Dear General Caslen,
I have just read your long letter prompted by the Rapone affair. I have also a lot to write about the situation.
First, I am not pleased with LTC Heffington’s story in his affidavit. In my day no officer would have deigned to argue with a cadet, even a First Classman. He would have simply told the cadet to return to his room. If the cadet disobeyed he would have called the Officer of the Day to have the cadet physically moved to his room. And he would have written up the cadet for disobeying the direct order of a superior officer, plus disrespect to an officer and being out of uniform. LTC Heffington may well lament the rot in the administration and training of cadets, but he obviously was a part of it.
Second, why was no investigation begun in November 2015 based upon LTC Heffington’s affidavit? Regardless of what the investigation would have concluded, the fact that none was initiated is another example of the rot that is permeating the USMA. Somebody simply decided to pass the problem along to the Army. In addition, why was he allowed to graduate? As a professed Communist he could not truthfully have sworn allegiance to the Constitution of the United States. Yet he apparently lied and did. His views were known and yet he was permitted to commit perjury.
Third, you write “While we do not compromise standards, we are a developmental institution…” When did West Point become a “developmental institution? What does that even mean? West Point was created in order to furnish standard-setting, career officers for the United States Army. And it did that job well until the latter half of the twentieth century. And it accomplished its mission on an “attritional” and a “zero tolerance” basis. What does “developmental” mean? Maybe it means that a cadet can be caught lying twice, but if he is caught lying a third time, i.e., he has not “developed”, he will be sent before the Honor Board, that may even decide the cadet needs a little more “development” and gives him three more chances. I remember that when I was a plebe, and maybe even my first day, I was made to understand that lying or quibbling was not allowed and would mean rapid dismissal. Maybe “development” means being able to discuss an order given by a superior officer. Rot! Maybe “developmental” means that an upper classman inspecting a plebe in ranks (if such a thing is still tolerated) says “Mister, your shoeshine looks better today than yesterday, but it still needs some work. So, try to do better tomorrow.” Rot!
Fourth, you write, “These changes have increased the realism, toughness, and challenge of our developmental programs, resulting in the most capable and confident young leaders of character that we have ever produced”. This is gratuitously denigrating all previous graduates. Do I need to remind you that previous classes produced leaders that saved this country more than once. Your statement is pure PR. How can you possibly know that the present generation of cadets are “the most capable and confident”? Have you conducted any objective survey? Furthermore, the mission of West Point is not to produce capable and confident second lieutenants. Its mission is to produce the men and women who will lead the Army in the future. They should be trained not to be second lieutenants, but future colonels and general officers. At the 70th Reunion of my class last May you addressed all the reunion classes. I took the opportunity to ask you what was the average recent percentage of graduates who remain in the Army beyond their 5 year commitment. You evaded replying to my question by stating that it was as high as that of ROTC graduates. You seemed to be satisfied with that level. It is not good enough. Graduates of the USMA are meant to set the standards for the discipline and conduct of the personnel in the United States Army. But if a graduate serves only his/her five years, his/her impact on the standards of the Army is minimal to nil.
Fifth, you make a big deal of the ratings various publications give West Point as a university. West Point is not a university. It is a school to train standard-setting, career U.S. Army officers. Incidentally, cadets receive a university-level education. You should care more about how many of the graduates remain for a career in the Army than that such-and such a publication ranks the USMA #? as a liberal arts/engineering/whatever university. The same goes for athletics. Can you tell me that the standards for admission are not today warped/waived in order to bring in a star athlete? Can you tell me that special academic assistance is not given to members of Corps Squads, particularly football Can you tell me that every prospective cadet must take a written exam and, good athlete or not, must pass it in order to be allowed to enter?
Sixth, you make a big deal of having intercollegiate athletic teams with an overall record of .590. So what! West Point was never supposed to be an athletic powerhouse. I don’t believe the MacArthur quote that used to be engraved over the entrance to the gym meant intercollegiate athletics, in which only a small minority of the cadets participate. I believe it referred to intramural athletics. I am all for intramural athletics. I firmly believe that there is too much emphasis placed today on intercollegiate athletics at West Point.
Seventh, you make a big deal about decorations recent graduates have received. What about second lieutenants out of OCS or ROTC? Didn’t they get any? Did they get less ? Maybe, because they weren’t “developed”. Maybe, because they performed less well. Heroism is not a virtue exclusive to West Point. What was once upon a time exclusive was the commitment to graduate standard-setting career officers. This OCS and ROTC do not and cannot do. OCS and ROTC base their standards, or at least they used to, on those of graduates of West Point.
Eighth, you make a big deal that some recent graduates have been assigned to divisions overseas. Where have you been? What’s so uplifting about that? Every member of my class after finishing his branch Officers Basic Course was assigned overseas—everyone. No big deal.
Ninth, I graduated under the previous so-called “attritional” and “zero tolerance“ system (as did all classes up to at least 1966. See Rick Atkinson’s “The Long Gray Line”, the story of the Class of 1966). I “developed” from a boy to a man on my own. Nobody gave a damn whether I “developed”. I was expected from the first day to live up to the standards of the Military Academy. It was up to me in meeting them to “develop” myself. I seriously doubt that any of your “best and brightest” could even have lasted through my plebe year.
Lastly, this letter started because of Second Lieutenant Rapone. Obviously he didn’t “develop” as well as he should have. How many more cadets are being graduated under the “developmental” system who do not come up to what have been the traditional standards of West Point: Duty, Honor, Country? How many cadets are being graduated who have no intention, and never had any intention, of being career Army officers/ I doubt seriously that the American taxpayer would be overjoyed to realize that he/she is paying, what?, a half million dollars to give somebody a university education so that he/she can leave the Army as quickly as possible and go into a money-making civilian career. Although if there are a number of Rapones whom you allow to graduate, it’s in the Army’s interest that they get out fast.
Benjamin L. Landis