US Naval Institute: An Open Letter by Dr. Steve Kime

Members of the Board:

I write as a former elected member of the Naval Institute Board of Control and of the Editorial Board (1986-89). I am a Life Member and a lifelong student of Naval and Military Affairs.

First, let me acknowledge the caliber of the current Board and the serious circumstances faced by the Institute. I sincerely appreciate the motivation to be practical, business-like and realistic in dealing with these circumstances, and I understand that the Board is not unsympathetic to or unaware of the desire of writers, thinkers and readers to maintain an unrestrained academic and intellectual Naval Institute environment.

I think changing the Institute's mission statement is a mistake. I see this attempt as part of a decline that began years ago with the move toward "Corporate" leadership of our Institute. I am convinced that straying away from the concept that the Naval Institute was a free forum for ideas and discussion by Naval Officers, led by Naval Officers for Naval Officers, is a major reason that our membership has declined by 50% since I was a Director. We became about big money, big contributors, and "business" considerations rather than about tens of thousands of small, contributing, members interested in seeing the issues aired in their wardrooms and in their libraries.

Sure, the internet changes the game. We face tough circumstances. Young people do not read the same way they used to read, and print media is in trouble everywhere. But I believe that we have something very special in our target audience and the context in which that audience faced the issues. We could have bucked the adverse trends to a major degree, and we could have adjusted to those trends as well. We failed to continue to appeal to our audience of individual professional officers and got sidetracked into a "corporate board" mode of thinking. The forum became a "market," and we focused more on new markets rather than on new ideas.

We needed to preserve the great insight that the Founders had in 1873 that Naval Officers are a special, intellectual, group that will sustain a forum for the free exchange of ideas. I hope it is not too late to recover their vision.

The change you propose is important only because it is out of synch with our history. It won't make those wanting to advocate for Naval power give more or give more often. It won't make contributors to the journal stronger advocates of seapower than they already are. The change is symbolic, and symbolically wrong. Its major impact will to reduce the enthusiasm and imagination of officers who have traditionally been the lifeblood of the Institute.

Dr. Steve Kime
Captain, USN (RET)