Friends, let us not bash the Honor Code that they have at the Academy, it is theirs alone and it has been there since the creation of the Academy. The Honor Code is not something evil, it is there to instill and inculcate integrity in the cadets. Honesty, honor, integrity can never have a gray area. It is either you lied or not, stolen or not, cheated or not and tolerated or not, nothing in between.
It does not promote dysfunction because it shapes a culture of trust. It is not out of times because honesty/honor/integrity can never be outdated, it should linger on as a good value. It is not selective because it is applied to all cadets regardless of class, gender, age, intellect and social standing. You can even report your own classmates or seniors without fear of reprisal. Heck, they say you can even report yourself for violating the Honor Code.
There may be a few alumni who strayed along the way. But let us not generalize all the academy alumni, NOT ALL of them are rotten and maligned. There are only a few bad eggs out of the whole basket. Let us not brand the whole basket as full of rotten eggs and throw caution to the wind.
Lying, cheating, stealing and tolerating is a CHOICE. It is NOT taught at the Academy to do such things. On the contrary, it is heavily emphasized to the cadets to do the honorable thing.
In my perspective, the Honor Code is a good thing. At least I know that the institution is doing SOMETHING to mold its sons and daughters who will someday lead our armed forces.
Given facts (in various news reports):
1) Cadet Cudia and 3 other cadets were late for their next class.
2) All of their other classmates WERE NOT late for this next class.
3) As a result, they were given appropriate punishment (demerits and touring) which they (the 4 cadets) apparently complied.
4) Cadet Cudia appealed this punishment (demerits and all) and said that it is not his fault because the class were dismissed late hence making it appear that it is the fault of the instructor in question.
Did Cadet Cudia lied when he said that “they were dismissed late”?
Those who said YES would say that he should have answered directly the question. He should have said that they (the 4 cadets) were made to wait by the instructor that is why they (the 4 cadets) were late for the next class.
Those who said NO would say it is just semantics, why be so technical about it. The effect is still the same, they were late for the next class.
The issue here again is if Cadet Cudia lied why he was late.
So friends, just take your pick…