The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; West Point Scandals

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. Lawyers for some 200 West Point cadets are going into federal court here in New York tomorrow to quash a plan to dismiss the cadets for one year. The cadets are implicated in a cheating scandal which has caused the biggest disruption in the history of the military academy:Tonight we examine the root of the scandal,the West Point. honor code, why the system of enforcing it apparently broke down, what` part` it plays in training an Army officer. But first, how the present scandal started and grew. Jim?

JIM LEHRER: Robin, the current scandal began when a cadet scribbled the words "I received assistance" on his electrical engineering exam back in March. It was a take-home exam, with the cadets given two weeks to complete it on their own. They were on their honor not to collaborate or consult with one another. Alerted by the cadet`s blunt confession all 823 test papers involved were then checked. 101 were selected out as being suspicious. From those 101, formal cheating charges were lodged against 48 cadets following their appearance before twelve-member boards made up of fellow cadets. Under the system these 48 had two options: to resign or

be expelled. But most of them chose to fight instead. They hired lawyers to go to court and took their cases to the newspapers, the Congress and others. Their basic position was that cheating was widespread under the West Point honor system, and that they were being made scapegoats in a cover-up. There was a further inquiry by the officials at West Point; another 123 cadets were accused of cheating on the engineering exam. In August there were hearings in the House and Senate culminating in the decision by Secretary of the Army Martin Hoffman to modify the resign-or- expulsion option in these particular cases. The accused cadets would be suspended, but then had the right to apply for admission next year. Robin?

MacNEIL: The honor code wasn`t official at West Point until 1922. West Point was founded in 1802. It was pretty much a second-rate school for sons of the wealthy. In 1817, it was taken over by Sylvanus Thayer, and his influence lingers today including his emphasis on iron discipline and his strictures against lying, stealing and irregular and immoral practices. Near the end of the 19th century the cadets formed an ad hoc vigilance committee. Covert honor trials were held during the next 25 years. in 1922 Brigadier General Douglas MacArthur, then West Point Superintendent, created the honor system with an official Cadet Honor Review Committee. The toleration clause, which means that not only will cadets not- lie, cheat or steal themselves but that they will not tolerate such actions in others, was added in 1970. Cheating scandals aren`t new; 90 cadets, including 37 football players, were tossed out in 1951, and 42 cadets left under a cloud in 1966. The West Point honor code is a full-time concern for Colonel Hal Rhyne. Until recently, Colonel Rhyne was Deputy Commandant for the U.S. Military Academy; he`s now Special Assistant to the Commandant for Honor, a unique position in West Point history.

Colonel, obviously you`ve got major problems to handle. What, in your view, is wrong? Is it the weakness of a certain group of cadets, or the system?

HAL RHYNE: Well, I think we have both, Robin, that we have to deal with and that we are beginning to deal with. I`d like to put a part of this in perspective by saying that right now what we have are 103 cadets who have been found guilty of having made the choice, as free moral agents, to cheat on a take home study problem. That has been supplemented now by an additional -- to take it up to 151 -- cadets who either have been found guilty or resigned. Out of that 151,.I`d like to point out that predominantly they fall into five companies within the corps cadets, the corps being divided into 36 companies of about 110 in each company. And we find that 40 percent of the individuals involved at this stage in fact come from 14 percent of the corps cadets. So I don`t see it as a total systemic failure; however, there certainly are systemic problems with which we must deal.

MacNEIL: Now, you`ve been making some changes to deal with these problems. Could you tell us briefly what they are?

RHYNE: Nell, I would start by saying that one is the appointment of my position, which will be as Special Assistant to the Commandant for Honor Matters -- the first time at the Military Academy that we`ve had an individual who will be able fulltime to deal with honor matters and to guide, advise and counsel the Honor Committee. Secondly, the Honor Committee itself is beginning to look at some changes and particularly within the system. The honor code itself, I believe, is timeless, and I see no need, nor do I see any move at all at the Academy or elsewhere to change the honor code. Systemic changes are being looked at, and I think especially the idea that we have a single sanction of separation, which has been addressed by the Cadet Honor Committee and will be presented to the corps cadets by referendum later this fall.

MacNEIL: Yes, that`s the thing that Secretary Hoffman has addressed-himself to in suggesting a compromise position, that some of the people involved in the present scandal be separated for only a year, and then be accepted back. But I was thinking of other changes...isn`t it true that you have reduced or removed take-home examinations, which were the sort of precipitate cause in this particular scandal?

RHYNE: That`s not quite a correct statement. The Academic Board did review academic procedures and did, in fact, change the rules on collaboration recently, which -- in the interest of open and intellectual discussions -- now will allow a cadet to freely discuss with any other cadet any knowledge that he so desires, as long as he acknowledges that. However, there will still be take home projects. It`s just now that the cadet must acknowledge what sources he uses in order to solve that requirement.

MacNEIL: So is it your view that the system basically is sound but needs some adjustment, or the system itself is much less than sound and needs wholesale or radical adjustment?

RHYNE: I don`t believe it needs radical adjustment; we certainly have a problem -- a serious problem within the corps cadets, but I do not see radical adjustment within the system in order to solve this problem.

MacNEIL: Thank you, Colonel. Jim?

LEHRER: Senator Dewey Bartlett is -a Republican from Oklahoma. He is a member of the Manpower and Personnel Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee; Senator Bartlett is also on the U.S. Military Academy Board of Visitors. Senator, you sat through the hearings on this subject, you`ve written the Secretary of Army about it, you`ve been very concerned about it, you just heard what Colonel Rhyne said, which was in his opinion, this is not caused by a failure of the system. What`s your view?

DEWEY BARTLETT: I believe, Jim, that the system has very definitely failed. I think it`s very clear that the number of violations are high -- the Colonel said that there were 153 who have been found guilty or who have resigned rather than face a review board of officers. Also.-there are some 500 additional violators alleged to have violated the honor system, and these are in, as I understand it, all 36 of the companies at West Point. But the main reason that I say that the system has failed is that with all the violations and alleged violations there hasn`t been one cadet report another cadet for an honor violation.

LEHRER: And that is one of the hallmarks of the system, that`s what is supposed to make the system work.

BARTLETT: Yes. For any honor system in any college or any one of the academies to work, it is predicated upon the responsibility of every single cadet to report an honor violation. Now, they aren`t reporting them, presumably, as testimony before us indicated, because the cadets feel that in many, many cases expulsion is too much of a penalty for the violations they observed.

LEHRER: Are the reforms that the Colonel just outlined enough, do you think, to correct the deficiencies in the system?

BARTLETT: No, I don`t think so at all. I think it`s very important that there be discretion in an honor system...

LEHRER: Based on the severity of the crime alleged, right?

BARTLETT: Yes, that there be alternate penalties for example, I think a person who reports himself should not be expelled.

LEHRER: But under the system now, the man who wrote that on the bottom of his exam -- who started this all -- could have been immediately subject to expulsion, right?

BARTLETT: Yes, he should have been found guilty and subject to expulsion.

LEHRER: Well, do you think that, having listened to Colonel Rhyne and the exchange of letters and comments that you have had -- conversations you`ve had with the Secretary of Army and others do you believe that the Academy has faced up to what you consider to be a failure in their system up there?

BARTLETT: Let me say I think they`ve tried, and I think they have a very difficult job because I think there`s a tremendous tradition and a lot of support for the honor system. I think many people confuse the honor system with the honor code. I agree with what the Colonel said about the honor code being absolute; truth is certainly absolute. But the honor system itself is not absolute.

LEHRER: The system that reinforces the code.

BARTLETT: Right. I think the system obviously has many areas in it that are very weak, and unless there is conclusive evidence that the overwhelming majority of the cadets practically all of them support an honor system, it`s not going to work. And there is nothing to indicate that they have done that, because in every violation there hasn`t been one single cadet report another one. And so it has failed. And I think it`s important that those in charge at West Point and the Secretary of the Army make that determination. Now, I think in a sense General Barry has,-without saying so; he said recently that he called upon all the supporters of West Point to work together to create a healthy and effective honor system. Obviously he`s saying, in a sense, that right now it`s sick and ineffective, and certainly it is. But I think it`s important to start on the premise that the honor system has failed, because the honor system must promote honor and not promote dishonor, as I think it has.

LEHRER: Thank you, Senator. Robert Moore is an Assistant Professor of History at the University of Maryland. He is the co-author of School for Soldiers: West Point and the Profession of Arms. Dr. Moore was a captain in the army and has served on the West Point faculty. Dr. Moore, what`s your opinion, bad people or a bad system that`s caused this?

ROBERT MOORE: I think primarily the fault is with the system and also with the Academy and with the leadership at the Academy in that they did not anticipate this matter arising sooner than they did. There were a number of reports, including our book, School for Soldiers, and the Buckley report.

LEHRER: You predicted it in your book, did you not?

MOORE: We did, I regret to say, and we predicted it really on the basis of what we took to be a predominant cadet attitude, an attitude of cynicism toward various systems at West Point; and Mike Ivy and I have recently talked about this, and I`m sure he`ll talk about it -- and that is the temptation on the part of cadets to beat the systems, and the honor system tends to be conceived of as one of the West Point systems which regulates behavior and therefore is something to be beaten; and that kind of spirit has been pervasive at West Point in recent years, and I think that`s a serious problem that hasn`t been sufficiently addressed.

LEHRER: You don`t think that the -- here again, to repeat the question I asked the Senator, going back to Colonel Rhyne`s initial comments to Robin -- do you believe that what the Academy has done thus far to correct this particular situation is enough?

MOORE: No, I don`t, and I`m very much in agreement with the thrust of Senator Bartlett`s observations because the problem is that they can`t acknowledge, I think, in a candid and forthright enough way their own accountability for the difficulties that have arisen. And that`s-a difficult thing for a highly partisan, proud institution to do to admit, "Gee, fellas,-we have established patterns here which are very detrimental to our own welfare and we really need to change them;" that`s a very difficult thing to do, and they just haven`t been able to do it and I think it`s a shame.

LEHRER: You were there as a member of the faculty, you`ve done much research up there; since then you`ve stayed in contact with both faculty and cadets at West Point. And this attitude of cynicism -- now how would you characterize the attitude of the average cadet toward the honor system as it now functions?

MOORE: That`s a very interesting question because I think the main attitude that they have is a tenacious belief in the mystique of the honor system, and they like very much the notion that...

LEHRER: The code or the system?

MOORE: The code, really -- that was a slip on my part, which is why talking about this sometimes can be so difficult. The code -- but the system, too; they`re now defending the system, I think, in a reflexive way more than it really merits, so that the observations that Senator Bartlett made I think most people at West Point would take violent exception to because they don`t want to face up to the difficulties they`ve got. And the mystique that West Pointers operate under and are used to operating under -- that they have a peculiarly high level of honor -- is something that they: don`t want to willingly give UP, so they take the attack on the system as being an attack on the mystique which it is not necessarily.

LEHRER: Then the cadet feels this as much as the officials, etcetera?

MOORE: Oh, the cadets are sometimes more tenacious about it than the officers, because the officers usually have been out in the regular Army and know that in the regular Army an honor code like West Point`s honor code simply is not in operation. And that`s again one of the problems -- that the West Pointers are trained in an honor code which is not, unfortunately, applicable to the real world or, the real Army; and that`s a tremendous problem. I think: the honor system should be seen -- or rather, the honor code -- more as a goal to be sought, rather than an ideal that can be actually realized on a day-to-day basis in every manner of your day- to-day activities.

LEHRER: Let`s see how the man you mentioned a moment ago feels about it. Robin?

MacNEIL: He is Cadet Michael ivy, a member of the West Point class of 1977, and therefore moves into that real Army Mr. Moore was talking about next year; and he is Chairman of the 1977 Honor Committee at West Point. Well, now, to put you on the spot, Michael, first of all, Mr. Moore has said that there`s a prevailing attitude of cynicism and an attitude of beating the system among the cadet corps at the Academy about the honor code. Is that correct, do you believe?

MICHAEL IVY: Sir, I think it`s correct on the part of some cadets; I would not broaden it to say it-Is a general attitude. many cadets look at regulations as a group of rules and as such, there are ways to get around the rules. Some cadets look at the academic system that way, and as such there are ways to get around the academic system; and undoubtedly this must also creep into the honor system. However, I would not generalize and say that this is a common attitude throughout the corps of cadets -- I would not go that far.

MacNEIL: Do you think Mr. Moore exaggerates how common it is?

IVY: Yes, sir, I do.

MacNEIL: He also said that -- I`m sorry, Senator Bartlett said -- that in the present scandal, so-called, not one cadet had come forward and reported on another cadet cheating, and said that that was evidence that the honor system was not working. What is your comment on that as the Chairman of the Honor Committee this year?

IVY: I believe that Senator Bartlett is correct in that comment. My remark to that is that we have small groups of honor code violators here, groups of threes and fours, that violated the honor code together. Certainly they`re not going to come out and say, "He violated the honor code;" it would implicate themselves. And as long as they kept it in these small groups -- as they generally are -- I can see how this could occur. As Colonel Rhyne mentioned, there are companies that are practically untouched throughout the whole incident; there has been nobody to report, and I think that`s important also.

MaCNEIL: But Senator Bartlett also said, and this is so far backed up by these affidavits which have been presented to various members of Congress and are going to be presented to the Honor Committee of West Point! I believe, on Friday, alleging, as he said, that some 500 other cadets were guilty of cheating, or violating the honor code. Now, would it surprise you that the numbers were larger than the numbers who have actually been identified and that it reached into other companies in the 36. Because the Senator said it stretched through all 36 companies, according to these allegations.

IVY: It would surprise me if it were broadened a great deal. Let`s put these affidavits into perspective -- however many are named. We receive about 200 allegations a year as an honor committee. Out of those 200 allegations, usually fewer than 20 are found guilty. So this represents less than ten percent of the allegations we receive. And until there is substantial evidence that would substantiate an allegation on an affidavit, I want to assume good faith; and I don`t believe that we have 500 more cadets in the corps that are guilty of honor violations.

MacNEIL: You do not. Okay, Jim?

LEHRER: First of all, I`d like to come back to Colonel Rhyne and ask the Colonel what you would like to say in response to the comments from both the Senator and Dr. Moore that your honor system up there is a failure?

RHMTE: Jim, let me comment on a couple of things, first, that Senator Bartlett made. I think the idea of interpreting the Superintendent`s remarks that imply that he is saying the system is sick I think is not really the intent of that letter at all. Do we have a problem? Certainly we have a problem at West Point. And certainly I can agree with Senator Bartlett when he says that people have not, in fact, stepped forward under the non-toleration clause of the code and reported violations as they are required to do. And certainly we have had,-- and I would accept on theory before this had happened that the only way an incident of this magnitude could occur would be that there would have to be considerable non- toleration, or lack of reporting of incidents that were observed by other cadets. But I still believe that this is not indicative that the total system is sick at West Point; I believe there still is a healthy base upon which we can build, and I go back to what I said before -- that 40 percent of these come out of five-companies. There are five companies that I can balance on the other end of that that have had no cadets found guilty. If and when we do get the affidavits we will investigate them thoroughly; perhaps at that time, as Senator Bartlett has said, all 36 companies will be involved. He has the advantage, perhaps that he has seen the affidavits -- we at the Academy have not been allowed to see them.

LEHRER: Senator Bartlett, you have a unique opportunity here to tell Colonel Rhyne what your view is in terms of what should be done to change the system if it`s sick, if it`s a failure, as you say; give the Colonel the benefit of your suggestions.

BARTLETT: I feel the very important thing, and a very difficult challenge facing the cadets and facing the administration at West Point is to be able to assure the general public that the near system, or the system that will be followed in the future, if there is an honor system -- and I presume there will be -- will work; in other words, that the cadets will support it, that they drill report violators. Without this there-is no opportunity, of no chance that you can expect the system to work. I think we need to, in reviewing the past, point out that we only talk about the known violations; we don`t talk about those who have cheated and gotten away with it. And there is no way to estimate what that might be, but I think that the people are going to demand that the cadets come up with a system that will be submitted and approved and one that will appear to work, one that will have support of the cadets; and it`s obvious that the cadets do not support the present system in overwhelming numbers.

LEHRER: Dr. Moore, what is your suggestion for a way to reform the system?

MOORE: I`d like to clarify something real quickly first. First of all, I didn`t mean to suggest what Robin quoted me as saying, that there is a pervasive sense of cynicism toward the honor system. I don`t think that`s true, but there is a pervasive sense at West Point of beating systems; and the honor system has come to be, as Mike knows, one of the systems that cadets tend to try to beat and that is what was going on this one exam. I think there are two things that need to happen in the honor system to make it a much stronger system: to recognize, first of all, that there are various kinds and levels of violations and it would be my preference to see the system incorporate intermediate penalties for various kinds of violations. Now, I know there are lots of people at West Point who don`t agree with that: and I think Mike Ivy might be one of those....

LEHRER: Let`s find out. Mike Ivy, do you agree with that?

IVY: I believe there should be some intermediate form of punishment. The Honor Committee is currently working on a proposal that we will go to the corps with sometime this fall and see how the corps feels about punishments other than separation for violation of the honor code. I think this must come from within the corps -- as Senator Bartlett says, this will be an excellent opportunity for the corps to demonstrate its support for the code and a change in the system that is probably necessary.

LEHRER: Robin?

MacNEIL: I`d like to ask about this toleration clause. It was only introduced in 1970. This is the clause that says, in effect, you don`t tolerate somebody else violating the code; therefore, if you see them doing it or know of them doing it, you report them. Several people have pointed out, nobody has reported. Now, I don`t understand why if the toleration clause was not necessary before 1970, it is necessary now, and how it contributes to building a sense of honor to require young people to do something which in our whole western culture is considered dishonorable, and that is to inform on their fellows. Now, could either of you explain to me why that is necessary and should that be changed because the cadets are not following it?

JUNE: Let me comment on that, Robin. First of all, when we use the 1970 date, that`s a very misleading date. Non-toleration has been a part of the code at the Academy, just as it is at the Air Force Academy, since about the turn of the century. It has not been written formally into the code, and in the research I`ve done on why, in 1970, it was written as a formal part of the code, I can only find that it apparently was just an administrative action to recognize what had been tradition and practice for about the last 70 years, when it was put in. Why is non-toleration included within the code? I think there are two reasons. I think first of all that this is the part of the code that really makes it the cadet honor code, because it gets the cadet involved on a daily basis, it makes him recognize that he, above all else, must value the code, that he or she must be the one who, in fact, enforces and polices that code; plus, it teaches them as they go through this four years that there is a greater loyalty to friendship. And of course,-to go back to another point here in terms of institutional culpability, which Dr. Moore brought up that I think the Boerman panel, when it comes to West Point, will certainly establish it; I`ve recognized, as I think the Secretary and the Superintendent have recognized, that certainly there1s institutional difficulty here in our failing to perhaps properly educate cadets over the last number of years, and particularly into the non-toleration aspects of the code which, to me, is one of the most essential parts of the code, if it is going to work.

MacNEIL: Doesn`t it come out to this, from what we`ve heard this evening that the cadets have, for several years, been boycotting the non-toleration aspect of the code? If they have not, voluntarily, been coming forward to report violations, they have decided among themselves, for their own reasons, that that is not what ;they grant to do.

IVY: I don`t think the cadets have been boycotting it. As I said earlier, we receive 200 reports each year, of which some fall out to be just misunderstandings. But nevertheless, cadets are coming forward and cadets are saying "14y good friend," "My roommate," "14y classmate has done something that I think is in violation of the honor code." And they`re not just sitting back and saying, "Well, he`s my good friend, so I`ll ignore it this time."

MacNEIL: I see. Would you like to predict, either of you gentlemen in Washington; very briefly, whether this system is going to survive -- the honor code as it is now; Senator, do you think it will, or do you think it`s anachronistic?

BARTLETT. I think it`s up to the leadership at West Point and the cadets. I think in the first place I feel that right now, with the intervention of the Secretary of the Army, and his having, in a sense, his system of honor, that he should modify it so that it would have some flexibility and discretion and multiple sanction or penalties, because if this is good for the future, which practically all of our testimony has indicated, it certainly would -that`s the only way to achieve fairness and justice.

MacNEIL : We have to leave it there f I`m afraid, gentlemen. Thank you very much indeed, and we`ll watch with great interest how it turns out. Jim Lehrer and. I will be back tomorrow evening.

I`m Robert MacNeil. Good night.