quote:Originally posted by luvbb:quote:You are opposed to a pre arranged and explicit program that benefits greatly, both the Service and a Cadet and somehow want to find unfairness where none exists.
Okay...here is the question that no one seems to be able to answer so far. I will try ONCE AGAIN. Can someone please explain to me how this policy "benefits" the enlisted men and women in the service (from where the GREATEST manpower comes from in all the branches of the service) who do not have the same options for "alternate assignments" and delays in service as an Academy Grad/professional athlete???? This, IMO is where the unfairness DOES exist.
Again, this is a question about POLICY....NOT about a cadet's option to utilize that policy. And yes, I understand it is "pre-arranged and agreed" upon by the cadet and the academy. I am not questioning THAT. I AM questioning whether this is a policy JUST for athletes in academies...and I am questioning HOW is it fair to the vast majority of our service men and woman who ARE serving overseas without benefit of "options".
It does not benefit enlisted personal already in service. However, it is not unfair to them either. That's like saying it is unfair to have a God given ability and be given special priveleges to use it...like make millions of dollars throwing a fastball...or getting a record contract for singing.
No, there are not options to personel for singing. Why would there be? The service cannot use this to their advantage the same way. Universities across America have publicity and marketing departments. These departments use the talents of students within their universities to further themselves. Every college in America participates in this endeavor. Now however, according to you, there is some unfairness when people are allowed options that are not available to other people. I have yet to hear another cadet, service person, retired service, or former grad stand up say they believe this policy to be unfair, yet you point to this as unfair. Army graduated 7 seniors from their baseball team last year. The 5 who are currently serving active duty are thrilled that their other two teammates are playing pro ball. Every cadet I have talked to thinks that the idea of having a high caliber baseball team is really cool. They love the idea that they went to school with guys who might be a major leaguer some day (kinda like civilian universities and non enlisted people).
Why must you purport that people currently serving would think this unfair. This is a voulunteer Army. No one is serving against their will. They didn't enlist in the service or at West Point and then turn and point a finger and ask why someone else is being treated "better" or "differently". You are simply making that up and it doesn't hold water.
The service is trying to use its personal to best benefit themselves. If that means that they can get millions of dollars of free PR and advertising by allowing an occasional cadet to turn pro, they have shown that's an investment they want to make...just the same as any other university in America. Your whole argument is based on the "burden of duty principle". What you fail to realize, is the duty is not considered a burden by the people who bear it, it is considered a privilege. When you come to terms with that, you will be a little closer to understanding how the cadet is torn between baseball and service to his country, and not fleeing an obligation.