I think now you're just trying to piss me off. The anecdote was offered for this:I guess I misunderstood the story. It sounded like they were both stripped of their chance to play in the NFL (and forced instead to become Officers) because of this incident. I'm still not sure what kind of sense that makes, but I'll go with it.
I'll answer that with another question. "Was I ever specifically ordered not to hook up with an underclassman?" - No. Let's compare apples to apples. It doesn't matter who I hooked up with. I hadn't taken the grand oath. As the saying goes, where much is given...
What I was referring to with your anecdote is the irony that the Navy was willing to let these guys go and be civilians until their "indiscretions" came to light. Then they deemed them unworthy of civilian status and forced them to take commissions. That still makes no sense to me.
I have no idea what a Black N is. Again, my gripe with your story was not that those guys were forgiven for their transgressions and commissioned. It was that your story is almost the polar opposite of what is currently happening. The current situation, as I understand it, is about not kicking someone out with multiple offenses and allowing him to remain a mid. I understood that your story was about not allowing the guys (I'm not sure why both of them are mentioned if only one screwed up) to voluntarily turn down a commission - because they screwed up.
I agree whole-heartedly with you. That is a long way of saying what I just said - Warfighters and Leaders. My "beef" is that I don't feel, reading the current stories, that the current guy has shown any of those qualities or any potential to develop them. So what is the justification for keeping him around with the afore-mentioned mission of the Academy?
I offered an example of something that the Supe had decided upon, but changed his mind after media attention. You're trying to turn it into an example of why should the guy be commissioned? Following simple logic (something you had to have picked up at a state school, or at flight school in the least), the Supe changed his mind - those guys were commissioned. The Supe could change his mind, and the guy in the OP could get kicked out. Does that make enough sense?For those experienced with crap like this from the boat school, do you think that this media attention and outcry from fellow students will have this overturned?
I've never said keep the guy around. I said get rid of him, and offered an example of when the Supe changed his mind under media pressure. In case you didn't notice, his entire CoC wants him gone, and I already said I don't agree with the current Supe.Again I apologize. In my zeal to offend Academy grads and rile one up, I have offended Academy grads and riled one up. My intentions were nothing less than treacherous, I assure you. I never said that the Academy does not produce fine officers. What I'm asking is this: At a normal college, they can let their athletes get away with pretty much anything because the worst that can happen, really, is that they give some undeserving guy a BA in Physical Education or some such nonsense. For the Academy, who's specific mission is to produce Warfighters and Leaders - or all those other words you used to say the same thing - what is the justification of keeping a guy like the current one around? I mean, it seems to me that giving him a commission in 2 1/2 years - which if I'm not mistaken is the only alternative to kicking him out - is much worse than just giving him a degree.
Hopefully that clarifies my position somewhat.
Actually, the worse that can happen from a state school is that they can get a shitty degree, play in the NFL and be implicated in a murder, dog fighting, drugs, etc...