Exam Cheating in the Navy - Report Example

Exam cheating in the Navy An assignment submitted by Winter Exam cheating in the Navy Nowadays, unethical practices like academic dishonesty are rampant across all private and governmental sectors. When something like that happens in a respected department like Navy, it makes national news. The recent US Navy exams scandal created major sensation across the country bringing into focus the declining integrity of Navy ethics. It is considered to be a form of violation against the Naval Postgraduate School’s honor code and is taken seriously by the department. Furthermore, the commanders and high level officials involved in the scandal were also deprecated for their lethargic actions regarding the issue for many years. In the face of this rigging and cheating claims, there is pressure on the officials to take appropriate disciplinary actions for the violation. However, it is also equally important to know the root causes behind this reprehensible behavior of the Navy officials. The discussion here presents the reasons and causes for the nuclear-trained operators to indulge in exam cheating. Nuclear-trained operators on the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) and former USS Daniel Webster (MTS-626) cheated on their exams for various reasons. After the cheating scandal was exposed, there has been the question: why do officials cheat on their exams. There are three main reasons identified in this discussion. The harsh punishments on the operators for failure in exams, the fear of retaliation, and the culture of indifference that had developed in the Navy’s environment could have contributed to their unethical behavior. In 2007, the cheating incident by the nuclear-trained sailors on the nuclear aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) was revealed. In this incident, more than 34 sailors were expelled from the Navy and 10 others were put under criminal investigation for their roles in the cheating ring. It was found that the issue was went undetected for nearly seven years. A consequent scandal in the moored training ship Daniel Webster (MTS-626) was exposed in February of 2014. Around 70 soldiers were allegedly accused of cheating their Engineering Watch Stander (EWS) exams. “This breach of examination integrity and security was followed by seven or more years of staff personnel exchanging this file, known as the ‘pencil file’, via personal unclassified and other electronic media before taking the examination” (Perry, 2014). Moreover, it was estimated that more than 76 senior enlisted staff instructors from the Naval Nuclear Power School were been a part of the cheating, as they have created a network of ‘pencil files’ that included thumb drives, CDs, and emails to the EWS versions. Such issues created pressures on the U.S. Naval Academy to investigate and evaluate the causal factors behind such cheating situation. According to the U.S. Naval Academy, the scandal was viewed as more as an ‘integrity’ issue than as a problem. They were actually trying to determine the reasons behind the issue as well as sought to find whether it was happening elsewhere. Some of the reasons that became evident after the investigation were the pressure on the soldiers for higher performance targets, fear of losing the army connections as well as the environment that fostered it. The common reasons for such cheating was the “belief that there was little risk of getting caught, and a work environment at the nuclear training site that created stresses and pressures on the approximately 300 sailors who serve as instructors” (“AP Newsbreak,” 2014). Even though the scandal shook the U.S. Navy, the details of it remained confidential until now as the senior Navy officials were keen on seeking the scope of the cheating, as well as the root causes and possible remedies. Since the Navy personnel have to make follow a rigorous and highly technical training and testing process, the sailors are forced to meet higher standards of efficiency. This created higher performance targets and compliance among the sailors. “Once deployed, they face more exams to test their knowledge and preparedness for worst-case scenarios. Low scores can lead to consequences up to removal from a sub, and hurt the overall rating of the crew” (Abrams, 2011). First of all, the punishment associated with the failure in exams was one among the contributing factors to cheating in exams. The Navy trainees were harshly punished by the authorities for failing in their exams. Some of the punishments include disqualification, revocation of shore duty orders, and loss of liberty. Such unduly punishments and efficiency tests created pressures among the crew members thereby pushing them to cheat for gaining a mere pass in the qualifying exam. Moreover, the authorities were keen in maintaining higher academic standards and were less attentive to the skills which might be needed by the sailors. In the case of CVN-69, the senior leadership thought that they were actually improving the sailors’ administration skills and the navy administration as a whole by incorporating higher level of knowledge during an annual assessment. In that direction, they created academically advanced exam papers, consequently belittling the sailor’s experience and knowledge through these qualifications. So, nuclear training exams became increasingly difficult for the sailors because those exams’ difficulty level were much higher than the essential skills the sailors actually had and needed. This made the sailors pressured and intimidated by the exam qualifications, forcing them to find unethical ways for passing their exams. “Sailors know how to handle the nuclear technology, but commanders competing with one another to show proficiency have made tests so difficult — and so detached from the skills sailors actually need — that crew members sometimes bend the rules” (Melia, 2011). For example, in MTS-626, it was discovered that the exams were almost impossible to pass without cheating because of its difficulty. This significantly contributed to students’ fear of failing and ultimately led them to cheat. Moreover, exam security and administration was quite weak. For instance, the investigators found that the sailors were given hints to the received ‘pencil files’ and key answers stating which of the five test versions they would be given. “Due to their positions, the sailors knew which version of the test would be scheduled and pass out the so called, “Pencil Number” to the cheaters” (Lagrone, 2014). On the part of the administration, they have used these five test versions in a predictably rotating order and the asked 600 questions had not been changed significantly since 2004, which implies that it violates the written rules of Navy that requires exam questions to be changed frequently. Apart from the sailors who cheated on the tests, the faculties and officials who facilitated this deliberate scheme to cheat were considered guilty as well. “The administration needs to assure the faculty that they will not be put on trial or endure bureaucratic nightmare for simply maintaining ethical standards. When the administration and faculty work together, it sends a clear and unified message that cheating and plagiarism will not be tolerated” (Lanthrop & Foss, 2005, pg.37). Without the support of the officials, the cheating could not have been carried out for such a long time. The reason for these officials to encourage such an unethical scheme could be because of their fear of retaliation on failing to maintain the academic standards of their descended sailors. Many crew members at both commands were clearly aware of the integrity violations within their groups, even though they did not actively participate in the attempt. But still they were reluctant to come forward with their concerns because of two primary reasons. There was a fear of retaliation from those involved and a culture of indifference to or acceptance of the situation. This act of tolerance towards dishonesty arose because of the organizational environment that fostered such illegal practice. “Toleration of dishonest acts by others seems to be by far the most significant contributing force behind one’s own subsequent dishonesty” (Malmstrom & Mullin, 2013). Ultimately, 52 Sailors were directly affected while the entire nuclear community was indirectly affected because of this issue. The cheating was considered to be a clear violation of Navy ethics. It is important for the National Security Department to establish a valid code of conduct for the personnel so that there would be no compromise regarding the integrity of the department in its academic functioning. To sum up, this recent scandal about the allegations of academic exams within the Navy’s nuclear-trained operators led to an increased awareness about not only the issue of cheating, but provided a deeper insight into the scope and magnitude of the situation and its causal factors. References: “AP Newsbreak: Navy Kicks Out 34 for Nuke Cheating.” (2014, 20 August). In The NewYork Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2014/08/20/us/politics/ap-us-navy-nuclear-cheating.html Abrams, J. (2011, 15 August). Why are sailors on navy submarines cheating on tests? Retrieved from http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/08/15/cheating-scandal-hits-us-submarine/ Lagrone, S. (2014, 20 August). Navy expels 34 sailors in nuclear cheating scandal. Retrieved from news.usni.org/2014/08/20/navy-expels-34-sailors-nuclear-cheating-scandal Lathrop, A & Foss, K. (2005). Guiding students from cheating and plagiarism to honesty and integrity: strategies for change. Libraries Unlimited. Malmstrom, F. V. & Mullin, D. R. (2013). “Dishonesty and cheating in a federal service academy: Toleration is the main ingredient.” Research in Higher Education Journal 19, 1-19. Melia, M. (2011, 15 August). AP Enterprise: Exam-cheating scandal hits Navy sub. Retrieved from http://news.yahoo.com/ap-enterprise-exam-cheating-scandal-hits-navy-sub-200819130.html Perry, K. M. (2014, 15 March). Command investigation into alleged staff qualification cheating at nuclear power training unit Charleston, South Carolina on or about 03 February 2014. Retrieved from https://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/237328272?access_key=key-tdvn6NhU6NzXUABgTYcm&allow_share=true&escape=false&view_mode=scroll Read More