NJ Gubernatorial Candidate Needs To Explain Cheating Scandal

Mikie Sherrill, a Democrat congresswoman and candidate in the competitive race for the New Jersey governorship, is under fire for serious ethical lapses. One of those is her still unexplained but suspicious involvement in a widespread cheating scandal at the U.S. Naval Academy (USNA). She still refuses to provide a full public accounting by stonewalling any release of USNA’s disciplinary records that would show the nature and extent of both her and her husband’s involvement in the cheating scandal.

Sherrill’s continued cover-up raises even more questions that only she can clear up.

A Stolen Exam and the Investigation

The cheating in which Sherrill was implicated occurred in December 1992. As The Baltimore Sun has reported, a master copy of the final exam for the electrical engineering course (EE 311) was stolen days before the exam was scheduled. Copies of the stolen exam were then circulated and even 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.”

After several midshipmen sent emails to faculty the day of the exam, telling them that the exam had been compromised, the Navy inspector general launched a formal investigation.

The investigation was complicated and lengthened by the decisions of many midshipmen not to cooperate and even to lie to investigators. It concluded on Jan. 20, 1994, with a 30-page 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 giving truthful answers about the cheating.

Sherrill was interviewed, but the record of her interview is still being withheld.

The IG’s 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. The IG also 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.”

All of this hindered the search for the truth.

The report was finalized and approved by the secretary of the Navy just weeks before the 1994 graduation. His final disciplinary decisions included 29 expulsions and other punishments for 42 others.

The Naval Academy’s Honor Concept

USNA’s Honor Concept provides:

Midshipmen are persons of integrity: They stand for that which is right.
They tell the truth and ensure that the truth is known.
They do not lie.

They embrace fairness in all actions. They ensure that work submitted as their own is their own, and that assistance received from any source is authorized and properly documented.
They do not cheat.

They respect the property of others and ensure that others are able to benefit from the use of their own property.
They do not steal.

Sherrill Releases a Suspicious Exculpatory Denial

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 USNA’s 1994 graduation ceremony. Her name was omitted from USNA’s official written graduation program, and she was not allowed to participate in the walk across the stage to receive her diploma publicly. When questioned about her exclusion, 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.

Later Sherrill added that she personally did not cheat on the exam, and reiterated that she only refused to “turn in some of my classmates.”

To put it charitably, Sherrill’s unverified exculpatory statements that (1) she was punished for not turning in classmates, and (2) she personally did not cheat, are highly questionable.

Sherrill’s Husband’s Role

Sherrill’s husband, Jason Hedberg, was her classmate. His role also raises questions. Hedberg was suspected of cheating and was a subject of the investigation. Despite that, he graduated in 1994 without any known punishment.

The New York Post reports, however, that Hedberg and several dozen other midshipmen sued officials at the Naval Academy and others in 1994 “in a desperate bid to block the Honor Board at Annapolis from deciding whether they should be dismissed from the school.”

There is documentary evidence that Hedberg made incriminating statements in connection with the cheating, because in the lawsuit he alleged that he was “compelled to make inculpatory statements to Navy Inspector General investigators.”

The court dismissed their complaint. But it did not find that their statements were unlawfully “compelled” and therefore inadmissible. Instead, the court held that the Fifth Amendment did not preclude their incriminating admissions because the privilege against self-incrimination did not apply because “no proceeding of a ‘criminal’ nature is either pending or contemplated.”

In short, Hedberg and the others lost their suit, but were allowed to graduate anyway. But the extent to which Sherrill and Hedberg discussed his involvement remains concealed. As Alfred, Lord Tennyson said of the Charge of the Light Brigade, “All the world wondered.”

Sherrill claims that she was disciplined by not being allowed to walk and not being listed in the graduation program because she did not “turn in” classmates who were implicated in cheating. As shown below, however, her story does not hold water.

The Naval Academy Does Not Punish Midshipmen for Failing to Turn in Others

An important distinction between the honor systems at the Naval Academy and those at West Point and the Air Force Academy is that the USNA Honor Concept does not contain a non-toleration clause as do the other academies’ honor codes. The latter state simply, “A cadet will not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do.” Under that last clause, a cadet’s failure to turn in another cadet is punished just as severely as the original honor violation. But in the absence of such a non-toleration clause, midshipmen are not required to turn in others for honor violations, and USNA does not punish a refusal to do so as a violation of the Honor Concept. And consistent with the lack of a non-toleration clause, midshipmen are not punished for refusing to turn in their classmates.

This lack of a non-toleration clause was noted by the USNA Board of Visitors in a 1993 report submitted to the secretary of the Navy. It was included in the record of a Senate hearing that is available here.

Unsurprisingly, numerous USNA graduates confirm that the omission is well understood by midshipmen. One who served as a vice chairman of the Honor Committee and later as a Blue Angel confirmed to me that “it was unheard of to punish a midshipman for electing not to turn in another midshipman.” Another added:

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 and be transparent and accountable.

In addition, the New York Post reported:

“Nobody, including Mikie Sherrill, was barred from graduation ceremonies for covering for their friends,” claimed this person, who has reviewed the documents. “That’s a bunch of bulls—. Midshipmen were, however, punished for lying to Naval investigators.”

Given the USNA policy of not punishing midshipmen who refused to tell on others who may have committed honor violations, Sherrill’s repeated story that she was punished for not turning in her classmates cannot be true.

So, we know that Sherrill was disciplined for something related to the theft of the EE 311 exam, but we still do not know what. But we do know that it was not for failing to turn in classmates. Based upon the IG report, however, we cannot rule out that she was “punished for lying to Naval investigators.”

Sherrill’s Claim that She Personally Did Not Cheat is Questionable

A principal reason to reject Sherrill’s claim that she personally did not cheat is that she adamantly refuses to consent to the release of USNA records that pertain to the disciplinary proceedings against her. As the New Jersey Globe has reported, she “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.”

A legal comparison is helpful here. 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.

This instruction has the virtue of being consistent with everyday common sense. If little Johnny denies pilfering cookies off his mother’s countertop, but runs away and hides when mom asks him to turn out his pockets so she can see for herself, she rightly concludes that he is hiding something and the likely something is cookie crumbs.

The same rationale, of course, is a reason not to accept Sherrill’s unverified contention that she was disciplined because she refused to turn in classmates, while she continues to refuse to allow the production of her USNA disciplinary records.

A second reason to doubt Sherrill’s unverified claim of innocence is another tried and true legal adage, “Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.” Trial judges across the country apply this truth regularly when they instruct juries that, “If you decide that a witness has deliberately testified untruthfully about something important, you may choose not to believe anything that witness said.”

So, if you believe that Sherrill was untruthful about being disciplined for something for which USNA does not impose discipline, you are justified in not believing her claim that she did not cheat.

Sherrill could resolve any doubt about this. All she has to do is simply authorize the release of all USNA disciplinary records pertaining to her role in the cheating scandal.

All the world waits.

John A. Lucas is a retired attorney who has tried and argued a variety of cases, including before the U. S. Supreme Court. Before entering law school at the University of Texas, he served in the Army Special Forces as an enlisted man, later graduating from the U. S. Military Academy at West Point in 1969. He is an Army Ranger who fought in Vietnam as an infantry platoon leader. He is married with five children. He and his wife now live in Virginia. John also is published at johnalucas6.substack.com.