I’ve been offline because of a bad cold, and I had two briefs due in the Court of Appeals for the U.S. Third Circuit. That’s behind me now. I’ll be posting later today with my thoughts on the Self Solutions study that has been commissioned by the independent advisory group created by the USMMAAAF. That looks promising, but I want to do my due diligence before I comment further. If my due diligence shows that Self Solutions is going to be transparent and independent, I will recommend that midshipmen cooperate with it.
Meanwhile, with respect to LMI, which is now on campus trying to do focus groups, my advice remains unchanged: Do not voluntarily give LMI information. It will be used to justify the administration’s actions rather than as a truly independent study of sea year. (That’s why the contract was “wired” for LMI.) The administration has confirmed that participation is voluntary. That means that concerns about retaliation that have been expressed in comments on this blog are unfounded. And if you do face any retaliation for refusing to “volunteer”, document it and report it to the SARC as bullying.
Remember that LMI is seeking to acquire data in a non-transparent process that will allow that data to be twisted to “answer” a question with a pre-ordained answer:
No sea year on commercial ships so that MARAD can justify its quest for up to $1.8 billion in funding for state school ships.
That’s MARAD’s ultimate goal; and, it has already shown it will twist the data (and refuse to release the actual data so that you can see how they twisted it).
Think of it this way: The Academy/Administration can’t be bothered to answer the 14 questions Congress asked over a month ago — questions that are clearly designed to help and protect the midshipmen. Why should you answer the Academy’s questions — questions which are most likely designed to destroy sea year on commercial ships rather than to actually help and protect midshipmen?
No Sea, No D
(No Sea Year, No Data)