- By Thomas E. RicksThomas E. Ricks covered the U.S. military for the Washington Post from 2000 through 2008.
Army Maj. Gen. Gregg Martin, the president of the National Defense University, announced — not proposed — to his senior subordinates last Friday a series of abrupt and sweeping changes in the structure of the institution. To top it off, by some accounts, he then threatened to terminate anyone who even questioned the changes.
At the meeting, General Martin said that he was laying out the way forward. He then emphasized that everyone working at NDU needed to support his effort. He continued, according to some NDU insiders, to threaten to move to terminate anyone who did not “get on board.”
In an e-mail to me last night, Martin neither confirmed nor denied making such statements. Nor did he seek to apologize for or retract them. Rather, he stated that his comments had been “misinterpreted by some.”
The general wrote that, “it has come to my attention that some were concerned by my remarks on the importance of moving forward as one team on the curriculum revision. It was not my intent to cause concern for anyone’s position at the University, but rather to build a team approach to this important transformational effort. I regret that my intent was misinterpreted by some.”
But his comments seem pretty clear to me. Martin’s frustration with NDU’s faculty is evident, and somewhat understandable. Academics are naturally jealous of their turf, and resistant to most changes. And academics on the federal payroll sometimes combine the worst of both worlds — academic snobbery swaddled in bureaucratic civil service rules. Most of all, I support anything that improves the academic rigor of NDU, and I am not sure that entrenched-for-life faculty members are naturally on the side of the angels in this fight. Sometimes they resemble Japanese holdouts on Guam, determined to fight to the last paycheck.
That said, Martin’s my-way-or-the-highway approach doesn’t strike me as the way to go about it either, especially in an institution that purports to teach strategic leadership. This is not a commander taking a hill in combat, nor even a college football coach preparing his players for the big game. The note below from one person at NDU about the top-down changes being imposed alleges that Martin’s remarks amounted to “an unlawful threat.” I’m no lawyers, so I’ll leave that issue to the DoD IG.
I also suspect that the general’s intimidating stance may be seen as impinging on academic freedom. You’d think the leadership of NDU would have some concern with that, having only recently gotten relief from the “warning letter” issued in 2012 by its academic credentialing overseers. That statement of its accreditation being in jeopardy was lifted last November, according to the credentialing group’s website. All this will no doubt interest the Senate Armed Services Committee staffers who have been sniffing around NDU lately.
On Monday afternoon I sent an e-mail asking General Martin and the spokesman for NDU for comment. He wrote back Tuesday evening. FWIW, here is his entire note to me, which reads like it was written by a committee:
Almost exactly two years ago (Feb 6, 2012), GEN Martin Dempsey, 18th CJCS, gave NDU its refined Mission Statement, renewing our focus on our core area of education and leader development by providing rigorous JPME to members of the U.S. Armed Forces and select others. In his recently released 2nd Term Strategic Direction to the Joint Force, the CJCS also said, “Education will serve as a hedge against surprise, much as it has during previous interwar periods. Professional Military Education should adapt to meet those dynamic needs. As we continue to advance “One University” initiatives at National Defense University, we will update joint PME curriculum across the force to emphasize key leader attributes. We will also explore how best to adapt our learning institutions to serve a global Joint Force, evaluating degree accreditation and distance learning delivery methods.”
As a result of this guidance converging with the current fiscal reality, it is quite clear that business as usual is no longer sustainable. Thus, the Academic Affairs Department, led by our Provost, has put forward an innovative concept — still in its ‘vision’ or ‘commander’s intent’ phase.
There are three working groups led and populated by the faculty, exploring implementation considerations to more effectively and efficiently leverage and focus all of NDU’s resources in a “Whole of NDU” application to our core Mission, enabled by a common academic calendar. This will allow teaching, research, and outreach across NDU to be more mutually supportive. It dedicates more time for professional development and scholarship by the faculty. It concentrates college resources on college-specific missions, so they can maintain and deepen their comparative expertise. And, perhaps most important to the crucial role of educating and developing the future leaders of Joint Force 2020, it is student-centric with greater attention to student needs, professional interests, and learning objectives.
Finally, it has come to my attention that some were concerned by my remarks on the importance of moving forward as one team on the curriculum revision. It was not my intent to cause concern for anyone’s position at the University, but rather to build a team approach to this important transformational effort. I regret that my intent was misinterpreted by some.
In line with NDU’s policy of academic freedom and its promotion of critical thinking, I enthusiastically invite and welcome all NDU employees to engage and ask those tough questions about the direction the University is moving — it is through this open and dynamic exchange of ideas that we all learn and get smarter.
I extend my personal invitation to you to come visit NDU and engage with us on this vitally important endeavor.
Wishing you all the best!
Gregg F. Martin, Ph.D.
Major General, U.S. Army
Tom again: Meanwhile, here, below, is the note that set me off looking into this. I am told that technically the deans and commandants (and there is a raftload of them) may not have opposed the revisions — because they actually weren’t asked for their opinions.
I work at the National Defense University.
Over the past several weeks it has become clear that we are facing a crisis at the University.
In opposition to ALL of his Deans and Commandants, the President of NDU, MG Martin, has decided to implement a dramatic revision of the curriculum across all the War Colleges and degree programs.
The “reforms” are not well-conceived. But worse is the process. It is top-down and rushed. Components are going to be required to restructure their curriculum in fundamental ways in a matter of weeks. Even if there were support for these reforms — and there is not — there is not enough time to do it properly.
Realizing the flaws in the process, MG Martin has issued a directive that anyone who raises concerns about the changes — even within the chain of command, that is to the CJCS or J7 — will be immediately terminated.
Many of us believe this is an unlawful threat.
Furthermore, it seems clear that the imposition of massive curriculum changes from the top down, in the face of opposition from Deans, Commandants, and Faculty violates standards set by our accrediting bodies and, if made public, would surely result in the loss of accreditation for NDU.
Finally, it is not clear to me that MG has the statutory authority to impose these changes which have the effect of de-establishing the Eisenhower School and National War College as independent entities.
Air Force general dies in crash; Hagel gets to within 5 kms. of Syrian border; Dempsey in Beijing; Was Boston an intelligence failure?; And a little bit more.Gordon Lubold
Gordon Lubold is a national security reporter for Foreign Policy. He is also the author of FP's Situation Report, an e-mailed newsletter that is blasted out to more than 70,000 national security and foreign affairs subscribers each morning that includes the top nat-sec news, breaking news, tidbits, nuggets and what he likes to call "candy." Before arriving at FP, he was a senior advisor at the United States Institute of Peace in Washington, where he wrote on national security and foreign policy. Prior to his arrival at USIP, he was a defense reporter for Politico, where he launched the popular Morning Defense early morning blog and tip-sheet. Prior to that, he was the Pentagon and national security correspondent for the Christian Science Monitor, and before that he was the Pentagon correspondent for the Army Times chain of newspapers. He has covered conflict in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries in South Asia, and has reported on military matters in sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia and Latin America as well as at American military bases across the country. He has spoken frequently on the sometimes-contentious relationship between the military and the media as a guest on numerous panels. He also appears on radio and television, including on CNN, public radio's Diane Rehm and To the Point, and C-SPAN's Washington Journal. He lives in Alexandria with his wife and two children.| Situation Report |