academic and military credentials of note, and he should be personally interviewed by the Commandant, USMA. USMA should adopt and implement the commander model for the Tactical Officer in AY 1977-78, and the dual chain of command should be eliminated in favor of a direct officer-cadet chain of command.
16.Borman Recommendation: Tactical Officers should be selected from officers who have completed Command and General Staff College or equivalent education.
Army Response: Army concurs. Tactical Officers selected will be mature officers normally with C6rGSC level and graduate level schooling.
Study Group Response: The Study Group agrees that Command and General Staff College experience can be an asset, but it should not be a requirement for selection as a Tactical Officer. The Staff College standard does serve as an indicator of maturity and professional competence, but there are ideally qualified officers who have not yet satisfied the eligibility for Staff College selection. The selection process for Tactical Officers is being revised considerably with Staff College experience being a factor, not a determinant.
17.Borman Recommendation: The Leadership Evaluation System should be reviewed to determine whether it is a constructive force in the cadets' leadership development.
Army Response: Army concurs. A study group will intensively review the Leadership Evaluation System on a priority basis.
Study Group Response: The Study Group recommends the elimination of the Leadership Evaluation System as it now exists. Some form of this evaluation may remain, but, as a minimum, the peer ratings should cease.
18.Borman Recommendation: Judge Advocates who defend cadets should have no teaching duties.
Army Response: Army concurs for the near term. There will be continuing review to ensure the spirit of the recommendation is being pursued. In addition, a USMA post Staff Judge Advocate office has been approved and will be established.
Study Group Response: The Academy has already removed the SJA function from the Law Department and placed the former on the Superintendent's personal staff.
19.Borman Recommendation: Military leadership courses should include examination of the role of the lawyer as an advisor to the commander, and the role of defense counsel in the justice system.
Army Response: Army concurs. Course in ethics and professionalism will include the role of the lawyer as an advisor to the commander, and the role of defense counsel in the justice system.
Study Group Response: The Study Group’s legal advisor reviewed all course syllabi in law and related areas t ensure adequate coverage. Requisite material is well covered. The Academy also plans to send each Regimental Tactical officer to the Senior Officers’ Legal Orientation at the USA JAG School commencing in the upcoming academic year.
1. Academic Committee
1. Members at Department of the Army
MG Hillman Dickinson - Chairman
COL Walter M. Cousland
COL Thomas E. Griess - Senior Member
Dr. Ruth Adams - Vice President, Dartmouth College
Dr. David A. Hills - Associate Professor of Psychology, Wake Forest University
Mr. Lawrence H. O'Neill, President, Riverside Research Institute
James P. Riley - Executive Director Federal Library System
1. Members
BG(P) Jack N. Merritt - Chairman
MAJ Stephen D. Clement
US Army Administration Center, Ft. Benjamin Harrison, IN
PhD, Organizational Communications
Dr. Robert F. Holt
US Army Research Institute for Behavioral and Social Sciences
PhD, Social Psychology
Dr. T. O. Jacobs
US Army Research Institute for Behavioral and Social Sciences
PhD, Psychology
LTC William K. Schrage
US Army Center of Military History
MA, History
3. Points of Contact Provided by West Point
COL Thomas F. Cole
Director of Military Instruction
COL James R. Hall, Jr.
Commander, Fourth Regiment, USCC
COL Lloyd J. Matthews
Permanent Associate Professor, Department of English
COL Hal B. Rhyne
Special Assistant to Commandant for Honor Matters
LTC Kermit M. Henninger
Deputy Director of Physical Education
MAJ George A. Crocker
Tactical Officer, A-1
MAJ Robert A. Brace II
Tactical Officer, I-3
MAJ Mary C. Willis
Office of Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations
CPT Dennis Fogarty
Office of Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations
C. Environment Committee
1. Members
MG Jack V. Mackmull - Chairman
2. Principal Contacts at USMA
COL James H. Tormey
Chief of Staff, USMA
COL Clarence D. Gilkey
Director, Facilities and Engineering, USMA
COL Joseph T. Griffin, Jr.
Deputy Chief of Staff, Operations and Security, USMA
COL William F. Luebbert
Director, Instruction Support and Information Systems Division, USMA
COL Edward Mennona
Deputy Chief of Staff, Personnel and Administration, USMA
COL Alexander P. Polak
Comptroller, USMA
COL Manley E. Rogers
Director of Admissions and Registrar
COL Graham M. Sibbles
Deputy Chief of Staff, Logistics, USMA
COL Michael S. Sirkis
Cadet Activities Officer
COL William J. Taylor
Permanent Associate Professor, Department of Social Sciences
LTC Donald J. Barlow
Treasurer, USMA
LTC Robert F. Danner
Office of the Director of Admissions and Registrar
LTC Berwyn L. Place
Management Information Systems Division, USMA
LTC George D. Waters
Director of Institutional Research
MAJ Mary C. Willis
Operations Officer, HQ, USMA
Mr. Jack P. Riley
Office of Director of Intercollegiate Athletics
Mr. Homer Smith
Office of Director of Intercollegiate Athletics, USMA
Mr. John J. Smith
Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff, Comptroller, USMA
Proceed
directly to Appendix C (next section)