From within, the Navy’s bureaucracy is seldom questioned. Understandably, its culture largely influences the life of a midshipman at the Naval Academy. The experience in Annapolis is anchored in four years of stringent academic and fitness requirements; the latter is emphasized for its importance in leading during times of harsh conditions. While the Academy expects its 4,576 midshipmen to excel physically, for 172 years it did not provide an optimal foundation upon which to do so. An official, longstanding policy has never been established to allow midshipmen to leave the small, enclosed campus through convenient gates located near the dormitory to conduct exercise, largely reducing the student body’s morale.
My motivation to alter longstanding regulation at the Naval Academy stems from my desire to listen to the concerns of others. In the military, I believe progress can be made when well founded ideas are proposed to change policy not favored by the majority. Though my fellow midshipmen and I are still students, in just one year, we will commission as officers in the US Navy where the stakes will be higher. Although making decisions
…show more content…
In this position, I was responsible for relaying the company’s feedback regarding school policy. Midshipmen, for decades, expressed their frustration with the exercise regulation, but an initiative to alter the policy was never taken. As a result, students were limited to running in herds along a three mile loop tracing the Academy’s inner walls (affectionately called an “outer”) or leaving the campus to run to a naval station located across the river (a dangerous route alongside traffic). Those midshipmen that are caught daring to utilize an unapproved route are punished by having to march with their rifle for hours. The policy bred cynicism, and it did not allow students to escape their stressful work environment on