An article this week by Childs Walker of The Baltimore Sun described how the service academies are making it easier for graduates to go directly from a service academy into the NFL.  An exception to the policy of requiring graduates to serve at least two years of active duty before applying to go into the reserves was made for Keenan Reynolds, the Naval Academy graduate now on the Ravens’ practice squad who was allowed to go into the Navy Reserve immediately after graduation.

The policy has been changed, and in the future all academy athletes will be allowed to apply to go directly from the academies into the reserves in order to pursue careers in professional sports.  Decisions on the applications will be made on a case-by-case basis and presumably will continue to be based on the existing standard, which is “a strong expectation their professional sports activity will provide the DoD with significant favorable media exposure likely to enhance national recruiting or public affairs.”

I bit my lip on this issue when it was announced in May that the policy had been changed for Reynolds, out of concern that I did not want my comments to appear to be personal to Reynolds, who by every measure is a remarkable young man with his head and his heart in the right places.  Of course, now that I think about it many academy graduates are remarkable people in their own rights, but there is a bigger issue.

The bigger issue is the matter of misplaced values.  The new policy elevates the value of major collegiate and professional sports over the value of service to country and fulfillment of contractual commitments.  It also elevates the importance of professional sports over the importance of other professional and occupational pursuits.

First of all, let’s sort out the bullshit:  Opening this pathway to a professional sports career and making it public is all about recruiting standout male high school football and basketball players to the service academies, period.  To star athletes for whom playing in the NFL or NBA is their dream the prospect of waiting two or more years after graduation before trying out for a professional team can end any thoughts they have of attending service academies.

Moreover, the appeal of attracting standout football and basketball players to the academies lies mainly in the desire of alumnae to bask in the reflected glory of successful academy football and basketball teams.  They also enjoy the cachet of having fellow alumnae playing in the NFL and NBA.  Graduates of the service academies dominate the halls of the Pentagon, and exert an enormous influence on academy policies.  They want their alma maters to win football and basketball games (especially football), and that is what is driving the policy change.

Any other claim is window dressing.  The statement by Secretary of Navy Ray Mabus that increasing the number of academy graduates playing in the NFL and NBA helps recruiting in general is unprovable, and dubious.  For one thing, any enlisted man or woman (or officer, for that matter) who joins the service because of the success of an academy football or basketball team is misguided, and enlisting for the wrong reason.  Join the Navy and go to war because “our” football team had a winning season?  In other words, any claim that the new policy has to do with anything other than winning more football and basketball games is smoke headed right up your arse.

Also, put out of your mind that this has anything to do with recruiting high school athletes who play minor sports or with recruiting female athletes in general.  Do you think the brass care about recruiting women to academies who hope after graduation to play in the WNSL (that’s the Women’s National Soccer League for you non-soccer fans) or the WNBA?  The new policy will have to be administered in a non-discriminatory manner, so there will women allowed to pursue their dreams of playing in the WNSL or the WNBA, but that is not what this policy is about.  This is about football and men’s basketball.

Before I go any further I should disclose facts that may influence my point of view.  I owe my college education to the fact that I received a four-year ROTC scholarship, which came with an obligation to serve four years on active duty with the Army.  I served that time plus three more years on active duty, and an additional 18 years in the reserves.

My grandfather, father, both uncles, brother, son and son-in-law all served in the military, with all branches covered – Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.  There is no anti-military bias in my family, and I do not begrudge any veteran any benefit or advantage to which he or she is entitled.

I also am a college and professional football fan, with loyalties to the University of Pittsburgh and the Ravens, respectively.  I am trying to downsize, and came across a scrapbook in which I have newspaper clippings of college football games going back to 1957.  (No, I didn’t throw it away.)  College football has changed considerably since then and not all for the better.

Money is of course the big factor behind the changes to the revenue-producing college sports and it dominates all other considerations.  Players at football factories such as Alabama and Ohio State live lives that are only superficially similar to the college experiences of other students.  It is fair to say that teams from those schools play on behalf of the schools without really being part of the schools, and football certainly is not part of the core academic missions of the schools.  If anything the teams are part of the fundraising side of the institutions rather than the educational side.

What has become of college football is a story in itself, but suffice it to say that no other country uses its universities as the training grounds for major professional sports.  The NFL, with its enormous profits, benefits directly from the training provided to its future players by these schools but returns none of those profits to the schools.  That also is quite different from many European countries, where professional soccer teams have their own “academies” and pay youth teams and training programs for the costs of developing players.  Of course the NCAA itself needs no financial help from the NFL, given that it has plenty of money of its own.  Both the NFL and NCAA have pretty sweet deals, and there is a lot of money in a relatively few hands.

Someday things may change, but it won’t be any time soon.  In the meantime I do not believe it is necessary to elevate major collegiate and professional sports to an even higher plane in our society.  Playing on the Ravens’ taxi squad does not equate to military service and should not be treated as such for purposes of fulfilling a commitment made at the time of entering a service academy.  And I don’t accept for one minute the argument that serving a military commitment in the reserves is the same as serving it on active duty.

Roger Staubach graduated from the Naval Academy in 1965 and served four years on active duty, including one year in Vietnam.  He subsequently played ten years for the Dallas Cowboys, winning two Super Bowls.  He repaid the Navy for his education by serving out his full active duty commitment before going on to play professional football.

Staubach’s career reflected the principles of commitment and sacrifice.  So did the career of Napoleon McCallum.  After McCallum graduated from the Naval Academy in 1985 he was able to play one year of professional football with the Los Angeles Raiders in 1986 because he was stationed in Long Beach, and the Navy did not prohibit secondary employment that did not interfere with duty requirements.  He was reassigned to sea duty in 1987, however, and missed the next three seasons of professional football while fulfilling the remainder of his service commitment.

McCallum’s interrupted pro football career, which ended because of a severe leg injury in 1994, never picked up where it left off when he went to sea in 1987.  McCallum made sacrifices because of the commitment he made to the Navy, and those sacrifices were based on the principle that service to his country came first.

At some point when you start making “exceptions” to fundamental principles they no longer are fundamental principles – they become sort of like guidelines that can be ignored if expedient to do so.  Repaying a four year education with five years of active military service to your country is the deal, and making exceptions to the deal to allow graduates to play professional sports (at salaries generally exceeding those paid to second lieutenants and ensigns, by the way) is contrary to the principle that a deal is a deal, and to the value properly placed on service to the country.

Finally, why isn’t the same policy applied to academy graduates who aspire to pursue careers in the private sector in business, medicine, science, engineering, music or, heaven forbid, law?  Is a graduate who displayed exceptional scientific aptitude and who wants to pursue a career in research without going on active duty less deserving of the chance to go directly into the reserves?  Apparently yes, because it is unlikely that a career spent in a laboratory “will provide the DoD with significant favorable media exposure likely to enhance national recruiting or public affairs.”  Do we have to measure everything in this country by its value in gaining “media exposure”?

In my opinion the policy change is misguided and points the ethos of the service academies in the wrong direction.  Yes, I understand why well-intended football fans wanted to see a wonderful young man like Keenan Reynolds be able to pursue a professional football career without making the sacrifices that Staubach and McCallum made.  On the other hand, sacrifice sometimes is the consequence of adhering to principles, and academies should be embracing that fact rather than shying away from it.

Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day, 2016

The other day I tweeted that Maryland State Senator Ulysses Currie of Prince George’s County was a “self-serving piece of crap” in response to the announcement that he had abruptly rescinded his resignation from the State Senate.  Calling Currie a piece of crap was harsh and unnecessary – have I learned nothing from our president-elect about the use of Twitter?  I will say in my own defense that this latest story about Currie rubbed me the wrong way.  I will explain.

First of all, I did not believe him when he said that what caused him to change his mind was the lack of civility among those seeking to fill the remainder of his term.  Secondly, and most importantly, the announcement by Currie reminded me of what I regard as one of the most pathetic and maddening episodes in Maryland’s long history of political scandal.

When Currie, 79, submitted his resignation he explained that his failing health would not allow him to complete his term ending in 2018 and that he simply did not have the strength to do the job.  In rescinding his resignation he stated that he was doing so primarily because he couldn’t tolerate the lack of civility among the candidates seeking to be chosen by the Democratic State Central Committee to serve out his term.  Currie said the succession battle “has created a level of divisiveness and discord I have rarely seen in Prince George’s County and which I cannot allow to continue.”

Oh, and Currie also said that he had wanted his wife, the Rev. Shirley Gravely-Currie, to take his seat as a caretaker until the 2018 election.  According to Currie she was the only person who “came forward without the intention of using the appointment to gain an election advantage over others.”

Sorry, Senator, but I don’t believe that the main reason behind the withdrawal of your resignation was the bickering.  I believe that you were disappointed when you found out that your “keep it in the family” succession plan wasn’t going over very well and that your wife did not have the votes to get appointed to the seat.  You aren’t the player in state politics that you were a decade ago and once you submitted your resignation you lost whatever influence you had left.

By all accounts Currie, a former school teacher, is unfailingly pleasant and has been a model of civility during his 30 years in the General Assembly.  He makes it a point to try to get along with everyone and is liked by virtually everyone who meets him.  Before his fall from grace he also was one of the most powerful legislators in Annapolis.

In 2010 Curry was indicted on federal charges  that he took more than $245,000 in bribes to use his position and influence to do favors for a grocery chain, Shoppers Food Warehouse.  The charges stemmed from revenue from a “consulting contract” with Shoppers that Currie failed to disclose as required by state ethics law on financial disclosure forms.  The financial disclosure forms are filed annually by legislators and Currie did not disclose his relationship with Shoppers in any of the five annual submissions covering the period that he received money from Shoppers.

State officials testified at trial that Currie’s failure to disclose that he was working for Shoppers led them to react to his requests on behalf of Shoppers’ as if he was making them in his capacity as a state legislator rather than as a lobbyist for Shoppers.  Prosecutors argued that Currie’s failure to report his employment by Shoppers was evidence that Currie realized that the arrangement with Shoppers was illicit and that he was taking bribes rather than doing the “normal” favors that legislators do for constituents.

Although prosecutors described the arrangement with Shoppers as a “pay-to-play” scheme Currie was acquitted of the charges by a federal jury.  A number of jurors later commented that Currie’s wrongdoing was an ethical lapse for the General Assembly to deal with rather than a crime.  As one juror observed:  “There was clearly a conflict of interest, questionable stuff that needs to be looked at.”

Most observers attributed his unexpected acquittal in large part to the parade of current and former state officials who went before the jury and attested to Currie’s reputation and character.  Character witnesses included U.S. House Minority Whip and former president of the Maryland Senate Steny Hoyer and former governor Robert Ehrlich.  Some saw the number of high-ranking officials willing to testify on Currie’s behalf as a testament to the goodwill that Currie had accumulated through years of public service; others saw it as a nauseating example of the so-called “culture of corruption” that prevails in Annapolis.

Personally, what I found most offensive about the character testimony was what it said about state government.  Timothy Maloney, a highly regarded lawyer and influential former state delegate, was the first character witness called by the defense and Maloney implied that dimwittedness could be behind Currie’s failure to adhere to state ethics laws.

Maloney’s unforgettable testimony was that Currie was not among the more intelligent members of the General Assembly:  “No one would call him smart,” was how Maloney described Currie to the jury.  He’s just not very astute when it comes to the mechanics of legislating,” Maloney further explained. “I think most legislators would tell you the same thing. . . . It hurts me to say that, because he’s a wonderful, wonderful person.”

Currie was not just some backbencher.  At the time of Maloney’s testimony Currie had been in the General Assembly for 24 years, the last eight of which he was chairman of the powerful Senate Budget and Taxation Committee, one of the most important positions in the General Assembly.

Defense attorneys tried to walk Maloney’s characterization back a bit, with other witnesses describing Currie as disorganized and sloppy with paperwork rather than as just plain stupid.  Currie’s attorneys argued to the jury that Currie was not trying to hide an illegal arrangement with Shoppers; he was just too forgetful and careless to correctly fill out financial disclosure forms.

Currie was appointed to the post because he was a loyal Democratic foot soldier in the General Assembly who never made waves.  The man who appointed him, Senate President Mike Miller, said after Currie was acquitted:  “Senator Currie is a good and decent man.  He may have made some mistakes, but he did not commit a crime.”  In the upper reaches of state government loyalty often is valued above all else, including competence.

I was not upset that the jury acquitted Currie on the bribery charges.  Juries are there to make decisions and generally do the best job that they can.  I was angry at the idea that a person who is not very smart and had not learned the “mechanics of legislating” despite a lengthy career in the General Assembly could be named to lead the Senate committee charged with considering all legislation that affects the state’s operating and capital budgets.

I was dumbfounded when his friends and former friends in the General Assembly came forward to defend him by matter-of-factly describing the former chairman of the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee as too forgetful or disorganized – or as too stupid – to abide by state ethics law.  The whole episode had a surreal and distasteful quality to it.  Certainly Currie’s actions were not the most venal in the long history of political scandal in Maryland but the story of his rise to prominence in the General Assembly and his trial and acquittal painted a singularly unflattering portrait of state politics.

So, Senator Currie, I regret calling you a piece of crap; that fails to give you credit for rising from the humblest of beginnings and treating people with dignity and respect during your entire career.  I don’t regret calling you self-serving, however, and it is time for you to take the pension that you earned for your 30 years in the General Assembly and enjoy your retirement.  You are a nice man but, despite your protestations, the citizens of your district and the state will get along fine without you or your wife.

December 5, 2016