Military Ethics and Honor in the United States Marine Corps
Description of Project
Marine West, 12/2 and 12/4
Last July, my friend told me that he enlisted in the Marine Corps for the next 6 years. He would be leaving for Basic Training on Parris Island on September 6, 2021, the day after his 19th birthday.
Throughout September, he explained that he was growing into the marine he always wanted to be. I followed weekly updates through what the corps calls “Transformation Videos,” which show what recruits are doing each week. In the first video I watched as sergeants introduced the recruits to the Marine Corps Core Values: Honor, Courage, and Commitment.
Honor: this word caught my eye.
Over the past few months, I’ve heard the word honor above all others in the context of the Marine Corps–even seeing my friend get the words “death before dishonor” tattoo-ed over his heart the day he returned home. But how is this value instilled in these marines over their 3-month training at Parris Island?
I applied for the Keller Family Venture Grant to learn how:
This grant allowed me to travel to Parris Island, South Carolina–a Marine Corps recruit training site–to study the conceptualization of honor in the Marine Corps.
Piecing together this project was an interesting look into why left-leaning people have a tendency to stereotype individuals who choose to join the military. Politically, there is a tension on the left in the perception of honor in the military that contributes to the belief that recruits are trained, or even duped, to relinquish their identity for patriotism and brotherhood.
The complete withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan in August 2021 led to a series of interviews with marines, and the families of those who lost their lives. While there is this belief among some that the military “brainwashes” troops to subscribe to their core values, many of the families speaking in memory of their loved ones shared that their lost marine had aspired to be a marine long before enlisting. In my project I hoped to investigate where this pull originates, as well as what other parts of their identities might contribute to this pull–through learning about the philosophy of honor.
Beaufort, SC
My Arrival
When I arrived in South Carolina, I met the family of a Parris Island graduate I know, a childhood friend. Fourteen of his relatives and family friends traveled from around the country to support him. Within 5 minutes of arriving at our hotel in Beaufort, his mom handed me a sheet with our rigid visitors’ schedule–7:00, Motivational Run; 9:30-10:30, Liberty Ceremony…14:00, Warrior’s Prayer.
It was clear that being late was not an option on base. Nor was walking on the grass, wearing ripped clothing, standing on the right side of “our graduate,” or prematurely calling our graduate a marine before he swore in with a “death before dishonor” oath.
I received 10 emails the week before arriving containing rules we were expected to learn, including the titles of different officials on base. This was my first visit to a military base.
In one was a list of do’s and don'ts:
- Address military personnel by the rank and name displayed on their uniforms unless asked to do otherwise. View rank insignias at www.marines.mil/Marines/Ranks or ask your Marine to help you. When in doubt, use "sir” or "ma’am”.
- Colors is the daily raising and lowering of the flag. If you’re on base during this time and can hear the Morning or Evening Colors call, stand, refrain from talking, and face the flag if visible. If you’re in your vehicle, pull over and stop if safe. You’re invited to observe the Colors Ceremony the morning of graduation from 7:45 – 8:15 a.m. at Barrow Hall.
- Refer to Marines as "Marines”, not "Soldiers”. Soldier is sometimes unknowingly used as a general term for military personnel but it actually refers to an individual in the U.S. Army.
- Be courteous and respectful to other families, military personnel, and the base itself
- Keep prescription medication in its original container with the original prescription label.
"Do:
Don't
- Do not approach, call out to, photograph, or attempt to distract recruits or Drill Instructors undergoing training.
- Do not approach recruits, Marines, or Drill Instructors in formation. As tempting as it is to run up and hug your loved one or get the perfect close-up picture, please keep an appropriate distance.
- Do not walk across the Peatross Parade Deck.
- Civilians do not need to salute uniformed service members.
- Refrain from any jokes or references to violent or threatening activity to an individual, group of individuals, or property. They will be treated seriously.
- Do not use a cell phone that isn’t hands-free while operating a vehicle."
Another email discussed the flag ceremony:
“As the flag comes up to where you are seated everyone is to stand and salute it, after it passes by you are seated again. During the National Anthem everyone (unless of course they are physically disabled) stands to salute the flag. Remove head coverings unless you fit into the exception-you will know if you do, basically anyone not military remove their hat. Right hand over your hearts and SILENCE unless you are singing along. This is not the time for conversation or any other thing you can think of, just stand at attention. Yes this should probably be in all caps too ☹ Your Marines swore an oath to protect that flag-the least we can do is honor it.”
They were going to make sure that everybody knew the rules, and had no excuse not to follow them. They were in writing. And they were going to make sure we followed them out of respect, and out of a duty to, rather than out of blind fear.
I could only imagine how they trained the recruits to abide by strict military expectations.
Journalistic Integrity
As you can conclude from the expectations, it is not easy being a journalist on-base. Approaching marines for interviews would be a complete disregard of their title and responsibilities, and scheduling an interview was pretty much out of question considering their rigid schedules.
The Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma makes suggestions for journalists that cover violence, conflict, and tragedy. The recruits present were at basic training–not yet in the fleet or deployed–but they had just encountered their first stage of training, a traumatic wake-up call for some. Before my visit, I consulted their suggestions on how to interview service members. They restate one suggestion three different ways: if you want a good interview with a service member, give them time to rest, then come back later. Part of this is destigmatizing reporters as “vultures,” and part of this is accepting that they have probably just encountered something intense, for some traumatizing, and need time to process.
For this reason, my experience on base was largely observational, besides a few conversations with my friend–the graduate from Parris Island. He had only slept a few hours a night–and some nights not at all–the past three months, and even fell asleep standing up occasionally. On top of the sleep deprivation, it felt unethical to ask for interviews from the other marines, considering that for many of them, the few hours I was there would be the only hours they could spend with loved ones for months on-end.
Because of my lack of access to interviews, I followed up my observations on-base with research online.
History of Parris Island
Parris Island is one of 2 marine recruit training bases in the United States. Every recruit attends either Parris Island or a depot in San Diego, California for a 13-week basic training program preceding more specialized training for their specific job, or Military Occupational Specialty (MOS). Recruits east of the Mississippi River attend Parris Island.
Parris Island is in Beaufort County, South Carolina. The land was first settled by Native Americans until 1562, when a French Huguenot tried to colonize the island, and later built an outpost called Chaelesfort.
In 1566, it came under Spanish control, then in 1586, English forces took over the island and it was abandoned by the Spanish. It was named Port Royal Island by Robert Daniell, an English settler, in 1706, and later came into the control of Colonel Alexander Parris, who was the Public Treasurer of South Carolina. Another northern island adopted the name Port Royal Island and this island adopted its current name, Parris Island.
Between the 1720s and the Civil War, the island consisted of indigo, then cotton plantations. As slaves were freed, the island became the site of freedmen schools led by abolitionists such as Frances Gage and Clara Barton. In 1861 the Port Royal Sound, the waters surrounding the island, was captured by the union and led to a source of coal for the Navy.
Marines first came to Parris Island in 1891, which was then attached to a Port Royal Naval Station. It wasn’t until 1915 that it became a Recruit Depot, as it is today.
The island follows the United States in its progression toward a more inclusive environment. For example, a separate command was created in 1949 specifically for female recruits. Despite progression, Parris Island remains virtually identical, in terms of structure and values, to how it was when it first became a recruiting depot. The consistent training is meant to create a common sense of comradery: a unifying reassurance that they all pushed through the same training. And much of this training is dangerous and is denounced by the public for what outsiders might call “hazing.”
On April 8, 1956, 6 recruits drowned in what is known as the Ribbon Creek Incident. At 12:00 A.M., staff Sergeant Matthew McKeon led a platoon of 74 men on an extra training at Ribbon Creek. He jumped into the creek and ordered the platoon to follow him into deep water, although some of the recruits could not swim. McKeon was later found to have had a few drinks that afternoon, but was not intoxicated during the incident. While he admitted to feeling slightly guilty, he argued that this exercise was merely “part of the system,” and some marines defended him, agreeing that this sort of training was essential to ensure recruits could survive in combat.
McKeon’s supervisor, General Lewis “Chesty” Puller, a notorious marine of his time, defended McKeon as well. Both claimed that discipline is essential to marine training, which was determined to be the reason for the 12:00 A.M. trek.
McKeon was later acquitted of manslaughter and found guilty for negligent homicide and drinking on duty; he had to pay a $270 fine, spend the better part of a year in confinement, and had his rank reduced. https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Ribbon_Creek_incident
A list of other important historic events is on the timeline below: https://www.mcrdpi.marines.mil/about/history-of-parris-island/
1101 D CO 1st BN, one of the graduating classes on 12/3/21
Training at Parris Island, 2021
Roughly 20,000 male and female recruits are trained at Parris Island each year, with peaks of recruits circa the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the Korean War and Vietnam War. Once a recruit arrives at the island, they are assigned a platoon (a group of roughly 75 other men or women) who they will train with for the next 13 weeks. Their training consists of physical and psychological tests to prepare for deployments. Most marines enlist for 4 years, and some for 6 years–depending on their MOS. Regardless of where they go next, they all endure the same training on this 8,000 acre base in the South Carolina lowcountry.
Parris Island is the only marine recruit depot for women. In 2019, the marines tried to integrate male and female training battalions, but failed–making it the only US military branch that is still segregated by gender at basic training. In the entire 180,000 active duty service members today, only 8% are women–the lowest of all branches.
All platoons often begin physical training at 04:00. One typical training location is Leatherneck Square, an obstacle course made of logs, ropes, and nets. Just around the corner is a 47-foot tower where recruits learn to rappel. One of the most foreboding training exercises takes place at the gas chamber, where every recruit must remain protected by a gas mask for a few minutes before they have to break the seal from their face to let the gas burn their skin. Drill Instructors (DIs) say this challenge builds confidence in gear and in instructors.
One of the most notable parts of training is a two-week marksmanship course. All marines are riflemen first (per their motto, “Every Marine a Rifleman”) so this is one of the most important aspects of their time on-base. They are also trained in face-to-face bayonet and ka-bar combat, a tactical knife adopted by the military. The marines are also considered an “amphibious warfare force,” so swimming in their fatigues is part of their training.
Officers pride the branch on how training is meant to tear down recruits, and rebuild them under the values and strengths required of the USMC. Part of this values-shaping occurs in the classroom , for lessons on customs of the corps, first aid, history of the corps, terrorism, and leadership.
The culmination of their training is The Crucible, a 54-hour group combat simulation over 40 miles where recruits have minimal food and sleep. Some marines say it is the hardest thing they endure in their life, and the completion of this event awards them the title United States Marine.
Graduation Ceremony on the Parris Island Parade Deck
Conceptualization of Honor in USMC
While the marine corps values of honor, courage, and commitment have dictated training since 1775, they were not officially adopted into the organization until the 1990s by 30th Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. Carl E. Mundy Jr. He published the “Statement on Core Values of the United States Marines,” and the values are as follows:
These values are followed by a reminder to “Reaffirm these Core Values and ensure they guide your performance, behavior, and conduct every minute of every day.”
But like any honor code, this is just a set of expectations. How does the USMC actually instill these values to facilitate the sense of pride we hear in the words “once a Marine, always a Marine?”
Marine West in front of the Marine Corps War Memorial
Military Ethics
To understand how the military instills values, I looked to military ethics.
Military ethics encompass issues of moral psychology and the conduct of war. One contemporary ethicist, a past tenured professor at the US Naval Academy is Shannon E. French. As the recipient of several accolades including being the keynote speaker at the US Army Ethics Symposium, she is author of ‘The Code of the Warrior,’ which analyzes the evolution of values in the US military and is now a required reading for officer candidates in some branches.
Her focus is on the intersection of self-interest and morality. Many examples, she says, are in the context of conflict–especially in war. Inhumanity and heroism are often juxtaposed, and she explored this at the Naval Academy, where she worked as a professor for over a decade.
In her research, she found that no matter the culture, people given the responsibility to engage in war have a similar identity shaped around honor and dishonor.
In the USMC, honor is defined as follows:
She argues that learning the code of honor does not suffice in the armed forces. Rather, they necessitate a sense of chosenness, and a recognition that there is something to defend. It implies that rules, which are unacceptable in most communities, are acceptable only for the sake of defending their country. Again, this feeling is not a choice, but rather a feeling of chosenness.
This is the feeling the armed forces aim to unveil in their basic training, first individually, then collectively.
Honor codes instill accountability and interdependence in groups. They are a way to respect service members, by entrusting that they will hold themselves and others accountable and accept that consequences of disobeying the code is larger than rejection–but sometimes, life or death. Trust is essential in motivating service members to work together, and we can see the evolution of this value in the training program for the USMC:
Training begins on an individual level in their home state: personal fitness tests, work with an individual recruiter–and it’s not until they arrive at their basic training that they are tested in groups. Their final task embodies the culmination of their group training: The Crucible. This exercise necessitates self-evaluation through group work. In other words, they must analyze how well they do in the context of how much they are contributing to the group. Evaluating themselves this way enhances the trust they have in their comrades, by knowing each member must be evaluating themselves in the same way.
As French emphasizes, honor facilitates a commitment to the group. Perhaps this is the meaning of the final Marine Corps value: commitment. Being honorable in the USMC demands a commitment to collective achievement.
Other philosophers have also delved into the concept of honor, specifically John Locke–who rejected honor as a motivation of achieving order–and Jaques Rousseau–who pleaded for it. These underlying theories of honor by Enlightenment philosophers built upon The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy definition of honor as “living up to the expectations of a group.”
This implies the context of a group and the notion that honor is the obligation rather than a material prize.
Another contemporary teacher Peter Olsthoorn points out in his book “ Honor in Political and Moral Philosophy ” that the concept of military honor seems outdated to non-service members. He argues that this is a result of treating honor as a concern over how we are perceived, and that people should do the right thing out of a desire for justice instead. Olsthoorn investigates this divide to see where honor can still be beneficial in contemporary military culture.
Alongside other conservative theorists such as Peter Singer, the philosopher that argued against “the coddling of the American mind,” Olsthoorn argues that honor is an integral characteristic of the military, which should not be dismissed by outsiders. He begins one of his essays, “ Honor as a Motive for Making Sacrifices ,” by restating Aristotle’s definition of courage: “the right attitude concerning feelings of confidence and fear in the pursuance of a morally just cause (Nicomachean Ethics 1115a).” Though many people no longer enlist because of this will to pursue a morally just cause; rather, they seek salary or adventure. This view implies man is “egotistical and rational,” and that the deeds service members make are self-serving rather than sacrifices. This is not fair, Olsthoorn argues. Honor is not just selfish, especially because we could make the argument that every motivation is selfish in terms of Hobbsian self-interest theories, which assume people are driven solely by self-interest. This strips honor of its sacrificial reputation, but yet again returns us to the definition of honor: that it is implicitly social and rooted in group expectations. Being honorable, whether out of self-interest or self-evaluation in the name of group-interest, though, lends itself toward collaboration–the ultimate goal of having a code in the military.
Still, honor has its drawbacks. Cicero pointed out that while honor is essential to an extent, chasing glory can work against the mission by motivating a commander to forfeit protection of one's team for individualistic praise–such as when Caesar started a Civil War to protect his dignity that ultimately ended the Roman Republic. It’s the line between heroism and terrorism.
On the other hand, in the context of the military where there are frequent turn-overs in leadership–honor is important toward ensuring group cohesion and respect for the final word.
Like the Crucible, and other brutal exercises on Parris Island, part of their purpose is to instill honor–to provoke a sense of urgency to live up to the expectations of a group.
Liberal Arts vs. Military Honor Code: Modified versus Traditional Systems
Honor codes differ by community, so it’s no surprise that the Colorado College Honor Code is vastly different from the USMC code–especially considering the stakes and consequences of violating it. At Colorado College, and many other liberal arts institutions, the honor code is a mechanism for holding students accountable to academic integrity. The CC Honor code focuses on Honesty, Integrity, and Fairness. There is no statement about holding others accountable, and thus encourages self-accountability rather than interdependence.
Military honor codes generally implement group-accountability measures. The USMC Honor Code finishes by highlighting the duty “to hold ourselves and others accountable for every action.” Even military academies, at the intersection of the military and liberal arts, have consequences for knowingly letting someone else violate it, like the Air Force Academy : “We will not lie, steal, or cheat, nor tolerate among us anyone who does.”
One might compare liberal arts and military honor codes by analyzing traditional versus modified honor codes in academic settings, as they are called in psychology studies.
Traditional honor codes are defined by four major factors: 1) an honor pledge; 2) a peer reporting requirement, 3) a student-run judiciary body, and 4) a requirement that faculty report all suspected violations to the judiciary body (Tatum & Schwartz, 2017). These types of systems are generally associated with less academic dishonesty than modified systems (McCabe & Trevino, 2002) and rely more on students than faculty to turn over their peers for academic dishonesty (McCabe, 2002). McCabe (2002) found that students responded to peer-reporting responsibility by cheating less (McCabe & Treviño, 1993; McCabe et al, 2001). Additionally, one study found that perceptions of peer behavior was a key predictor of cheating. Students at institutions with traditional honor codes expected their peers to cheat less than students in modified honor code environments.
Modified honor codes, which many institutions adopted to encourage trust between students and educators, are defined by two major factors: 1) students take exams in unproctored settings, and 2) faculty and students are not required to turn all violations over to the judiciary body (Tatum & Schwartz, 2017). These types of systems are generally associated with more academic dishonesty than traditional systems (McCabe et al, 2002).
The presence of an honor code alone—traditional and modified—reduces cheating (Rettinger & Kramer, 2009 ), and an understanding of the honor code and its consequences also reduces cheating (Bing et al, 2012). A statistical analysis by Bing et al (2012) supports this claim by quantifying the reduction in cheating when students have to sign an 1) honor pledge, and 2) an honor pledge with a description of consequences if violated. While both traditional and modified systems are effective in reducing cheating, traditional honor codes are shown to abate cheating more effectively than modified systems (Roig & Marks, 2010).
One study theorizes that traditional honor codes abate cheating more effectively because the institutions they function under frequently expose students to the expectations and consequences of their codes (Tatum & Schwartz, 2017).
The USMC honor code can be considered traditional, because of its intolerance policy and consistency of exposure. While honor codes like the USMC Are more likely to be abided by, studies have not been done to see whether exposure correlates with academic honesty because it promotes a stronger integrity-responsibility, or a stronger fear of consequences.
Research suggests that people motivated by punativite consequences of violating the honor code are more likely to cheat than students who are motivated by integrity-responsibility (Bing et al, 2012). Other studies concluded that institutions should encourage a culture of integrity-responsibility to minimize cheating behaviors, since integrity-responsibility against cheating is the strongest indicator that a student will adhere to academic honor codes (Roig & Marks, 2010; Miller & Wooldridge, 2011).
Although the effectiveness of integrity-responsibility in promoting honorable behavior has been researched in detail, insufficient attention has been paid to how institutions create this culture of integrity-responsibility.
In the Marine Corps, this seems to stem from frequent exposure to expectations and constant practice of executing values. However, why this works is still a mystery to me, considering on-island, negative reinforcement takes precedence–but positive reinforcement is proven to be far more effective. Perhaps it’s that sense of chosenness alluded to earlier that motivates commitment to this code.
Overall, the honor code of the USMC is designed in a way that is supported by psychology to be more adhered to than modified systems. Because of this, I met with the honor council to learn about how our honor code was designed, and how well the community adheres to it.
Reflection
When I returned to Colorado College, I wondered what motivates students to adhere to our school’s honor code. We have a 2-strike policy, and there is nothing striking to me about our curriculum that teaches integrity-responsibility. Do students arrive at CC with a sense of integrity? Are the consequences of cheating enough to instill fear-responsibility in students? Has the honor code just become a social norm? Or is cheating more prevalent than I expected?
There are inconsistencies between where students are granted trust, and where they are not. For instance, the enforcement of un-proctored exams is an example of where we are granted trust before having proved we deserve it. If the point of having un-proctored exams is to prove that students are trusted, then why are we not granted trust in other aspects of CC life? To me it seems this is simply because we have not proved we deserve trust in other places, where the stakes are greater to the institution if we fail to adhere to the rules. The most interesting part of this is that we have not proved that we deserve to be trusted in the classroom either.
For instance, why, when we enter Rastall Cafe, does someone have to watch us scan our Gold Card to ensure we pay for our meal? My conclusion is that this is because the consequences affect different people: if I do not abide by the honor code in the classroom, I face the consequence of not having maximized my education. But if I do not scan my Gold Card, the institution pays the biggest price–literally.
Ideally, students should recognize the stakes of cheating without needing a proctor, but if students cannot be trusted to swipe for a meal without supervision, they should not be trusted not to cheat in the classroom–where I would argue the stakes are far higher, considering CC is first and foremost an academic institution.
A study at Stanford University , which also has un-proctored exams, found that 85% of respondents to a survey on their honor code replied that cheating is “under no circumstances justified.” Twenty percent also reported seeing other students cheat more than once without reporting. This article suggests that this is because students in un-proctored exam environments prioritize quantitative academic success over academic integrity.
This is nothing more than a theory, but in my own experience, people have abided by expectations more when their own integrity relies on holding those around them accountable. In an environment where accountability is modeled by a professor, I have noticed students are more likely to hold their peers accountable, and then themselves too.
Although such a different set of stakes and consequences, I believe that a small part of why the USMC has a strong adherence to their honor code is because their education model relies on teamwork. Maybe if our academic goals were as team-oriented as theirs, putting integrity over personal success would feel like less of a compromise.
Thank You
Thank you to the Keller Family for sponsoring my trip to Parris Island so that I could have a more informed research experience on the philosophy of honor. This project escorted me to think more about misconceptions many non-service members have about military education, which I think is especially important considering how differently we learn at Colorado College, our liberal oasis.
Sources
