Bruce Fleming, a 23-year professor of English at the US Naval Academy, publishes a fairly scathing critique of the military academy construct at the New York Times (oddly timed as the Academies host their graduations this week).  He blasts the cost, the apparent lack of unique ability, preferential treatment of football players, the apparent trend of “unofficial affirmative action,” and the “backdoor” for less-qualified students in the preparatory school.

Fleming has long been a commentator on, and largely a critic of, the institution that employs him (and he has received some grief for it).  He questioned the relative value of Academy graduates in 2005, said “people like [Navy Chaplain Klingenschmitt]…have caused more bloodshed than I’d like to think,” has filed a “federal whistleblower’s protection complaint,” and advocates a “strict” separation of church and state.

Some people seem to think the military academies are bastions of self-sustaining conservative ideology.  Quite the opposite is true.  There are several professors (primarily, though not exclusively, civilian) at more than one Academy (primarily, though not exclusively, in the philosophy and English departments) who have advocated, in one way or another, the same ideologies that Fleming has expressed.  Like Fleming, they have served in the Academies for decades, teaching cadets and midshipmen from their particular perspectives (as opposed to military instructors, who most often rotate out after a few years); unlike Fleming, most have done so quietly.

The US military benefits when its officers come from a well-rounded education, which naturally includes liberal arts and opposing viewpoints.  That doesn’t necessarily mean the military is open to receiving public criticism from those within its “ranks.”