Colonel Who Reported Communist Cadet Slams West Point Leadership

The following was written in 2010. Though this was written about medical students and doctors, the premise applies just as well to the Military Academies and their products as well.

Bad apples spoil the barrel: Addressing unprofessional behaviour.
Format: Abstract
Med Teach. 2010;32(11):891-8. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2010.497823.
Bad apples spoil the barrel: Addressing unprofessional behaviour.
van Mook WN (1), Gorter SL, De Grave WS, van Luijk SJ, Wass V, Zwaveling JH, Schuwirth LW, Van Der Vleuten CP.
Author information
1 - Department of Intensive Care, Maastricht University Medical Centre, P. Debeijelaan 25, 6202 AZ Maastricht, The Netherlands. [login to see]

Abstract
Given the changes in society we are experiencing, the increasing focus on patient-centred care and acknowledgement that medical education including professionalism issues needs to continue not only in the residency programmes but also throughout the doctors career, is not surprising. Although most of the literature on professionalism pertains to learning and teaching professionalism issues, addressing unprofessional behaviour and related patient safety issues forms an alternative or perhaps complementary approach. This article describes the possibility of selecting applicants for a medical school based on personality characteristics, the attention to professional lapses in contemporary undergraduate training, as well as the magnitude, aetiology, surveillance and methods of dealing with reports of unprofessional behaviour in postgraduate education and CME.
PMID: 21039099 DOI: 10.3109/0142159X.2010.497823

I am quite sure that the premise of selecting cadets to attend our (not just yours) military service academies was based on personality characteristics, and were weeded out on the same basis. With all of the recent excuses supporting ill-conceived (at best) behavior, is there really any wonder that soldiers and the general public are losing confidence in our institutions. And believing that the standards that are professed by those institutions are not being upheld.

The idiom "One rotten (or bad) apple spoils the barrel" maybe a cliché, but it is also an axiom.

SSG Robert Webster - it may or may not apply since everybody assigned at USMA including cadets is subject to UCMJ and Federal law which is not the case at many medical higher learning institutions.
Instructors at USMA are selected based on merit and can be reassigned fro cause.
USMA Cadets [USNA Midshipmen, USCG midshipmen and USAFA cadets] are selected based on appointment by US Congressmen and women, the POTUS, children of Medal of honor recipients, and direct appointments.
The whole person standard is used which takes into consideration academic standing, physical conditioning, volunteer demonstrations and a assessment of why the individual wants to attend.
When I was accepted at USMA [1976], homosexuality, drug use and communist party membership along with terrorist afflation, were prohibited. Terrorism is still prohibited but homosexuality certainly isn't. I am not sure whet the views are on communism currently. However designs on overthrowing the government have always been prohibited at all academies.
FYI LTC Orlando Illi MSgt Robert C Aldi Capt Jeff S. CPT Jack Durish SFC Stephen King LTC Stephen C. LTC Ivan Raiklin, Esq. SGT Gregory Lawritson Cpl Craig Marton Maj Bill Smith, Ph.D. Capt Seid Waddell

LTC Stephen F. - How does it not apply at USMA or any other service academy?
The factors that you illustrate your comment with actually support my contention.

And if we want to point out the differences about when something changed and try to educate someone on those factors, it would behoove the individual to check themselves.

Let's see, I enlisted in the Army in January 1976 and shipped the same day to Basic Training. So I do know and still understand what was and was not prohibited. (It even says so in my enlistment contract.)
As far as the 'whole person' concept goes, I am pretty sure I understood and still understand it today. From the period when I was a JROTC instructor, I assisted a number of individuals with attaining academy nominations/ (1 - USMMA) and ROTC scholarships. Plus, the 'whole person' concept was supposed to be used for promotion recommendations etc., then as it is supposed to be now (I am quite sure that the current NCOER came about because the 'whole person' concept was not being properly applied). And with that being said, I am quite sure that I know what the basic admission and acceptance criteria is for the military academies.

With all of that being said, it still does not explain what appears to be (now) a systemic problem. The signs are there and we (all of us) have seen the results. We may not agree on what happened for it to come to this point, but I can tell you that this should not have occurred, and would not have occurred IF the 'whole person' concept had been used and used equally across the board.

And as far as the 'bad apple' axiom goes, if you did not see it in the US Army during your 4 years at the USMA or see it in the first 2 years after graduation, I would be greatly surprised.

SSG Robert Webster - I enlisted in November 1974, was accepted to USMA, West Point in July, 1976 and left the military in May 2008.
I ran into "bad apples" as an enlisted man and was considered to be a "bad apple" at USMAPS by my company Tactical NCO who let me know as far as he was concerned I had no hope of being a USMA cadet let alone an officer.
I ran with a rough crowd at USMA; but, there were no bad apples who graduated.
We had a typical attrition rate for our USMA class - 1,460 or so started and 913 graduated.
I experienced bad apples after West Point - enlisted, NCO [E-6 to E-8] and commissioned officers [01-07] - some were disciplined and some were not.