First, it must be said that I am a graduate of SJNMA, class of 2008.
This is from an email I sent to one of my former instructors concerning my intent to become active in the mission to preserve certain valuable aspects of St. John’s Northwestern Military Academy that are at stake under the current direction it is taking. I have added explanatory notes where necessary for those not familiar with St. John's and its ways and its people. Furthermore, this is with an intent to put a face on the argument other than "fuck the president, he's a tool, and all these changes are gay"
Our conversation and some subsequent conversations with other current cadets and alumni have spurred a certain change in my mentality as well, especially in relation to the lessons in effective development of power that I have garnered from my political science experiences. I have heard just about enough, and have enough significant problems with how President Albert is approaching the school that I am beginning work on a rather extensive letter, which may be viewed more as a position paper rather than a letter. There are many facets to my thoughts on this, some of them more general and some more specific, so I will here attempt to summarize what I am thinking at the moment in a few separate paragraphs. Keep in mind that these are only positions, and I have not as yet begun the research aspect of what I propose to do.
There are three broad issues that I will bring up here. One is a political point, a discussion if you will of why the school has had a different scheme of power and a different solution to the same problems every year, and the effects that has had upon the cadet leadership, as well as a further support for the cadet leadership as a whole, because I would make the case that it has been underutilized. Second is the idea that Mr. President has used for a number of the years, a justification if you will. This being, the military doesn't use and "old boy new boy" system or that the methods of leadership that the academy had been using previously are somehow outdated and not accepted by the military. I think I made the point to you before that this is by no means the case, as brought to my attention very recently by Paula's experiences in boot camp, which had many, many similarities to the older system which was utilized at the academy. With regards to this argument, I do not intend to make it solely from personal experiences or from hearsay from Paula, it is actually my intention to go to the ROTC staff here at ISU, as well as my intention to write to SFC Andrasic who as a certified drill instructor is in an ideal position to comment upon this issue. The third issue basically centers on the value of a static leadership structure in opposition to the rotating absurdity that took place this year. (The Academy adopted a system in which officers that start at the lieutenant level rotate between Platoon leader, Company XO and Battalions Staff positions on a quarterly basis) This may seem like a specific complaint; however the implications of the misunderstanding implicit in this concept are deeper and farther reaching than the issue itself.
To the first point, it has struck me that President Albert, rather than acting as a President, has been more along the lines of rex; a king. At no time of which I am aware has he actively sought out the opinions of cadet leaders on anything. He has allowed us to present to him a number of times, ideas of our own, but at no time to my knowledge has any concept generated by the cadets that inhabit the Corps been taken seriously. Whether this is intentional or not I intend not to make a point of, however the effects of it are this. There is a nearly universal feeling amongst all of the cadets and former cadets with whom I have spoken that the President does not respect the cadets as the young adults that they in fact are, and this ends up being finally percieved as disdain for them on his part. It is the natural reaction to such treatment. Furthermore, as the age old argument for political pluralism would support, the President, no matter how knowledgeable about the conditions and various factors involved in the successful operation of a military academy, is only one man, and is thus limited in what he can do to only the things that he can think of. If he does not engage the opinions of the cadet corps, or the faculty, or his own staff, he weakens himself. The best president, the function of a good president is to be a very good politician, that is to say, someone who is extremely adept at listening to the ideas that a large body of unique individuals brings to the table and pulling a really good solution to whatever problem is at hand out of the discussion. To the extent that he has not given serious credence to cadet ideas at all, he severely weakens his ability to do his job. The cadets live in the system, and some of them have lived in it longer than he's been President of the academy (although that number is quickly diminishing), and so they DO in fact have a valuable perspective on it that should be taken into consideration honestly. As should the faculty. And the thing I find most disturbing about the faculty members he selected to dismiss is that they are some of the most knowledgeable members at the academy in the exact issues that are at stake. To rag on it a bit, Maj. Zirngibl led actual troops through the most trying circumstance imaginable and came through it successfully. If I were operating a leadership academy his name would top the list of men I would like to talk to, especially as the rank positions he held in the army are exactly those that fit the size of the cadet battalion. He’s actually been a platoon leader. The same can be said for 1st Sgt brown, for Sgt. Ososky, for Maj Schmid. (The academy at the end of the 2009 academic year essentially fired a strikingly high number of faculty and staff members that had been part of the academy for well over a decade; Sgt. Ososky had been there 15 years for example. The President has been there for barely a third of that)
I will not discuss the 2nd point at too much length because I think we already talked about it somewhat when I was there. Suffice it to say that the idea that the military does not have a process where you go from being New to being Old is completely false. Old boy-new boys, Sailors-Recruits, Privates-Recruits, Cadets-Plebes are all examples. It's just not true. Furthermore the military's basic training lasts between 8 to 13 weeks, depending on your branch of service, which is significantly longer than most cadets exist as Red Boards. To say that the military trains only for combat and does not fit into an academic environment is also completely false. Again from my own knowledge of Paula's experiences, a large amount of her time was spent in classes, and the exemplar that the academy supposedly follows, West Point, emphatically has an academic structure. If anything the military is one of the most effective academic institutions ever conceived. The Navy gives their Nuclear Engineers the equivalent of a 4 year degree in a highly technical and complex field in 2 years. Again through continued correspondence with her, they have a concept very similar to the Academy's study hours as well as the instructional hours after class that many instructors have. Furthermore, there is no recompense for failure, you either make the grades and move on, or you don't, which is a very valuable lesson to learn. Colleges don't accept failure, or flex very much to help those that do, because a college is simply too big to help every individual, especially if the individual does not want to be helped. So to focus on giving kids superficially high GPA's so they get admitted into college does not accomplish anything good, and in fact will make the already extensive drop-out rate skyrocket. As I said, on this point I intend to bring in as many actual opinions as I can.
The third point, is concerned as I said with the rotation. I have an issue with rotation, because it's symptomatic of the misunderstanding of the roll of cadet leaders, and of leadership in general. At the time I heard of the idea, my immediate thought, having been an officer, especially a staff officer, was that no one would have enough time to feel like they actually understood their job, or to develop successful strategies for completing their job. Recent discussion with Ryan Frank who I think you probably know to be one of the most intelligent cadets on campus (H- on final paper in studies, not an easy mark to make). He himself was transferred into the S-1 job, and he spent two hours a day working with the JUMS system, plus reading the 500 page manual for it and he told me he still had barely developed a basic understanding of its functions before he was transferred again. Precisely my point. It took me longer than a quarter to fully fit into my position and to develop the most efficient system for my activities,( as an example, the production of flyers). However this problem exists for the Platoon Leaders as well, just in a different form. Being a leader of a platoon sized unit requires the development of a leadership relationship with those cadets (or soldiers for that matter) who are your subordinates. A platoon leader is far more effective when he is able to know his followers and develop a respect for each of them, and vice versa. I have a couple examples of this off the top of my head. Let's say a kid is missing at roll call. If the Platoon leader knows what the cadet is like, he can be more effective at determining where the cadet is. as in, "I talked to him earlier today, and he seemed sort of worked up about something, and he's always talking about how much he misses his girlfriend and how much he hates the internet controls here, so he may have gone to town" or something, perhaps not the best conception of it. but the platoon leader that understands his people, will also, first of all, know exactly which room the cadet lives in, will know who his roommate is, will know where in the building the kid might go...etc. Second, from my own new boy experience being in a platoon. I had a much higher regard for my original platoon leader than I had for the Lt. who replaced him halfway about 2/3 through the semester, because I knew him and his style of leadership better than his replacement. Here's a stunning idea, how about the cadet leadership in companies be allowed to have some responsibility again, and save some RFO's some work, or heaven forbid, if you're talking about cost cutting, how about having less RFO's or giving them a reduced roll? Having the RFO's as involved in the company command structure as they have become, tends to make it more oriented towards having the RFO's run the company and just tell the cadet leaders what to do depriving the cadet leaders of authority in the eyes of their subordinates, as well as lessening their responsibilities. Hmm, an adult telling kids what to do all the time: that sounds like public school. That isn't what parents are shelling out the big bucks to pay for; they could get it for free as the local school. Now, asking kids (talking especially about high schoolers) to take some responsibility, and to learn what that's like? That's something different, and something desirable. The answer to teaching kids how to be leaders isn't simply throwing them into as many different positions as they can handle. It's giving them a specific responsibility, and yes, helping them learn how to fulfill that roll, but in the end, teaching them to stick to it. And by all means, if the cadet does not display the proper mental attitude for the job, if he does not care or take it seriously, by all means remove him from the position, (which by the way you don't need ridiculous looking blue things to indicate as a possibility) (during the 09 school year cadet leaders were given blue bands to wear on their shoulder ranks indicating that they held them on a “demonstrated aptitude” basis, which should already be inherent in the system without special recognition of its status). The point of the position is that there is esteem associated with that position, and yes, privileges, which create a desire for the cadet to do well in that position, and ably demonstrate the rewards of actually caring about something and doing the hard work.
Anyway, I have thought about this quite extensively especially in the last couple weeks due to spurring conversations with some cadets and alumni that lead me to these conclusions. It is interesting to me as well because I now posses the knowledge to see what type of argument I myself am making, and my position is essentially a conservative one (this may shock you, this is not to say, along the lines of Limbaugh or any of those buffoons, because the current conservative wing is in fact liberal..That’s a real shocker isn't it?) The classic conservative position being "wait, slow down, let's be careful, and think about things so we get it right" President Albert has been pursuing a radical agenda thus far, making sweeping changes every year, and breaking something new each time while not in fact solving the problems. First of all, I would make the argument that there are certain institutions (such as the old boy new boy system) that have been in place at the academy for a long time, as such they are Institutions, and a further conservative argument is that there is a certain respect due to long standing traditions and institution, if nothing else, merely because they have stood the test of time, and as such, they must have done something right, even if they did some things wrong. To drastically throw away an entire system without first studying what it was intended to do propagates the exact problems that the Academy is suffering from right now. I agree with President Albert (and strongly disagree with some of my fellow alumni) that the system under which kids were put in footlockers and shoved down stairs, or beaten by 5-6 officers with broomsticks is completely unacceptable. I do not however agree that the Old Boy-New Boy system was the primary cause of these problems, but rather that the rules were ignored. In the Standard that I was given as a New Boy, nowhere did it say "because you are new you deserve to be beaten and abused". What the New boy experience was intended to accomplish (as it is in the military) was to make it clear that you had entered a different place, that you are not "special" just because you are made of carbon and consume oxygen, that your place in the world, and your success in it must be created out of your own efforts. Thus, if you followed the strict and harsh rules of your new condition, eventually those rules relax, and you earn for yourself a better position. You then are to turn around as an Old Boy, and at that point at least a junior NCO, and help others who are new to the system to make the same transition. I am certain that fighting was against the regulations, and physical abuse would fall in the same category. I myself, in 05-06 was not physically abused. I was PT'd yes, it hurt yes, very much so, and was at times even unjust. but life is unjust, and if we stop at every injustice and cry about it we can never be successful in life. As Dan Postlewaite (class of 06) said, “Life is hard, get a helmet.” Every adversity is an opportunity to succeed and to grow. I grew up because of the harshness of my experience, and in so doing established the Eternus Frater, that EVERY cadet who successfully made it through possesses, or perhaps now, increasingly possessed. Rather than freak out and give up, I chose to simply accept what was happening to me, and suffer through it, and then go on from it and do my damnedest to be above reproach. And 2.5 years later I graduated as a Captain on Battalion Staff. I got the position because I earned it not because it's something that every cadet should experience simply by virtue of their parents paying for it. In fact, the military environment isn't FOR everybody. But it IS extremely beneficial to the people who can survive in it.
To the point on the effect this different scheme of leadership per year has had on the leadership, every year the cadet leaders are coming in to a new system that they have to learn, and in so doing, they don't know the system much better than the people they are attempting to lead. Cadre isn't enough time to teach a new system of doing things, and this is epitomized in the failure of the 06 07 school year. I know from personal experience that we all as cadet leaders had problems with figuring out how to get anything done under the new system, because of how drastic the changes had been, and because we had been indoctrinated under a different system (new boy old boy, pt, rigorous discipline) we couldn't figure out what to do very well under the new system without a long time period. There's a learning curve with working within the leadership system just as there is for leadership positions, and if you change the system every year, no one will ever be fully competent enough to instruct the next generation of cadet leaders.
The last thing I wanted to say about my intentions with this is that I hope to make a compelling enough argument to facilitate a change in the President's attitude (being as I doubt he has had a particularly intelligently made argument presented in this format: I understand that many times what the cadets complain about just sounds like bitching as in "it was so much better before" which can cause the dismissal of all that they say as being just more complaints. However, all complaints stem from a real source, the realization that there is something being lost and something wrong with the way in which the changes have been implemented over the past 4-5 years). But being as he has a history of simply ignoring such things, I am also intending to make sure that my argument gets sent to the head of the board of directors, again which I need to work on, as in find out who he is, and how to best get this thing to him.