海角大神

The plot thickens in the cheating scandals involving nuclear officers in the US military, in which a senior enlisted sailor stepped forward to report an alleged cheating ring to higher authorities because the sailor 鈥渞ecognized that this was wrong.鈥澛�

鈥淭o say that I鈥檓 disappointed would be an understatement,鈥� said Adm. Jonathan Greenert, chief of naval operations. 鈥淚t affects the very basis of our ethos.鈥澛�

The news comes on the heels of reports of Air Force cheating involving nearly one-quarter of its entire force of nuclear missileers.

So why now 鈥� why this sudden spate of cheating allegations within the nuclear forces? And what can the services learn from it?

Unlike Air Force officials, top Navy brass is pushing back against the notion that it is a drive for perfection in testing that has led to the scandal. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 perceive ... that there鈥檚 an element of 鈥榶ou have to get the highest grade,鈥� 鈥� Admiral Greenert added, in a briefing with reporters.聽

But defense analysts aren鈥檛 so sure about that. Within its nuclear realm, the US military has often endeavored to create a 鈥渃ulture of perfection,鈥� says Anthony Cordesman, a defense analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington.

Given that these are deadly nuclear weapons, such a drive for perfection isn鈥檛 too tough to understand. During the height of the cold war, in particular, 鈥淚t wasn鈥檛 simply a matter of nuclear safety,鈥� Dr. Cordesman points out. 鈥淚t was the fact that you were dealing with tens of thousands of nuclear weapons in the hands of enemies and the reaction times were short.鈥澛�

Today, of course, the military is not on a cold-war footing. Navy officials have been quick to note that the Navy's cheating scandal does not involve troops who handle nuclear weapons. They do, however, work with operational nuclear reactors 鈥� in other words, the power plants than run most of the American military鈥檚 large ships and submarines.聽

These have the potential to be dangerous jobs, so it is important that standards be high. Yet the Navy can accomplish this aim and also be realistic without having to be perfect. The problem is that post cold war, it is not clear that the Pentagon has ever reexamined the sorts of standards it had during the hair-trigger days of the cold war.

鈥淵ou always need to set realistic standards. If you don鈥檛 have tests that tell you the truth, you don鈥檛 know when the system is broken,鈥� Cordesman says. 鈥淚n a different world, do you need to redesign the system?鈥�

For example, today there is an 鈥渁wful lot鈥� that can be done automatically and electronically, he adds. 鈥淭hat doesn鈥檛 require everybody to memorize everything in exactly the way it did 10 or 20 years ago.鈥�

Rather than a breakdown in ethics, the series of cheating scandals, Cordesman argues, could instead be 鈥渨arning signs that you have a system that needs modernization and reappraisal.鈥澛�

The Pentagon, for its part, has repeatedly emphasized the ethics of the matter. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has ordered senior DOD leaders to 鈥渢ake a step back and put renewed emphasis on developing moral character and moral courage in our force,鈥� Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby said Wednesday.聽

At the same time, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey is launching efforts 鈥渢o place a renewed emphasis on character development, particularly amongst our officer corps,鈥� Kirby added, during a briefing with Pentagon reporters.聽

The problem, however, is the tendency of 鈥渕ilitary folks to talk about character and integrity as if that鈥檚 the answer to all of your problems,鈥� says Martin Cook, Admiral Stockdale chair of professional military ethics at the US Naval War College in Newport, R.I.

Instead, the key may be to examine the cultural expectations of institutions in question, including nuclear training schools, Dr. Cook says.

In Navy pilot school, for example, it鈥檚 well known that the 鈥渁mbient culture鈥� is 鈥渃ooperate to graduate,鈥� Cook says. 鈥淚f we all share our answers and 鈥榗ooperate to graduate,鈥� then that鈥檚 what most people are going to do. So you shouldn鈥檛 expect most individuals to deviate from that.鈥�

In other words, it will be the rare individual who says 鈥渘o鈥� to that system, Cook points out. This is what top Navy officials say happened in the case of the most recent Navy cheating investigation. The problem, Cook adds, is that 鈥測ou鈥檙e relying on the one rare individual who perceives this thing to be wrong.鈥澛�

Secretary Hagel and others have 鈥渄efaulted to talk about character and integrity, because that鈥檚 what military leaders always do.鈥�

The danger of this emphasis is the failure to question 鈥渘ot just these individuals who fail but what kind of pressure do you put on them and how do ordinary people respond to that?鈥� Cook adds.

If there is a culture of zero tolerance for wrong answers on the test, then that in turn will 鈥渄rive normal human beings to make sure they don鈥檛 get any wrong answers,鈥� Cook says, which could lead to cheating.聽

Indeed, there is much study to suggest that 鈥渋nstitutional morality鈥� has a much greater effect on how people behave than does personal morality.

Cook points to a well-regarded psychology study in which students came into a room and were told to solve as many math problems they could in a fixed amount of time.

They would then grade their own work and pay themselves according to how many correct answers they鈥檇 scored. They were also instructed to tear up and discard their answer sheets when they left, an instruction that was meant to convey the notion that they would be accountable to no one but themselves.

In the default group, most people tended to pay themselves for one or two more problems more than they actually solved. 鈥淢ost people cheat a little,鈥� Cook says.

With another group, researchers added something to the mix: They put an actor in the room who 鈥� shortly after the test begins and in much less time than would have been possible 鈥� announced that he had solved all of the problems, picked up the money, and left the room.

The question was, did the presence of the actor increase or decrease the amount of cheating within the group?

The answer was surprising: It depended on what sweatshirt the actor was wearing.

In one test group at Carnegie Melon, if the actor was wearing a Carnegie Melon sweatshirt (which is where the test subjects went to school) 鈥渃heating went way up,鈥� Cook says.

If the actor was wearing a Pitt sweatshirt (from the school across town) cheating went 鈥渨ay down,鈥� he adds, far below even the default group.

The study鈥檚 conclusion was that the behavior of the group depends in large part 鈥渙n what your team is perceived as accepting.鈥�

The take-home message for the Pentagon, Cook says, is that 鈥渢he military training environment is all about the sweatshirt.鈥�

So, rather than a PowerPoint presentation on the importance of ethics writ large, a discussion of the cultural expectations of the place could prove to be more helpful and impactful, Cook argues. 鈥淚 wonder if someone at the beginning of nuclear power school talks to them about the vital importance of them acquiring this expertise, the dangers of them not getting it, and the need to get this right authentically?鈥�

In other words, 鈥淒o they have a full sense of the moral gravity of the enterprise they鈥檙e engaged in?鈥� he adds. 鈥淚 expect they鈥檙e plowing right into the technical stuff without much of a framing discussion.鈥澛�

What鈥檚 more, 鈥淚t ought to be possible to have a reasonable amount of failure and correction, otherwise people are going to be evasive, right?鈥� Cook says, adding that most learning theory shows that if people score, say, an 80 percent and also get immediate feedback on their errors, they tend to learn 鈥減retty quickly.鈥�

In the meantime, top military officials say they are looking hard for answers. When one reporter asked whether the cheating could be the result of an increased operational tempo (that鈥檚 鈥渙p-tempo鈥� in Pentagon parlance) created by a decade of war, Greenert said he honestly doesn鈥檛 know.

鈥淚f I knew that answer, I would be doing all kinds of things within the Navy,鈥� he noted.聽

That said, 鈥淲e will be very introspective on this,鈥� he added. 鈥淲e will, as I said before, make this very much a case study.鈥�