Cultural Marxism at the Naval Academy: An Update©


Gerald L. Atkinson

4 July 2001

The critics of the New Age ‘ethics’ program at the Academy have been muted during the last presidential election and the subsequent first six months of the Bush presidency, waiting to see if anything might be done to reverse the inroads made by the previous Clinton administration. It has now become clear that no reforms will be forthcoming from a Bush presidency in the area of homosexuals in the military, women-in-combat, or the new ‘ethics’ program at the Naval Academy. The president simply does not believe that his political backing is strong enough to undertake the measures that are necessary to turn back the tide of ‘cultural Marxist’ initiatives that were put in place during the Clinton years.

As a result, the civilian faculty and their replacements, who were put in place during the Clinton administration, are still in the trenches, solidifying their ‘gains’ made during the 1990s. In fact, they are taking the ‘ethics’ curriculum at the Academy even farther leftward than they dared in the Clinton years. Consequently, in order to reverse this trend, military leaders – both active duty and retired – must be found with the conviction and courage to stand up and make changes that are necessary.

This will be a daunting task. Over the past two years, the Academy has developed a Strategic Plan that they intend to implement with private funding from a Foundation with which they expect to raise $150-$175 million. As of March 2001, they have raised $43 million [1]. A substantial fraction of that funding will go to expand not only the new ‘Ethics’ program at the Academy but to spread this training (read, ‘sensitivity training’) throughout the entire military education and training systems. They intend to use these funds to conduct executive and other ‘outreach’ programs in ethics. A significant fraction of the money will go toward funding Distinguished Chairs in ‘ethics’ programs, which would house world-renowned academics. It is clear that the academy intends to compete with the nation’s premiere liberal-left universities in the field of ‘ethics’ and moral behavior. In fact[2], “A major goal in the campaign is the creation of endowed faculty chairs – funds that allow the academy to offer larger salaries and more generous research opportunities for top professors. The academy has 10 endowed chairs [including the Distinguished Chair of Ethics], eight of which were established with money raised since the start of the campaign ... ‘We believe we are the preeminent education institution, but to be able to compete at the level of the Harvards and the Yales [and presumably the Princetons], there is a large gap,’ said [a military spokesman].”

The breadth and depth of this program, as described in the report of the Board of Visitors in the March 2001 issue of Shipmate is astounding. The uses to which these funds may be used are mind-boggling, given the record of the past.

For example, I have received a copy of an e-mail memo, dated 3/22/01, from an Executive Department Navy Lieutenant to all instructors who teach the NE-203 [Ethics and Moral Reasoning for the Naval Leader course] during the Spring of 2001. A note on this message says, “This came from Dr. Lucas [a civilian official in the Ethics Department], to all ethics instructors.” This memo informed the instructors that Peter Singer’s “Egoism, Altruism, and Sociobiology” text has been placed on the mandatory reading list for this New Age ‘ethics’ course, which has been the source of extensive criticism over the past two years. It ordered the military instructors to let their students know of this requirement.

Professor Singer, the Australian-born bio-ethicist holds the Ira W. DeCamp Distinguished Chair at Princeton University (will the Academy endow such a chair in the future?). Singer recently wrote in support of a bestiality book review posted on the Web site In his review of Dutch biologist Mida Dekker’s book, ‘Dearest Pet: On Bestiality,’ titled, ‘Heavy Petting, Singer said [3], “Not so long ago, any form of sexuality not leading to the conception of children was seen as, at best, wanton lust, or worse, a perversion. One by one, the taboos have fallen. The idea that it could be wrong to use contraception in order to separate sex from reproduction is now merely quaint.”

He follows this logic to question the taboo on sex with animals [4]. “When it comes to sex with farm animals, the only real issues are whether you get the animal’s consent – and you don’t kill it as part of your pleasure.” Singer also writes that [5], “Our physical similarities with other mammals – mostly genital – are so strong that the taboo on bestiality stems not from physical differences but from our desire to differentiate ourselves, erotically and in every other way, from animals…Who has not been at a social occasion disrupted by the household dog gripping the legs of a visitor and vigorously rubbing its penis against them? In private not everyone objects to being used by her or his dog in this way, and occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop.”

Singer, the primary founder of animal liberation thinks there is no important distinction between humans and animals, so approval for human-animal sex has always been implied in his work [6]. “His review includes a detailed discussion of chickens that many readers will be eager to skip.”

Singer is not just some academic nutcase whose work on the boundary of ‘ethics’ makes most of us cringe. He is one of those frontline academics at leading universities with which the Academy presumably wishes to ‘compete’ for both professorial talent and students. Just study the Academy’s Strategic Plan. Singer enjoys such advanced standing in the academic community that [7], “[He] is not a marginal figure in our intellectual culture. He is also author of the main article on ethics, a full twenty pages, in the fifteenth edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. From Confucius and Aristotle, to Maimonides and Aquinas, through Hume and Kant to Peter Singer, the article traces the liberation of moral theory and practice from any truths that pose an obstacle to our will to power and control. The gist of it is caught in the title of Singer's 1995 book, Rethinking Life and Death: The Collapse of Our Traditional Ethics, St. Martin's Press.

Bestiality is not the only taboo, which Peter Singer wishes to abolish. He is also a proponent of neonaticide, that is, the legal destruction of newborn humans up through the 28th day after birth. Consequently, he has become known as 'Professor Death,' for his radical views advocating the killing of physically handicapped infants.

A distinguished professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Steven Pinker [8], supports Singer's view. Pinker suggests that "...we need a clear boundary to confer personhood on a human being and grant it a right to life...What makes a living being a person with a right not to be killed?...the right to life must come...from morally significant traits that we humans happen to possess. One such trait is having a sequence of experiences that defines us as individuals and connects us to other people. Other traits include an ability to reflect on ourselves as a continuous locus of consciousness, to form and savor plans for the future, to dread death and to express the choice not to die." Of course, under this definition any of us could have been killed, not only shortly after birth, but right up to adolescence or even young adulthood -- subject to a decision by one of the 'anointed.’ Presumably, those who follow the ruminations of Rousseau, Kant, Bentham, Mill, Rawls et al who are featured in the Naval Academy’s new ‘ethics’ program.

Pinker observes that "...several moral philosophers have concluded that neonates are not persons...and thus neonaticide should not be classified as murder." Rational observers [9] of this abomination remind us that infanticide is rightly universally treated as a "...greatly aberrant act, the very definition of a moral horror."

Others [10,11], remind us that "[Singer's] utilitarian views fit right in with the 'thinking' that the Nazi's used to justify their euthanasia programs on the physically and mentally handicapped before the second world war, and that justified the forced sterilization of countless thousands of people in the U.S. and other Western countries because they were somehow deemed as lesser human beings."

Dr. Laura Schlessinger, a critic of Pinker, offers an opposing 'world view.' She notes that Pinker "...suggests, for example, that if killing the newborn hemophiliac induces the parents to have another child who is born without hemophilia, 'the loss of a happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second.'" Yes, John Stuart Mill, we must reward those who seek the greater 'happiness.' Even if it means neonaticide.

Schlessinger [12] scolds Pinker, who she points out, 'is the grandchild of Holocaust victims.' "It is astonishing that someone from a 4,000-year-old Jewish tradition could argue so vehemently against the inherent sanctity of life as a gift from God and instead embrace utilitarianism and subjective happiness, the antithesis of Judeo-Christian philosophy, as the determiners of life or death for an old person or a newborn."

So the memo distributed at the Academy, ordering that Peter Singer’s text be made part of the required reading list in the new ‘ethics’ program is a powerful statement that this program is not as it has been described by the Academy. If ADM James Stockdale is the author of the curriculum (and not Ms. Nancy Sherman), then we must all ask whether or not ADM Stockdale supports bestiality. Indeed, is he a proponent of neonaticide? I think not. If this is true, then all of us must ask the question, ‘Why is Peter Singer in the required reading list? This question must be asked by not only all Academy alumni, but now by all patriotic Americans.

Do RADM Jack Barrett, Bernie Maguire support bestiality and neonaticide? If not, why do they so sycophantically support the new ‘ethics’ program at the Academy. Do ADM Leon Edney (first occupant of the Distinguished Chair of Leadership at the Academy and vigorous defender of the new ‘ethics’ program there), ADM Leighton Smith (Chairman of the Board of the USNA Alumni Association), VADM John Ryan (the Superintendent) all support bestiality and neonaticide? If not, why do they not only support but actively promote an ‘ethics’ program that does. The answer most likely lies in the fact that these Academy ‘cheer leaders’ do not know the details of the program which they are promoting. I seriously doubt that any of these people have read a single text of Professor Singer’s works. They know only what they have been briefed. And the briefers, the civilians who have actually designed (it is NOT ADM Stockdale’s ethics program) and implemented the new ‘ethics’ program have not been straightforward with them. I see no other explanation that makes sense. These fine naval flag-rank officers are not incompetent, not stupid, not experienced. But they are certainly being duped by foot soldiers of Bill Clinton’s counter-culture revolution – one that has its roots in the ‘cultural Marxist’ ideology of the Frankfurt School. Nevertheless, hard questions must be asked. America deserves better than this from their military leaders. Solid, intelligent, and knowledgeable citizens, without military experience, are starting to take notice.

For example, B.K. Eakman, the author of ‘Cloning the American Mind,’ reminds us that ‘its about propriety, stupid.’ She says that [13], “Military academies … exist for only one reason: to build an honorable, dedicated, and competent fighting force that will put the defense of our country first … It means that [Midshipmen, Cadets] will be held to a higher standard. It means following rules, many of them arbitrary. It implies stipulations that would be challenged under different circumstances.” And she might have added, it requires an ethical and moral training that is far different from that which we might expect from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, or any of our other leading civilian academic institutions. Eakman continues, “Not everyone is suited to a highly disciplined lifestyle – indeed most are not. But if one is attracted to military service as a career choice, then it is necessary to have a highly developed sense of propriety – a virtue that gets short shrift today … Propriety Is central to many issues today … Yet it is rarely mentioned. It’s hardly surprising, then, that recent controversies surrounding the various facets of military life – from women in combat, to integrating females into all-male military schools, to pregnant enlisted women on naval vessels – fail to address propriety.” Military leaders better start listening to such advice or they will lose some of America’s most prized military institutions.

If the introduction of Peter Singer into the new ‘ethics’ program at the Academy isn’t enough to get your goat, another revelation might do the trick. About a year ago, a former chaplain (who resigned his commission and retired as a result of what he saw being developed in the ‘ethics’ program) at the Naval Academy told me that the military chaplains there were expressly forbidden to participate in the Character Development Seminars, which are touted as the centroid of the new ‘ethics’ program. That is, Navy O-5s and O-6s are eligible to lead and ‘facilitate’ Midshipmen, that is, be the New Age ‘priests’ and ‘pastors’ in the new ‘ethics’ seminars, but ordained chaplains are not allowed to participate. One of Bernie Maguire’s observations (see his ‘whitewash’ report and my critique of it on this Web Site) when he visited the Academy and sat in on several such sessions was that, “Military instructors should not portray themselves as experts in the teachings of the great philosophers.” He made such a recommendation to the Superintendent as a result of his observations.

So, what is going on here? This means that military chaplains, who traditionally tended to the moral development and ethical practices of our nation’s military personnel are now expressly forbidden from participating in the central activity of their craft. While uninitiated, ill-prepared, and over-worked Naval officers were forced to take on the task of ‘informing’ the ethical character of the Academy’s midshipmen. And the Mids under their charge were forced to undergo the mandatory ‘ethics’ program. That, folks, is secular humanism – the New Age, enforced, state religion in which America’s young are being indoctrinated at the Naval Academy. In support of this claim, I pointed out in my rebuttal to Maguire’s ‘whitewash’ report on the new ‘ethics’ program that, “Maguire claims to have perused the NE-203 textbook and found no evidence of relativism. In actuality, the text itself is organized by and full of relativism of moral values and ethical standards. Maguire sees two readings, one pro and one con, on Relativism which in his mind presumably balances the ledger. But he doesn't seem to understand that the entire textbook itself is transparently relativistic. Seventy-eight readings covering over 635 pages allow the midshipmen to choose among all of the flawed Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment philosophers (Rousseau, Kant, Bentham, Mill, and John Rawls, etc.) for their own ethical enlightenment. All with equal weight. Of course, to prefer one over another would be 'judgmental,' a no-no for the politically correct power elites in our society.

While COL Paul E. Roush USMC (Ret.), the resident 'cultural Marxist' at the Academy (the Judas Goat who spent over a decade teaching 'ethics' there), is represented by eight (8) readings in the textbook, the topic of Divine Command rates only four (4). Whereas the moral foundation (Christianity) of our nation's experiment with representative democracy is granted only 40 pages, COL Roush is granted 64 pages. The Tailhook '91 scandal is accorded a full 40 pages in an appendix. Yes, you have it right. The discussion of Tailhook '91 is given space equal to Christianity in the Academy 'ethics' curriculum designed by Ms. Sherman and her 'cultural Marxist' collaborator, COL Paul Roush. The ‘ethics’ curriculum at the Academy is the embodiment of secular humanism, our nation’s New Age, state sponsored, religion. [Note: See the link at the bottom of this page for additional information on COL Paul Roush.]

And beneath the cover of this secular blanket in the ‘ethics’ program, I have found another startling fact. The Naval Academy operates a de facto Women’s Studies Program, African-American Studies Program, and anti-Vietnam War Studies Program within the Department of English. How do I know this? The parents of a Midshipman who desperately wants to pursue a career in the Naval service told me that the required reading texts in his English Literature class included books by Toni Morrison and Tim O’Brien, both award winning novelists. The problem their son had with these books was what he perceived as their messages of strident black racism, hatred of white men, and vehement anti-Vietnam war sympathies. The son, having grown up in a devoutly religious setting, knowing and living among black people all his life, and revering role models close to his family who had fought in Vietnam and served the nation in other responsible capacities, came to detest what he was required to read and report on. The black characters in Toni Morison’s books in no manner represented the black people with whom he was acquainted. The white people in her books were given characterizations hat he could not even imagine for those whom he knew in real life. And the anti-Vietnam War messages in Tim O’Brien’s books reminded him more of Jane Fonda than those whom he knew and admired, including those friends of his family who had fought in the Vietnam War.

Their son could not readily convey his distress concerning this situation to his family through normal communication channels. He could not use the telephone in his room or the e-mail account on his computer because the Mids had been told that both would be ‘screened’ by Academy officials. So, their son conversed with his family through a pay phone rather than chance being overheard complaining about what he saw going on during his course of instruction. Any discussion of feminization was strictly forbidden. And for certain any detailed discussion of the character and content of the English Lit course would be immediate grounds for reprimand.

One of the son’s essays on one of the ‘required reading’ books assigned was read to the class. The professor, a black woman, challenged his paper, interrupting him and asked the class, ‘Do you think this is a true reflection of the author’s work?’ After a while, she finally received an answer that she wanted, ‘It sounds like preaching to me.’ The professor, displaying her true role as ‘facilitator,’ and in perfect harmony with the ‘sensitivity training’ doctrine in which the class was conducted, said, ‘Would you like to rewrite your paper?’ The son did so under the strong impression that, if he did not, he would most likely fail the required English Lit course. Consequently, he re-wrote the paper reflecting the ‘proper’ tone and content that the professor demanded. That is indoctrination, not education.

I have taken the time to thoroughly read all four required texts by Morrison and O’Brien. I have reviewed them in detail on this Web Site. In addition, I read another of O’Brien’s books, an autobiography which provides his own account of how he arrived at his service in Vietnam and his description of how he became an anti-Vietnam War protester – while in uniform and after returning home. They are summarized here.

The Midshipman is justly outraged at these books which are required reading in the de-facto Women’s Studies, African-American Studies and anti-Vietnam War Studies programs within the English Department at the Academy. Both of Toni Morrison’s books are chock-full of what can only be called descriptions of depravity in the character of black men, but seldom black women. And it is all the white man’s fault. In ‘Song of Solomon,’ two subtexts predominate: necrophilia (sex with the dead) by a black woman and incest between a black man and his cousin. Scattered throughout the black characters’ conversations are suggestions of bestiality and even blasphemy against God. The major theme, however is the gnawing, oppressive burden of the black man having to either resist or join a white man’s world – the world of economic stability. And within that world, the major characters run up against a scheme of racial hatred carried out in the name of ‘an eye for an eye’ retaliation of real and perceived attacks on blacks by white men. The retaliation takes the form of RANDOM killing of a white person (conjure up the image of today’s ‘drive-by shootings’ in black gang initiations) for every real or imagined death of a black man or woman at the hand of whites. One could even be convinced from her book that Toni Morrison believes such shootings are justified. Her book could be the suggestive idea that prompted the rash of such shootings in the 1990s. Who knows where the idea originated. The story begins and ends in a fantasy vision of black men sprouting ‘wings’ and flying back to Africa to the paradise origin of their ‘slave’ ancestors. The language in this book is both demeaning to blacks especially black men and outright offensive to white characters. Black men in the book are weak, depraved, scheming, drunken, and base. There are no white characters in the book, who are above a sub-human level of decency. The black women are either victims of men’s folly or brave, courageous, champions of justice within a shell of white man’s oppression. The book is base. It is full of gutter talk. It defames all that is and has been good for black men and women in America. A land where blacks have more freedom and prosperity than any nation in the world. And it is required reading in the English Lit curriculum at the U.S. Naval Academy.

Morrison’s other book, ‘Beloved,’ has the same flavor. Instead of the oppressive nature of America in the 1940s, it deals with the evils of slavery in the period just before and after the Civil War. It contains references to bestiality by black men. It describes a black woman who tries to kill all of her children (succeeding in killing one, Beloved, who comes back to haunt her) during an escape from evil white Southern men. There are no white characters in this book, which are above the moral level of the Devil. Morrison attempts to make a heroine (in the sense of proud victimhood) of the mother who would kill her own children rather than return them to slavery. One is reminded of the million Russian Cossacks who were returned by the Allies to Stalin during World War II, wherein mothers threw their children into the river to drown and jumped in after them to escape their forced repatriation to the Soviet Union and certain death. But in Morrison’s world, such nobility is absent. Her book is nothing but a blatant excuse to claim ‘victimhood’ for all blacks in America. And the white man is the oppressor. This book and the previous one are direct attempts to fan the flames of black hatred and white guilt. They are nothing more than blatant ‘cultural Marxist’ propaganda that tears America down and which laid the groundwork for the current cries for ‘reparations’ from the U.S. Government for the misery dealt out to the ancestors of black people for the evils of slavery.

Compare these two stories to one written by Charles Kuralt, who in his ‘On the Road’ [television] series, became a national icon with his stories of American folklore. These stories continue to enrich us all. For example [14], the story of the Chandlers, a poor, black Mississippi family that put nine children through college. Kuralt showed up with his camera crew on the Chandlers’ 50th wedding anniversary. The children had returned to the new house they built to replace the shack where they had grown up, and when the father bowed his head to bless the meal, he broke down in tears. The Cameraman began weeping, too, as did Kuralt. ‘What were we weeping about?’ Kuralt later asked, then answered: ‘The American Dream, this notion that if you really want to in a country like this, you can start from nothing and make a success of yourself.’”

That is the kind of literature that builds the bond of brotherhood among those who are attending the nation’s premiere military education institution. That is the kind of story that builds TRUST, the kind of TRUST that is necessary to fight and win America’s future wars. Toni Morrison’s works, mandatory reading at the Academy, are racist, divisive, and undermine the ‘specialized’ education that our nation’s future core combat naval leadership must have to produce an attitude that everyone there ‘belongs,’ has earned a place there, and continues to display an attitude and performance that meets the rigorous standards there and are visibly competitive with their classmates.

Indeed, there is a de-facto Women’s Studies Program and an African-American Studies Program within the English Department at the U.S. Naval Academy.

The English Department may just as well as taken money from Jane Fonda [15] to support its anti-Vietnam War Studies Program. Two of Tim O’Brien’s anti-war novels are required reading. ‘Going After Cacciato,’ and ‘In the Lake of the Woods’ are stories which describe ground combat in South Vietnam (O’Brien served a one-year combat tour there as an infantryman. The Cacciato book dwells on the incompetence of Army officers, the sullen irreverence of draftee soldiers and their ‘draftee’ officers, the acceptance of the practice of ‘fragging’ officers (a white officer and by black draftees) whom they thought might order them to inspect Viet Cong tunnels before blowing them up. This account is of an Army that is essentially out of control, disconnected from its leadership with soldiers interested only in their own individual survival. It is laden with expressions of doubt and cynicism regarding the reasons they were fighting the war.

As with the ‘Cacciato’ book, ‘In the Lake of the Woods,’ dwells on the unjust nature of the Vietnam War and is written with the disaster at My Lai as the backdrop for the darkness of the main character in the book. The book could just as well have been written absent any mention of the Vietnam War and its story would have been just as believable. The main character is so burdened with psychological and character shortcomings that the story’s conclusion could just as well have been believable without any reference to the Vietnam War or My Lai at all. He ends up boiling his wife to death by pouring scalding hot water in her mouth and eyes while she is sleeping as a result of his having just lost a political election for which he had worked all of his adult life. The book was obviously written solely to display an anti-Vietnam War agenda.

If one digs deep enough into another of O’Brien’s books, one can find ‘If I Die in a Combat Zone,’ which is not a novel but an autobiography by the author. It gives an in-depth description of O’Brien’s opposition to the Vietnam War even before he was drafted and went to fight there. He campaigned for and voted for Eugene McCarthy in the presidential primary during the 1968 election cycle. And he was an avid reader, catch this, of Eric Fromm (pp. 14). This salient fact places O’Brien smack dab in the middle of the ‘cultural Marxist’ Frankfurt School milieu even before he went to Vietnam. His reasons for opposing the Vietnam War are never given in his books, only the Kantian categorical imperative that the war was unjust.

Unlike Joseph Ellis, the History professor who lied [16,17] about his war record during the Vietnam War and again about his involvement in anti-war activities after he left military service in order to boost his credentials with the anti-Vietnam War crowd, and Senator John Kerrey who fought in that war and later turned against it (falsely claiming [18] to lay his medals on the steps of the nation’s Capital), Tim O’Brien went to Vietnam, fought in that war, all the while having been indoctrinated into being a ‘foot soldier’ for the ‘cultural Marxist’ counter-culture revolution that has swallowed American institutions whole during the 30 years after the war. It is no wonder that he became a prize-winning novelist after the war. He could write of his actual combat experience and stake the anti-Vietnam War high ground with the rest of the nation’s elite Boomers who opposed the war, dodged the draft, fled to Canada, let others less fortunate die in their place, and took the reigns of power in the nation during the 1990s. The Bill Clintons, the Strobe Talbotts, and millions of other elite Boomers who also studied Eric Fromm, Herbert Marcuse and other gurus of the Frankfurt School rose to acclaim the literary accomplishments of Tim O’Brien – the Vietnam War veteran who wrote anti-Vietnam War novels after the war. O’Brien could be seen as the ultimate vindication for the cowardly acts taken by the elites of the Boomer generation to evade military service in their generation’s war. He became their literary ‘hero.’ Hence his prominence on the ‘required reading’ list in the Academy’s English Literature course.

Tim O’Brien’s books provide a direct path to applying the Critical Theory approach right out of the Frankfurt School to malign America’s past. Just as Joseph Ellis [19] changed his position on the paternity of offspring from Thomas Jefferson’s slave, Sally Hemming, during Clinton’s impeachment trial (from ‘no he didn’t’ to ‘yes he did’), O’Brien joins a crowd of Critical Theory advocates who are continuing the counter-culture revolution of the mid-1960s. And they are accomplishing this destructive act through the English Department at the U.S. Naval Academy.

So, where does that leave us? This is damning evidence that ‘cultural Marxism’ has invaded the Naval Academy both directly within the new ‘ethics’ curriculum and indirectly through de-facto programs in the ‘diversity conscious’ English Department which surreptitiously amount to radical feminist Women’s Studies, racist African-American Studies, and anti-Vietnam War Studies Programs. This dark cloud has assembled itself under the direction of ‘cultural Marxist’ professors with specialties in Ethics, English, and Behavioral Science. These civilians were inserted into the Academy environment under the stewardship of unsuspecting and unknowing flag-rank Navy officers by the civilian political appointees in the Clinton administration. These revolutionaries are still there. The new Bush administration will do nothing to root them out. Their agenda remains the same. In the words of Antonio Gramsci, a Frankfurt School theorist, ‘a revolution so powerful that it cannot be overcome even by the use of force.’ This revolution is a social one, a ‘cultural Marxist’ revolution being carried out right under our very noses within our most respected and venerable institutions – including the U.S. Naval Academy.



1) Board of Visitors Overview Major Programs at the Academy, Shipmate, pp.48, March 2001.

2) Argetsinger, Amy, “U.S. Naval Academy To Launch Fundraiser,” The Washington Post, 9 June 2001.

3) Mallon, John, “Positively beastly: Lock the barn door,” The Washington Times, 11 April 2001.

4) Editorial, “Animal Crackers,” The Wall Street Journal, 30 March 2001.

5) Billups, Andrea, “Review of book on bestiality earns Polly: Student finger Princeton prof,” The Washington Times, 2 April


6) Leo, John, “Golden age of craziness,” The Washington Times, 18 April 2001.

7) Neuhaus, Richard John, "The Idea of Moral Progress," First Things, pp. 21-27, Number 95, August/September 1999.

8) Ibid, Pinker, Steve.

9) Kelly, Michael, "Arguing for Infanticide," The Washington Post, 6 November 1997.

10) Ibid, Billups, Andrea.

11) Fields, Suzanne, "Princeton's 'professor death:' Singer's Nazi intellectual roots," The Washington Times, 20 September 1999.

12) Ibid, Schlessinger, Laura.

13) Eakman, Beverly K., “It’s about propriety, stupid,” The Washington Times, 17 July 2001.

14) Grizzle, Ralph, “Remember good side of Kuralt,” USA TODAY, 2 July 2001.

15) Reuters, “Actress Jane Fonda gives $12.5 million to Harvard to study the role of gender in education, 2 March 2001.

16) Review & Outlook, “A Bright, Shining Lie,” The Wall Street Journal, 22 June 2001.

17) O’Keefe, Mark, “It’s true: High achievement is no bar to telling grandiose lies: Historian who won Pulitzer Prize caught in

deception,” The Atlanta Journal—Constitution, 23 June 2001.

18) Charen, Mona, “Misplaced morality ...” The Washington Times, 4 May 2001.

Turner, Robert F., “The Truth About Jefferson,” The Wall Street Journal, 3 July 2001.

Return to

Home Link to COL Paul Roush Essay on Secular Humanism at the Academy List of Rebuttal Essays

John Kerry: The Anti-War Candidate