Army-Navy Game: Celebrating Tradition While Concealing a Crisis

As fans gather this weekend to cheer for their teams at the iconic Army-Navy game, the celebration of service and sportsmanship carries a weighty, often overlooked reality: one in five female cadets and midshipmen will experience unwanted sexual contact this year alone. That’s not a hypothetical statistic—it’s based on the Department of Defense’s most recent “Annual Report on Sexual Harassment and Violence at the Military Service Academies.”[1]

What the Numbers Really Mean

The term “unwanted sexual contact,” as defined in the DoD report, includes a broad range of sex-related offenses prohibited under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). These offenses range from rape to unwanted touching of intimate body parts in situations where the victim did not or could not consent.

However, even these alarming figures do not tell the full story. “Unwanted sexual contact” excludes incidents of sexual harassment, which are tracked separately—and those numbers are staggering. According to the same report, 63% of female and 20% of male cadets and midshipmen at the service academies experience sexual harassment annually. This not only paints a damning picture of the environment they are enduring but also highlights the toxic culture shaping them as future leaders.[2]

Both Victim and Perpetrator

What’s perhaps most disturbing is that the vast majority of these incidents are perpetrated by fellow cadets and midshipmen—future commissioned officers of the United States military. These are the very individuals who will be tasked with leading soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, making critical decisions under pressure, and fostering command climates where respect and discipline are non-negotiable. They will be expected to embody and uphold values like honor, integrity, and respect, serving as examples to those they lead.

This isn’t just a story of victims enduring a toxic culture; it’s also about perpetrators being shaped by it. The prevalence of such behavior among cadets and midshipmen raises serious questions about the character being molded within these institutions. How effective will these future officers be at establishing healthy command climates and rooting out toxic behavior in their units if they are engaging in or tolerating it during their own formative years? This conduct suggests a deeper failure in instilling the moral foundation required of military leaders—one that calls into question not just individual accountability but the effectiveness of academy leadership in fostering environments that truly reflect the values of the profession of arms.

Leadership’s Responsibility for the Culture

The service academies’ leadership is directly responsible for setting the tone within their institutions. Instead of creating climates of respect, discipline, and accountability, they have fostered environments where toxic behaviors are tolerated or ignored. This failure has perpetuated misconduct and eroded the core values these academies claim to instill in future military leaders.

Rather than addressing the issue head-on, academy leaders have often worked to conceal it. A stark example is the Coast Guard’s handling of Operation Fouled Anchor, which revealed decades of sexual assaults and misconduct by Coast Guard personnel that were ignored, underreported, or dismissed outright. The failure to bring these offenses to light earlier – and the lack of accountability for those involved – mirrors the broader pattern of institutional denial across all service academies. These actions prioritize reputation over meaningful reform and signal to cadets and midshipmen that misconduct will be excused rather than addressed.

When confronted with troubling data, academy leaders frequently point to the 2019 Association of American Universities (AAU) Campus Climate Survey as evidence that the academies are not significantly worse than civilian institutions. However, this comparison is fundamentally flawed. The Department of Defense (DoD) survey reports annual rates of sexual misconduct, with 21% of female cadets and midshipmen reporting unwanted sexual contact in a single academic year. In contrast, the AAU survey reports cumulative data over a student’s entire college tenure.[3]

When adjusted for annual rates, the AAU data shows an average annual risk of 7.53% for female students at civilian universities experiencing nonconsensual sexual contact.[4] By comparison, the academies report nearly three times this annual rate of sexual misconduct. This stark difference underscores the failure of academy leadership to prevent and address sexual misconduct effectively and highlights the uniquely toxic environments within the academies.

Misaligned Priorities and Lack of Accountability

Despite clear evidence of systemic issues, academy leadership has repeatedly prioritized optics over meaningful action to address sexual misconduct. Instead, they have focused on optics and symbolic gestures, showcasing initiatives like “SHARP Week,” Denim Day, and cadet-organized awareness events. These efforts, while visible, are largely performative and fail to address the root causes of the problem. This reliance on Measures of Performance – checking boxes with symbolic campaigns – over Measures of Effectiveness, which evaluate meaningful outcomes, highlights the superficiality of these actions. Proven programs, like the Enhanced Assess Acknowledge Act (EAAA) initiative, have been cast aside in favor of flashy but ineffective alternatives.[5]

The misalignment of priorities is even more glaring when compared to other areas where academy leaders devote resources. Football programs and public relations efforts receive immense attention and funding, while foundational work to address sexual misconduct and foster healthy command climates remains neglected.

Worse, no senior leader – academy superintendents or commandants – has faced consequences for fostering environments where misconduct flourishes. Accountability starts at the top, and the absence of consequences sends a clear signal: toxic behavior will be tolerated. This failure undermines the trust and cohesion essential for preparing future leaders who embody honor, integrity, and discipline.

The Impact

The consequences of these failures ripple far beyond the walls of the academies. Victims of sexual misconduct suffer lasting harm – physically, emotionally, and professionally. Many report feeling unsupported or retraumatized by an institutional culture that prioritizes reputation over accountability. These experiences often lead to mental health struggles, disrupted careers, and a profound distrust in leadership.

The institutions themselves also face significant costs. Parents are increasingly hesitant to send their daughters – and even their sons – to these academies, concerned for their safety in environments where misconduct is pervasive. Once symbols of honor and excellence, these storied institutions are now seeing their reputations eroded, and with them, public trust.

The failures of academy leadership don’t just harm individuals – they damage the military as a whole. Some offenders graduate and take their toxic behaviors into the operational force, undermining unit cohesion, morale, and readiness. These leaders-in-name-only set poor examples for their subordinates, perpetuating a cycle of misconduct that weakens the military profession.

Worst of all, these failures create a culture that tolerates misconduct, signaling to future cadets and midshipmen that such behavior can be excused or ignored. If the academies cannot embody the values of honor, integrity, and discipline, how can they instill these principles in the next generation of military leaders? Without decisive action, the damage will extend far beyond individual victims, jeopardizing the very foundation of the military’s ability to serve and protect the nation.

Solutions for a Systemic Problem

Fixing this issue requires more than symbolic gestures. It demands bold, systemic changes and unwavering accountability from leadership.

1. Embrace Transparency: The academies must openly admit the severity of the issue rather than cloaking it in bureaucratic jargon or misleading statistics. Transparency builds trust, and prospective cadets and their families deserve honest assessments.
2. Hold Leaders Accountable: Leaders who foster toxic climates must face consequences. Accountability must start at the top to signal zero tolerance for misconduct and set the tone for institutional change.
3. Reinstate and Enforce Discipline: Discipline must be restored across all levels. Strict standards of conduct, accountability for violations, and a cultural reset that values honor, integrity, and respect are essential.
4. Reform Admissions Priorities: Admissions processes must prioritize integrity and moral courage over athletic ability and quotas. Those entering the academies must align with military values to prevent further erosion of standards.
5. Implement Effective, Evidence-Based Solutions: Symbolic gestures must be replaced with evidence-based programs that produce measurable outcomes. Proven initiatives, such as the EAAA program, should be prioritized to address systemic issues, instill discipline, and enforce standards.

A Call to Action

The Army-Navy game is a time to celebrate rivalry and camaraderie, but it must also serve as a moment of reflection. These institutions are not just fields of competition; they are entrusted with shaping the next generation of military leaders. It is time for the academies to take this responsibility seriously and confront the systemic issues undermining their missions.

If the academies devoted even a fraction of the resources and attention they give to their football programs to addressing sexual misconduct and fostering accountability, we could begin to see real progress. The solution is clear: enforce discipline, prioritize character, and demand accountability at all levels of leadership.

The men and women who commit to serving our nation deserve institutions that uphold the highest standards of respect, honor, and integrity. They deserve better – and it is time we demand better for them.

About the Author

Ken Segelhorst is a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel and former assistant professor at the United States Military Academy. From 2020 to 2022, he served as course director for the superintendent’s capstone course, MX400: Officership, providing firsthand insight into the academy’s culture and leadership. His experience at West Point drives his advocacy for reform and accountability across the U.S. military.

Source(s):

[1] Department of Defense, Annual Report on Sexual Harassment and Violence at the Military Service Academies, Academic Program Year 2021-2022, available at https://www.sapr.mil/reports.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Association of American Universities, 2019 Campus Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and Misconduct, available at https://www.aau.edu/key-issues/campus-climate-and-safety/aau-campus-climate-survey-2019.

[4] The AAU’s 2019 Campus Climate Survey provided cumulative risk data. The annualized rate was calculated by analyzing the survey’s sample data, which included respondents’ year of study and corresponding reported incidents, to approximate annual rates for comparison with DoD figures.

[5] Rose L. Thayer, “Air Force Academy Phased Out Sexual Assault Prevention Program Shown to Work at Other Schools,” Military.com, October 7, 2024, available at https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/10/07/air-force-academy-phased-out-sexual-assault-prevention-program-shown-work-other-schools.html.