Rempt-Rape at the U.S. Naval AcademyÓ


Dr. Gerald L. Atkinson

Copyright 31 January 2007

The Duke Rape Case

As reported on CBS’ ‘Sixty Minutes’ broadcast Sunday (1/14/07), we learned of the gross abuse of prosecutorial power in the Duke rape case. The nation now knows that Durham District Attorney Michael B. Nifong indicted three Duke University lacrosse players last April without any corroborative evidence. The only ‘evidence’ was the testimony – conflicted and oft-changed – of the accuser, an escort service ‘stripper’ who performed at a team party. Her testimony has been challenged by the other black female stripper (interviewed on a prior ‘Sixty Minutes’ program) performing that night. DNA from five men was found on specimens from the accuser’s underpants, vagina, and rectum – but none of it belonged to the three defendants. Nifong knew this before he indicted the trio and conspired with the director of the testing laboratory to conceal this exculpatory evidence from both the defense attorneys and the judge.

The Washington Times reported (‘The gong for Nifong,’ 1/18/07) that, “Nifong’s reason for pursuing such a flimsy case seems clear. The electorate in Durham is more than 40 percent black. At the time the accusation was made, he was trailing in the Democratic primary to a woman he once fired. If he lost, it was unlikely the winner would keep him on, and his pension has not yet vested.” After the demagogic uproar by local NAACP officials, aided by Jesse Jackson’s howls of outrage on national television and public vilification of the three accused by 88 faculty members and the president of Duke University, Nifong won the election. His career meant much more to him than justice.

All of the sordid details of this embarrassing miscarriage of justice are available on K.C. Johnson’s Durham Wonderland webpage at : He is a professor of history at Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center. He has tenaciously gathered information on the 88 radical feminist ‘howlers’ on the faculty at Duke and has reported on other interested parties who have attended the hearings in the case.

After it had become clear that Nifong’s case was falling apart, the parents of the accused appeared on national television to tell their sons’ side of the story – their absolute and complete innocence – and the fact that Nifong faces a hearing before the North Carolina bar association that could result in his disbarment, Nifong ceded the case to the State District Attorneys Office. But the parents are not going to take this egregious assault on their innocent sons’ character lying down. They vow to take legal action against Nifong that will “haunt him for the rest of his life” – just as his faux prosecution of their sons will haunt them for the rest of their lives. The parents are unsure whether or not to return their sons to Duke University even though invited back by the Duke president. As a result of the national attention to this disgrace, applications to Duke have fallen 20 percent for the coming academic year.

The Washington Times also reported [1] that a new verb has been coined, to ‘nifong.’ It is a synonym for ‘to frame.’ Others have coined the definition [2]. “We can ‘Nifong’ someone when we want to trump up criminal charges based on flimsy evidence allegedly for political purposes. In short, when we want to screw up someone’s life.” When the moment calls for activities that need no elaboration, we already ‘Bobbitt,’ ‘Bork,’ or ‘Lewinsky.’ Now we can also ‘Nifong.’ As we will see below, we will also be able to ‘Rempt-Rape.’

While the Washington Times drew parallels between the prosecution of the innocents in the Duke Rape Case with that of I. Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby in Washington, D.C., there is a closer, tighter, and much more important parallel with the false rape allegations by a character-challenged female midshipman on Midshipman Lamar Owens, a star quarterback on the 2005 football team who has still not graduated with his class in May 2006 [3]. While the Owens’ case has many similarities with the Duke case, his is even more egregious because it reveals a pervasive, systemic application of absolute power by Superintendents at the U.S. Naval Academy in carrying out the agenda of the nation’s radical feminist movement. And it has not drawn the same sense of outrage across America as has the Duke Case. The Superintendent, VADM Rodney Rempt, has not been brought to justice at the Academy as is Michael Nifong in North Carolina. Thus, ‘Rempt-rape’ is occurring in the Owens’ case and few know about it and even fewer care about it.

Rempt-Rape at the U.S. Naval Academy

The story is one of ‘ticket punching careerism’ taking precedence over justice. It has, however, happened before at the Academy and we all just looked away. The leadership is cancerous at the top of the U.S. Naval Academy. And if it is not corrected soon, that venerable institution will be seen as unworthy of support and funding by an America that sees its dissolution, decay, and lack of focus on its primary mission – training the core combat leadership of the U.S. Navy. Take a look at the evidence.

I wrote extensively in FORUM articles for the Washington Times on this subject during the late 1990s. An article (‘Academy politics and consequences,’ 2/21/99) describes the case [4] of Midshipman Michael Pilson, Jr., which parallels that of Midshipman Owens. Pilson was expelled for having consensual sex with a female midshipman who was allowed to graduate. Midshipman Owens is awaiting an administrative decision by the Navy on whether or not to follow the Pilson precedent.

Both were accused of and subsequently exonerated in courts martial proceedings on charges of rape. Each was invited by his accuser to come to the female’s unmonitored co-ed dormitory room for the purpose of having sex. In both cases, alcohol was involved. At the time of Midshipman Pilson’s case, I wondered publicly ‘Why does the U.S. Naval Academy Serve Radical Feminism?’ It was obvious that cases of favoritism for females at the Naval Academy would lead a rational observer to wonder whether or not affirmative action has gone terribly awry at the Navy’s premiere educational institution.

In the intervening years it has become apparent that the situation has deteriorated even further. The brazen miscarriage of justice in the Owens case shows just how far the Looming American Matriarchy has penetrated the Academy under the near absolute power that a Superintendent invokes to further his career goals.

VADM Rodney P. Rempt, at the behest of radical feminist organizations across the country, court martialed Midshipman Owens on a rape charge while concurrently publicly announcing Owens’ guilt in four Emails [5] to more than 200 commissioned officers who serve as faculty and staff members at the Academy, all of whom could have served on the jury panel – as well as students and alumni [6]. The Emails at times dropped the word, ‘alleged,’ when referring to the ‘victim of sexual assault,’ and spoke of ‘teamwork’ needed to stamp out sexual harassment.

The military judge at the pretrial hearing reprimanded VADM Rempt for attempting to bias the proceeding against the defendant and give the blood-thirsty feminists another victory. The judge concluded that there was an ‘appearance of unlawful command influence’ in the case. In fact, the judge declared that ‘This is almost trial by public policy, trial by press release.’

Thus, the Naval Academy rape case started from its beginning to mirror the Duke Lacrosse rape case where three innocent team members were publicly ‘nifonged’ by the Durham District Attorney and Midshipman Lamar Owens was Rempt-raped by VADM Rodney Rempt. That is, one is Rempt-Raped when his name, honor, character, and future have been maliciously destroyed by a male or female agent of the radical feminist matriarchy — a superior officer whose position and power is used to further his or her career at the expense of justice in a case of a false sexual accusation by a female.

In addition, VADM Rempt immediately gave the alleged victim and supporting female witnesses complete immunity [7] for any and all violations of Academy rules, including underage drinking, in return for their testimony against Midshipman Owens. Charles Gittins, a renowned defense attorney for previous such cases but not active in defense of Owens, explained publicly that [8] “ADM Rempt is running scared. He has been under pressure from the board [of Directors of the Academy] and [other] feminist organizations [nationwide].” As in the Duke Rape Case, only the male(s) would have his (their) name(s) publicly associated with a rape charge, Midshipman Owens’ name was made public, but the alleged victim’s name was not. This patently unfair practice by the media is universally supported by the radical feminists and their supporters across the land.

The 20-year-old midshipman testified that she was raped [9] in the early morning hours of January 29, 2006 after she had been drinking heavily with friends at an Annapolis bar. She consumed at least eight drinks, including four shots, before leaving the bar near closing time. Owens was not among those in her drinking party.

Testimony during the trial brought out the fact that the alleged victim had a ‘serious drinking problem [10], regularly going on binges and blacking out. And as she drank she became very aggressive with guys. Several male midshipmen testified [11] that they repeatedly saw the female midshipman drinking and drunk, in bars in Annapolis. ‘She was usually very drunk, testified one witness, who had seen the woman about midnight Jan. 28 in the Acme Bar & Grill. That night, ‘she had a drink in her hand. She was drunk…swaying back and forth.’ Another witness said the woman walked up to another midshipman and ‘put her face close to his. He tried to get away from her. Another witness testified that he also saw the woman that night and that ‘she seemed to be intoxicated’ when she walked up, grabbed his shirt to get his attention and asked ‘why I hadn’t called her back.’ ‘She left and came back in five or seven minutes,’ the witness said. She again asked why he had not called before walking away. ‘That happened over five times,’ he testified. ‘She was overly friendly,’ testified another midshipman, who also played on the Naval Academy’s football team. One male midshipman testified [12] that the woman ‘became flirtatious and socially aggressive’ when she was drunk. Another Naval Academy graduate testified that she, while drunk, offered to give him a lap dance and then cursed him out when he declined.

Another football player midshipman recounted how he and another male midshipman helped the woman [13] to her room that night. He described how the woman tried to drink through a straw at the bar, dozed off and later told him off when he told her to stop drinking before she went outside and sat on the curb until a cab arrived. At the gate of the Naval Academy, he and another midshipman helped walk the woman to her dorm room. ‘She had her left arm around my shoulders, and her right arm around his shoulder,’ he said. ‘There was a lot of giggling. She fell down and was laughing.’

The alleged victim testified [14] that she did not remember many details of the evening, including leaving the bar. After the bar closed, she telephoned her boyfriend, another midshipman, and asked him to walk her back to her room at Bancroft Hall. Back in the room, she slapped her boyfriend, and he returned to his room. At about 3:40 a.m. the woman sent a series of badly spelled instant messages from her desktop computer to her boyfriend, asking him to come back and saying she wanted ‘to cuddle.’

‘But you slapped me,’ he replied. He repeatedly urged her to go to sleep. ‘You’re going to have to wait, sorry,’ he wrote. The woman subsequently sent instant messages to Owens. She invited him to her room, and he went. Owens ‘found her at the computer’ when he entered the room and the two started having consensual sex (according to Owens) but stopped abruptly. She says she was raped. He said he had engaged in consensual ‘sex gone bad.’ Under questioning, the woman said she did not call to her roommate, who was asleep in the next bunk, or call for help from other midshipmen who serve as guards in the dorm.

Under defense questioning, the woman testified that someone closed out the instant message window on her computer shortly after the incident, leaving the messages irretrievable. The woman testified that she did not know who had closed the computer window but that she could not exclude the possibility that it was her or her boyfriend.

On February 8, ten days after the event, the female midshipman conspired [15] with an NCIS agent to secretly [16] record a telephone conversation between her and Midshipman Owens. She was aided by the agent [17] who scripted [18] language that might incriminate him. For example, ‘Why don’t you call my dad and tell him you raped his daughter? He did not bite on this line of conversation and never replied with the word, ‘rape.’ His tearful, apologetic conversation was replayed at the trial. The prosecution attempted to use the tape to show that Midshipman Owens had incriminated himself. It did not work.

A nurse who examined [19] the woman a few days after the incident said that the woman showed no physical signs of rape when she conducted a rape kit exam. The military judge criticized [20] the prosecution’s case on several occasions, questioning the qualifications of one of its expert witnesses and saying the defense had taken the alleged victim’s testimony apart ‘like a Swiss watch.’ The most devastating blow, however, to the conduct of the case came during the prosecution’s closing statement, when the judge told the jury that prosecutors had misrepresented a witness’ statement that the woman had said, “I have been raped.” After checking the court transcript, the military judge determined that the prosecutors had made a ‘grave error.’ There was no such statement.

Five months after he was cleared of the rape charge, Midshipman Owens was shuffling papers at the Washington Navy Yard [21], awaiting word on whether he would be allowed to serve as an officer – or kicked out of the academy on lesser offenses and forced to pay back $136,000 for his education [22] there (just as Midshipman Michael Pilson [23] was forced to do under a previous Superintendent). And Midshipman Owens still sits there.

Meanwhile, alumni [24] of the Naval Academy have conducted a battle with VADM Rempt on the matter of his bias in this case. In letters written to Navy officials, heated comments posted on message boards and affidavits submitted to Midshipman Owens’ defense attorneys, alumni allege that the superintendent remains convinced that Owens raped a female midshipman, despite a jury’s decision to the contrary. The Washington Post details this contest (McCaffrey, Raymond and Vogel, Steve, “Case Stirs Criticism of Naval Academy Chief: Alumni Question Leadership,” 12/17/06).

The Reckoning

Michael Nifong is being harshly disciplined for his egregious prosecutorial behavior in the Duke Rape Case. The North Carolina State Bar has charged him with making misleading and prejudicial comments about the athletes under suspicion. More recently (1/25/07) the state bar lodged new and more serious ethics charges [25], accusing him of withholding evidence from the defense and lying to the court and bar investigator. “If these allegations are true and if they don’t justify disbarment, then I’m not sure what does,” said Joseph Kennedy, a law professor at the University of North Carolina. “It’s hard for me to imagine a more serious set of allegations against a prosecutor.”

The Washington Times chimed in with [26] “The State Bar, whose disciplinary commission can dismiss a complaint, issue a letter of warning, impose an admonition or reprimand, censure, suspend or disbar a lawyer, has set May 11 as a trial date for Nifong. In addition the newspaper published nine different rules of the State Bar Code of ethics which Nifong has violated. The Washington Post reported that [27] “…the 33-page complaint says the violations ‘constitute a systematic abuse of prosecutorial discretion.’” Even the far-leftist New York Times picked up the ball and reported that [28] “…[Nifong] is accused of ‘systematic abuse of prosecutorial discretion’ in the sexual assault case against three former members of the Duke University lacrosse team.”

Why has there been no such call for sanctions against VADM Rodney P. Rempt? His conduct was equally egregious in carrying out the vendetta against Lamar Owens at the U.S. Naval Academy. The answer rests at the ‘political’ source of power in each case. In North Carolina it is at a very low level of governance. At the Naval Academy it has its origin in the nearby Congress and executive branch of the U.S. Government. And the latter are driven by politicians who are doing the bidding of the radical feminist American Matriarchy. The ‘shrill sisters’ in Congress marched shoulder-to-shoulder in an attempt to sanction ADM Kelso, then Chief of Naval Operations during the Tailhook ’91 bacchanal, by demoting him several grades before his imminent retirement.

Why is there no such outcry for the public censure of VADM Rempt for his Rempt-rape of Midshipman Owens? He is deviously, furtively, and cleverly fighting for his reputation by delaying the decision on Owens until soon before his expected retirement this coming summer. While Midshipman Owens languishes at the Naval Shipyard, awaiting the executioner. What leadership? What perfidy? Michael Nifong – meet Rodney Rempt!

The History of Fraudulent Rape Accusations

The Navy Times foretold this travesty of justice in an opinion piece regarding the report on sexual harassment by the Pentagon’s Inspector General, Joseph Schmitz, before the Owens’ case appeared. Robert F. Dorr wrote (“Lies and victims’ inaction have skewed service academies’ sex assault reports,” 4/25/05), “As a result of media attention, you might think Annapolis, Colorado Springs and West Point are hotbeds of violence where attacks on women are commonplace. At the Naval Academy, midshipmen and faculty members are issued a wallet-size quick-reference guide telling them what to do when an assault occurs.”

“An accuser should have a name and a face. If you’ve been attacked, why shouldn’t you be expected – no, required – to report it without delay? But that’s not all. Our leaders are implying that it’s OK for a woman to break the rules, even if doing so contributes to an assault. For my benefit, Air Force Academy graduates constructed this hypothetical case, which they insist is realistic: A female cadet visits a male upperclassman in his room. That’s a rule violation. They drink together. That’s another rule violation. They become intimate. Even if the intimacy is 100 percent consensual, that’s a violation of a third rule.”

“Weeks or months later, what once was a romantic connection has soured. The woman comes forward to charge that she was assaulted. In fact, to use a word we all understand, she was raped. But was she? And is this hypothetical account so different from what happened in the 64 out of Schmitz’s 302 cases where intercourse was reported? And what happened in the 238 other cases, including 176 in which women said they were ‘touched, stroked, of fondled,’ according to the Schmitz survey?”

“A problem with efforts to quantify sexual assault cases is that a disgruntled ex-lover can turn a consensual liaison into a physical attack weeks or months [or even years] later. It is human nature to immediately report being attacked. Some women argue that they attended an academy in a climate that discouraged them from coming forward. According to Schmitz, they feared disclosure, ostracism or simply not being believed. If so, they got the last part right. In my opinion, our way of looking at these alleged crimes encourages women to make assault claims that aren’t credible.”

“I’m going to catch flak for this, but I believe some charges of sexual assault are made in situations where nothing happened. I believe other alleged assaults actually were consensual dalliances…I have no evidence. Maybe I’m dead wrong. But common sense tells me that the Pentagon’s approach to sexual assault is misleading, unfair and one-sided. I don’t believe our leaders. I believe fewer assaults have taken place at the academies than the Pentagon is saying.”

Dorr’s theory is born out by evidence in the mainstream press. In spite of the shouting of radical feminist activists across the land, fraudulent accusations of rape are not only prevalent but dominant. One simply has to open one’s eyes to sift this data from published reports. For example, the Center for Military Readiness reports that [ 29] “Professional victimologists routinely confuse one-sided allegations with substantiated crimes, excuse women of the consequences of their own high-risk behavior, demand punishment even when self-proclaimed victims do not report offenses, and are not satisfied with anything less than courts martial and convictions, even when guilt is unproven…The Report of the Defense Task Force on Sexual Harassment and Violence at the Military Service Academies, released in August 2005…dismissed the issue of fraudulent complaints -- perceived as a problem by 73 percent of academy women surveyed by the Defense Department Inspector General in 2004.”

Even more damning [30] is the reporting of 56 accusations of sexual assault at the Naval Academy since 2001. “Officials acknowledged that adjudicating rape cases is often a challenge at the [Naval Academy] because many allegations lack sufficient evidence, because of ‘he said, she said’ scenarios, the use of alcohol or past relationships between the accuser and the accused. In 17 of the 56 allegations, midshipmen were reported to be victims of an assault perpetrated by non-midshipmen. The other 39 involved midshipmen accused of sexual assault, and 10 of those cases were not investigated because the victim declined to participate. Of the remaining cases, four are still under investigation; 13 yielded evidence of other misconduct and were processed in the academy’s conduct system; and in eight cases ‘the evidence supported the sexual assault allegations.’”

A careful analysis of this ‘data’ confirms that only 8/56 = 14.3% of the reported allegations were backed by evidence of assault of reported victims of sexual assault by midshipmen at the Naval Academy. That is, fully 85.7% of the reported accusations were without merit. They were fraudulent.

FBI rape statistics bear out Dorr’s theory. It reports that [31] “False charges do exist. FBI statistics show that 9 percent of rape reports [at universities nationwide] are ‘unfounded’ – dismissed without charges being filed. This usually happens when the accuser recants or when her story is not just unsupported but contradicted by evidence. Some studies, including one by pioneering date rape researcher Eugene Kanin, put the rate of false accusations at one in four or even higher.”

Kanin, a professor in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Purdue University studied fraudulent rape accusations [32] in a small metropolitan community (population about 70,000), generally about the size of Annapolis, MD, the home of the U.S. Naval Academy. Kanin reports that “With the cooperation of the police agency of a small metropolitan community, 45 consecutive, disposed, false rape allegations covering a 9-year period were studied. These false rape allegations constitute 41% of the total forcible rape cases (n=109) reported during this period. These false allegations appear to serve three major functions for the complainants: providing an alibi, seeking revenge, and obtaining sympathy and attention. False rape allegations are not the consequence of a gender-linked aberration, as frequently claimed, but reflect impulsive and desperate efforts to cope with personal and social stress situations.”

Kanin discusses “the history of unfounded rape allegations, and how legitimate cases of rape were discounted until pressure from women’s groups caused them to be taken more seriously. However, the pendulum has now swung the other way.” He found that “the two main identifiable adversaries involved in false rape allegations controversy are the feminists and the police. The feminists are by far the most expressive and prominent on this issue. Some feminists take the position that the declaration of rape as false or unfounded largely means that the police do not believe the complainant; that is, the rape charges are real reflections of criminal assault, but the agents of the criminal justice system do not believe them. Some feminists virtually deny the existence of false rape accusations and believe the concept itself constitutes discriminatory harassment toward women. On the other hand, police are prone to say the reason for not believing some rape complainants resides in the fact that the rapes never occurred. Medical Examiners lend support to this police position by emphasizing the ever-present possibility that rape complainants are lying.”

Binge Drinking on America’s Campuses is Pandemic

The accuser in the Owens’ case is a ‘binge’ drinker. Young college women in these circumstances are reported to engage in ‘risky’ sexual behavior during spring break [33]. “Spring break has become an unhealthy ‘binge-fest,’ says the head of a major medical association, citing a poll that shows that 74 percent of female college students agree that alcohol is an excuse for outrageous behavior…In an American Medical Association survey of 664 women, ages 17 to 35, who are current or former college students: More than 90 percent said it was ‘easy’ for underage students to drink on spring break; Seventy-four percent said women used drinking as an excuse for ‘outrageous behavior,’ dancing on tables, and participating in drinking contests; Fifty-nine percent said they knew people during spring break who had been sexually active with more than one partner. ‘What was a traditional time to relax and take a break from college studies has turned into a dangerous binge-fest,’ said Dr. Hill, citing reports of fatalities, rapes, assaults and accidents associated with spring break destinations.”

It appears that Midshipman Owens’ accuser was on a perpetual ‘spring break’ anytime she went on ‘liberty’ outside the gates of the Naval Academy. An article in The Washington Post relates binge drinking by the accuser to the Owens’ case [34]. “Nationally, 72 percent of sexual assaults on college women occur while they are drunk, a Harvard study of 119 colleges found. ‘Women who binge-drink have a higher risk of being sexually assaulted than women who don’t drink or drink less…This is not blaming the victim; this is saying that losing control in situations that are heavily involved in alcohol is dangerous. Binge drinking is defined as five drinks in a row for men, four drinks in a row for women.” The accuser in the Owens’ case admitted to having nine – count ‘em, nine – drinks in a row, four of which were straight shots of hard liquor.

The same Post story reveals that the Owens’ case “…bears striking similarities to many of those reviewed by the Post: a victim so drunk her memory is hazy; the alleged perpetrator, usually an acquaintance, insistent that the act was consensual. Investigators often cannot determine the truth: Of the 72 cases reported since 1998, only two have led to convictions.” Thus, 97% were fraudulent accusations of rape.

The bruhaha, including dismissal of Air Force Academy administration officers, during 2003 reveals testimony by the female officer formerly in charge of cadet discipline [35]. “[Col. Laurie Slavec] told military investigators that she never saw a ‘true rape’ at the [Air Force] Academy, and that problems were merely a result of a permissive attitude toward drinking and fraternization…Partying is encouraged and partying is a ticket to the acceptance community and partying becomes an environment and you introduce alcohol into that which then dilutes the judgments, then sexual assault becomes an issue…I’ve never been party to or witnessed somebody who was…taken by force, which if you look at that end of the spectrum, a true rape or a true violent assault, I’ve never seen that happen.”

The allegations of rape at the Air Force Academy has other similarities to those at the U.S. Naval Academy. A 200-page report by a 13-member group headed by Mary Walker, the Air Force’s top civilian lawyer revealed that [36] “…some women who thought the system failed them may have had unrealistic expectations about the potential for prosecution because of an overly broad definition at the academy of what constitutes sexual assault.”

This drinking atmosphere was encouraged by VADM Rodney Rempt at the Naval Academy when he served 1st Class midshipmen alcohol at formal functions and at his quarters because they were ‘of drinking age.’ Lower classes were present but not served alcohol. They simply had their ‘drinking parties’ after the formal affairs and hit the bars in Annapolis to catch up with their 1st class brothers and sisters. This Rempt-age ‘leadership’ became the norm at VADM Rempt’s Naval Academy.

A professor at the Naval Academy asks [37] “Is the [large number of rape accusations at the Naval Academy] the inevitable result of putting a minority of women into a boiling pot of testosterone-charged young men at a place like the Naval Academy – or the military as a whole? What frosts my behind is that we set up an impossible situation and somehow still manage to be surprised when we get problems…We say, ‘Be hard-charging!’ and then are shocked, shocked, when this is expressed in sexual ways. Here’s our recipe for problems: We put powder kegs of libido in a single huge building, Bancroft Hall, and add a respectable minority of women to spark things off. And then (it gets better) we make sex in the hall illegal, as well as sex anywhere between members of the same company, with anyone in your chain of command, and a thousand other rules.”

“So the problem is, at least for administrative purposes, solved. We’ve outlawed sex, so it isn’t happening. (Hah!) But that also means, we can’t discuss the complexity of human sexuality, or responsible expression of that sexuality. All we do is zap them when they screw things up. Makes sense to you? Not to me.”

This straightforward account of the problem is not even voiced in today’s general debate on women in the military. But it reveals the truth of the situation. If women were not at the Naval Academy, or anywhere else in the military, there would be no ‘sexual assault’ charges emanating from their day-to-day proximity with men in uniform. And the fact that this weirdo, New Age professor at the Academy believes that the problem is the result of not teaching the midshipmen about the reality of their ‘sexuality’ reveals just how far the civilian professoriat has been radicalized during the past decade or so. Professor Fleming – meet Hugh Hefner! Rodney Rempt – meet Michael Nifong!

The Duke Lacrosse Rape Case and the Naval Academy Rape Case are real-life examples of Dorr’s theory. And so was Midshipman Michael Pilson’s case back in the late 1990s. Injustices were visited on completely innocent men by a layer of corruption in our judicial system, which by simply accusing them and making them the targets of a mass media which fans the flames of radical feminist hatred of men, mark them for life. Once their names are connected to a rape charge and it becomes the subject of media attention, they appear on the Internet and from there an archive system that will live in silicon-based media for eons (unlike the voluminous and irreplaceable ancient Alexandria library which was burned by the horde of Persian conquerors of Egypt). For example, more than 50 versions of my website have been archived since 1997 in such a database.

The Race Factor

Much to their credit, neither Lamar Owens, his family, nor his defense counsel has raised the issue of race in his ordeal. Nevertheless, it has not escaped the attention of activists in the black community. In an article in the news analysis, Gregory Kane (“Rape Through Race-Colored Glasses,” 7/27/06) observes that “Lamar Owens was acquitted of rape charges last week. You didn’t hear about it? Didn’t I tell you that? You sure as heck didn’t hear about it from the likes of Thomas Sowell, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or Tucker Carlson. All these guys have wailed loud and long about how the Duke Lacrosse players charged in the alleged rape of a black stripper got a raw deal. All three of the lacrosse players charged are white. At least one of them comes from a family with, as the saying goes, deep pockets.”

“Owens is black. He’s a senior at the U.S. Naval Academy who was the quarterback of Navy’s football team last year. This spring, one of his female classmates at the Naval Academy accused Owens of raping her while she was passed out drunk. At no time during his trial did you hear a peep from the likes of Sowell, Limbaugh, Hannity or Carlson. You should have. There are similarities between what happened at Duke and what happened on the campus of the Naval Academy, as well as some glaring differences.”

“In both cases, there was booze, young men and young women of college age. I’ve said it more than once. I’ll say it again: the combination of these three things has led to more than one charge of either an actual rape or a false accusation of rape. In both cases, celebrated athletes were involved. It is here that the similarities end.”

“Duke’s lacrosse team had a history of bad conduct that preceded them. They continued that trend the night of the party when the alleged rape occurred. There was underage drinking and shouts from the players for one or both of the strippers to perform a sex act with a broom handle or stick. In short, it was the kind of conduct that conservative pundits condemn all too quickly when black rappers do it.”

In contrast, “Owens’ behavior record was virtually untarnished before the rape charge. In the Duke case, the accuser is black. In the Owens’ case, the accuser is white. Not only white, but a ‘blond, athletic, California type’ a reporter who attended Owens’ trial told me. It seems Owens may have had a touch of white fever, but I’ll leave that alone. What’s of interest here is how the alleged rapes of two women of two different races elicit two completely different reactions. With those pundits on the right side of the political spectrum, the alleged rape of the black woman spurs doubts about her credibility and attacks on her character. The same thing happened to Owens’ accuser, but on a smaller scale. The only negative things I heard about the female midshipwoman came on a local black talk radio show in Baltimore.”

“Had those stalwart defenders of the Duke lacrosse players wanted to be consistent, or even give themselves a smidgen of credibility, they would have written or talked about the credibility of Owens’ accuser the same way they talked about the black stripper. Believe me, they would have had a ton of ammunition. Like the stripper, it was established that Owens’ accuser was drunk. She sloshed down nine drinks in a two-hour period the night of the alleged ‘rape.’ Male midshipmen who testified in Owens’ defense said the woman became ‘flirtatious’ and ‘socially aggressive’ when she was drunk. One Naval Academy graduate even testified that Owens’ accuser, while drunk, offered to give him a lap dance and then cursed him out when he declined.”

“Lawyers for Owens didn’t just damage this woman’s credibility when she took the stand to testify. They eviscerated her. They picked her clean. By the time they were done the judge was criticizing the prosecution for putting such a poor witness [on the stand].”

“There are credibility issues with the accuser of those three Duke lacrosse players. She may be in for a similar rough ride when, and if, that case ever comes to trial. Whatever the outcome, women must feel uneasy about both cases. If the color of a woman’s skin – not her credibility or her character – determines how others react to an allegation that she was raped, members of the fairer sex are in for some tough days ahead.”

There is much to commend in this summary. The author’s common sense rendition of the similarities and differences between the Duke and Naval Academy rape cases is a direct and reasonable indictment of the New Age ‘Harvard on the Severn’ that the Academy has become. I have chronicled this in numerous articles in the FORUM commentary section of The Washington Times.

So the perpetration of injustice is in full view, both at Duke University and at the U.S. Naval Academy. Michael B. Nifong may be a tin-horn local prosecutor who carried out his disgraceful work in Durham, NC and of little consequence outside the lives of the accused and their immediate families. And for what? The notoriety which won him an election at a local level and would have secured him his pension which would vest in three years. His perfidy might buy him only a tiny gain in the grand scheme of things.

High Level Corruption is Complete at the U.S. Naval Academy

But what of VADM Rodney P. Rempt, the superintendent at the Naval Academy? His conduct in the Owens case reveals a disintegration on a much larger scale of importance. His disgrace reveals a systemic disorder at the Academy. It is a symptom of the corruption of not only a venerable institution, the U.S. Naval Academy, held in high regard by the American people, but also of a Navy whose leadership has lost its way. I have written a dozen or so articles for The Washington Times during the 1998-2000 years of the source of this degradation. What once produced leaders who believed with their hearts and souls in a motto equivalent to General Macarthur’s, Duty, Honor, Country has degenerated to a set of trite New Age ‘core values:’ Honor, Courage, Commitment. And here, Commitment has become synonymous with a leadership defined by one’s commitment to diversity and above all, a leader in advancing the role of women in the military. VADM Rempt’s over-zealousness in prosecuting high-profile sexual assault cases is part of his effort to advance an agenda designed to appease women’s groups demanding a crackdown on sexual assault and harassment at military academies. And above Rempt is ADM Mike Mullen, the Chief of Naval Operations who just recently (Navy Times, “CNO: Diversity ‘critical’ to Navy’s future,” 7/17/06) declared that “diversity within the Navy work force persists as a ‘very critical issue,’ a top priority and a ‘strategic imperative’ for the future. He said he wants to see more women and minorities as flag officers and among flag staffs – and his admirals know it.”

Accordingly, VADM Rempt announced in December 2006 the appointment of Navy Captain Margaret D. ‘Peg’ Klein, a 1981 graduate of the Naval Academy to be the first female commandant of midshipmen. This post has formerly been filled by Navy or Marine Corps officers with combat experience in fighting units. In short, warriors. They have traditionally served to provide the leadership and military training for the brigade. Klein, an apparently nice and capable woman, is not in the mold of the traditional ‘warrior.’ She is a Naval Flight Officer who has not served in a ‘fighting’ combat unit but has punched all of the right ‘tickets’ in joint service billets to reach this point in her career.

She met her husband Frank Klein, a retired Navy commander, a day before he graduated from the academy and the couple married on campus in 1982. They have two children. “Her experience in making family life work with joint assignments with her husband, neither serving at sea duty at the same time, might be a valuable model [38] for midshipmen,” Klein said.

A Naval Academy alumnus, John Howland – USNA Class ’64 – who edits the USNA-at-Large online news service comments, “But, the hard facts are that the American citizen/taxpayer really didn't bargain for our service academies becoming high priced dating services. If the social goal is to pair up young American men and women, there are lots less expensive ways to accomplish that social goal. Middle Americans are willing to pay to provide the core combat leadership for the United States Naval Sea Services. Sooner or later they are going to catch on that they are paying for lots of other things these days and when they do, they are going to cut off the funds.

In announcing her appointment, the Washington Post reported that “Klein was appointed by the academy’s superintendent, VADM Rodney P. Rempt, who came to the academy with a reputation as a leader in advancing the role of women in the military.” In the same article, Klein was quoted as saying “As far as her working relationship with Rempt, ‘Certainly his priorities are my priorities.’” Indeed, the complete feminization of the U.S. Naval Academy has nearly been accomplished. It is in its final stages.



1) Kelly, Jack, “The gong for Nifong,” The Washington Times, 18 January 2007.

2) Parker, Kathleen, “Duke Rape Case Has Become a Parody,” Clear Politics, www.realclear,

27 December 2006.

3) Bomey, Nathan, “Owens cleared of rape charge,” The Washington Times, 21 July 2006.

4) Atkinson, Gerald, “Academy politics and consequences,” FORUM The Washington Times, 21 February 1999.

5) Kelly, Earl, “Judge chides superintendent for rape case e-mails,” The Capital, 7 July 2006.

6) Vogel, Steve, “Superintendent Faulted Over Rape Case E-Mails,” The Washington Post, 7 July 2006.

7) Vogel, Steve, “Accuser Testifies Against Navy Quarterback,” The Washington Post, 12 July 2006.

8) Manning, Stephen, “Courts-martial set for three at Naval Academy,” The Washington Times, 10 July 2006.

9) Rivera, Ray, “Academy Rape Suspect’s Apology,” The Washington Post, 9 March 2006.

10) Vogel, Steve, “Accuser Testifies Against Navy Quarterback,” The Washington Post, 12 July 2006.

11) Wagner, Arlo, “Alcohol an issue in accuser’s recall,” The Washington Post, 18 July 2006.

12) Kane, Gregory, “Rape Through Race-Colored Glasses – Duke and the Naval Academy,” New America Media,, 27 July 2006.

13) Ibid, Washington Times, Wagner, Arlo.

14) Ibid, Washinton Post, Vogel, Steve.

15) Scutro, Andrew, “Hearing details charges against Owens: Phone conversation reveals Navy QB as apologetic,”

NAVY TIMES, 20 March 2006.

16) Hernandez, Nelson, “Navy Quarterback Cleared of Raping Midshipman,” The Washington Post, 21 July 2006.

17) Kelly, Earl, “Alcohol at center of rape allegation,” The Capital, 9 March 2006.

18) Manning, Stephen, “Jurors hear midshipman’s taped apology to colleague,” The Washington Times, 15 July 2006.

19) Wagner, Arlo, “Medical exam fails to show a rape,” The Washington Times, 14 July 2006.

20) Ibid, Hernandez, Nelson.

21) “Owens Assigned to Washington Navy Yard,” NAVY TIMES, 11 September 2006.

22) Hernandez, Nelson, “No Penalty for Midshipman: Owens Found Guilty of Two Non-Rape Charges,” The

Washington Post, 15 July 2006.

23) Ibid, Atkinson, Gerald, FORUM The Washington Times, 21 February 1999.

24) McCaffrey, Raymond and Vogel, Steve, “Case Stirs Criticism of Naval Academy Chief,” The Washington Post,

17 December 2006.

25) Associated Press, “DA Faces Disbarment in Duke Lacrosse Case,” 25 January 2007.

26) Seper, Jerry, “Duke prosecutor’s troubles mount,” The Washington Times, 25 January 2007.

27) Adcock, Sylvia, “New Ethics Allegations In Prosecution at Duke,” The Washington Post, 25 January 2007.

28) Wilson, Duff, “More Ethics Charges Brought Against Official in Duke Case,” The New York Times,

25 January 2007.

29) Donnelly, Elaine, “Pentagon anti-male room?” The Washington Times,2 February 2006.

30) Olson, Bradley, “Improved outlook seen for Mids: Females surveyed feel they won’t be resented for reporting

misconduct,” The Baltimore Sun, 24 March 2006.

31) Young, Cathy, “Rush to Judgment at Duke: The rape charge as weapon,”, 2 May 2006.

32) Kanin, Eugene J., “False Rape Allegations,” html,

Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994, pp. 81-90.

33) Wetzstein, Cheryl, “College girls go wild, drink on spring break,” The Washington Times, 9 March 2006.

34) Rivera, Ray, “Reining In Academy Drinking,” The Washington Post, 25 April 2006.

35) The Associated Press, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Officer says she never saw ‘true rape’ at the academy,”

11 September 20003.

36)Graham, Bradley, “Report: Academy Lost Focus on Assaults,” The Washington Post, 20 June 2003.

37) Fleming, Bruce, “Policy Won’t Solve Sex Problem,”,15202,91379,00.htm,

17 March 2006.

38) Stiehm, Jamie, “New academy commandant meets press: First woman to hold position doesn’t see herself as being a pioneer,” The Baltimore Sun, 21 December 2006.

Return to:

Home Twenty Questions for VADM Rempt and Midshipman Koss The American Matriarchy