New Jersey Democratic Gubernatorial Candidate Admits to Enabling Cheaters

Representative Sherrill‘s cover-up story looks like a lie.

Mikie Sherrill, a Democrat congresswoman and candidate for the New Jersey governorship, is under fire for serious ethical lapses. One involves how she somehow persuaded the two New Jersey senators to nominate two of her children for the highly competitive admission slots for the United States Naval Academy. Another, which I shall address below, is her still unexplained but suspicious involvement in a widespread cheating scandal at the Naval Academy in the year of her graduation. She is still refusing to provide a full public accounting, by refusing to release USNA’s disciplinary records that would show the nature and extent of both her and her husband’s involvement in the cheating scandal. Her current stonewalling raises even more questions that only she can clear up.

A stolen exam, the investigation and its findings

The cheating actually occurred in December 1992. As The Baltimore Sun has reported, a master copy of the final exam for electrical engineering (EE311) was stolen days before the exam was scheduled. Copies of the stolen exam were then circulated and sold to some midshipmen, not all of whom have ever been identified. According to The Sun, “more than 130 midshipmen were implicated by the Navy’s inspector general in the theft and distribution of the exam.” Sherril’s recent exculpatory statements following the disclosures appear to be false on at least one, perhaps two levels.

The cheating was initially reported almost immediately. Several midshipmen sent emails to faculty the day of the exam, telling them that the exam had been compromised. The Navy Inspector General quickly launched a formal investigation.

An investigation of this magnitude took a considerable amount of time. It was complicated and lengthened by the decisions of many midshipmen not to cooperate and even to lie to investigators. It concluded on January 20, 1994, with a 30-page detailed Report of Investigation. The Report notes numerous instances where midshipmen refused to answer questions either because they wanted to protect themselves or because they did not want to “bilge” their classmates by answering questions about what they knew about the cheating. Sherrill claims to fall within the latter category but as we shall see, her contention is not credible.

The Report details how some midshipmen lied repeatedly to investigators, even when under oath. Others retained attorneys who advised them to “plead the Fifth” by refusing to answer questions, even after the Academy Superintendent dropped a criminal investigation and granted them immunity from criminal charges. All of this hindered the search for the truth and contributed to the delay.

The Report was forwarded to the Secretary of the Navy and triggered a subsequent adjudication process, including individual hearings and review by a panel of three retired admirals. It appears that those individual hearings likely involved midshipmen represented by counsel.

In late April 1994, just weeks before graduation, the Secretary of the Navy rendered final disciplinary decisions. He approved 29 expulsions and other punishments for 42 others.

The Naval Academy’s honor concept

All of the military service academies have honor programs that prohibit lying or any other dishonest or dishonorable conduct. And although the processes adopted by the academies vary, they all proscribe any dishonest conduct. West Point and the Air Force Academy have clauses that explicitly prohibit any toleration of honor violations by others: “A cadet will not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate those who do.”

The Naval Academy’s “Honor Concept” is more flexible than the Honor Codes at West Point and the Air Force Academy. This flexibility allows more lenient punishments for less serious infractions. Unlike the Honor Codes at the other Academies, USNA’s Honor Concept does not contain a non-toleration provision and does not mandate a single, draconian punishment for every infraction. Technical violations must be leavened with common sense. And, after careful consideration of the total situation and factors involved, violations may be handled by personal counseling, instruction, and other measures short of expulsion.

USNA’s Honor Concept provides:

Approach with caution and lessons learned

As a West Point graduate, I approach this article touching on the Naval Academy’s Honor System with trepidation, not only to avoid any perception of inter-service rivalry, but because for the last 60+ years I have been imbued with West Point’s Honor Code and have been generally unfamiliar with how it differs from USNA’s Honor Concept. To assist my understanding and to gather information, I have reached out to several USNA graduates for a greater understanding and they, in turn, have contacted others.

Because of my West Point frame of reference, I initially focused on Sherrill’s toleration of the cheating cadets when she refused to report their dishonesty even when questioned about it. Under West Point’s Honor Code, all cadets have an absolute obligation to respond truthfully to questions about another cadet’s honesty. A failure or refusal to do so would result in dismissal. Initially, I was not aware that USNA did not have an honor code with a similar, non-toleration clause. I only learned that it did not when my Navy colleagues begin my reeducation process. And after reading the USNA Honor Concept, I first interpreted its requirement to “ensure that the full truth is known” as being the equivalent of West Point’s non-toleration clause. I actually tried to persuade my Navy friends that this had to be the correct interpretation at least for more serious honor violations but was resoundingly assured that I was wrong.

After struggling with the concept for a while, I realized that USNA’s policy of not punishing a midshipman for failing or refusing to report another midshipman’s cheating actually confirmed a bigger picture: Congresswoman Sherrill appears to be lying in her public explanations about why that she was disciplined by not being permitted to participate in the graduation ceremony. More on this below.

Sherrill’s refusal to “ensure that the full truth is known” and her subsequent blame-shifting

Sherrill’s involvement in the 1994 cheating scandal first became known in late September when CBS and others reported that she was not permitted to participate in the 1994 graduation ceremony. Her name was omitted on USNA’s official written program for the Academy’s 1994 Graduation and Commissioning, and she was not allowed to participate in the walk across the stage to receive her diploma publicly.

When questioned about her exclusion the graduation program and ceremony, Sherrill released a cryptic statement saying only,

When I was an undergraduate at the Naval Academy, I didn’t turn in some of my classmates, so I didn’t walk, but graduated and was commissioned as an officer in the U.S. Navy, serving for nearly ten years with the highest level of distinction and honor.

Thus, Sherrill refused abide by the Honor Concept’s precept that a midshipman must “ensure that the full truth is known,” when she refused to identify anyone who stole, sold, or used the pilfered exam, even though those dishonorable midshipmen would thereby remain eligible to receive commissions after having cheated their way to graduation. Under the Honor Concept she cannot be punished for her refusal, but it can be considered in judging her character and fitness for elected office.

Later Sherrill added that she personally did not cheat on the exam, and repeated that she only refused to “turn in some of my classmates.” But we do not know if that is true because she refuses to allow the release of her disciplinary records. As the New Jersey Globe reported:

However, the Sherrill campaign rejected a request that she permit public inspection of any disciplinary records from her time at the academy. Only Sherrill could authorize the release of those sealed records.

So, Sherrill still refuses to “ensure that the full truth is known.”

A degree of skepticism must attach to Sherrill’s unverified exculpatory statements —that she did not cheat and that she was punished for not turning in classmates — because of her refusal to allow the production of her USNA disciplinary records. To draw a legal comparison, judges routinely instruct juries that if a person refuses to produce documents over which she has control, the jury may infer that the missing records are contrary to her position.

Sherrill could, of course, resolve any doubt on this score simply by authorizing the release of all USNA disciplinary records pertaining to her role in the cheating scandal or the investigation.

Sherrill’s husband’s role

The role played by Sherrill’s husband, Jason Hedberg, is also a subject of legitimate inquiry here. Hedberg and Sherrill were classmates. Hedberg, however, graduated in 1994 without any known punishment, although he was suspected of cheating and was a subject of the investigation.

According to reporting by the New York Post, Hedberg, along with several dozen other midshipmen, sued officials at the Naval Academy, the Navy, and the Pentagon in 1994 “in a desperate bid to block and Honor Board at Annapolis from deciding whether they should be dismissed from the school.”

According to their own federal complaint, each of these midshipmen “was compelled to make inculpatory statements to Navy Inspector General investigators.”

The suit was unsuccessful. The court did not find that their statements were inadmissible because they were “compelled,” but instead dismissed their complaint, ruling that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination did not apply because “no proceeding of a ‘criminal’ nature is either pending or contemplated.”

Observations and questions

Sherrill’s public statement and her refusal to allow the production of all relevant records prompt several observations and questions (in bold font). Here are some:

• My Navy contacts affirm to me that, consistent with the lack of a non-toleration clause in the Honor Concept, midshipmen are not punished for refusing to turn in their classmates. This also is consistent with reporting by the New York Post that, “Nobody, including Mikie Sherrill, was barred from graduation ceremonies for covering for their friends.” The same source, who has reviewed the documents, said that “Midshipmen were, however, punished for lying to Naval investigators.”

In addition, a former USNA Superintendent authorized my release of the following statement regarding Sherrill’s claim that she was disciplined because of her refusal to turn in her classmates:

“When contacted, a former Superintendent of the Naval Academy said he was unaware of this being a policy at the Naval Academy, nor being endorsed by a Superintendent for any Midshipman who had successfully completed the course of instruction for a Bachelor of Science degree.”

1. Based upon this information and the long-established USNA policy of not punishing midshipmen who fail to turn in classmates, how can Sherrill’s proffered explanation that she was punished for not turning in classmates be true? Is she one of the midshipmen who lied to investigators?

2. From a Navy officer: Sherrill’s proffered explanation is inconsistent with the Honor Concept, as her punishment supposedly was for not turning someone in does not exist. It is logical to conclude that the punishment was for something else, which she refuses to address. She needs to own up to this, be transparent and accountable.

• Is there evidence that Sherrill did receive a copy of the stolen exam or otherwise cheat?

• In para 101, p. 22 of his Report, the Navy IG found “much evidence that midshipmen conspired to conceal their involvement” in the cheating scandal, including efforts “to coordinate and perfect the testimony they would give.” Was Sherrill or her husband involved in this conspiracy in any way?

• Did Sherrill refuse to answer questions about her future husband’s role in the cheating scandal? Did she ever discuss it with him before their graduation? If so, how?

• Did Sherrill take any steps to confront any of the malefactors to encourage them to self-correct by reporting the violations?

• A USNA graduate who is a former Vice Chairman of the Brigade Honor Committee (and a former Blue Angel), authorized me to report that in his experience being excluded from the Graduation Program and prohibited from walking across the stage at graduation were not something authorized as punishments for an honor violation during his years at USNA and that he had “never heard of such a thing.” He also said that it was unheard of to punish a midshipman for electing not to turn in another midshipman. Based on the highly unusual nature of the punishment and the fact that it was outside the norm, he raised the question whether this was a plea bargain negotiated by a lawyer to avoid expulsion. That leads to this question:

  Was Sherrill’s punishment negotiated with the assistance of counsel and as an alternative to a more serious punishment such as expulsion? If so, what other violations had the Academy accused Sherrill of committing and what evidence exists to support or negate any such allegations?

Why is this important?

The answer to this question is the closing paragraph of the Navy IG’s Report:

“The Naval Academy is not just another command within the Department of the Navy. It is the symbol of the highest ideals of the Navy, its commands, and its people. The Navy’s response to the problems at the Academy we have discussed in this report must demonstrate to the American people that the Navy is firmly committed to the nicest sense of personal honor and integrity.”

The 1994 honor violations occurred many years ago and repentance and forgiveness is appropriate if the miscreants take full responsibility for their actions. But if Sherrill cannot come clean about her role in this sad affair, including authorizing the release of all records relating to her disciplinary record at USNA and complete answers to the above questions, then her refusal will be evidence of a continuing moral lapse that should disqualify her from holding a governorship or any other responsible public office.